Severn Valley Railway to launch £4,000,000 share issue.

Agreed. Members & Shareholders weekend looks like a good time to publicise the revised Bridgnorth plans, provide some further information about both the order of priority for spending the money raised so far, and how the grant applications are proceeding. Presentations over that weekend looking at the revised thinking will be most welcome, and will be of particular importance for those who have not yet decided to support the share issue.

46118

 

I hope that sensible/sympathetic design is also applied to the main building interior and the others planned for the site.

I believe the revised plans are due to be published in February.

 

If you don’t like what I have to say, just scroll down to the words in bold at the end, and weep. Can I ask again, albeit in a slightly new form of words; “To what problem is Steamworks the solution?”. It is just rearranging the deck chairs, and creating an illusion in some Directors minds that they are doing something useful when, in fact, they are not. A larger more attractive and more profitable replacement temporary buffet fit to last another 20 years would cost £250,000. Everything else on the table is just adding a major operating cost burden to BH terminal costs.

The crisis that has crept up on SVR since 2007 is not due to any collapse in the local economy or other cataclysmic external event over which it has no control or influence. It is entirely home grown.

It is understandable for reasons of history if nothing else that the long term sluggishness of the post-industrial West Midlands economy impacts hard on consumer confidence, but that does not allow us to overlook that the SVR catchment area contains 14 million bodies, and that 90% of those who want to work are doing so, with an average disposable income of £14,000 per year per household. This a) about £1500 less than the national average and b) a robust figure – it did not even fall in the 2008/9 recession, which smacked everywhere else hard. So the economy that gave SVR its best ever years was not structurally very different to today. Regional tourism spend blipped twice (in 2008 and 2010) but is now back to pre-2006 levels and has been for 2 years. West Midlands region has around 10% of all UK tourism income – another stable number. And another one – total West Midlands tourism spend is £1.5 billion a year.

The market is stable, yet SVR is not. So there is no alibi for the board or GM in the regional economy for the vanished 50,000 passengers and the sales graph with catastrophic brewers' droop.

Comparisons with other heritage railways can bring little enlightenment. Most relevant local attraction is Blists Hill, who overtook SVR in 2008 and are now close to the magic 250,000. They are only growing by 5% per annum – so they did not so much overtake the SVR as watched as we plummeted downwards and passed them going the other way. Ironbridge Gorge is another benchmark and their annual sales have held steady. If they had shrunk by the SVR percentage they would have shed over 100,000 annual visitors, and they have not actually lost even 1 since 2010.

So year on year decline we are supposed to neither notice nor dare question is not structural. I have lost track of the times I have offended the SVR’s more devout followers, and I am slightly sorry to do it again. But if you really believe everything at your railway is fine and dandy, and this is a good time to be fantasising about spending millions of quid you don't have, think about this:

SVR is now the FASTEST SHRINKING major paid tourist attraction in the West Midlands.

Who could ever be proud of that?

GF-G

 

Good grief GFG - you are beginning to sound more and more like Private Frazer in Dad's Army. We're all doomed!! Your comparison with Blists Hill actually does little credit to your argument. Visitor numbers have (I understand) risen by over 30% at Blists Hill since 2008. This is a remarkable rise, and to the attraction's great credit. I love Blists Hill. But what do they credit the remarkable rise in visitors to? A massive investment in visitor facilities including a new landmark Visitors Centre, a new street of shops, a clay-mining experience, a narrow gauge railway and an Incline Lift. Yet you argue that the SVR should NOT invest in visitor facilities. It may also be worth noting that Blists Hill reported a fall in visitors in the first half of 2012.

Curiously you appear to try to suggest that Blists Hill and Ironbridge Gorge are separate attractions. Blists Hill is PART of Ironbridge Gorge, and many of the tickets sold are joint tickets covering all attractions in the Gorge. And where are the comparisons with other paid for attractions in the West Midlands? The Black Country Living Museum, Warwick Castle, various National Trust properties, Alton Towers, Drayton Manor, the Potteries Museums etc etc.

Your endless call that 250,000 visitors are required is repetitive but lacks clarity on the point. Why is 250,000 the 'magic number'? Particularly given that the SVR has only once reached this figure in over 40 years of history. Are you seriously arguing that visitor numbers are more important to the railway's finances than visitor spend?

I am intrigued in your other figures - what are you counting as the SVR's catchment area? And where are the financial figures from? Are they ONS figures?

Of course the SVR could just give up and pack up. Yet from my extensive experience of visiting huge numbers of preserved railways over the last 3 years is that the SVR is still putting on a fantastic show - better than almost every other line in the country. So please give us some actual answers to the key question: What do YOU think the SVR needs to do to raise visitor numbers?

 

I for one take no offence GF-G. I also happen to agree that the current trend in passenger numbers should be of major concern - thank you for the tourist data for the West Midlands - very interesting.

The suggestion of a buffet, shop, waiting room and toilet facilities at Bridgnorth is something that is both needed and long overdue. Your figure of a quater of a million pounds sounds realistic, but do you really prefer the current alternative of an eyesore, space consumming, life expired portocabin to remain as an 'attractive' facility for customers ? For the rest of steamworks, well its not going to happen in my view (or lifetime) or until such times as the passenger number question is accepted as a major issue and tackled head on by management.

 

GFG you miss the point that Blists Hill is one of the Ironbridge Gorge Museums. (note my choice of plural)

However your point would to an extent justify the concept proposed by those that favour a northern extension thus restoring Bridgnorth to its rightful place as a through station.
Should such an extension occur much of the planned over-development of the Brignorth site would thus become redundant.
The part that cannot remain is the existing god-awful buffet.

 

I guess you have to be careful extending too much. The SVR is already one of the longest preserved standard gauge railways in the country (3rd in length, after the WSR and NYMR?). An extension to Blists Hill would probably make it half as long again. That's 50% more track to maintain, several extra stations, more loco diagrams and so more locos needed in traffic and to be maintained; more carriage mileage. And after all that, you can't necessarily raise your prices by 50% and in any case might find the round trip becomes so long that many people choose just to do a part trip. So you may end up paying millions for an extension that doesn't increase your bottom line (never mind passenger numbers; profitability is the only number that counts).

Some extensions I think are clearly worth striving for: the GWSR extending to Broadway strikes me as eminently sensible, in that they will end up with a presence in one of the Cotswolds' real honey-pot villages. (If you want to know just what the massed ranks of the English middle classes at play looks like, coupled with a few million Japanese tourists looking faintly bemused, visit Stow-on-the-Wold or Bourton-on-the-Water on Broadway on a sunny summer Saturday). Moreover, that is probably a "new" market for a heritage railway, an ideal catchment of thousands of people looking for something else to do once they have taken a few dozen shots of their friend standing in front of yet another honey-coloured cottage. Whereas even if the SVR got to Blists Hill, the danger is that the typical Blists Hill visitor is probably very similar to the typical SVR visitor, and in any case, will be having a full day out at the museum(s) and won't want to also catch a train on the same day.

Tom

 

Lingus: I cannot find the link just now, but I thought the Bridgnorth Buffet had been given a makeover in the last year or so by volunteers, but I am sure that all concerned will agree that it was a "temporary" structure that is long due for replacement. There is another similar "portakabin" style buffet at Bewdley which in recent times has looked in desperate need of an exterior coat or two of paint, and I think that structure is at the end of its life as well.

Tom, your point about the existing length of the SVR is valid. Quite apart from the cost and practicality of a Northern extension--dont want to reignite that discussion here--to my mind what we have is enough, and given that on most timetables it is a 10-30-ish start from Kidderminster ( later from Bridgnorth) you can be pushed even now to go to Bridgnorth, look round the town, return to Highley for the Engine House and then get back to KDR, and that is without spending time for meals en-route.

One item in the first set of Bridgnorth proposals that I would scrap is the viewing gallery into the shed-cum-works. I see little merit in that, the Bridgnorth works always looks dark and dreary, and I think the public will soon tire of peering into the gloom! Ok, if it looked all new and shiney like say Jaguar Landrover or similer, but no it does not.

Biggest immediate issue at Bridgnorth is the toilets. Cannot speak for the ladies, but the gents is totally inadequate and should have been replaced ages ago, even if you have to leave the existing ones in place due to the listed satus. Doesn't mean you actually have to use them!.

 

I expect some will be offended by GF-Gs response, but sometimes the truth can be painful. I know nothing about the Hampton Load issue, but the rest, written in GF-Gs usual rather direct manner, contains much to commend it.

Whether the message is being heard is another question, I for one hope that some, if not all of the content is being given careful consideration by those at the 'top table'.

The issue of grant funding for projects should clearly ring alarm bells for the Railway. Previous experience of doing something because after jumping through many hoops someone offers you money, with no long term consideration for the financial implications, could be considered by many in retrospect a serious mistake.

The only way that 'Steamworks', excluding the buffet, will ever see the light of day is if money is accepted from grant aid. In my view that would be a serious error of judgment and a grave financial mistake. Like the Engine House before it will add nothing to the bottom line in terms of income.

Bums on seats are the only sensible way to generate the long term income required.

 

No offence to the SVRs efforts over the past 40 odd years, is it that some attractions (and yes other heritage lines) are now getting better and attracting the SVR passengers? The railway has been around so long that maybe people are being more selective on there days out, especially with purses a little tighter. I know this sounds like I'm saying the SVR needs to re-invent itself but maybe this is the case. Just slashing costs does'nt bring back passengers. Mind you, the wives WILL remember a good restaurant and clean modern toilets!

 

I think if the SVR is going to aim for 250,000 passengers, then questions could be raised about train/track capacity. I tend to avoid so-called busy times, and yet the trains always appear well-filled.
Maybe GF-G needs to turn his fire on Highley, where there is the least acceptable station, one short platform, and much on and off traffic for the Engine House. To cope with 250,000 pax comfortably it might be that a substantial investment at Highley is required, in particular building a second platform and having the ability to cross trains there, which at present is not possible, so in effect there is a long section between Arley and Hampton Loade.

I doubt if it is anywhere near being on the agenda, least of all due to the cost involved.

 

46118

Agreed that Highley can be a bottleneck but I would strongly urge against a second platform.

Many do not want to spoil the character of Bridgnorth and so have not supported the share issue. To add P2 to Highley is surely just as abhorrent, we need to ask what are we preserving,

Highley has been damaged by the footbridge (mercifully the Engine House is just far away enough so as not to detract from the station) and teh erction of the fence by the signal box. Platform 2 woudl be going to far IMHO.

I do however agree that the possibilty of passing trains here should be looked at, stopping in one direction only at busy times?

 

[TABLE="width: 673"]
[TR]
[TD]I must say that after having read through the numerous postings on this I am coming round to GFGs point of view.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]It seems generally agreed that the present Bridgnorth buffet needs replacing. A sum of £250k has been suggested as a likely cost of such, I might say £350-500k may be more realistic, at the top end of this range I would also replace the existing toilet facility (nothing sends visitors away never to return more quickly than poor toilets), and include a new shop area within this rebuild. All this could be accomplished on the existing buffet footprint and some of the car park. Furthermore it could all be paid for from the current share issue.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]After having thought through the various postings I have now formed the opinion the Steamworks project has been put on the table because of the possibility of funding it through grant monies, rather than the more correct way of doing things which would be to decide what is required and then find out how to fund it. Steamworks is in danger of chasing the handout money but it will not increase visitor numbers or spend any more than a revamped buffet, toilet, and shop would do. Furthermore its construction does increase the possibility of a fixed cost drain on the railway, without additional income generation.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]The chasing of grant money, however attractive the sums on offer would appear to be, could be a dangerous and slippery slope.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Where I think that the railway are on the right thinking is not to cut costs too much, increasing income is probably the correct way to go in this respect. Don't get me wrong there are, as GFG has alluded to, undoubtedly still some ripe costs to be picked off such as consultants, and possibly an underperforming GM. But the railway needs to be careful about just where and what costs can be trimmed, if certain maintenance and repair/renewal costs are deferred or reduced this will ultimately come back and bite them, it is merely postponing the inevitable, and you would think that with the current locomotive repair/maintenance agreement issue being unresolved be something that the railways mangement wishes to aviod in order to guarantee a sustainable future.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]But there are many ways of increasing income, and yes it does have to be profitable income - so look at where your costs are already fixed/commited, and capitalise in these areas. I feel that in targeting only increased per visitor spend the railway may be putting all its eggs in one rather fragile basket, which is dependant upon both the economy, the product on offer, and also attracts a degree of fixed costs. And it really dsoesnt take a £52k pa GM to come up with the idea of increasing revenues, for that money I do expect more innovative thinking after 5 years in post.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]A far better strategy would be multi facetted and include

1) increase visitor numbers through the core product (more passengers ala GFG)
2) increase visitor numbers through the non-core product (new innovations, new products, increased asset sweating - evening off train dining in the stations for example)
3) make the product more attractive (timetable changes, earlier starts form Bridgnorth, evening running, shoulder season pricing)
4) exploitation of new markets and tie-ups with other visitor attractions (there must be a way to tie in repeat visits to WMSP for example)
5) better use of promotional activities (I know many families who use Tesco days out vouchers as an affordable way of having a family day out and the availability of using these vouchers is a key determinant of where their next day out will be spent - its not what the attraction is but the fact that they can get a Tesco deal on it that decides where they go. The SVR isn't in the scheme, yet WMSP and Ironbridge both are (is that why thier visitor numbers are up at the expense of the SVR?) - I don't know what the deal with Tesco is on this but its got to worth investigating). [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Come on GFG reveal your identity, stand for election, and you'll get my vote (oh hang …..I let my membership lapse last year as I was disillusioned at the share offer)[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

I agree, a second platform would indeed spoil the rustic character of Highley, so a second platform is not something I would support. I was rather playing "devil's advocate" to see how the railway could regularly and comfortably carry sufficient passengers to achieve GF-G's magic 250,000. Longer trains are out of the question because apart from motive power issues, I think it causes problems crossing trains at Hampton Loade.
Maybe circa 200,000 pax with those pax somehow spending more during their visit is the ideal solution? Goes against the grain at present though doesn't it? People maybe want the day out but spend less, because of other domestic pressures.

Edit: sorry zigzag, posted this before I saw your immedite last post.

46118

 

Devils advocate, and a good one too, you got me going there - which is why I banged out a quick reply midway through my longer post. Anyway I think we are agreed on Highley.

You do raise a very pertinent point...

Absolutely agree on this.

With a young family faced with increasing costs of living and stagnating, at best, income we are always seeking out better value. We dont want to stop going out but now find ourselves travelling less distance, taking picnics, and looking for attractions which offer good value (such as Tesco days out vouchers - likewise we still enjoy a meal out but trather than these become less frequent we again use things like Tesco restuarant vouchers - and no I dont work for/nor am a shareholder at Tesco!).

Equally both my neighbours (& parents) who are retired and on fixed incomes are increasingly looking for value and are not spending more when they go out. These are people, who one might expect to be prime SVR customers especially on weekdays. Could the SVR do more to target the retired with weekday/shoudler pricing.

The country has been in the economic doldrums for a while now (and personally Im not sure that the boom days will be back anytime soon), the spending habits many are forced to endure currently may take a good while to disappear even when the climate improves.

I feel that the SVR might be backing the increased visitor spend at the wrong time.

 

Indeed. As pensioners with only modest retirement pensions for both of us, our days out are conducted as economically as possible, in particular we try and take in more than one venue within the day, and we certainly take our own food and drink.

I do the SVR solo, the wife doesn't rate the experience!!

I travel at members rates, dont patronise any of the SVR's refreshment facilities ( but do tend to patronise the Kidderminster Museum cafe, because their prices are reasonable) I usually do spend some money in one of the various "fund" shops, eg Erlestoke Manor Fund, GWR SVR fund, etc.

I guess therefore I am not a particularly good customer for the SVR! However in my defence I never take a seat if the train is full, preferring to stand in a vestibule and leave the seats for the full-fare passengers. All this goes against the General Manager's quest for "increased customer spend" I suppose.

Oh dear....!

 

Readers may wish to read and respond to this http://www.bridgnorthstationplanb.co.uk/

 

I may not be a pensioner but on my regular visits apart from a coffee on the first train down i dont buy much food there either maybe the odd item from the shop at bridgenorth.
My partner does enjoy the trip for the scenery not the trains but has commented on the state of some off the toilets which do need improving takes a lot to get custommers back after bad experiance.
I feel it is going to be difficult to get numbers to 250000 again soon i did see people complain about steam works then say how iron bridge has increased its tourist number but if they have been recently there is a new build interactive display there now before you go in could this be what people expect of the museum experiance now.

 

Ah, now thats more like it! Thanks b.oldford for the link. Great to see Adrian Vaughan involved, and YES what a superb sympathetic GWR-style extension building, that looks fantastic, and the words make a great deal of common sense as well.

46118

 

Highley had a footbridge in the same position until the early 70s, is returning it to its original configuration with a footbridge really damaging Highley?