SEVERN VALLEY RAILWAY - AN OPEN LETTER TO SHAREHOLDERS

Interesting points from Steven. Again, at the risk of derailing the thread further, one of the reasons for the Bluebell's re-cast timetable after we get to East Grinstead is to allow a sufficiently early departure from EG, and a sufficiently late return from SP, to allow a passenger to use the railway to visit Sheffield Park Gardens. The logic is firmly to encourage extra passengers with the associated fare income, rather than try to "trap" passengers on our line to use our cafe etc (though we hope they might do that, but it doesn't look like it is a primary driver of how we are marketing trips starting in EG). We certainly are getting more involved in joint marketing activities.

Tom

 

Not *that* far away from what I intend Steven, I want an SVR that is as financially stable and safe as it is possible for a heritage railway - NOT the business sector of choice for anyone who likes gambling - to be and sales are the medium term solution, even NYMR struggles with 300,000 a year - see Bridge 30 - and you are not trying to gamble the farm with a fantasy nonsense scheme that will syphon all your cash away. As it happens I think new station loos and a buffet are a must, and I can see passion among the unwashed for Plan B and I don't blame them, it is gorgeous and volunteer-driven from top to bottom, but if you try to put a money-trap between the station and the town, the Bridgnorth Chamber of Commerce will have some pretty acerbic comments (and yes, I know they have been a bit pants towards SVR in the past) and you try, by commercial artifice, to change what the customer wants. That never ever works.

Going back up the thread a bit, Blandford you may be right, the reasons behind the obsession behind Project Xanadu are not at all clear and SVR are saying nothing but the reasons you mention are all a bit Sir Humphrey Appleby "Minister, something must be done. This is something. Therefore this must be done". Just the sort of spendthrift thinking that gave us PFI and so many more boondoogle schemes.

We have given a promise of confidentiality to our supporters and we will keep to it but I will say this - the names we already have, in 48 hrs, are an SVR Roll of Honour, a long list of very good men from every era of the Company history. This is not just my battle any more. Not one of them wants a public fight, but none of them will shy away from it either.

Best as always

Neil

 

I visit Bridgnorth at least six times a year, getting the inadequate bus service from Wolverhampton and, eventually, a train to Kidderminster and then N.R. home. I have never used the refreshment rooms, except for the odd drink in the unwashed side, whilst having a discussion. The look of the building puts me off. How it has lasted for so long, god only knows. Yes, it does need replacing, urgently. When I found out that the original Plan B was ten years old I was not happy. Why has it been hidden away, when it is obviously what is required to increase visitor satisfaction at Bridgnorth.
I have one interesting observation to make. Some of the recent posts have refered to many passengers visiting Bridgnorth town centre. That is fair enough. What I have noticed on many occasions, especially the rare sunny days, is that the benches on the station are fully occupied, especially those south of the footbridge. They remain occupied when a train has departed. So who are these people? My guess is that they are residents of Bridgnorth who have come to spend a few hours watching the trains go by. One thing is very noticable, especially when the sun is out. There is not an ice cream in sight! Management is missing a trick there.
I am fully supportive of plan B.

 

Hi Zigzag, the railway appears to have had a go at doing this for 2013, there is an extra DMU/Diesel service on Timetable A that terminates at Highley from Kidderminster, allows another down train to pass and then carries onto Bridgnorth. I think it will be interesting to see how popular this is with passengers over the next year.

 

From SVR Live, publicly accessible:
Prior to his appointment Nick managed Aston Hall in Birmingham as part of Birmingham Museums Service. Before this, he carried out a similar role at Rufford Old Hall in Lancashire for the National Trust, working as Property Manager. Nick has worked in the heritage and volunteer sector since 1997, having qualified with a Masters in Museum Studies from Leicester University.

 

I think that there are, perhaps unfortunately, presently many parallels between the NYMR and the SVR in terms of what they are trying to do. The NYMR has no commercial presence in Whitby but sees it as its major growth area. There are, however, still Luddites who think that taking people through to Whitby is deriving the NYMR of substantial secondary spend at Grosmont. When trains only run to Grosmont, typically 300 people will get off there and the buffet will only hold 30 people at best. That, for the most part, those buffet customers are NYMR staff and not Joe Public, tells me that spending both significant capital and revenue sums on increasing secondary spend is not money well spent. I would suggest that both the NYMR and the SVR should concentrate on doing what they do best and transporting people to Whitby or Bridgnorth, respectively and not concentrating on being shopkeepers and caterers. That must always be ancillary.
If, there is still a rabid desire to provide significant land based catering facilities rather than improving/extending on train ones, how about this for thinking outside the box? Do away with the portakabins and don't replace the with anything apart from car parking. Lease some 'in town' premises suitable for a cafe/restaurant as near to the station as possible and promote this. Give an incentive to passengers with 10% off on production of rail tickets and publicise it well. It is not that far from station to town across the footbridge, probably no longer than a long platform although, admittedly, not as flat! An outlet in town is also open and more easily accessible to the general public in Bridgnorth so a greater potential customer base. Having a lease does not tie up capital and gives an escape route if it doesn't work. Back at the station, a small but sympathetic extension to the Railwayman's Arms to include good toilets will do all that is required, especially if basic pub food is supplied, which it didn't do when I last went, despite the website advertising this. You could do probably all this for a GM's salary and may even still have a few coppers left!

 

Barmouth comes to mind immediately - on the up platform the GWR built a red brick block to house toilets and Stationmaster's Office about 20 yards away from the stone built Cambrian main building.

 

Whilst living reasonably close, with Bridgnorth my nearest station, I am not involved with the SVR and don't know any of the people concerned. However I can see there might be those who would suggest that managing a couple of old mansion houses bears little to no resemblance to what's involved in running a railway, even one that trys to operate using terribly out of date machinery and ageing infrastructure. I may be mistaken, but I was under the impression that most of the day to day running of National Trust properties, and certainly any structural renovation work is undertaken by either paid staff, consultants, or contractors - not volunteers.

BTW: If the SVR is so keen on trying to get passengers to stay at the station, then why go to all the effort of getting the footbridge rebuilt in the first place? Before that was reinstated it was a major hike to the town which only the keen comtemplated, once it was rebuilt it opened up Bridgnorth (the town) as a destination worth traveling to by train for many people.

As stated, I'm not a shareholder and not a member, so other than as a potential customer my view counts for nothing, but I wish the call for an EGM all the best as anything which halts the hideous "plan A" has to be a good thing!

 

I wouldn't say that! Sometimes its good to have comments from people outside the SVR membership or shareholding to put things back in perspective.

 

samuel7802: Thankyou for that information about the SVR's GM, Nick Ralls. Let me make it clear that by posing the question about his previous background I was not, repeat not, casting any aspersions about his ability to do his current job, I was merely musing whether one's previous experience of say the leisure industry would shape your views about the SVR, and whether it is passenger numbers or passenger "spend" that are the most important.

I think GF-G/Neil has made the point previously that the SVR should be aiming for around 250,000 passengers annually. ( 2012 was circa 202500 ) I consider 250,000 would be the maximum the SVR could comfortably manage without infrastructure and motive power improvements, and to take the General Manager's point in a slightly different context, one would hope that the "customer spend" over and above the basic rail fare would at least hold up.

There are some very good points made earlier in this thread about how hard, or even desirable it is, to try and keep your passengers "captive" on your railway in terms of their spend over and above the rail fare. I think I would agree that if passengers bought something from on-train catering and modestly in your railway shop, then if--in the case of the SVR--we can carry 250,000 passengers full-line in a season then we will have done particularly well. It perhaps then would not matter too much if they troop up the hill into Bridgnorth, or conversly arrive at Kidderminster and pop across the road to Captain Cod on Comberton Hill.

In a different leisure situation, say Alton Towers or Legoland, I guess it has to be "numbers through the door", because once inside almost all the spending is "captive". I cannot see that ever being the case on the SVR, or for that matter on other heritage lines that go "somewhere", like the NYMR and Whitby, Swanage, West Somerset and Minehead, etc

46118

 

46118: and thanks for your reply! I too was not suggesting anything derogatory about Mr Ralls' past experience, merely providing an impartial answer to your question from publicly available information. I hope it was of help.

I think it is clear to say that whatever the SVR or any other railway for that matter builds within its premises to try and attract additional spend such as buffets and shops, there isn't much you can do to stop passengers choosing to purchase food and gifts from the town the station serves, apart from locking the gates! So other ways such as improving on-train catering can be looked at as well as other posters point out.

Samuel7802

 

A KR-HY return this year will £14.50, a full line return/rover is £17 and entry to the engine house is included with that. I think separate entry to the engine house is at least £5 so it cheaper for people to buy the rover ticket, and we do advertise that.
Highley is a nightmare on a busy day and a pain on most other days, and there is little that can be done to the actual station without wrecking the appearance (Personally I think the footbridge should be painted GWR colours, cos as it is, it doesn't look finished tbf).

 

Ok I think we have got nice responses on the point on 2nd floor and captive market. We have also got Barmouth as one example where the GW built another station building alongside an existing one in a different style, are there any others?

Personally I think Nick is a breath of fresh air as he is not constrained by how heritage railways work, and remember he is often the man who has to put in place what the board tells him to, which is really easy to overlook.

 

Perhaps a short questionnaire could be given to a number of passengers , the results of which would indicate what the most important people in this issue really want to see.

Bob.

 

Sorry, Blandford, did you actually mean this as a compliment?

Neil

 

The main point of discussion on this thread concerns the Boards proposals for the future redevelopment of Bridgnorth and the associated capital and ongoing costs, against a smaller proposal put forward by volunteers. I am in agreement with those posters who consider that 'Steamworks' will cost too much, with any possible future financial benefit to the SVR at present unknown. Even the true overall costs of the Boards proposals are unclear , but will certainly rely on substantial grant funded aid, with all associated ongoing costs being picked up by the SVR.

On the other hand, the smaller volunteer proposal concentrates on much needed facilities for customers - buffet, bar extension, toilets and bookshop. Their plan presents a well considered financial model for the such a proposal, and in addition produces an estimated 7000 pounds per annum straight into the bottom line from the release of much needed space for car parking for customers. This model also takes account of the fact that customers are not 'captive' at Bridgnorth station. Increased spend will only come from providing services that customers require.

In order to move the Board from their present pre-set course of action it is important for as many shareholders as possible to express their views via an EGM. Such a move will also enable members who are not shareholders to have some input. Whilst it is clearly impossible to have complete agreement, at least this course of action would ensure open debate from all stakeholders. I would urge those shareholders who harbour concerns about the present undemocratic course of action to lend their support to a group who are trying to bring in an element of democracy and common sense.

 

I think that there is a danger of heritage railway's being too insular. I've noticed a tendency to presume that railwaymen ought to run heritage railways. I disagree.

The leisure industry has come on in leaps and bounds in the past 20 years and that means that all heritage attractions are fighting their corner in an extremely competitive market. That means that the skills, tricks and knowledge of that industry needs to be at the fore of heritage railway management - along, of course, and in no way superior to, a dedication to the heritage railway ethos of nostalgia, "as it was", etc.

By all means call for that second point to be at the fore of what we do - it should be - but bear in mind that a heritage railway is an attraction that is a railway, not a railway that is an attraction. So the management needs to reflect this. If you wanted to visit Bridgnorth above all other things, you'd take the car. So any person that has chosen to use the SVR in their day is a very real opportunity for the SVR to make money. The call for secondary spend, to increase visitor spend per person, is a valid one. The provision of amenities - food, drink, souvenirs, should be top notch and readily accessible. This is why there is undoubtedly need to improve Bridgnorth.

That being said, I am in accord with those who suggest that, next to the delightful market town of Bridgnorth, there is nothing that could be provided at Bridgnorth Station to retain all but the most hardy of enthusiasts there for their entire stop, if they are choosing to spend beyond the bare minimum there due to time constraints. The onus should be on providing the amenities there to catch a goodly percentage of visitors on their way past, rather than to win them over to staying on site, as that is an unwinnable battle. The current plans for Bridgnorth look like they are pursuing this (whether they are or are not).

I think a big part of heritage railways' futures could be working in partnership with local attractions, towns, villages, etc., to link up with these to offer a "heritage (or leisure) corridor", if you will, so that you attract a wider audience that wish to pack a variety of experiences into one day. This is something almost all railways do already, by accident or design, but I would advocate a greater emphasis on it. For example, I would suggest that were the Hampton Loade ferry to come up for sale as it did recently, the SVR give careful consideration to its purchase. Currently it is a rather haphazard, unreliable affair - you can't depend on it. But if it were assured that it would be open when the railway was running, suddenly there is a far more marketable link between the SVR and Dudmaston Hall, a National Trust Property.

In a sense, I'm suggesting that heritage railways, whilst remaining very aware of the value of visitor spend, actually look to operate themselves as heritage transport: as a railway. But I remain committed to the idea that the expertise of the heritage industry must be as much at the forefront of heritage railway management as the committed railwaymen and railway enthusiasts. I suppose what we need is a troop of heritage industry managers who are also railway enthusiasts!

Just my own, personal opinions of course: feel free to challenge, poo-poo, ridicule, etc.

 

I think Guard Jamie has just given a very precise summary of a Marketing Development Managers job, or perhaps a non-executive Director to represent tourism on a professional footing at policy-making level. Neither should cost £52,000 a year -in fact you could probably have both with some change, and Jamie would also be right to point out that at the moment SVR has neither. But any boring old railwayman wanting a quick insight into tourism expertise need only ask the Group Travel Assistant at Bewdley or the Manager of the Engine House - both are founts of tourism professionalism.

By way of a contra argument, the General Manager post sits within and has professional accountabilities to the Railway Safety Case.

The SVR is not just an attraction railway - it is a part, albeit a tiny one - of the national railway community and it needs to be run by someone who can command respect from his or her industry peers. That is not to say that a non-railwayman cannot do the job. But the last GM was held in high regard across the whole industry and that was a huge power for good for SVR including its bottom line.

Last year every heritage railway in the country was summonsed to an unprecedented interview without coffee with the Railway Inspectorate about poor safety and corporate governance, which HMRI sees as two sides of the same coin. I was there and it was horrible. Three wayward railways caused this humiliating moment, and SVR was one of them. Would that have happened before 2007?

Neil

 

I think that where we're differing in this little discussion is on the prioritisation of expertise - I'm interpreting what you're saying as you feeling that the rail side of things should have supremacy, that a railwayman should run a heritage railway, supported by a more peripheral heritage expert.

I think, as the heritage industry grows, and the rail industry moves further and further away from what heritage railways are, that the supremacy of the latter in management matters should not be a given, and that both are worthy of joint supremacy. I would question the wisdom of having a manager with little experience in the industry inside which his company is competing - because the SVR isn't competing with London Midland, it's competing with the National Trust, the West Midlands Safari Park, etc. etc.

Nevertheless, the vital importance of expertise in the safety of rail operation cannot be questioned. Do you have a heritage expert managing with a rail expert as his No.2, or vice versa?

Probably either way is quite acceptable - so long as there is effective dialogue between the two.