SEVERN VALLEY RAILWAY - AN OPEN LETTER TO SHAREHOLDERS

Jamie, I did not say a non-railwayman couldn't do it, MJD was no railwayman, in fact very few railways have one, but forgive me, I don't have the benefit of your youthful clarity of vision in these things. I am very old-fashioned, shaped a little by having put bits of very dead people in bin bags on the big railway and the Tube, and sitting through tiresome Coroner's hearings while bereaved family members look on, perplexed by proceedings and trying to keep their dignity intact. In my quaint stuck-in-the-mud way I think that if you are going to be in charge of up to five rolling bombs running in opposing directions on a single line at a closing speed of 50 mph, with some wooden bodied passenger coaches and signals with oil lamps, the person in charge might do us all the very great courtesy of knowing what he or she is doing.

There is an agenda. Safety goes at the top of it. It can't go anywhere else or we are all lost. Trusting everything to a marketing specialist can only be defended if the marketing works. See the last five years ever-shrinking passenger numbers for details of how at SVR, it just hasn't worked. SVR have paid £250,000 in GMs salary for that over the period and need not worry about putting profits before safety because it has enjoyed very little of either thing (43106 saw to that). And we all got a thoroughly miserable full day b*ll*cking from the Inspectorate into the bargain.

Neil

 

It's very difficult to argue against this view.

 

I would never argue that Safety should not be of paramount importance on any heritage railway - I know that you're not suggesting that I was.

It must undoubtedly be on everybody's agenda, too, and at the forefront of everyone's minds when decision making takes place, on any subject. I wouldn't argue against that - I'd advocate it.

The question, to me, is where the safety expertise should lie. With the GM? Probably not essential - but a GM without such expertise should be given a thorough grounding in such on arrival. Should it lie with the Officer with mandate for operations? Undoubtedly. Both? Desirable. But so long as there is dialogue between those two then I do not think that there is grounds for concern.

I should emphasise, I'm in no way suggesting that Safety is an issue on the SVR or any other railway. I am discussing the importance of where safety expertise should lie.

Really, I think that a GM's expertise should lie elsewhere. But I'm not saying that he need not be given a good grounding in Safety, and I'm not saying that safety shouldn't be a priority for him as for anyone on a heritage railway.

 

I would of thought that the GM would have a thorough knowledge of the SVR's SMS documentation, just like any other employee and volunteer.

 

I never said he didn't - he is after all, a passed shunter. GF-G's and my little debate is more theoretical on the pros and cons of expertise in different management positions, based on my concerns that there is an insular attitude developing.

 

I know where you are coming from Jamie in saying that to be a leader of the an organisation like the SVR it is not strictly necessary to be a railwayman. However I do think that preserved railways need to be lead by people are familiar and have experience in dealing with volunteers, outside agencies like the RAIB and ORR, locomotive owning groups etc and have a knowledge of how railways actually operate. It is necessary to bring people in from outside of the 'family' at times to shake the tree and bring in new thinking but often this can be done with people already familiar with the preserved railways.

If you want to employ a marketing manager or someone with a specialism in tourism then you can employ them in a capacity that allows them to use their skills and experience to the maximum benefit of your organisation. But at the end of the day if you are a railway then you need people at the top who understand how railways work and, in particular, how to work with those who support them and those who regulate them. A GM with a tourism background and a degree in marketing might be able to fulfill those roles but often the people who come in from outside of the heritage railway industry to try and lead major railways don't seem to understand the unique nature of the organisations they attempt to lead.

 

But on the flipside, surely at some point there is a danger that it may need to be seen as a tourist attraction rather than heritage railway in the eyes of those you want to encourage to visit the railway - it will undoubtedly have to move with the times. It will be interesting to see the demographics of the volunteers from the survey, are there enough younger volunteers coming from to replace senior / more established volunteers in all areas. What is the average age of shareholders and their holdings - if age was falling and holdings increasing probably good. I am not a shareholder but am a working member. My take on the original proposal was positive'ish with regards to the idea's, particularly the training academy, potentially a source of income going forward, I would hope that those proposing it would have put the relevant costing's together and established there was a market for it. I am not saying I liked it all, particularly the lifts and the access to the field car park - the same argument could be used for this as the car showroom that is available - what if the access is developed and there is no permission to use the field car park after ? ! Plan B looks a very attractive building and I wish those proposing it good luck, I'd hope there is room to take the best from both plans and come up with a plan C (that doesn't look like two plans joined together!). Someone suggested off site SVR buildings in Bridgnorth, why does the volunteer accomodation need to be within the grounds ?

 

I don't hold out much hope for the 'Training Academy'. This is surely another grab at grant funding. In days gone by, apprentices were trained in their area of expected expertise with day release. In this instance workshops and shed. Why do we require another new building, and how will such a structure add to the balance sheet.

I do agree with your second point. There are several hotels etc. on the market in Bridgnorth, which would make more than suitable volunteer accommodation, and all within a few minutes walk. Space is at a premium at Bridgnorth, and accommodation off site would release some land pressure. But as with all things there is a cost.

 

The total number of shares pledged by proxy in favour of an EGM to date is 66,200. Not quite 300,000 but not a bad start for the third day. I am sorry to use Nat Pres as the lazy man’s loudhailer again, but I *think* I have now answered all the emails of support and proxy. If you wrote and have not had an acknowledgement it has gone astray somewhere on t’internet, and could you please send it again? We need everyone we can get. Thank you.

Also, we have had a significant weight of emails from people who support Plan B, and who are working or armchair members (of the Guarantee Company) but not shareholders in the PLC. We should have seen that coming, since the last share issue before 2012 was almost a generation ago, but we didn’t. Since Project Xanadu is a PLC project, the only formal voice that alarmed working and armchair members have is via their own G Company, which of course owns about 20% of the PLC. That would be enough voting power to both call the EGM and carry the Special Resolution without further ado. In fact it would make it such a final issue that the PLC would not be served by holding out for Xanadu and going through the publicity agony and costs of an EGM. If you go back to the 1972 split between the two Companies – another Nabarro legacy moment - G was supposed to be the “voice of the enthusiast” and it hasn’t relinquished that role, even though the “Gang of Four” has rather out- manoeuvred it.

Does anyone in Nat Pres please have a copy of the Constitution for the Guarantee Company which they could make available? I can’t find mine, if I ever had one, and I would like to quickly understand how G Members formally speak to it outwith its own AGM, which is still several months away. Since both Companies share a “persuasive” Vice Chairman, the Guarantee Company is unlikely to come to the party unless it is so overwhelmingly convinced its members wish it to that it has no choice. I cannot think of a single member of the G Board (except the Vice Chairman) who would not be heartbroken to see how many people they know and work or worked with (some since 1965) have joined with us.

By way of example, David Williams, the Chairman of the Guarantee Company will remember a meeting in Birmingham at which the Birmingham area group was formed - and he joined the railway at that meeting. One of the organisers of that meeting is on board with us. This goes right back to the roots of the railway and the "Waffler" too...

My email address again is militarytrain2012@gmail.com

Thank you as always


Neil

 

Undoubtedly there needs to be a strong element of leadership that is completely au fez with railway operation, both heritage and in the wider industry. That familiarity is pivotal, vital, etc. I'm not denying it. Nor am I suggesting that it is in anyway inferior to a knowledge of the tourist industry. Both are absolutely vital, and ideally you would have as your chief executive someone with a thorough grounding in both.

What I'm saying is that, I think it does not matter whether you have a chief executive with a railway background or a chief executive with a tourism background, so long as there is sufficient dialogue between them and those with the appropriate expertise in the other discipline. What we need to be careful of however is being too insular, afraid of change etc., but you've acknowledged that so no problem We need to accept that we are a part of a wider heritage industry, as well as a wider railway industry.

Anyway, this is theoretical and therefore off-topic.

 

Surely the point must be that the GM should be a railway man comfortable with running trains and knowing without thinking what to do when the brown stuff hits the proverbial fan. Sitting in an RAIB enquiry is a horrible experience I know I have been in that situation and believe me if you don't know all the answers and reasons they will rip you apart, so first and foremost he must be a railwayman. The fact is that the railway needs a tourism and marketing expert and that is where the railwayman at the top needs help in making tourism and marketing business decisions to enable the railway to compete with other attractions.

Dave

 

A railwayman and a tourism marketeer helping him....I think you just described the Alun Rees – John Leach double act rather well, and in 2005 they delivered the best trading year in the firm’shistory while the present incumbents are delivering some of the worst and most dangerous – at much greater cost.

Some people were upset, here and in the other place, that GF-G “personalised” his arguments. Sadly I cannot quite understand the sensitivity about naming people, whether to praise or shame them – or even expose them. It is people that deliver success and who create failure too. Does it “personalise” penicillin to name Alexander Fleming, or the A4s if you talk about Sir Nigel? Certainly it is difficult to discuss the Holocaust without mentioning Adolf Hitler by name. The SVR is no different. The disaster that is Project Xanadu did not just happen. It has been made what it is by Nick Ralls and , Paul Taylor, under political air cover supplied by the Gang of Four. It is their ugly unloved and unlovely baby, no-one else’s.

Neil.

 

The 'steamworks' steering group have met to view and discuss the revised designs.

They are concerned now to take on everyone's views, though not necessarily those who shout loudest.

The meeting was told that extensive consultation with communities including volunteers will be required as part of the HLF application process.

The steering group agreed on design versions to show the board meeting next Tuesday, with the emphasis that this is all a work in progress.

The board will be requested to give approval in principle for the core group to continue to discuss the timetable to incorporate considerable consultation.

The steering group members are a lot more comfortable with where the project is going - it has come a long way from the images which upset everyone.

 

Financial sustainability comprises a key element in an HLF application.

 

I've been there and done it. It may be a key element but it can be as big a work of fiction as you want. HLF have no real knowledge of the costs of operating a railway and can only take what you put at face value.

 

The only elements which are new are the steamworks and the footbridge. The buffet and shop are replacement buildings so there is no change in staffing.

 

Well maybe a bit of a red herring, but you have missed several other major capital expenditure items. New, (and and much needed) volunteer accomodation, new storage facilities for MPD and re-surfacing of Kiddy car park amongst others. These will all require large capital investment for construction, money which at the present time the railway simply does not have. I think we all agree that a new Bridgnorth buffet, toilets etc. is long overdue. The rest should probably be either on a 'wish list' or just not required at this difficult financial time.

One hopes that the new Buffet building design will now be acceptable to the majority - along the lines of the rejected plan B. This due in no small part to the reaction of the original plan A.

The remaining issue of concern therefore is that by accepting HLF funding to enable all these schemes to go ahead, many of which will not be revenue earning, the Railway will incur high running costs, for ever - the Engine House is a prime example. How the railway will be able to sustain this increased cost base is the real issue. We have endless long term serious infastructure expenditure requirements just to keep the trains running - which at present the Railway simply can not afford. How will we manage with even greater overheads ?

Like you, I think that everybody has the very best interests of the SVR at heart, and are therefore are prepared to fight to try and ensure that the SVR remains one of the countries major Heritage lines, this can only happen given a sound financial base.

 

Blandford, with all due respect you can't say this - unless the SVR's own Project Manager is being disingenious - because he tells me the final projections have not been done. There are a number of business development threads that *might* support investment in the buffet - a suggestion made here that some Bridgnorth residents perhaps use the station as a sort of public park, and can thus be sold an ice cream or better. If it wasn't such a slum, the buffet *might* attract passing non-railway trade and the Severn Valley Venturer *may* be capable of expansion when the railway notices that it has an absurd wages bill but the demand for full dining is still growing, in which case it would need enhanced shore facilities. A volunteer operated dining train is almost bound to have better margins than one with a payroll. You can service the present shop with one or two bodies because it is a poky hole and there is no room for any more behind the counter, but the shop/ticket office down at the Highley White Elephant has sometimes been awash with retail staff - a bigger shop at Bridgnorth is bound to require more staff. But none of this work has been done - and it won't have been by the time Plan B Version 2 is unveiled.

I repeat myself ad nauseam, but there are too many gaps and unknowns for this project to be safe; a year of thoughtful reflection will hurt no-one.Taking a strategic forty year view is one thing - running with scissors is quite another.

Neil

 

interesting, in that case that is something which is relevant to be shown when the new presentations happen. I agree that if it takes another year to get this right, it is well spent.