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

GFG seems to delight in crowing that he knows all withoutactually being willing to do anything about it. For someone who has neverposted on any other thread but this it is clearly a subject he feelspassionately about. He feels that the railway will fail if it fails to get250,000 visitors a year. So go on then – if the current management are doingsuch a bad job at increasing numbers then what do YOU think should be done toraise them? And if you have the answer then would you mind telling the NYMR,the West Somerset, the Bluebell, the Talyllyn etc. who all have falling visitornumbers at the moment?
Yes there are issues with the share issue. I do not thinkanother visitor centre at Bridgnorth would be a great idea, but to decry theEngine House as a failure is ludicrous. It hasn’t added any visitors you claim.But do you know how many more visitors the SVR would have lost if it didn’texist? Development at Bridgnorth is clearly required. The catering facilitiesfor one thing are appalling, and the shop (which is my favourite on the line)is simply not big enough. A new building (sensitively designed) to house cafeand shop (something similar to Sheffield Park), and turn the shop into awaiting room. But how can anyone be against the academy plans? Without itrailway preservation will be dead inside 20 years.
If the SVR is failing, what on Earth is happening to everyother line?!

 

I think it is irrelevant to say how many passengers are needed each year. If, for example, the SVR were to reduce its fares passenger figures might easily climb to or exceed this mythical figure of 250000 being bandied about. But would that actually increase margins?
The reality is, there is a sweet spot where margins are maximised; I don't know what the ideal fare level is but I do know that all heritage railways must make serious money if they are going to survive long term.
During major events the SVR's trains are often heaving so clearly there is no need to reduce fares then, but at the season shoulders more (profitable) traffic would be very nice. If the real margins come from supplementary spend rather than the fare box perhaps this is an area to look at ways of getting more bums on seats.

Off-peak to Bridgnorth please!

 

There is difference between fares and supplementary spend though - every pound taken in fares for travel on a train that is running anyway is a pound profit, whilst only a portion (said portion probably varies between shop/cafe/bar) of every supplementary spend pound is profit.

 

Quite right - it's pounds that the railway really need. The more visitors then generally the more money, but getting in more money is ultimately more important. Which is why improving the offer to visitors is key. The Engine House is very useful in this regard, but in my view the catering offer throughout the line could be improved. I have never used on-train dining on the SVR, but I note that there are issues raised about it on Tripadvisor. The GCR offers fantastic on-train catering, and whatever you think about the 'branded' carriages, the on-train ambiance is excellent and the food is wonderful - and the price (certainly compared to the SVR) is very competitive. I have found the catering at Kiddy to be generally good - though I'm not a huge fan of the 'works canteen' style tables and chairs (though it might always have changed since I have visited). Bewdley and Bridgnorth obviously need upgrading, and fitting in with the period atmosphere.

As I noted previously, the addition of a new visitors centre at Bridgnorth seems a little pointless, but I do understand the point that grant money is required for the project at Bridgnorth and without some kind of educational element it is very difficult to gain grants. My preference would be something in the line of the West Shed at Swanwick Junction, which in my view is one of the best attractions at any railway in the country. A museum, a display shed and a mezzanine floor about the works with excellent interpretation all around.

 

Then don't chase the grants! Ultimately, you have to decide what you really want first, and then consider how you achieve that objective. If instead you see what funding is available, and then see what sort of project that funding source will fund, you'll end up building things that no-one is actually that enthusiastic about! Before you know it, you have expanded the scope of what you really actually wanted just to attract a grant, the grant doesn't materialise but by then the project has its own momentum and you can't remove the features you never really wanted in the first place!

If you are fixated on getting HLF money, in a £10million suite of projects there ought to be at least one that will stand up to their criteria on its own merits without bolting on all sorts of elements just to try to win the grant. Meanwhile, concentrate the money from other sources (share offer, individual donations) on those projects that you really want, but which aren't necessarily attractive on grounds of education, access or whatever other criteria the funding stream of choice wants to emphasise.

Tom

 

I rarely use the food outlets on the SVR - an occasional breakfast at Bewdley is about it. We usually catch the train at Kiddy and then go into the town at Bridgnorth for lunch at a dog friendly pub.

My wife has suggested lunch on the train as a birthday treat, but she looked at the reviews on Tripadvisor and went off the idea. The price is such that it needs to be something really special - I've only dined on the GCR once - and that was a number of years ago on a "corporate jolly" so I wasn't paying - but it was an excellent experience.

 

That's exactly what happened with the Talyllyn Railway and Wharf Station - they've ended up with a great White Elephant which is wholly out of scale with he location and the number of passengers the railway carries, whilst being very costly to run.

 

Obtaining grants can be quite a challange, take the new storage shed at Havenstreet for instance. If the railway had been able to fund the build on its own the cost would have been halved. To quaulify for HLF funding it was best that the building was accessable to the public, a very convoluted access route has had to be worked out which involves SSSI sites. Then because of the different levels involved the disabled access will comprise of a wheel chair lift for one change of level and a long ramp with railings for another. An extra display area has been built for interprative displays, that area will have to be staffed and heated.

All of the above extras have added a considerable amount to the cost. It does however give us the advantage that not only will a large part of our stock be under cover but our visiters will have full access to it.

 

Your chance to own a part of our national treasure SVR Share Offer, p62 of The Times today pic.twitter.com/m6dHzXKW

Patrick

 

Thank you Tom. I did indeed mean "own goals". I would also thank you for your well considered ideas on the future of the SVR - I hope they are being heard.

 

Isn't that what also happened with the Engine House? Thinking back, all that Robbo originally wanted was a shed to store out of ticket engines out of the elements.

Then it mushroomed.

Is that happening at Bridgnorth? The saving grace is the design team have at last admitted they got it wrong first time round. I think very very wrong.

 

Lingus: A "storage shed" might well have been what Mr Robinson wanted, but would it have ever been built as such? Small matter of £3,714,000 from the Heritage Lottery Fund, plus money from the European Regional Development Fund and Advantage West Midlands. Its a "Visitor centre" , with public access and educational benefits, and it happens to have the out-of-ticket engines on display. The Kidderminster carriage shed was Lottery funded, but that was in the days when having public access and educational benefits was not a necessary part of the Lottery criteria. Ok, £5 million sounds a lot of money, but this was a difficult site to build on, ex-mining ground, that needed considerable piling, and then a suitable construction to go on top. The exterior look of the Engine House is not to everyone's taste, but it is far-enough away from Highley station not to intrude unduly. Unlike at Bridgnorth where I think there is general agreement that the proposed buildings did not fit in well with what is already there, and in particular the platform one visitor centre/cafe/shop looked too large and overpowering in respect of the exisiting station building. As you say, a degree of common-sense rethinking is underway, thankfully.

 

Having looked into grants a fair deal over the past few weeks, James is right in his caution. There is a danger and I have found myself contemplating it, of manoeuvring projects to fit in with Grants. Whether adding educational elements and bilingual elements to projects is such a bad thing is another question, but it will upset people later down the line when they wanted a heritage building that now has access platforms and educational boards. It is a tough decision for anyone.

You have to remember the amount of money being offered is staggering.

 

I agree that the priorities for the SVR should be the only consideration, not the carrot of large sums of money. The current proposals for yet another steel and glass 'visitor centre with model railway and other educational aspects' is not, in my view, a priority requirement, if one at all. It will take up space that could be better used to increase parking capacity, and will be little used - most passengers leave the station and head straight for the bridge on their way to High Town.

What is clearly a priority is a decent buffet - waiting room, toilets, bookshop on the site to the south of the station, in GWR style ! This would be closely followed by decent volunteer accomodation. These two priorities might not attract external funding, but so what ! I would much prefer to see the site left unspoilt, than build structures that will bring no long term financial benefit to the railway.

 

We generally agree. Had the building at Highley been designed purely to satisfy Robbo's requirements only the cost would have been far more modest. What is the cost of an unheated light-weight wriggly tin shed without offices, cafe etc etc? How many more engines could fit in the floor space if those facilities hadn't been provided? Particularly so as they could be jammed in without the space around them to view.
Moreover the expensive footbridge wouldn't have been needed and the character of Highley station wouldn't have been despoiled with a paved road and inappropriate fence in front of the Signal Box.
What's done is done, but that's the cost of embracing the word "education".
If Bridgnorth all goes pear-shaped will Messrs Howl, Dancer, Taylor, Paul, Ralls et all stick around to carry the can?

 

gios: Sorry I still havn't learned how to do the "quote post" thing, but I absolutely agree with your final paragraph, decent buffet, waiting room, toilets and modest shop, GWR style, and of a size that doesn't overburden the existing station building. Then as you say, volunteer accom, but not in the tube thing proposed, maybe a row of cheap and cheerful timber-framed "cottages", with a traditional " period" brick or stone exterior. Would fit in a treat in my opinion.

Lingus: Yes, lower cost I agree, but even a basic "engine storage shed" might not have been built if no grant money available. Who knows now?

Regards

46118

 

In my experience, one of the problems with HLF funding is that thety often talk up the original proposals. I was involved with an application for a relatively small scheme that suited us but one that was initially rejected with a caveat that, if we were to come back with a bigger, more grandoise scheme, it is more likely to succeed. This we did and the three times as expensive scheme did succeed but the additional operational and maintenance costs are significantly more for probably little, if no, extra return.
It is quite hard to turn down money when it is offered to you.

 

Posted here http://railways.national-preservati...n-valley-online-newsletter-5.html#post527312:

More pertinent here are:

"Share Offer update:
The Share Offer has had a very strong start and with a healthy 40% of shares being purchased by new shareholders. Further statistical reports are being created to include further detail of size of purchase, the postal code area of purchase as examples.
With the Members and Shareholders weekend set for April 20th and 21st a new advertising and marketing plan will be initiated in February and March to raise awareness of the Share Offer and highlight the Members and Shareholders weekend as a focus for potential new Shareholders to come to the Railway and find out more about the Railway and the Share Offer.

SteamWorks Project Update:
The designs are being redrafted in light of the feedback from consultation. Whilst this is taking place, Nick Ralls and Paul Taylor are arranging to meet with local Councilors from Bridgnorth Town Council and Councillors and Council Officers from Shropshire in order to raise the profile of the project and prepare the ground for letters of support from them towards funding submissions. Tim King, Tourism Officer for Shropshire Council has been a recent visitor to the SVR as part of this consultation.
The Conservation Plan for the site is being written. This will be largely internally produced with Paul Taylor, the SteamWorks Project Manager coordinating this work.

Heritage Training Academy:
David Tidmarsh (Ex Vice Chancellor of Birmingham City University) has completed a draft of a specification for the Heritage Training Academy after meeting with Nick Ralls, Hugh McQuade, Nigel Hanson and Duncan Ballard. The intention is to undertake a pilot launch of the Academy this Autumn".

Patrick

 

I imagine the `marketing plan' will involve a strategic crash of the SVR's main site, so that people wont be able to see that they could be financially better off buying other tickets advertised there than a membership? :tape2:

 

By which time the revised design should have been published. I would suggest a sensible/sympathetic design will see a resurgence in the share income. If the design team have such conceit to not heed the advice offered from people with real in depth knowledge they deserve all the brickbats that will ensue.