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

In fairness jamie, the GM's comments were that they have been talking to local technical colleges to put together a formal scheme, and it is mentioned that the Heritage Railways Association held a meeting recently so that heritage railways could discuss a co-ordinated approach to apprenticeship schemes, so that proper accreditation nationally is organised. Some heritage operations and workshops are further down the line ( no pun intended...) with apprentice schemes, but the sooner the SVR have one the better.
(although I am sure they do have apprentices as such, one was featured in Bridgnorth filming with Guy Martin was it? The "yes chief" bloke...)

46118

 

Not sure what point you're trying to make, 46118.

I think this is a very good and necessary idea and am glad that it is one being pursued and implemented. I'm just suggesting that some will, somehow, find fault with it - I'll admit that the tone of Lingus by suggesting that it was a part of what some choose to call "Xanadu", and therefore a cause for concern, irritated me somewhat.

Everyone who has been critical of the plans for Bridgnorth I'm sure has the SVR's long term survival at heart - it's been a popular argument against Steamworks. So how could anyone criticise a plan to ensure the survival of the necessary skills?

 

I'm pretty sure that the SVR (and for definite the NYMR) have been taking on apprentices for years. Isn't Craig Stinchcombe at the GCR a former apprentice? The NYMR's former boilersmith and several of its C & W staff are former apprentices. There has been a more recent move to take on more apprentices as a result of an HLF initiative, and also we're starting to see more projects that incorporate an element of apprentice training because it is more or less impossible to get HLF funding for a restoration project as such, the educational element has become so over-riding and incorporating apprenticeships is a relatively painless way of achieving that if the full time staff are there to mentor and teach.

 

The Bluebell definitely has apprentices (and has done for several years) in both the loco works and the C&W, generally funded by the Bluebell Trust I believe.

Tom

 

I think you would find Lingus was raising the question as it has been suggested the only reason for including the "training" element with the whole huge scheme was to attract the maximum grant aid. If there is a real desire to produce qualified people to fill real vacancies then I can only applaud and support the scheme. If, on the other hand, it is being set up as a fob to the HLF etc. with little prospect of a real job at the end for the trainee then I condemn the scheme and its designer has committed a despicable act against these, as yet, unknown young people. It is too early to say with any certainty which of the two scenarios is correct but I retain a degree of skepticism since the whole share launch and prospectus has demonstrably tried to be all things to all men. A balancing act that is almost impossible to achieve. Perhaps the call should be simply "Show us the jobs".

 

Well Jamie it didn't take long. Please can we have a reality check here. Over the last 2 years the SVR alone has seen at least 3 very long serving mechanical fitters retire and those with the skills to maintain steam engines are not in pleantiful supply for anyone, the same is true on many other railways that those with the skills are rapidly getting older. The SVR has had apprentices for a good number of years in both the mechanical and boilershop side, indeed Ian Walker and Duncan Ballard started as apprentices before widening their skills elsewhere before returning in more senior roles. Talking with the guys on the paid staff they see that without apprentices coming through in a few years the skills will just not be there. No skills, no railways, simple. Many recognise this and want to bring on skills, remember the skills they will learn are about precision engineering that most cannot do. Whether there is a job or not at the end like all apprentiships in all companies is a red herring. The key is giving people transferable skills, ones which give opportunities.

The whole point of the Bridgnorth redevelopment is (in my mind) about setting the railway up for the next 50 years, and a large part of that buildings aside is the skills so this fits perfectly into it, but then again there are some on here who always want to see the blackest picture. Perhaps Louis and Lingus should stand for the Holdings board and take a more active part as they both obviously have very strong views.

 

Whether this training scheme is/was designed to be a part of a wider HLF application or not, I think it harsh to condemn it. It doesn't matter why it was devised, there can be little denying that it is a good idea - wider rollout of apprenticeships, more codification of training.

Moreover, whilst I see your point Louis, I don't think that an apprenticeship need carry a guaranteed job at the end of it. There's clearly a need in the heritage industry for trained steam engineers that isn't going to go away as the experts age. My university degree didn't carry a guaranteed job at the end of it (more's the pity...), nor do any other qualifications to my knowledge. I believe the idea is for this academy to fulfil a wider need in the industry than just the SVR's needs - that isn't to say of course that none of the apprentices would find work with the Valley.

 

Sorry jamie, I was sort of agreeing with your scepticism about detractors appearing here on Nat Pres, and as you can see above, right on cue.

blandford1969 emphasises the point about "succession" above, and worryingly in John Robinson's "locomotive Notes" in the latest "SVR News" he makes the point that even when all the paid staff at Bridgnorth are "In service", (accident/illness has taken some people out recently) the works are short-staffed, I suppose in relation to the sheer amount of work presenting to them. This comment is worrying given that the works and boiler shop have just gone through a staff reorganisation process, where I recall there were redundancies.

In some respects taking on apprentices can be a risk. You give them the training, and then they migrate away to better-paid jobs--only in some cases of course. However, what comes around goes around, and the bigger pool of young trained engineers we have in the heritage industry in its widest sense, will keep alive those precious skills.

In that respect it is quite unfair of the poster earlier relating to apprenticeships merely as a means of securing grants. Some have criticised the use of some of the current share issue proceeds in this direction, but for the reasons discussed above, it has to be right.

Anyone know of an apprentice pattern-maker by the way? Pattern making really is a rare skill.

46118

 

How many paid members of staff does the SVR have out of interest?

 

Actually, I believe that under the rules of Apprenticeships (which has a very defined meaning in terms of the training and Government funding available from the Skills Funding Agency) there is an expectation that an apprentice who successfully completes his / her period of training will be offered a permanent job. This requirement was to stop an abuse previously perpetrated by some companies who used apprentices as a source of cheap labour effectively funded by the Government, with no intention of offering a permanent job (or even much in the way of worthwhile training) once the Government funding ran out.

Of course, provided that job is above the national minimum wage and meets all other applicable legislation, that is sufficient. One of the problems in the heritage industry is paying newly qualified apprentices a salary that is sufficiently attractive to keep them. Hence a general problem that the railway can train the apprentice, but if they are any good, the railway may then find them difficuly to retain. For example, if Ironbridge Power Station is paying a 50% premium on fully trained boilersmiths over what the SVR can pay, along with possibly more chance of career progression, you'd have to be a supremely dedicated train nut, aged say 21 and at the very beginning of your working life and keen to get a car, mortgage etc, to stay at Bridgnorth rather than go fifteen miles down the road... That's a problem that is not unique to the SVR.

Tom

 

Fair enough, I didn't know that. However, this at least renders the discussion null and void - if it is a legal requirement, then it will be honoured, HLF funding or no HLF funding.

 

Effectively it probably represents two different meanings of the word "apprenticeship". Probably for most of us we have some rosy romantic notion of the old fashioned boy, indentured to some employer for seven years from the age of 13, produce an "apprentice piece" and then pack off his troubles in an old kit bag and go out into the wide world with a spring in his step and a recommendation from a wise old employer. But actually, that model is long dead: nowadays, an apprenticeship means a specific form of training provided by an employer, but with government funding for the training component. Effectively, the Government (via the Skills Funding Agency) pays the training cost, but in exchange expects certain standards (called "conditions of funding") to be met. Almost certainly, the training will be overseen (even if not delivered) via a local college beecause it is the colleges that have a contract with the SFA and thus access to funding. No doubt the SVR will be liasing with its local FE colleges to see who can offer the best package.

The SFA funding is only supposed to pay for training costs: since the apprentice will be employed, they will in addition need a salary (which has to be at least the national minimum wage) - hence where the HLF come in, since it might be possible to use that funding source for the salary part of employing the apprentice. Though the SVR would probably have to be able to demonstrate there was a sustainable job (subject to normal employment conditions: no job is for life any more!) beyond the end of any HLF funding. The relevant SFA condition of funding states "You must not directly employ apprentices purely for the purpose of delivering an Apprenticeship", i.e. you can't take someone on just to access the funding available. That is normally interpreted to mean that if the apprentice successfully completes their training, there will be a job for them at the end.

Tom

 

First time I've read about a lady described as 'etc'. :smile:

 

The only reality check you need worry about, Blandford1969, is that both SVR Boards are in trouble – Holdings for gambling the entire future of the railway and Guarantee for standing aside and letting them do it. After such a very public demonstration of exactly how much they collectively didn’t know about running their business, there will for several years be stakeholder scepticism about everything they say and everything they do. Learn to live with it. Xanadu isn’t going to be forgotten or forgiven for a while yet.

It is now incumbent on both Boards to quietly get on with rebuilding trust and confidence – by earning it. There are no shortcuts. In fact the Guarantee Board may have made things slightly worse with its current appeal to the membership for £300,000 to top up their stake in Holdings. Some of us can add up – if the Holdings Share Issue hadn’t bombed you would now be looking for an eye-watering £750,000 to maintain your precious 25%. Not that the total matters much – you won’t be getting the £300,000 any time soon either (see scepticism, above). It now seems to be the Guarantee Company’s turn to look foolish. There wouldn’t be a show without Punch.

The Holdings Board will be allowed off the naughty step – in due course – by their very sensible if belated admission that £5 million glass footbridges and associated follies are not the way forward, but that the new Heritage Conservation Committee will bring salvation. The test for the railway is NOT whether people stop using “bad words” in here – the debate on Nat Pres, however unpalatable for some, was part of a matrix of alarm and disaffection that saved the railway from bankruptcy.

The real test is whether both Boards can avoid stepping on another landmine over the next few years. Whether they like it or not, for a while every breath they take will be subject to critical scrutiny. After what happened, how could it be any other way?

Neil

 

Now i get it, you slag the boards off for not doing anything and how the G board was loosing shares, when they actually do something you slag them off for that.

Some people are never happy, and as for bad words here i think they can take it, after all alot of the points on here about what was not right with plan A were spot on. Now we are just waiting to see what they come up with.

 

"Blandford", old chap,

Would this not be a good time for you to say which SVR Board you sit on? Declaration of Interest, and all that corporate governance twaddle...

Or would you rather I did it for you?

Aye

Neil
.

 

So becuase I have said something in support of the railway I must be somehow on a board?

 

No, that is not what I am saying. Even I say supportive things about SVR sometimes, albeit not in this forum. How are things at Toolbank these days?

Aye

Neil

 

Accepting GF-G's point that both boards are in trouble I'm prepared to moderate my initial skepticism somewhat on the subject of trainees. If there will be a degree of pressure that is respected to provide jobs at the end of the training then all well and good.

I'm not willing to trust them entirely but perhaps cutting them a little slack may be appropriate whilst keeping them under close scrutiny.

 

I note the launch of the apprentice scheme has created a vacancy for a Volunteer Apprenticeship Officer. Unlike the Project Manager that won't add to the already unknown hefty cost of the original project Xanadu.