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

That is my take on the item in SVR News but remember you read it in Nat Pres first! It is always nice to be right if ignored and I recall the sputtering and feeble semi-official denials here and in the other place when it was first raised, and now it is policy.

The additional and draconian rule of silence for Directors, probably a direct result of the SM and ASM Bridgnorth getting shouty at each other over Steamworks in the other place, is a bit tragic - if your Directors cannot wind their necks in on a quiet word from the Chairman, and need written instruction in basic business courtesy, the board is not functioning as it should and perhaps some new Directors are needed instead of imposing gagging orders on the ones you've got.

The SVR is not alone in not understanding social media, most of industry doesn't get it and it is in any event an evolving work-in-progress. One truth is apparent; how you deliver your message is less important than the quality of what you say. Tweeting rubbish, weasel words, or the just plain wrong doesn't get you very far, as vacuous content-lite press releases didn't much help in the dead tree days. But we can now see that when social media is running well, and the orchestra has a determined conductor, it can demolish any number of Xanadu palaces...just as effectively as Fleet Street used to, and much more cheaply. Bad ideas are increasingly hard to defend – even Alastair Campbell or Malcolm Tucker would have struggled to spin Steamworks out of the hole.

I am delighted that the new works in the MPD are possibly a pale shadow of what was proposed, and discussed here too. Loco costs, not just at SVR but across the whole movement, are in an Alice in Blunderland world of costs that are massively, probably terminally, out of step with what the ticket buying market will support. Until there is a clear understanding of how or if steam can be operated at maybe 50% less than it costs today, there is no point in burning money on fanciful workshops. Putting the same cash into 82045 as an industry-wide R & D experiment might give a better understanding of the way forward than a big building for ever more expensive overhauls. 82045 may turn out not be the way and the light, but Taw Valley at the thick end of a million quid is just plain ruinous. And 34027 isn't the only one...everything with a chimney is in the same (holed below the waterline and sinking) boat. The single biggest imperative now is to (safely) take cost out and add revenue in. Nothing else matters.

 

Welcome back to the printed land of the heritage railway GFG.

I agree with the sentiments you have expressed, even if on this occasion it means agreeing with PH ! Costs and revenue are critical and difficult factors which have to be addressed if there is to be a future, let alone a bright future. The real question is will they be addressed ? Judging by this years progress, probably not - I don't have a recent update on passenger numbers. If numbers are not up significantly after the weather this summer, then we really do have problems. A deafening silence suggests that we may still be struggling, or maybe they just forgot to tell the working members - I assume that someone knows !

As for Bridgnorth, we will probably only see two of the four Bs. Those of us who refused to open our wallets because of the steamwork debacle, watched in wonderment as the number of projects and costs grew at an alarming rate. I for one am grateful that I did not part with the family silver. If general sentiment is true, this debacle will have been at considerable cost to the share issue, with no one putting their hand up a accept responsibility.

Where are we now would be a pertinent question. Communication with most working members, although much discussed, is to all intents and purpose non-existent, although probably a select number are better informed. The total cost of the ill fated steamworks is still a matter of conjecture, although one can make a fairly well informed guess as to the final figure. These factors all lead one to believe that forward change is going to be extremely difficult. Should anyone pay the price of poor management decisions ? Yes of course, but we now live in a world of lessons learned and no responsibility accepted for poor judgement or management. So the answer again is probably no change.

Loco costs are of course a matter of concern. Where I differ from PH is that I do not believe a blanket approach can be taken. The SVR has some very well supported Loco groups - planning, organization, finance, and manpower. The elephant in the room, which requires addressing, are those group owned Loco's which fall outside this remit, and probably most of the company Loco's.

All the above, together with rising costs associated with the existing infrastructure and other assets gives cause for concern.

The two bright pieces of news are the Apprenticeship scheme and the new Heritage Committee. How much power and influence this latter body will have remains to be seen.

How these many concerns will be addressed is just one of the mysteries of our time. What is self evident is that success breeds success. Some positive passenger numbers for general release might be a fairly simple start.

 

Hadn't intended to join this thread until my name was mentioned in vain! So if anyone does not wish to raise the devil again be warned.

I think it is no coincidence at all that the only standard gauge line which has managed to re-boiler two of its locomotives is the IOWSR. The trains are lightweight and the locomotives small. Oh! and it has a unified structure. These are all contributing factors towards financial prudence.

Worst case scenario for the future is a lot of over elaborate new build schemes partly completed but no steam trains possible because all the boilers in the existing fleets are shot. Except for the Isle of Wight of course.

PH (usual disclaimer about membership of the IOWSR)

 

Well, we're only a small standard gauge railway but three of the Middleton fleet have have new boilers in the last fifteen years. One is on its second 10 year-ish term and a second is presently stripped for overhaul. If we need a new boiler, we've the funds to buy one but then we'd not have as much cash in the bank and, being pure Yorkshire, we don't like spending it anyway! It isn't so much boilers that is our problem, it's cylinder blocks!
And, yes, we have a unified structure but, above all, we live within our means. We got into debt in 1962 and learned our lesson then.

 

Glad to be corrected! Good for the Middleton. Now we need other, larger, concerns to develop a sense of shame.

PH

 

Gios, thanks for your kind words. Oil tankers turn slowly at the best of times, and if the Officers on the bridge are not working harmoniously, or lack clear leadership, navigation and engineering skills, it will turn erratically and unpredictably. SVR has been floundering since 2007 and it will take a while to find and take the right course after so long adrift. Social media will, I hope, help them find their way, however much they hate it. Perhaps one or two of the less competent officers can usefully be persuaded to do the right thing and retire to their cabins. I am sure others reading this will, like the operatic chap in the Mikado, “Have A Little List” of those who would not be missed.
I think you should consider attaching greater importance to the Heritage Committee than you perhaps do. Look at their track record of delivery in the rail business – Moor Street, Leamington Spa, Kidderminster Town and the Kidderminster Railway Museum. None of the serving H Directors can match that. Their “Ten Principles” are on SVRLive, and are a) hard to argue with or usefully add to and b) written with the full blessing of the H Board, which cannot uncouple itself from that very public pledge, even if it wanted to, without committing very public mass suicide. The Heritage Committee has communicated in an open, workmanlike and unemotional way through the whole process, which is the classic hallmark of confident experienced men. I think they know their role is more profound than just dealing with some unwanted and unaffordable ideas for a glass footbridge and interpretative twaddle – they are saving the railway from itself.

 

This is patently true. The appointment of this group of men good and true was one of the railway highlights of the last twelve months. I do them a disservice by not making my view clearer. My concern however is that without executive power or even significant finance, even good men can be made insignificant. If per chance they were to find themselves in such a position, I have no doubt they would commanded significant support from those many members who appreciate the knowledge, ethics, time and work they bring to this wide ranging task.

I remain optimistic that they will deliver on their broad remit.

PH. Not a convert to some of your more extreme views, but agree entirely with the final sentence in your last post.

 

I just don't think large wheeled express types are very appropriate for service on 25mph tourist railways either on practical or economic grounds. If that is considered extreme by some then so be it.

PH

 

For me, the key in locomotive expenditure is not just the absolute amount, important though that is, but the value for money from it. I am no engineer, but I often have the chance to listen to very skilled and experienced engineers and I have stated before what I have heard them say. Many boilers are coming to the end of their economic lives. For a good number of years, both boiler professionals and the insurance companies have been of the view you can no longer patch the patch on a patch. Large scale renewal of metalwork is essential. The problem is how large scale, and how long will the repair remain "as good as new". A very experienced loco engineer of my acquaintance has long been of the opinion that if you truly "bottom" boiler repairs, then you reset the boiler life and should not be looking at a similar level of repair for up to 4 decades. Such a rebuild may not officially produce a new boiler, but the result is "as good as new" and intended to last as long.

That means that a locomotive overhaul is not a minimum of £1/2 million every 10 years, but could be over that now and half that (or less) for the next 3. The problem is ensuring that funding is available to do that thorough job now and not have to spend £500k or more now - and again in 10 years and so forth.

The challenge the larger Railways face is that many of their locomotives will have reached that "end of economic boiler life" stage at a similar time - hard times are with us and finding funding even for the essential minimum is a challenge but finding it to buy that "new boiler life", no matter how financially sound over the medium term, is even harder. Railways may have the means - single loco groups almost certainly will struggle even more.

Steven

 

Although a very valid general comment this appears on an SVR related thread.
The SVR have firmly grasped this thinking if you look at the amount of new steel now going into current boiler repairs:
34027 - mostly new material - spot the old bits!
7714 - new door plate, throatplate, part steel sides, barrel section, front tubeplate
7802 - new 3/4 doorplate, part throat plate, part steel sides (new front tube plate last time)
75069 - new barrel section for starters

There is an expensive hill being climbed with this lot and it will no doubt continue with 4930, 42968, 4150 etc etc - but as suggested above it represents a pretty significant investment for the short to medium term future perhaps not widely enough understood by those at the line side.

 

Thanks 1472 - I didn't know the detail on SVR boiler work, but the price quoted for 34027, I expected "the full works" was being done!

Your list is exactly the sort of work I would expect a Railway looking to the long term would be aiming for, subject to finance. As you say, I am not sure any Railway has put across really what is involved or the longer term planning issues, as I certainly find many who believe every overhaul is £500k + regardless, whereas actually, every overhaul is a different job and a different cost (not only due to loco condition but also mix of voluntary/paid/contract work involved).

Steven

 

Absolute accuracy is nice to have but I think the £500,000 figure is a useful tool – it is not too far wrong in the vast majority of cases, and the demand for it arrives with unstoppable certainty – the engine bravely puffing through the countryside today is inevitably going to wear out, and become a financial nightmare. It will do so in the foreseeable future, maybe sooner than you think, and you need to be putting a lot of money aside for when the day dawns. If your annual sales income is £3-5 million (and most railways sit in that bracket) finding £500,000 is difficult, as is £350,000 or £800,000. If it serves to make our dreamier colleagues sit up and pay attention, it is a good number.

And in the meantime there remains the difficulty of the rude mechanicals spending money like it grows on trees and blaming it all on the soaring price of unobtainium. They have to find a way of delivering chuffs at a price a family will pay for, and I see little or no evidence they are even trying.

 

Actually some railways do benefit from economy of scale on occasions. It's not unknown for bulk orders to be shared between railways/owning groups.

 

I have always thought the purpose of this thread is to help SVR back to the Path of Righteousness. Soaring MPD costs are generic to the whole movement and some interesting ideas have been posted here. To keep some clear blue water between the two topics I have taken it upon myself to start a new thread about reducing cost while preserving safety. I hope people will participate in the very positiove way we have seen in this thread.

Thanks.

 

Something mention on the other thread and on this one previously is the idea of 'Bums on Seats'. While I think no-one is under the illusion that you can get by with empty trains, a pure drive on filling trains has it's problems.

Increased numbers mean there is a need to run longer trains, which after a point means some locos can't be used on these trains (1501 and 4566 are rightly or wrongly limited to 6 mark 1's or 200 ton) which means there is more wear on the rest of the fleet which means more has to spend on running costs. Now a lot of effort is being put into Bridgnorth works so we are probably out of the immediate problem there.

However, there are 2 more areas which longer trains affect: Infrastructure and Rolling Stock. The SVR's infrastructure has had a lot of expenditure over recent years and will do over the coming years. However the current problem raising it's head is Rolling Stock. C&W are behind schedule by a large number of coaches and people have left it to go elsewhere. On some sets, quite a few toilets have been lock out of use for quite a while now because they need work which will involve the coach taken out of service (one of the LMS coaches needs a new tank). This needs money to fix but having more people travelling will wear out the seats and interiors quicker. A catch 22 if you are trying to fund this purely by train revenue. The only answer in the short term (and probably longer...) is for donations and charity to help pay. The use of the share issue for the restoration/overhaul of GW coaches may have been seen as questionable but it is the only answer for a quick fix of the problem (having 5 main sets not 4 evens out the wear and tear, the teaks will need to be overhauled at some point soon).

People complain about the footplate experience courses taking up paths but they are a vital income: low wear to the locos, low wear to rolling stock, and worth quite a large number of passengers. It seems in good hands with Lewis, his energy is helping expand the numbers of courses. Now if only the same could be done for catering: on Saturday, I passed Limited at HL where the end coach nearest the loco was EMPTY and the other two had empty seats. This isn't really good enough, considering the cost of paying the staff on the limited and the extra cost of coal and water that having the dinning coaches on.

 

I am of the belief that the GM and some of the board realise that. Sadly those that do are held back by others that have been around since Adam was a lad and are far more inward looking.

 

A question for PH: what locos do you object to on the SVR?
Of the current ones running, the one I'm not keen on is 34053, the rest are fine for the valley's loads.

 

If you must raise the devil here goes! It is a long time since I travelled on the SVR so it puts me in some difficulty. However, as a generalisation, there are very few railways that need anything larger than Class IV in size.

PH