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

Don't be too disheartened - threelinkdave's price may well be right for a new rig, but a quick Google revealed suitable trailers for up to £100k (but for smaller locos/major compenents much cheaper) and tractor units £25k to £35k.

Insurance and operators licences would be an additional cost and keeping staff in ticket and with adequate experience would also be required - as is the case for many Railway related tasks already.

Suffice to say, the costs are too much for any one Railway to find worthwhile, and the idea has been kicked about for years with no-one actually doing it. Perhaps a scenario of sharing workshops specialising in particular tasks with the back up of a road delivery system might be what would make it work, but in effect we already have a version of that with the big workshops doing work for a number of other Railways on a commercial basis. I would also argue there are newer lines with almost no facilities who hire much or all of their steam power already.

BUT - a Railway needs to know it can rely on a pool of motive power capable of covering its service requirements (allowing for the age and general reliability of the type of equipment in question). Hence, I would agree with PaulH that Railways do need to work on establishing a core fleet under their own control and ownership, and with either the workshop facilities themselves or access to contracted workshops to keep those locos in traffic. The same regular machines running most services may seem boring to the photographer - and even some footplate crew - but the cost demands elsewhere (not to mention of loco overhauls themselves) on the Railways will mean that efficiently delivering the essential ingredient of steam without throwing unnecessary expenditure at it will be essential.

Steven

 

It sounds quite anarchic! No wonder these railways have had problems.

PH

 

Not sure quite what you mean. The Bluebell owns 2/3 of its locos but the SVR only 1/10, so if ownership were the key determinant of success, the Bluebell ought to be doing better - or at the very least, there should be a marked difference in workshop output if your thesis was correct. But actually I'm not sure there is a lot to choose between either railway in terms of keeping up with demand. I think the reasons are more complex.

(And, for the avoidance of doubt: Can't speak for the SVR, whose thread this is, but the Bluebell at least has shown it is perfectly willing to use Bluebell money to fund non-Bluebell-owned locos where it is felt they are in the operational interest of the railway - witness the PLC paying some of the boiler costs of Camelot and restoring 541 as an essentially internal railway project, as well as considerable work on 847. All three of which are non-Bluebell-owned locos. So I don't think diverse ownership is getting in the way of overhauling the locos the railway believes it needs).

Tom

 

Sorry to be blunt but for whatever reason, motive power has had to be hired in. Something is getting in the way.

PH

 

I'm not arguing that point! Simply to say that earlier you were arguing that fragmented ownership was the key issue - but the Bluebell owns 20 locos in its own right but still can't overhaul them quick enough. So whatever is getting in the way, it isn't about ownership. Equally, the SVR only owns 10% of its fleet, and is also having to hire in locos.

Tom

 

We're never going to agree on this. Both organisations are spending money on doing up other people's stuff. I think it's unfortunate, you don't. Better leave it at that.

Paul H.

 

I feel there is a point re ownership of locos & rolling stock which is being overlooked. The larger heritage railways are organisations of a size where individual (or even small group) effort can seem fairly insignificant in the whole scheme of things to the individuals concerned.
This is also probably why some people feel that they want to start their own new, smaller schemes including the ones for new build locos - its all about how individual egos fit in.
Much better then to have the individual small groups who, whilst being strongly allied to the major HR, take the initiative to focus on their own project which nicely fits in with the needs of the HR itself.
True this could lead to a conflict of priorities but also it can encourage people to go the extra mile compared to just general input into a morass of HR determined projects.
If all HRs owned the whole of their infrastructure and stock and became even slightly dictatorial re priorities a significant and very dedicated proportion of the current volunteer input would simply leave, take up another hobby, or worst of all start up another HR related scheme!!

 

I'd suggest that two of the most successful heritage railways from a volunteer aspect are the FR & the TR and they essentially own everything.

 

Add W&LLR and IOWSR to this list. Undoubtedly there are others.

PH

 

Broadly I agree with you Paul, but outright ownership isn't always necessary to have the control that is desirable. There is a big difference between a long term arrangement with the NRM and daily "spot" hire of a locomotive. With the former it is possible to lay plans and have certainty of use, but with the latter it is not. The MHR has 6 locos in service all of which are "tied" to the railway in some way for a known amount of time. MHRPS owns two of these, two are owned by private owners and two by the NRM, but in all cases MHR controls their use. The result is that we have been able to hire one to the Bluebell for the best part of two years during a period when they and others have struggled. I would prefer that we owned them all, but the present arrangements work extremely well in practice. Strategically we have also acquired four other locomotives all owned by either the MHRPS or MHR.

I know you're going to mention our structure, so I will get in first. In common with most heritage railways there is a company and a preservation society. The latter is a shareholder in the former (in our case the largest shareholder). I think this structure dates from the days when charities couldn't operate a business or something. The W&LLR has a more sensible structure, but even it has WLLR Sales Ltd for the retail side, and W&LLR Ltd (as was) was relatively late becoming a charity (remember the debates?). However, back on the MHR we've looked seriously at the structure, but essentially we are stuck with what we have. Unwinding it would be costly and difficult and has some undesirable side effects, with an upside which is not that great now that the relationship between MHRPS and MHR is as good as it is. It has taken 10 years to develop the excellent working relationship now enjoyed, now we work to keep it that way.

 

Simon, I know you speak with authority and others on this thread should recognise this fact. At one time the MHR epitomised all the problems I have alluded to and the way they have gone about rectifying the situation is worthy of emulation.
Paul H.

 

I think you are somewhat missing my point. I agree that having long term ownership of assets is a good thing, or at least long term agreements with owners, as 21B outlines. Indeed, if you assume that the MLS, the Bulleid Society, the Camelot Society and the C Class Trust all are deeply committed to the Bluebell, then we have that degree of long term control over just about the whole fleet.

I also agree that short-term hire is less desirable, particularly as it represents money that could otherwise be spent on our own assets. I'm sure most Bluebell members would prefer that we could run just using our own fleet without the need to hire in - no offence intended to the likes of the MHR and others, who have helped us out considerably recently.

My point is simply that, while such ownership is desirable, it is not in itself a guarantee that all will be rosy in the garden. I think there are lot of other factors at play, of which the capacity for fundraising is a big one (which is actually the subject of this thread!)

Tom

 

100%ownership of rolling stock isn't the be all and end all, I feel. To take the case of the LNERCA, for example (as it is the one I am most familiar with) the NYMR has always favoured the Mk 1 for its owned coaching stock fleet, for all the obvious reasons. If it wasn't for the independent LNERCA buying and working on their coaches the NYMR's teak train would not exist and be growing, and I think most people would regard that as a significant loss. There's no guarantee that the same folk would have put the same time and effort into the Mk 1 fleet. Moreover, there's a limit to the number of grants that a body like the NYMR can obtain and administer at any one time, so having a separate supporting (but not formally attached) body like the LNERCA is a bonus in that it can bring in money separately. It's the same with privately owned locos, whose owners, more often than not, subsidise the railways where their engines are based to some extent. The problem that we face is not ownership, it's having sufficient resources to replace what is being worn out at the same rate that it is being worn out.

 

Although the discussion on ownership of Loco's and rolling stock, together with their related finance is very interesting, there is another, somewhat larger elephant in the room. Many HRs have failed and are failing, for one reason or another - mainly finance, to invest sufficiently in their infrastructure. There is an enormous nationwide backlog of civil engineering works, of all types and sizes, which are being allowed to lag dangerously behind their normal service life. This backlog is presumably a result of insufficient funds being available to tackle the various issues. This is a situation that can be ignored until such problems inevitably make their presence felt. The cost of a heavy general fades into the distance compared with the finances required to tackle infrastructure projects. 5 million pounds for each of the larger HRs would barely scratch the surface.

The conclusion one draws from many of the preceding contributions, is that the question of finance is considered of utmost importance, but that infrastructure is not top of the enthusiasts 'to do list'. It appears HRs in the main are struggling to attract sufficient revenue from fare paying passengers to adequately maintain their long term assets. There is certainly a limit on how long this situation will remain sustainable. Individuals and groups provide some/all finance for certain projects, but this contribution does not normally include the month on month service issue of infrastructure. It is somewhat interesting to note that the recent SVR share issue, whose originally thrust was designed for much needed passenger improvements at Bridgnorth, is now being spread across a wide range of projects. Many of which are not infrastructure related. Passengers to Bridgnorth may have to wait a little longer for any improvements to the four Bs.

 

I think that the size of the infrastructure time-bomb may be very different railway to railway. My own has committed much recently to bridge works, and we have acquired sleepers and rail almost continuously (though quietly). Thankfully we are built on chalk, and whilst small slips happen all the time, big ones are less likely. I think most of the big railways spend fairly continuously on infrastructure, but as it isn't something that is easy to raise collection money for (outside of major extensions or big landslips) this spending tends to be below the radar. Locos are "easy" to raise money for, so that is where most of the "noise" is.... A theory, I may be wrong, and I don't deny that there is quite obviously arrears in some places.

My bigger concern is that all HR are almost constantly adding to their infrastructure, with a fanatical aversion to removing any of it. This to me raises two problems, one is that some stations are becoming almost a pastiche, with the number of "lamp rooms" etc leading to a somewhat twee look. (Not that this is entirely without historical precedent to judge from old pictures of the GWR for example who did seem to have a penchant for little sheds). The second issue is that someone has to maintain all this stuff, and failure to do so leads to a poor appearance. It is much more interesting to build something new than maintain what there is, and that in any volunteer organisation may present a challenge. It is this challenge that we need to face with creativity. Not that I think that all expansion is bad, far from it, some is appropriate.

 

Whilst I am sure its true that HRs are spending continuously on infrastructure, it is the available finance for such investment, and the scale of spending required, which should be of concern. Large scale investment is required just to stand still. This observation is not intended as a criticism of HRs, more a statement of the obvious. The reality is that money for such investment is not being generated in sufficient volumes by the present model - passenger revenue. Consideration will eventually have be given to additional finance streams. One suggestion might be that where a HR can be shown to bring economic benefit to an area or community, consideration could be given to approaching County Councils in a co-ordinated manner. Money may be tight everywhere, but a good case well presented can do no harm.

 

A debate – one that always provokes excitement among volunteers – about whether SVR should return to the glory days of being a big player in main line steam is burbling away in the Other Place, where it will be ignored by the Holdings Board as usual. In But it is interesting, so I have moved it here, where I am only intermittently on the naughty step.

The NR-SVR main line connection has been expensively upgraded, but the inertia and long planning horizons for tour operators means it is dead money at the moment, something the cash-strapped railway can ill afford. Efforts to run tours originating from Bridgnorth have faltered, possibly due to the cost of positioning the ECS main line set and engine(s) in the day before, putting fares in the upper end of tour prices, in a local market that doesn’t like unbelting.
The debate in the Other Place is loco-centric of course, and this is perhaps wrong, Bridgnorth MPD is only very slowly dragging itself out of the chaotic depths and will take several more years to settle into a rhythm. And SVR would be competing head to head with Tyseley in the haulage business, whose reputation for loco reliability and availability on the main line is fearsome.

The SVR has many glories but the most unsung of them all is the carriage fleet. It has been run on a shoestring for far too long and now paid consultants (again – Hurrah!) are trying to sort it all out. HMRI have removed most of the obstacles to “plating” older carriages, but the response from the heritage sector has been muted. Perhaps we are all too old to remember that the SV LTD has had some well-patronised adventures off SVR half a lifetime ago. Today carriages are the Achilles heel of main line steam – most of the charter vehicles are tired, and have not seen an upholsterer for far too long. A vacancy exists for a really gorgeous charter train, with plenty of First Class accommodation and dining capability, falling below the VSOE but above the grottier Mk 1 and 2s and with about 400 seats.

The maintenance cost differential between 25 mph trundling and 60 mph is not huge – mostly in ultra-sonics, more regular body lifts, closer attention to couplers and buffing gear, and not too much woodworm in the body. But the income can be very different – up to £3000 for an outing and the catering income is yours too. They can be used in normal domestic service - they would only be "quarantined" after the FTR, 24 hrs before they go out.

A main line pre-nationalisation train, anyone? Hauled by someone else's vacuum braked kettle? All of them can still suck on demand...

GF-G

 

Really the SVR can't spare a set for mainline running. Of the 5 regular passenger sets, GW2 needs at lot of work to bring it up to a standard where daily use is ok. This is being done as part of the share issue, but it will take time. Set N requires work in the next few years and the general back log of work makes the suggestion impractical in the short term for certain.
As for starting locations for railtours, well we have problems at the 3 biggest stations. Bridgnorth is right at the other end of the line from the mainline connection so there's logistic problems of getting everything there, plus it's usage adds time onto the journey leading to those early starts. Bewdley is better but has a small car park so not ideal. Meanwhile Kidderminster has nice big car parks, long platforms to take the train, and is easier to get to by transport. But the train would have to be dragged out and the loco take it over the exchange. Plus what's the point of running it from there as you might as well just start it at the mainline station and not go through the hassle of arranging the moves on and off the valley.
Having the Valley as a destination leads to questions of where the tour terminates. Bridgnorth seems the obvious choice but it requires a path all the way there and it fitting in with SVR services. Also a timetable C won't really be compatiable with a railtour at Bridgnort so takes the summer not really a choice. Bewdley I think is better. Closer to the connection so it would run less of a risk of being held up for any reason. Also there are 3 platforms at Bewdley so there's more available space to have the railtour stock. The engine can easily run light to Kidderminster for turning.

 

Those lacking hair pigment to a similar degree as myself may recall several wonderful rail-tours with our then registered set. Most amusing in my recollection was being joined by some normals at Padd who thought a GW/WR liveried set was an HST. (They walk amongst us.)

If, and it is quite a big if, a similar set could be assembled I see an appeal to a younger/completely new generation of punters regardless of the source of haulage.
So far as incoming tours are concerned; until such time as Bridgnorth Station's facilities can adequately accommodate an incoming rail-tour it may not be the wisest place for it to terminate. The same might be equally applied to Bewdley. IMO incoming tours are best put on hold or the time being.

Finding paths should not be beyond the wit of man were the SVR to be used as the source for tours, . Within the railway's pathing limitations a special timetable to suit could be created. (Hasn't there been timetable shuffles to suit special trains before?)

 

I sincerely hope that the SVR does not get back into mainline running. The last thing they need is a vanity project.

Why do I call it a vanity project?
1. There is a limited to potential to add to the bottom line....the profit available from hiring vehicles (carriages or locos) to mainline operation is not huge
2. The amount of maintenance required does significantly increase, the FTRs for one thing becomes a much more considerable drain on manpower
3. It is a distraction from the business of running the railway....management time and energy will be channelled into supporting the mainline operation at the expense of the SVR
4. The risks of running on the Network both physical and financial are greater and the SVR can exercise much less control over their mitigation

The well loved MHR "Green Train" operations where only the operation of the train on the mainline was handled by a 3rd party or the whole train was hired to an promoter (usually Steam Dreams) added almost nothing to bottom line of the company, and significantly disrupted all other operations. It was probably worthwhile for the MHR as a reputation building exercise, and as a way of putting some darker days behind us, but it was not a way of supporting or enhancing our own operation and that is why it was stopped. SVR has no need of such a brand building project.