SVR General Discussion

So please explain things like the selling off of trackwork that was at the Stourport junction that went to Telford then asking for donations to replace the rails in Bridgnorth yard?
I’m no accountant but it really doesn’t take a degree in applied rollock’s to know that if it’s good enough for Telford, why is it not good enough the SVR?

There has been a lot of mismanagement that can be laid not just at Ms Smith’s door, but those at the current board as well.
I won’t name names but I have quite a few friends involved at the SVR but when I hear the same old same old from unconnected people, I can’t help but wonder where has it gone so bloody wrong?

I totally understand that things have changed since 2019. But I have to say that peeing off ordinary people that are willing to help and support you (with their own cash and free time) is not exactly the best way of making friends and influencing people.
Matt. (Someone who has contributed a fair old bit of time and cash to the SVR over the years)

 

Having things like a blanket ban on photo charters with visiting locomotives when they’ve run in the past I’d say is cutting of revenue from an existing market, not just from the charter but secondary spend with things like catering.

 

I am not in a position to answer in detail. I am arms length and unlike you never intimately involved. My impressions are formed from conversations I had with managers on the railway.

Like many places I think the SVR has in a sense lives beyond its means a bit. There has been a series of hugely expensive infrastructure projects and the trackbed is an expensive one. I am thinking of the area around Sterns but also the fact that the sub road bed is ash and therefore not as stable as for example the Watercress Line which is chalk.

Bluntly I think cash flow has been an issue rather more often than might be expected for what is arguably the premier heritage railway. This might explain the track sale you mentioned?

The origins of the current and recent problems have roots many years past. Perhaps the slip at Highley was the start, but that’s my speculation.

Anyway, you who are more involved are entitled to form your views and you may form better ones than I. All I am sharing is a view as a disinterested observer. I don’t see a situation where the blame can be placed at one person’s feet.

 

There were I think two elements to that weren’t there? First the scrutiny the railway was under about falls from height, and second a concern that after adding in the organisational costs they didn’t make any money? I am not decrying or defending btw.

 

There is a lot of negativity being thrown at the board and outgoing manager here, however, I do not see many suggestions as to what people would do differently.
All railways are facing massive issues at the moment. Visiting a heritage railway is a luxury which people can do without, so our railways must now fight for every visitor. People want value for money at a time when costs have risen hugely. There are some who now need to prioritise their food and heating over leisure. The market that was there pre-pandemic is not there.
So do railways carry on regardless and put things back to as they were in 2019? Or do they cut their cloth accordingly?
The Ffestiniog reckoned it provided enough seats to carry 600,000 passengers a year. The Swanage believes it maybe carrying 2/3 fresh air. Do we carry on steaming locomotives at £400 tonne of coal when trains aren't full, or do we target steam locomotives to when people want to travel? The SVR have tried a few measures, some have worked, some haven't evidently.
The Ffestiniog's solution is to continue with pre-booking, a train only departs when it is viable. There is a greater focus on shorter journeys, full line journeys are now a premium product. The Swanage has talked about cutting out wasted journeys and focusing more on premium experiences. Greater use of diesels are now more than likely on a lot of railways. The NYMR hiked prices and cut services. I have spoken previously about the Strathspey railway having a number of different experiences at different price points on the same train, ultimately they have one engine in steam and 3 departures - it controls costs and maximises revenue.
Above are a variety of solutions, but not all of them are right and not all will fit every railway. Deciding what is right and will work is the role of the board and GM. Doing nothing is likely financial suicide. To do the right thing I think they need a crystal ball and an account with the local book maker. I wouldnt want that job, but if anybody does think they can do it please apply for the vacancy at Comberton Hill, Kidderminster..

 

I was pondering the what to do. The conundrum is that changes in the availability of volunteers and their skill set means that cutting back the paid workforce and returning to those simpler all volunteer days is near impossible for lines like the SVR, or is at the very least a multi year project. Very sadly I think that for some railways the only way to go in the short term is fewer services, less steam and higher prices aiming for a premium day out. That may have to form the first step in a longer term strategy for restructuring.

 

Three rhetorical questions:
1. How much does it cost to run a steam service on your loco heritage railway for one day?
2. If you put up prices by say 10% what is the reduction in the number of passengers (people prepared to pay that fare)?
3. If you run a diesel rather than steam how does this impact passenger numbers (and thus revenue) and how does it impact costs (bearing in mind the high fixed costs of heritage railwys)

The problem faced by many Heritage Railways is that they simply do not know what impact some of the measures they can take will actually do to the bottom line.
One of my concerns is that if you put diesel on instead of steam either many potential passengers will turn away (if they hadnt checked in advance) or will travel that day but not come back in the future.
I certainly am not minded to drive xx miles to travel behind a diesel loco or on a dmu. Likewise I am not prepared to pay the quote high fares for a diesel ride. Sorry but there it is.

 

The falling from height issue was about the working practices, nothing to do with photo charters. The railway set the price for them, if they think they are not making enough then they are not charging enough. There’s also a steaming fee for the loco owner. I have just spent £100 on a one day charter at the Bluebell and they seem happy with that and as someone has mentioned there’s the add on spending, almost everyone had their breakfast at Sheffield Park and had the shop been open there’s a couple of books I want.

 

There’s also a question of value. Away from galas (which are different) many railways run different service patterns at different parts of the year, yet charge the same fare. If a line like the Bluebell sometimes operates 4 round trips, 1 train, 135min service interval; and sometimes operates six round trips, two different trains, 75min, service interval, which represents better value? If I’m only going to visit once in a year and have some flexibility in dates, why would I choose a quiet day when for the same price I can go on a busier day with higher value?

Lots of discussion here and in other fora about price: should we be focusing the conversation on value?

Tom

 

I reckoned that for a line of my close acquaintance the cost was about £2000 for the day. Probably more like £2500 now. Add to that a day of prep and a day of tidying up. True cost of a photo charter probably £3500 and that is only the incremental cost not the true cost with a contribution to overheads etc. That might add another £300.

30 people need to spend £126 each for the railway to break even. Secondary spend is nice, but half or less of what you spend ends up with the railway, the rest is costs. (I chose 30 as a random but comfortable number of people to manage line side).

Bear in mind that many charters are not organised by the railway and that the promoters have costs and an understandable desire to make a little margin often for a good cause. I would suggest that your £100 ticket might be what the market will bear, but is possibly only half of the true economic price that ought to be being charged. You can apply the same considerations to most things heritage railways do. GMs are constantly trying to square that circle.

There are other reasons for doing photo charters which are not revenue. However, different managers will assess those benefits differently as they are subjective.

On the falling from height issue, you are right about where the incidents sparking concern started. However, you then need to consider all activities. Photo charters then look very risky. You have untrained people who are not employees trackside. They climb on and off trains at various locations without platforms. They erect and stand on ladders. They may walk over or be close to underbridges and culverts, which may not yet have the full protection for falls from height. I can understand why there was a halt called. You might understand that communication if all the background might be a challenge.

 

A difficult conversation to have. Value (and the perception of value by a customer - and no two customers are the same) encompasses a great many factors.
Certainly at one level the frequency of service and the traction provided can give to some customers wide ranging levels of value which may or indeed may not influence their decision whether to purchase.

We can debate value endlessly but imho the reality is that the majority of potential customers looking for a day out quickly use "tinternet" to establish a range of options and then fairly quickly make a simple decision based on a number of factors including possibly the weather over which none has control.

I do think though that heritage railways who promote (and have the facilities) a wider experience (shop, cafe, museum, picnic area, ancillary attractions eg bus museum on the East Lancs, Falconry IOWSR) are in a better position to attract patronage than those who dont. Value For Money and the Customer Experience is vital in attracting both new and repeat patronage.

 

I think you are looking at it from an accountants point of view, ignoring the fact that most of not all of the people involved in the running of the charter are unpaid volunteers. You are right, 30 is the comfortable maximum number and the going rate now seems to be £100- £125 for a day.
You are wrong about the participants being untrained, there is a daily safety brief but virtually all will have attended some of these events before with a number being railway volunteers, some of us even have a PTS card for the big railway. If climbing up and down a short ladder to get on and off the train is unsafe then maybe we shouldn’t risk getting out of bed in the morning. Any railway concerned about intelligent adults crossing bridges could ban that on charters if the wished. Most railways now, quite rightly, ban the use of ladders and require everyone to stand at least 2m from the track. Interestingly the safe distance on NR is 1.4m on 100mph line.
By far the biggest risk for me on Saturday was the drive round the M25 to get there.

Having said that the banning of charters and withdrawal of lineside passes was just the last straw, I had been concerned about the way railway was heading for some time. I believe the latter was stopped on safety grounds but anyone with a lineside permit could keep it until it expired which is totally illogical, it’s either safe or unsafe.

 

The Ffestiniog model has had to change quite a lot. Pre-booking is still important but not essential for travel. Last year the demand for short journeys was overestimated, and the demand for long journeys underestimated. On the Welsh Highland especially the demand for full line trips outstripped supply because they were only available on certain days. Pre-booking means that couldn't be changed easily. Shorter trips are popular with families during the holiday season, but the couples and groups that make up a lot of the traffic outside of that seem to want the full experience.

Trying to maximise passengers per train mile and provide flexibility is not easy. It has taken significant investment in ticketing systems both on and off trains. At one point we were turning people away at stations because we couldn't sell them tickets. Not a great situation.

On the positive side last year was more profitable from ticket sales than pre-covid. So something must be going right.

Next year the FR plans to publish a minimum service for the year and then add more if there is demand. Ultimately the system needs to be able to adapt to the market. The goal is the maximise income per-train. Not just adopt a model and stick with it for the sake of it.

 

The ending of photo charters on the SVR was a direct consequence of the falls from height and the subsequent ORR involvement. See https://www.svrlive.com/blmar21

 

Enthusiasts may regard the Severn Valley as the premier heritage railway but other railways such as the North Yorkshire Moors and Ffestiniog have invariably carried more passengers. In 1995 only 172,000 were carried on the Valley, 2005 saw a record 252,000 but by 2015 (50th Anniversary) had fallen progressively to 204,000, less than the Swanage. The SVR has had a reputation going back to the 1990s for running 6-8 coach off-peak trains that are half empty. The SVR asset base is far in excess of what the recent passenger income will support.

 

I was aware of that,I was a member at the time. You mean it was used as an excuse, the ORR has confirmed it has no problem with properly run charters or lineside passes, the Bluebell are reintroducing them. It safety had been the major consideration then existing lineside passes would have been cancelled immediately as happened on the GCR.

 

A safety brief doesn't make you trained and deemed competent thought? A safety brief should just set out the plans for the day and the generic rules. The fact you've been somewhere else and haven't got injured doesn't count for anything.

 

A safety brief can be part of the risk assessment to reduce the risk to an acceptable level though.

 

That was almost exactly the response I expected and demonstrates perfectly why these decisions are not always fully explained in background, because you ignored the most important part of the point. The money.

I am definitely not an accountant. Nor am I ignoring the volunteer input. What I am telling you though from having looked at this in detail for another railway is that the “going rate” does not fully compensate the railway for the cost of putting on the event. Now, I very railway will have a different cost make up, but those I looked at will be comparable with the SVR.

On the untrained bit you know as well as I do that a PTS is not transferable. That is to say the fact you have a Network Rail PTS is meaningless on someone else’s railway unless they have concluded in their safety standards that they are willing to accept that PTS as sufficient. Not everyone will hold any form of PTS even though many will.

The last point you make is fair. I think the railway was being pragmatic about an issue they knew was contentious.

Part of the issue here overall it seems to me is that Helen Smith was having to deliver a huge range of highly unpalatable truths one after another just to stand any chance of still having a railway to run. As demonstrated here those truths are unwelcome.

I quite understand your position about photo charters etc. I have total sympathy. My simple point is that just because you pay a big ticket price you should not assume that the event is in fact profitable.