SVR General Discussion

Being really direct there are either too many heritage attractions (not just railways) and some will have to close, or ticket prices have to rise. Heritage Railways have a particularly high cost base and they attract too few customers.

There are two ways forward. Increase numbers or increase prices. (Doing both would be nice, but usually unrealistic).

Micheal Draper famously said there were too many railways. That was an oversimplification because there are other attractions, but if we assume that the % of the number of people going on a day out that would consider a ride behind a steam engine is relatively stable then to cover the costs there needs to be fewer railways (or fewer services) in order to allow more visits per railway.

Running fewer empty trains is clearly important. However, it will be difficult to reduce costs because of the fixed infrastructure cost which isn’t that susceptible to reduction in line with reduced usage.

If raising prices then providing value will be important. The day out will need to look attractive compared to all the other things I could do. The FR has scenery. The IOWSR has a museum (and relatively fewer competitors in the days out space in its isolated geography). The Watercress Line does amazing family events. The SVR has museums and pubs and scenery. There are lots of ways to show value. But it is an expensive day out. It probably needs to be more expensive, and the experiences will need to change and develop to justify the expense. It is not easy to do when the cost base is so unavoidably high.

 

To add to the conundrum if you reduce the frequency too much there won't be time to stop off and see the museum.

 

Lots of comments and certainly the last two or three years have seen several problems for the SVR. Can I suggest that comments should be directed to ensuring the financial future of the Railway.
There are certainly many problems that require addressing, and almost certainly just as many positive suggestions. No one can solve in the short term, the historical problems of a Branch Line constructed in an unstable Valley and the inherent stability problems.
A good start would be to get Shareholders and volunteers on side again. A lot of muddy water has passed along the Seven and these groups need to be treated as an important part of the SVR family. Generating income is important if not critical. There should be some open and honest discussion about how the SVR can improve its bottom line - visitors. There have been several ideas proposed above, and more I am sure from members and volunteers, Suggestions and ideas need to be bought together and discussed by whoever is deemed the 'competent authority'.
A little more openness in the financial and decision making processes to members and shareholders would not go amiss.

 

Those of us who attended the subsequent SVR(H) AGM were informed by Helen Smith of the extent of the ORR's involvement. I do not propose to repeat what she said, but the potential consequences of further ORR involvement are well described in post#2670 above (to which I would add the most serious consequence being the potential closure of the railway itself).

The point was raised up-thread about distinguishing between staff and volunteers. If someone falls off a ladder while mending a carriage, the ORR would make no distinction between the two. Similarly, they would be unlikely to make a distinction between somebody falling off a ladder while mending a carriage or while attending a photo charter. From the railway's point of view, mending carriages (with the associated risk) is essential, whereas photo charters are not. Obviously each railway has to make their own choices as to whether they are willing to continue with the practice, but the SVR management has decided they are not willing to take the risk. I would say that was the 'reason' for their decision, not the 'excuse' for it.

 

Hypothetical.

Dear fellow board members,

Here are two potential versions of the calendar for 2023, one (call it version 1) has fewer running days, fewer trains and greater diesel haulage than the other (call it version 2). Finance have also run the two against worst and best case projections for passenger numbers/spend of x and y. We'd all like to run calendar version 2 with more trains but if we did that and the worst case projection x happens we'd run out of cash. I recommend it would be prudent to run calendar version 1. Your call.

None of us here knows what 1, 2, x or y are, or how much cash is available. It's an unenviable task.

 

Having been in compliance engineering for many years the difficulty is the balance between what the authorities ideally want , which is often far too cautious, and what they will actually accept. It is not easy to get the balance but you can end up being too risk adverse without thinking what mitigations you can have in place such as procedures that minimise the risk. Sometimes a robust discussion is needed, based on real facts, and you have not got to be afraid to have that. Sometimes the result maybe you need more people to oversee a particular circumstance, if so you need to build that into the cost rather than to not do it.

 

Odd that other railways seem to think differently, as I said they set the price. I think it’s a bit of an insult to suggest that a group of intelligent adults don’t know how to conduct themselves safely. As I said it was the last straw for me, very sad after all those years I’ve seen what happens on other railways when the people in suits take over, Helen Smith leaves a less happy railway than when she took over, hopefully they will learn the lesson and get a Robin Coombes type next time.

 

Hypothetical

"Dear fellow Board Members,

We either need to reduce our overhead and staffing costs to a level that is commensurate with our post-covid earnings and operating costs, or continue as we are and risk the future survival of the SVR. Your call."

An unenviable task indeed.

 

Whilst I would not disagree Tom, what I think is unclear, although may be known or part known by various HR managements is what a normal operating day normal visitor is and hoe far they have travelled that day to get there.
Is it someone who just want one ride on a steam hauled train, (I guess if you offer a separate rover at a higher price you may have some idea)
Is it someone who wants to spend the day there and have more than one trip
Do diesels matter, do not know, I suspect they do from what I have seen at Swanage when the one diesel one steam advertised service operates.
Would folks pay more for steam than diesel, or will they want to pay less. In other words do you put up the steam fare.

The problem is I suspect when we on here visit we have enthusiast wants and needs, but on most lines what percentage are enthusiasts at non event days?

Looking at the service you mention in your post or what has been given as the 2023 SVR service I would suspect I would not travel very far for either offering. If I was in the area then maybe, but my days of a 250 mile round trip for as little as they offer are long gone for me. Of course you can only have so many trips in a day on the longer lines, so maybe quieter days would appeal to me, especially in this post (current?) Covid world.

 

I do realise charters and lineside passes mean a lot to you John (I had one myself for many years) but in the economic hole the HR part of the leisure industry finds itself in it is really just background noise in my opinion.

 

Different companies place different emphasis on rate of return, and have different cost models. They may also have different risk appetites, and also different demands on their time. If I were a manager with responsibilities that have a "you could go to jail" stamp on them, I would be thinking very hard about the value of an activity against the potential costs of that activity, especially if I already had the regulator looking very closely at my organisation.

None of which stops me mourning what else is being lost on the way.

 

As I said it was just the last straw, there are plenty of railways still willing to do them. I will still visit the Valley with my camera for the Galas and use my shareholder tickets and I have a lot of happy memories, especially in the early days.

 

I think you have an odd idea about how markets work. But, in this instance the railway decided that no price was adequate reward, or more probably no price that was likely to be paid. Most railways haven’t really thought about the true cost OR as I said before they bring into the equation other things like the free publicity or the furtherance of charitable aims by seeing the goods wagons used.

Blaming one person for all the perceived ills, is like blaming them for not stopping rising flood waters causing your feet to get wet, when they had tried to put sand bags in front of your door, but you didn’t want them built so high you couldn’t climb over them.

 

Have we forgotten the terrible tragic accident that befell a young man - a rail enthusiast and rail industry worker- on the Gatwick Express in 2016. It only takes one moments inattention, one poor decision, one unfortunate combination of circumstances and the world changes for ever.

To create an absolutely safe railway would of course mean no railway at all. It is up to the Board to decide where to draw the line in terms of risk, taking into account the myriad of guidance available, the risk assessments carried out and indeed how the railways insurers view the risks the organisation takes.

One thing I would add, if you have ever been involved in a fatal or serious accident as an operator of public transport you will know that your perception of risk is changed forevermore. You will find yourself saying "what if" or "if only". Finally, in what is not meant to be melodramatic way, ask yourself this question "Would you want to be the person on the stand in court justifying why you permitted an activity to take place when it resulted in a fatality or life changing injury"?

 

If that’s the case we better close down the whole heritage railway operation straight away. The sort of thing we have been discussing is no less safe than anything faced by a normal fare paying passenger

 

That is complete and utter rubbish. Photo charters create much greater exposure to risk than anything a normal passenger is exposed to.

 

As I said in my earlier post "To create an absolutely safe railway would of course mean no railway at all. It is up to the Board to decide where to draw the line in terms of risk, taking into account the myriad of guidance available, the risk assessments carried out and indeed how the railways insurers view the risks the organisation takes."

I have not advocated a complete shut down. I have simply tried to put into context that my interpretation of the Boards action was that it deemed photo charters were the "wrong side of the line"they had drawn in determining where an acceptable risk lay and where an unacceptable risk lay.

As I understand it, on many photo charters the operation of the train, the actions of those attending the event are different to that of "normal fare paying passengers" especially that often it involves going lineside. It is self evident that in terms of safety there is not only an imaginary line drawn there is a physical boundary that marks two areas where the level of risk is assessed to be different. Those going lineside are required to have risk specific training (and other measures in place) to reduce the risk to them (and others) by virtue of them being in area where the assessed risk is different and self evidently greater without the risk mitigation procedures put in place.

 

The argument that, just because the majority of people involved from the railway are volunteers it makes it more viable is a false one. The vast majority of volunteers give their time for the railway, not to subsidise your event. In costing such things, they need to be charged out at a sensible rate. A good volunteer giving a day is probably worth £150 to a heritage railway, some a lot more, as that is what it would cost to employ someone.

 

You’ve obviously never attended one.

 

All the volunteers I know, including me, do so because they enjoy it. Any event on the railway whatever it is is all part of volunteering.