SVR General Discussion

I would say they are catering to a very different market to the charters of old: "...This course will teach you more about the theory behind photography and allow you pick up some useful tips and tricks, in Lee’s fun, informative style" , "....we will learn more about different photography techniques before trying these out within The Engine House, packed full of iconic exhibits. We will also have exclusive access inside King George VI’s Royal Saloon and access onto two static locomotive’s cabs – normally off limits to the public."

Perhaps I'm unimaginative, but I've never been particularly inspired by photos I've seen taken from the balcony at Highley, so a course that promotes access to that as a vantage point to take photos of passing trains, before traveling to Arley to walk to Victoria Bridge (like wot anyone can do at any time) - tends to suggest the courses being run in association with "Chappers Photography" aren't setting out to allow people to capture the type of photos which the railway uses as promotional material on social media (which is still often from line-side vantage points) - they are courses for people to wander around all the normally accessible areas (Royal Saloons aside) taking photos of standard service trains and quirky features that catch their eye - ie. easy money for the railway which needs to do zero extra from their normal day to day operations.

 

I remember my father telling me that he took out life membership of the Medical Defence Union (not sure about the title) when he qualified. It was something eye-watering like 25 Guineas (in 1948). At the time he told me the same cover was £ Thousands. Best value he ever had, he reckoned (and never claimed once).
Pat

 

If you limit lifetime membership to the simple sum of lifetime cost divided by annual cost, you remove the incentive to take out a lifetime subscription. Always better to have the money up front rather than a trickle feed. For both parties it is a gamble. For the member, it is that he will live long enough to benefit from it, for the society, it is that he won't live long enough to benefit.

 

Finances and all the good reasons in the world aside, the discussion has to come down to whether life means life and there are two questions. One concerns existing commitments (for such they are), the other concerns future policy.

In tbe case of existing life members, there's really no pratting around. If life no longer does mean life, have the guts and honesty to stop claiming it's life membership and deal with the fallout without blaming anyone else.. Call me old fashioned, but changing the rules mid game is distinctly un-British. Folk signed up in good faith and let's face it, none of us live forever so honouring existing life memberships becomes less of a problem with every passing year anyway. It really is that simple.

Then there's new memberships and here, I agree with an earlier comment that too often, rates and conditions are left unchanged until some desperate imperative results in a considerable hike to something closer to a realistic level. In my experience, panicked knee-jerk reactions tend on the whole to not result in good decisions. Whatever is done, it needs to be (a) workable (b) equitable and (c) sustainable.

Perhaps a leaf ought to be taken from several of the new build and other funding 'covenent' payment schemes, where they unashamedly advertise 'Bronze', 'Silver' and 'Gold' membership benefits. There are any number of add on permutations which can then be played with.

It wouldn't be unduly difficult to have a base level life membership rate, with the sort of benefits that plop through the letterbox, or into the email 'inbox', or slinging your ashes in the firebox (a good way of keeping track of when members bave fallen off their perches, is that .... commemorative train headboard would be extra, of couse!) then offer the different 'opt in' benefits as bolt-ons (as either discounted rates or exclusive features), selected annually, making those effectively a perk of the basic membership and making that worth having.

It'd keep the basic 'whole life' rate reasonable, would mean the memberships could remain a meaningful gift, purchased for family or friends, but one which can then be tailored to (from the perspective of the member) their specific interests at any of the various points in their life and (from the perspective of the railway) keep the 'one-off' income stream from both the base-level 'lifers' and at the same time, garnering some annual income to take more realistic account of the economics of the various benefits offered .... some of which change over time anyway.

 

I believe the SVR has changed its membership rates on a fairly regular basis in the past. It was the shareholder benefit thresholds that were left unchanged for much too long (IMO), which made large changes necessary (although let's not revisit all the issues about poor communication).

I hope I'm wrong, but the cynic in me says that with the current coal situation and longer term prospects for both coal and diesel, they won't be selling many life memberships to people expecting to get 50 years of benefits out of them at the moment.

 

We're joint life members, since sometime around the turn of the century I guess?, all for £300 at the time. We've an actuarial expectancy of ~25 and ~30 years more respectively. I don't think the Railway's made much out of it!

 

I suspect the main thought of most members of railways along with other voluntary organisations is to support something they believe in rather than calculate whether they are better off to the pound with their membership fees compared to x number of visits per year as a casual visitor. Indeed there will be some who never get to visit the railway from year to year but are happy to make a contribution towards a worthwhile cause in their own way.

As just one example of how people prefer something they love to keep going without getting a return was when Covid struck in 2020 and curtained the football season Partick Thistle had 97% of their supporters refuse a season ticket refund preferring the money to help keep their club in existence.

 

That works for me!

 

It’s a ‘learn how to use your camera’ session, not a ‘phot interesting trains’ day.

This type of diversification activity is the type of thing lines need to explore to make the most of their assets in the least disruptive way. Seems like a really good idea to me.

Simon

 

Have we reached the point where this discussion warrants it's own thread?

I've absolutely no doubt you're right and that's the case for the overwhelming number life members, just as it is for those who take up share issues in the full knowledge they will never see a penny dividend. Whether the same applies to quite as many spouses in joint life memberships, or a second stack of share certificates in wifey's name for tax reasons (and only then discovered in hubby's paperwork, p.o.p!) is a slightly different question, of course .... but .... kindly do note my comments about differentiating between existing and future 'lifers'. Nor does my suggestion touch on any other lump sum donation or bequest one might choose to make .... which since 1st October 1990, for UK tax payers, benefit from UK Gift Aid.

For a lot of us oldsters, a chap's money is a grubby subject and one properly avoided in polite discourse (and quite rightly so, IMHO!), but the awful truth is, whilst the ambience of our lines provides a very welcome refuge from reality and a chance to wallow for a few hours in rose tinted bucolic bliss, that illusion sure as hell stops with a jarring bump at the door of the finance director!

For what reason do life memberships exist? Bottom line, to line the railway's coffers. The nice warm feeling the life member gets is a by-product. A very satisfying one, sure, but a by-product nonetheless. Does anything I've advanced change that? Not really. The lifer's 'one off' still gets life membership, as before, plus access to the AGM (plus EGMs, in certain cases, but let's not go there!), newsletters and member's forums. It's still the social glue for members it's always been and I'd not suggest changing that aspect one single jot.

The only difference is those additional perks which do come with a significant cost implication for lines. Those, I'd suggest, are better provided in a manner suited to whatever conditions prevail in any given year.

Furthermore, annual (say) Bronze, Silver and Gold 'bolt ons' (call 'em whatever's most appropriate), which the member can select (via an online membership portal) gives that member the opportunity to better match the expectations of their membership for the forthcoming year to their current plans and circumstances. The same could apply to annual (or family) memberships, with a differentiated rate which could serve to encourage splashing out on the 'life' option. Like it or not, from that perspective it's one more marketing tool, so needs to be one deployed to best effect for both the line and it's members. Done properly, it could make life a damned sight easier for hard pressed membership secretaries too.

Consider .... Young (mortgage strapped) parent, taking the better half, ankle biters and the family dog on a day out is a very different prospect from grandpa treating grandkid(s) to a day out, let alone grandpa having the time for a solo visit ("other halves" deserve a day's peace occasionally too!) and leisurely uninterrupted stroll round everything of interest.

We all know forecasting trends in an upcoming season is a fraught enough process. Is anyone seriously suggesting lines should be bound by assurances given for an open ended period, on the basis of a donation which might've payed for a fair proportion of a retube in 1964, but today wouldn't buy two tubes? I'm four square behind honouring existing agreements and understandings, but perpetuating something you know for certain is only going to cause more problems into the future is another matter entirely.

Might I offer an observation from "Forty Years of the Talyllyn Railway" [by Christopher White 1991 AB Publishing]:

"Tom Rolt was General Manager ar Tywyn for the first two summers and received £30 a month expenses for his efforts, the equivalent of 240 return trips from Wharf to Abergynolwyn. The fact that this would have cost £1056 in 1990 reflects the way that fares have increased by more than the general rate of inflation"

Now, I know what you're thinking and I'll save you the trouble. The answer for 2022, based on the current £20 Day Explorer Ticket is ...... (drum roll please) ...... £4800.

Thoughts, folks?

 

I agree with much of that. However, I disagree on one important point. If I take out a life membership of the Little Snoring Railway, I am giving them a significant sum of money, usually in return for a mixture of benefits. Some represent an opportunity cost - travel perks, for example - while others like magazines cost the railway money to produce and circulate.

If - which I applaud - railways are tightening their focus on the value of the benefits they grant, then they need to do so in a way that is both prudent and generous. So clawing back travel concessions, for example, undermines goodwill. But offering electronic communications only, and charging a small annual premium for paper, could retain the contact but without the same level of production and distribution costs.

 

Sorry, but 'clawing back'? Can't see the basis for that assertion. I've very specifically drawn a distinct line between existing life memberships, Here I believe honouring an agreement, however inconvenient that may now be, is paramount, which I believe answers your concern as expressed.

It's also the precise reason why I've deliberately and separately considered (one possible way of) answering the question 'is that still the best way we can manage things in future?'. If there were no problem evident in persisting with the current model, why has this discussion cropped up? If you extend LeCorbusier's logic to memberships, they're actually 'a product'.

Existing arrangements have always had 'soft sell' marketing (and it is 'marketing', even if it's just an A5 flier, in a rack at a station or exhibition, or a page on the website). I happen to think the IT age presents opportunities us oldsters can't see (or won't consider!). Tradition has it's place in a movement predicated on nostalgia, but that place isn't, or oughtn't, to be found in hobbling those things on which our lines rely for income .... and memberships are undoubtedly one such thing.

Your point re: magazines is well made. Whilst producing online content doesn't bear the same financial burden as the printed, totally free to produce it ain't! I write that as a lover of the printed word and images, but as a necessary and long overdue cull of magazines a few years back testifies, retaining hard copy comes with it's own issues (my own book collection remains sacrosanct!).

For most purposes, online access is far from some poor substitute and let's face it, many, if not most of the millennial generation (who we'll need to replace us lot as we fall off our perches) have likely never so much as considered buying a printed magazine. From what I've seen across the board, there's some scope for better indexing online content, but my guess is such facilities will evolve organically.

My personal view is that communication, online (as a minimum) or in a printed magazine, is a basic function of any membership and isn't an adjunct. Others may differ on that one.

For the rest, nothing I've suggested is all that novel and only concerns giving options to members. As a 'for instance', some lines may have enough members scattered across the globe* to make 'special edition' models available (members could register interest, any excess from a run being a prime candidate for premium price sales, unique to a railway shop, or affiliate). That'd be of interest to those members to whom it's of interest, but not to others, where there might be other things which float their boat.

*how useful are two free trips a year to someone living on the other side of the world? A different benefit may be far more useful to them. Options!

 

I've actually got a theory on this that runs counter to a lot of assumptions that you see and hear from railways (and other orgs) - being 41 and working in what you might call social research my take is that railways are increasingly looking (as a member of a few I've noted it in their newsletters/magazines) to go online as it's what the 'young people' want and it will save them money.

Many print magazines have actually gone up in sales over the pandemic, and we're starting to see a rise in those in their 20s going for them deliberately. At the same time, phonelines (this is more anecdotal) have also been busier with younger people in the last 24 months than they have been for years in some places (vs online bookings). A lot of people have spent the last 2 years or so staring at screens, and welcome either printed matter or a phone conversation to break things up.

I find myself in the odd situation where my 72 year old father is more fully digital than I am - simply because he's not staring at a screen for work for 8-9 hours per day, and I actually find myself being *less* digital in my leisure time than I was before the pandemic.

My heart sinks every time I see the 'note from the editor' of the Little Snoring Railway Preservation Society along the lines of 'the world is being digital, we're going to look at whether we can change to providing you with updates electronically.'

I want the newsletter in an envelope through the door please. Don't make my leisure time indistinguishable from my work time!

(by the way, as an aside, direct marketing of leaflets and mailshots is actually having its best response rate for years at the moment, because millennials get so little post that they're opening it out of curiosity).

The world is changing, but sometimes not in obvious ways.

 

But in what numbers? Yes, vinyl music sales has shot up, but from what to what?

I (and the plural of anecdote is not data) love analogue stuff, but end up reading digital stuff on my phone. I reckon the split is probably all the routine stuff electronically, and a nice shinything once per quarter. Even that can be electronic, my old bike racing club had a brilliant photographer who'd do a virtual magazine after every meet. Even though I was never in it, the pics were amazing, so I'd always look at it.

 

On the specific matter of printed versus online communications, and leaving aside short-term announcements for which online speed is a major advantage, many organisations now give members the choice of a getting the newsletter/journal/whatever you call it on paper or electronically, with different subscription rates. Those who want the paper pay the extra cost. Existing life members should be entitled to the printed version but could be invited to forego it.

 

In terms of not moving the goalposts mid-match, that sounds equitable.

One factor is how the unit price increases as print run numbers drop. I'm not well enough up on printing production costs to know how stable they are, year on year.

One quick point I overlooked earlier was the ever rising cost of the postal service. Four magazines a year will cost .... how much? I've rather lost track of Royal Mail's ever more complex pricing structure, but 4x (however many hundreds) soon adds up. I note the latest stamp issues now include a QR code where a price used to be and heard something on a news report to the effect older stamps, merely identified as 1st class with no price or code, now have a finite validity.

 

On memberships: @30854 stated above: "For what reason do life memberships exist? Bottom line, to line the railway's coffers. The nice warm feeling the life member gets is a by-product." I think one needs to be careful there. Yes, certainly, membership provides a revenue stream. However, it is important to realise that is not just the membership fee itself. Look at how railways have been successful in appeals: I strongly suspect that a significant percentage of that income comes from the existing members. In other words, the fact of having. membership provides you with an audience to promote a message about the need to raise further funds. (And right through to writing a will: I may not leave money to a charitable cause in my will, but if I do so, it is far more likely to be to an organisation to which I feel an emotional attachment than some random good cause plucked out of the æther).

The other point is about seeing membership discounts as a "cost". If I take a seat that would otherwise be empty at half price, that should be seen as half a fare rather than no fare; not half a fare rather than a full fare. The marginal cost of carrying someone is near zero if the seat would otherwise be empty. Only if a railway is specifically putting on trains (or adding additional carriages) solely for members (and which wouldn't otherwise run) is there a direct cost. Similarly, if I buy something from teh cafe or shop with a 10% member discount, you need to consider whether that represents a sale that would have occurred anyway or not. Certainly I can think of things bought from my railway's shop which, had I not been a member, I would probably have gone elsewhere - firstly on cost grounds, and secondly because were I not a member, I would feel less loyalty towards one retailer over another.

The TL,DR: unless a railway has really screwed up its benefits package, my view is that members should be seen as a benefit, not a cost, and almost certainly provide net cash to the organisation that would not otherwise appear.

Tom

 

TL,DR; Agreed, it is wrong to focus on 'lost revenue'.

Very well put, and in the SVR's case this applies to both the members' discount (1/3) and shareholder free travel. At the individual level (all figures for illustrative purposes) let's say that:

As a (non-working) member I spent £20 on a membership and travelled 12 times in a year at £16 (reduced from £24). That is income to the railway of £212.
If I had travelled 12 times at full fare without being a member, the revenue would have been £288. So if the railway looks at the "lost revenue" they would say they lost £96 of fares in exchange for a £20 membership.
However, if I was not a member, I would not necessarily have travelled 12 times at full fare. I may have chosen to limit my spend to the around the same figure and only travelled 9 times (£216). Therefore it does not follow that they have lost any money as a result of my being a member and travelling more often.

Now assume I make a one-off donation and buy some shares, but would otherwise only be willing to spend my regular amount. As a result of having a pass, I decide to travel twice as often. The railway headline "lost revenue" is now £576 (24 journeys at £24). However I am only travelling that often because of the pass (ie I am maximising the benefit I receive in exchange for my donation for the shares). Crucially I would not have travelled that often otherwise, therefore the actual lost revenue is still only £216. If I bring a guest who otherwise would not pay to visit, the theoretical "lost revenue" becomes £1,152 but the actual lost revenue is still only £216.

All the above assumes that by travelling, I am not preventing somebody else from buying a ticket at full fare, which is generally true as turn up on the day tickets are always available.

I fully agree that once the numbers become too high, it does take on a cost to the railway. I think the numbers for "free travel" (shareholders and working members) were at least 20% which does mean an extra 1-2 coaches per train. However there are other benefits (secondary spend, additional donations and so on).

 

^ I agree.

We don’t live anywhere near the lines I hold membership/shares in, so it’s a weekend away to make a visit feasible. Not cheap.

If it wasn’t for the ‘perks’ we’d never go, and as it is we’d only visit once a year. I guess we’re not alone here?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk