SVR General Discussion

Yes - because as an employer, you have duties to your staff. How you do that, and balance the cost to the organisation vs the possible income is always a trade-off. You can offer concessions, but you will pay for protecting yourself from most financial risks by reducing the possible profits.

The issue with employing staff at voluntary organisations is not whether you have them, or even how much they cost - it's how you balance the roles of paid staff against volunteers, and get the best out of both.

 

There are plenty of heritage railways that have deliberately aimed to recruit senior management from outside the sector. They presumably did so to try and rectify something they perceived as lacking from their internal (or the sector in general) abilities. I don't personally know the people at SVR, or elsewhere, that have done this, but the financial and operational performance of most railways is not too difficult to see and draw conclusions from (rightly or wrongly. We all tend to judge - but most of us choose to not publish our conclusions in a public forum).

 

I hope any new GM will take into consideration that certain supporting groups can use Kidderminster as a base for sales stands again. I know of one such support group who's fund raising activities has seen a dramatic decline in revenue. Add C19 and a major failure of motive power over the last few years the revenue has dwindle considerably.

 

Kidderminster Station was a much more welcoming place when the stalls were operating. They help set the tone of a happy volunteer led organisation. I’ve visited the 813 at Bewdley and the SMF in the nursery but it most certainly isnt the same. I used to deliberately buy both from the stalls and the SVR shop to support the railway and the groups bur since covid the official SVR outlets don’t stock many books and as you say the 813 and others have been hidden away further up the line.

 

I wonder who you could possibly mean?

 

From Companies House and the last (2021) accounts:

Total Managing Director and key management* remuneration (note 27) is 585,361

Notes 8 and 27 show that remuneration includes social security costs (at around 7%) and pension (the MD's pension contributions is 5%).

The MD's total remuneration was 93,857. MD emoluments - salaries and benefits in kind is shown as 89,397 plus 5% pension 4,460. If you knock out 7% social security costs it gives the MD's 2021 salary and benefits in kind figure of around 82,994.

Key management* remuneration (note 27) is 491,504. I model that at around 434,571 in salary and benefits, plus 7% social security and 5% pension.

*I'm not sure who's included in that. There are 8 'heads of' listed in SVR News: visitor experience [includes ticketing, food, beverage, retail, events], traction and rolling stock [diesels and carriage & wagon], steam, operations, marketing and comms, H&S, infrastructure, and finance. It might also include some managers?

There's more than a few caveats attached to workings of this sort (it was a Covid year, some comings and goings, you're averaging soc security and pensions when they will differ between people etc) but it puts some flesh on the bones.

For context a lazy Google search tells me the national average salary for a Head of Health and Safety is £70,561

 

There are a few suggesting that the SVR GM was pushed/resigned, while the news simply says she's moving to a new job after 3+ (difficult) years.

There are always "haters" who can say that someone was pushed and good riddance.

There are many reasons why people change jobs. Perhaps she couldn't get the existing management to change their ways? Or had a change of personal circumstances?

 

Or had a more interesting opening?

 

I will be interested to see the 2023 timetable after reading in Branchlines ....

"Operations will be concentrated into four days a week, using a mix of steam- and heritage diesel- hauled services. "

 

All the GMs faced the same challenges. Different nuances perhaps and different levels of support from their railways, but same story everywhere. That should take nothing away from Helen Smith who was already dealing with a fairly poor hand of cards before the pandemic struck.

 

A video on the works at Bridgnorth

 

I really don't think you will, and if the reality of rumours are correct it is a shocking state of affairs compared to the railway the SVR was pre-Covid.
ONE steam engine per day, two diesel as the standard timetable (I'm a diesel fan and supporter, but I recognise steam is the draw for most).
I still do not have the full grasp of the figures and finances, and await those as a member, but it would fair to say the outgoing GM/Managing director and the associated board have left the railway in its worst state this century. 2022 passenger figures seem to down approx. 30% down on pre covid figures, most would acknowledge the volunteer morale and crucially retention rate is probably at an all-time low and many lifetime supporters and shareholders have turned their back on the line after the way they have been treated in the last four years.
The strategic decisions over marketing, a move to corporate fundraising instead of individuals, and it seems a refusal to listen to the volunteer base over the erosion of the culture of the SVR has led us to this place. The blame for that is squarely on the board and the departing GM, many other railways and attractions have been able to bounce back or come close to the pre covid figures for turnover and visitors, so I cannot accept the COVID disruption as an excuse for such a poor year.
There are still good people who work at the SVR, including at board level. They need to step up and find a way of re-engaging the volunteer base, the core supporters and enthusiasts who have felt their value to the railway was somewhat diminished.

 

It is interesting to draw two parallels with Swanage Railway:
1. Passenger numbers down C30%
2. A reduced timetable for 2023 with one steam engine per day except apparently for the peak school summer holiday.
Furthermore low morale and a drop in volunteer retention rate has been reported anecdotally at other Heritage Railways.
This suggests to me that at least part of the cause of these "declines" is due to much wider factors than those impacting SVR alone.
In a wider vein it has been widely reported that many older people who ceased work as a result of COVID19 are "reluctant" to go back to work.
Is it possible that those self same factors are discouraging some volunteers from volunteering to the extent they used to and also serve as some form of force that lowers morale / satisfaction with what they are doing. Is peoples perception of volunteering such that they no longer get the same satisfaction from it they used?
No one really knows however it strikes me that some are blaming GMs CEOs Boards for the current state of affairs their ability to impact / change is very limited indeed.

 

It will be interesting to see the timetable as we were planning to visit just before Easter, but if the timetable is poor we may well go somewhere else instead. It will be ahame as we have enjoyed our previous visits including during COVID. We particular like a steam ride.

 

The governance structure of the SVR is complex and not helpful to making any changes.
It is my belief that the railway has been living on borrowed time financially for a lot longer than the last three years taking into account the extensive ground condition and pway issues that have dogged the railway in some cases since it was built.
The pandemic has accelerated some trends that were in play already.
The List of heritage railways that have held or returned to near 2019 levels is small, whatever most of them say in public.
There is undoubtedly in my view a common theme of reluctance/inability to engage well with volunteers and members, but the situations railway to railway have important differences.
Several of us have been saying for a while that we are seeing an existential threat to heritage railways emerging the likes of which has not been seen before.
I think Helen Smith was well aware of the challenges from the beginning and was attempting to address them. It was my impression that the railway may not have got through the last couple of years without some of those actions and the structure may have hindered both change and communication.

 

Can "the reluctance / inability to engage well with volunteers and members" be "created" by the fact that some of the messages which have to be delivered by the GM / CEO / The Board are, in the current situation, going to be unpalatable and dispiriting / demoralising to the volunteers and members? No one likes either having to deliver or receive bad news and lets be honest as soon as the purse strings have to be tightened then long cherished pet projects have to be postponed. Is a snow ball effect or spiral of bad news > demoralising of the workforce in play.

In my opinion there is a very significant threat to heritage railways caused by a sea change in the market in which HRs operate. Costs quite simply have been rising faster than revenue generation. Labour, materials have all become much more expensive. Revenues are static or in decline because competition for the leisure pound has increased and fewer people are choosing to visit Heritage Railways.

Each heritage railway is a unique enterprise however they share many many common features so it is not surprising we are seeing similar effects across many heritage railways.

Perhaps, and this will be unpalatable to many, heritage railways will have to retrench to where they were 15 or 20 years ago (or even more). Shorter running seasons with fewer services so they can reduce their locomotive hire and maintenance bills and paid staff cohort. It may be a very stark choice between a smaller heritage railway or no heritage railway at all.

 

But then you've got less revenue to spread your fixed annual overheads around. Some trimming of unprofitable days may be wise, but I'm unconvinced that drastic cuts as some railways seem to be contemplating are the answer - they may well make things worse as and when substantial repairs become necessary. I'm not sure what the answer is, but those suggestions that we need to improve what we offer to encourage repeat visits feels more sustainable to me than major cutbacks.

 

Yes agreed your comment re fixed annual overheads which is why some careful financial modelling is required. I note the suggestion of "improving what we offer" but then I ask the simple questions "what are those improvements" "what will they cost" and finally "will they produce more visits"(whether repeat or new customers). Better catering offer, better toilets, more interpretation are often suggestions advanced but will these encourage patronage? Reaching out into new markets is one avenue to be pursued but then there is the risk that it moves the railway away from its core roots and therein lies the rub in that it may serve to alienate the core volunteers and members.

There are no simple solutions but to do nothing for many heritage railways is no longer a choice.