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

This would be as much a vanity project as the proposed rebuilding of Bridgnorth was. If the railway is struggling to meet the needs to maintain and renew its infrastructure, locomotives and carriages (the current SVR news has a rather dire report on the state of the coaches) then why waste money on a mainline set.

 

I never rode the SVR set but I did go to Devon in the GWS set and I can tell you now, NEVER again. Give me a nice comfortable Mk1 any day! Jeez those old seats are uncomfortable!

 

I beg to differ Sir! The in-use GW set on the SVR is as comfortable as a Mk1.

On the question of having an SVR coaching set registered for mainline use, why? There are operators out there who provide the rolling stock, ok it has to be worked in ECS, but for the odd mainline foray by say the Black 5, then there would be no case for trying to bring an SVR service rake up to scratch. In any event I would doubt if there would be enough spare capacity as such.

Steve (Bean Counter) from the NYMR might enlighten us on costs etc, assuming the Whitby stock has to meet full NR requirements.


But no, have a NR certified engine if a benefactor is willing to pay, but thinking about a whole rake of SVR coaches NR certified is a step too far surely. Just hire them in, because presumably they come as a package with food/refreshments, stewards, quite apart from the ongoing inspection/certification/maintenance etc. As others have mentioned, the SVR rolling stock overhaul situation is overstretched anyway.

46118

 

Whilst the GW set may be comfortable there is little chance of a derogation for wooden bodied stock on the mainline - railmotor is an exceptional case.

I agree with 46118 that SVR needs all the stock it has andwhen a set is spare it is being maintained so not available for a jolly

 

A small point but one I think worth making: to my knowledge, NR footed the vast majority of the bill for the recent upgrades. The SVR's contribution was minimal as the need and inertia for the upgrade came from NR.

As to the debate over the SVR returning to the mainline: I'm with Neil.

 

Jamie: Had not seen that comment about NR and the connection before, but you must have said that having had reliable info from somewhere.

Here is a comment from the SVR General Manager in his December Roundup: "...we want to encourage TOC's to use the crossover (sic) on a more frequent basis in 2014".

That could mean mainline tours originating from or arriving at the SVR direct from NR, it could also open up the possibility of commercial operations, ie driver training on new rolling stock, as did happen some years ago, but the DMU type escapes me. They ran between Kidderminster and Bewdley as far as I recall.

In an earlier post I mentioned the NYMR and NR registered coaching stock, but of course their operation is different in that it is their service trains that continue to Whitby, rather that say a rake purely for mainline tours, which I am sure the SVR could not justify, either in terms of the actual rolling stock, or indeed the costs associated.

46118.

 

Eeek! That went down like a cup of cold sick. The SVR’s “Can’t Do Department” is truly a thing of beauty – ruthlessly efficient and finely honed, and probably not unrelated to the miserable financials you are experiencing.

While I am grateful to all for taking the trouble to reply, I am a bit discombobulated by the, ahem, lack of evidence presented, and some of the misconceptions – that SVR does not have a spare set (it does, most sets are not running on most days of the year) that derogation for wooden stock is impossible (No, it isn’t, it has been made easier than ever and Railmotor 92 was only a special case because no category of Grandfather Rights existed for a steam railmotor) . 12,000 members only have to read SVR News to see that the carriage fleet is tired and stuck behind a massive bow wave of investment that (like so many other things) dwarves the share issue. It is a tribute to the volunteers and paid staff of the C & W that most SVR trains still run in their booked formations or close to it, and mostly look better than they ever have, but despite that most service train departures lose money. So you can spare a set IF the bottom line is better than dragging it up and down the Valley for a tenner a head. It would be quite hard for your bottom line to be worse – see your Annual Report & Accounts since 2007.

If you wait for railtour operators to bring trains to you, expect a maximum of three in 2014. Income to SVR of about £6000, maybe a shade more but not much.

If sending a set main line is worth, with catering, say £100,000 per annum gross income (around 10 days out) can you afford to be sniffy about it before you understand the costs in detail? The main line is booming – 500 trains a year, while SVR remains in the revenue doldrums. There is a difference between a vanity project and responding to a known commercial demand. The Green Train, shortly to be reunited with Marcus, was a lesson, but not a showstopper – MHR had just one customer. That is always uncomfortable...for both sides. And the Green Train was nothing special. Mk 2s never are.

There remains an unscratched itch within some at the Valley to play away from home. There remains commercial merit in the old Draper/Rees argument that the national prestige and marketing benefit such adventures created was bought cheaply. Argue against the case, by all means, but don’t be blind to the merits of it. The business grew during your time on the main line. It doesn’t now. You cannot prove a connection, but you can’t disprove it either. Maybe Draper and Rees did know their stuff after all. The sheer amount of work being done to hammer the Bridgnorth Project into a costed deliverable scheme shows how far a company can drift from reality when it wants to. And yes, SVR does need a prestige project 21B, because Steamworks and it's toxic fallout did very great harm.

The question is not whether you can path a tour over your own railway – you can if you want to, and have done before. The question is, or should be, how much extra would it cost to plate a set for main line service as part of the routine C & W process, and is that cost less than the combined hire and catering revenue on offer. If there is a market for such a set – and I assure you there is – kicking the idea into the long grass without crunching the numbers is commercial arrogance.

Thank you again to all the participants.

GF-G

 

What was the green train?

 

A main line certified rake of mainly MK2s based on the Mid Hants and nick named the green train as it was - painted green

 

So vanity projects that are a railway enthusiasts are fine but vanity projects that don't appeal to the railway enthusiast are not. I can't see why the SVR needs a prestige project. That's exactly the kind of thinking that was getting a good kicking when the share issue and Bridgnorth redevelopment were announced. I think the railway would be better focused on doing all the things that it needs to keep the basic railway operating while trying to increase traffic numbers rather than focusing on another 'Project Xandu'.

 

First of all welcome back GF-G. I notice you have been dreaming up mainline projects whilst on the naughty step .
Your experience, views and ideas always generate interesting discussion, and in the case of the planned 'steamworks' redevelopment provided a welcome focus for change.

I have to admit to having next to no knowledge and even less experience regarding the funding dynamics of mainline excursions. What strikes me as interesting are the comments from others with similar limited experience. Additional significant revenue from whatever sources is urgently required for almost all HRs. One would hope that proposals and ideas for potential additional funding streams would be heard, considered and costed sympathetically. The model that relies solely on increasing passenger numbers is one that should be giving all of us increasing cause for concern. It is a relatively simple model, having somewhat fewer unknown and far less complex input parameters than climate change . In addition to the limited number of variables, solid data available is recent and unfortunately in general, with a few notable exceptions, point in one direction. At best flat lining. Expenditure in a myriad of cost centre's on the other hand, is increasing at alarming rates. Somehow increases in potential revenue streams other than passenger numbers is required. The real question must be, what might be the practical economic solutions that take us financially too where we would all like to be.

 

You're wrong on all counts. Firstly I am not an SVR member so the comment about negativism does not apply to me (I haven't even visited recently). Secondly I have direct experience of the pitfalls of operating on the mainline. Thirdly, I do not believe that the "fallout" from the Steam Works project has caused very much of a ripple outside of the SVR community itself. Fourthly, it is most unlikely that running a set of vintage carriages on the mainline would provide any sort of antidote to any reputational issues the SVR may have at present because it would I am sure be seen as more of the same attitude as caused the Steam Works issues in the first place....that is to say a vanity project. Fifthly, if there remains an itch felt by some, then I think flea powder would be a better antidote!

 

Gios, you are, as always, far more gracious than I deserve but I thank you anyway. We are as one on the priority we attach to the earnings side of the P & L account, but it seems we are the few. And yes, plans are afoot for some serious commemoration and celebration of our industry’s role in the effort to break barbarity and, ironically given the tone of some posters in here, restore freedom of expression in places it had been missing for several years. As Noel Coward sang in 1943; Don't let's be beastly to the G*****s!

I think my income forecast is pretty close, and I do know my demand forecast is right – just to restate, main line steam is booming and there is an appetite among operators for a 400 seat set that has more character and quality than is out there now, and can be worked by any kettle, not just the ones with an air pump. Being based in or near the centre of the network is an advantage. If SVR did it, they would have their hand snatched off. 10 days work is a very conservative if informed guess.

The question I cannot answer single-handed is what it would cost, because I do not know the real condition of the fleet. The latest SVR News is pretty bleak, and suggests all is teetering on the brink of collapse, but how much of that is political manipulation I cannot say. Perhaps they really are all hen-houses but I doubt it - I think C & W places a proper emphasis on safety for 25 mph, which means they are good for 40 mph without the wheels falling off, so the cost leap up to a 60mph maintenance regime for one set is probably not too onerous and the ROI would be better than most things SVR is involved in.

I would have thought £100,000 a year extra income out of the existing assets would have been worth at least a few minutes adding up., if only to prove me wromg, instead of just being shouty. Shows how old fashioned and out of date I am – and you too Gios!! Flatlining is absolutely the word...
Best

GF-G

 

Genuine question gets genuine reply. If you run a railway then running on the mainline is not sufficiently remunerative to offset the many and various downsides. During Green Train years the mainline operation was cashflow positive and made a small profit for the company, but many many other aspects of the railway's operation fell into arrears. If the train was out two days a week as it often was that meant total dedication by all the paid staff plus many volunteers to get the train turned around between trips (cleaning, re-marshalling, FTR, running maintenance, etc etc). Even when we just ran Bittern and the carriages were someone else's problem, it was still quite disruptive to the loco dept, because if you've committed to a mainline run, some big sums are at stake, and not being ready isn't good enough.

Mainline running is a mistress that demands constant and undivided attention. Best left to those who specialise in that business. The NYMR may be a different case to this rule because of the very specific circumstances.

 

Have to say I agree with 21B here. The core business of a heritage line is running its own heritage services. Anything that diverts attention from that business risks diverting management attention and resources away from where they should be focused - on the core product.

Besides, before taking rake of carriages and gallivanting off beyond Kidderminster, are you really certain you have maximised the use of those assets on your own line? For example, lets just assume that the SVR has a spare rake of vintage carriages to spare. (Sounds like it doesn't, but for the sake of argument, let's assume it has carriages to spare). So what use are you making of them? Currently it is Santa season - so do you just run a basic Santa service, one price and one market? Or do you segment - the core market in the Mark 1s, but promote a "1920s Christmas" event, at a premium, using the vintage set? Additional fare, and tapping into passengers who might ordinarily not travel on the Santa services. What about other times in the year? If the vintage coaches are such an asset and so desirable to ride in, surely there is a premium market on the main SVR at much lower cost and risk, long before thinking about the additional complexity of going onto the mainline.

I happen to believe, for the record, that vintage carriages are an asset, and the carriages on the SVR are one of the main things that attracts me to the line as a fare paying passenger (even to the point of putting up with that dreadful racket all the identikit green engines make! ) But were I an SVR member (I'm not, for the record), I'd want to be really certain that the railway had maximised the commercial opportunities on its own line before it entertained any notions of entering the much riskier world of the mainline.

Tom

 

46118 has asked about the costs of mainline approval. Now, I am not the expert on the technical side (others are!), but the first point is that it is actually against the law of the land to run a Mark 1 coach or similar (separate body and chassis) on the national network. It is also a legal requirement to have central door locking (CDL).

Of course, exemptions are available and it is under these that Mark 1s run on the network. One condition is secondary door bolts and a minimum level of stewarding their operation. This covers the CDL provision.

The NYMR complies with both requirements and our exemption from the Mark 1 ban covers Whitby to Middlesbrough (and our stock has worked the full route) even tough our Safety Case is Whitby to Battersby. The maximum speed to Middlesbrough is 50mph between Battersby and Middlesbrugh and 45mph between Grosmont and Battersby, which is the effective maximum to which our vehicles can run. Technically, as plain metal bearing Mark 1s (in the main), they are limited to 75mph. The point has been made to me by both operators and engineers that above 50mph, the risk of a hot box, which on the network means abandoning the affected vehicle in the next available cripple siding, means that the risks in running above 50mph are probably unacceptable to the owners of the carriages.

Apart from amended paperwork, the other thing our Mark 1s would need is an orange strip[ to warm of overhead wires along the cant rail - an interesting addition to vintage carriages! It is my understanding taht there is no blanket ban on wooden framed vehicles being registered anew, but a risk based approach would be taken. This would clearly include a consideration of risk based on maximum speed and on type of vehicle to vehicle couplings.

Necessary maintenance systems and records are probably what best practice dictates anyway and I am sure that the SVR would have no issues on this point. Buckeyes would have to have a lower shelf bracket, which means the Guards all need 3 Weetabix before coupling or uncoupling as this takes the weight over 100lb. Fitness to Run (FTR) exams are needed every 3 days and can be reasonably manpower intensive, as a best practice is for a different person to sign off as Fit to Run to the one who has undertaken any repairs needed to reach that condition. The NYMR has at least 2 and for a few weeks 3 sets requiring current FTRs and when the new platform opens at Whitby, itb will become 3, raising to 4 when the Diner runs to Battersby. Clearly, normal inspections cover many of the same issues but such things as the door blots need checking and the documentation is of a set format (and must be held by Control before network operations can commence).

Now what this doesn't cover is who would actually operate gfg's proposed mainline service as TOC.

Steven

 

Tom, as always an interesting contribution. Your view on price differentials for different sets is an interesting contribution, but would probably only apply to enthusiasts. The main passenger revenue comes from Mum, Dad and two and a half kids, and this differential would probably be neither well understood or appreciated. Maybe for enthusiast days like Gala's and other special occasions there is some potential. We do have a big green engine that operated on the SR and another BR standard under construction .

GF-G, I am sure that there are more than two of us with similar concerns - maybe three ! Don't be too hasty. Tom's and other contributions show there are others with valuable ideas. Lets hope someone is listening !

 

I don't have the time to write the business case that experience tells me would be much less than compelling, but why don't you prove us wrong by doing the research?

Of course income from existing assets is interesting, but these are not existing assets. Yes the carriages exist, but they cannot be used for the purpose you advocate without an investment of capital, which rather changes the picture.

There are also two concepts which you need to include in your business case when you put it together. An assessment of risks and as Tom was alluding to above, an assessment of the opportunity cost. Regarding opportunity cost this set will be off the railway at times (not just 10 days a year, but likely 2 or 3 days either side of the "run" as well) so what would you otherwise do with that set for the 20 or 30 days a year that you won't have it available for the railway's use? Since the busier period for tours coincides with the busier period for the railway, and since the set will need to be 10 carriages minimum to be attractive, the opportunity cost could be said to be the cost of having an additional 10 operational carriages. I suspect that by the time you've dealt with the capital cost of that, the increased maintenance bill overall and various other considerations, there will be very little left of your £100k income to become the most important part of the P&L....profit.

By all means HRs have to find every means to make money, but I really sincerely, do not believe that sending vehicles mainline is financially attractive compared with other uses for the capital and other uses for the vehicles themselves. And finally, smashing up a few Mk1s or Mk2s wouldn't be the end of the world as there are a few around, but having rare, wooden bodied GW carriages next to a class 47 on fire (as happened to WCRC) is not a risk that I would be prepared to take if I were an SVR Director.

 

To reiterate one of Pete's points, on timetable C (almost all saturdays from May till September) there are 4 service trains so 4 sets. In addition, most times a footplate experience is out and if this is the intermediate or supreme version, another set is required. So out of the 5 regular passenger sets, we have none remaining.
Any suggestion of mainlining a set for the short to intermediate term is pretty much idoitic. 21B's comments about the green train show the problems and until C&W has caught up on the backlog, anything that increases the pressure on C&W is a no no.