SVR General Discussion

As I said, the DMU was the mainstay of 'normal' running when diesel diagrams were first introduced to supplement steam, and so has been favoured on normal services (the point to which I was replying)

 

I believe your last sentence is correct. The track record of senior managers who know nothing about railways is not good. They have no idea of the passion and shear bloody mindedness in the early days that gave them the railways they have now. No doubt Helen Smith will walk away from, from what I can see is a thoroughly demoralised volunteer force and go and make a mess of some other heritage enterprise. Hopefully over the next few years the SVR can get back to what it was.

 

Just as with steam that depends on the loco .7714 is cheaper to operate than 34027.
D9551 is similar on economical use to a dmu ,20s not far behind ( hence 20048 hire in 2022).
40106 and 50s however ,use much more fuel ..they may attract more passengers too ,but whether the extra ticket sales cover the cost or not I wouldn’t know .

 

Exactly, I know Robin, he has a good analytical business head and another vital asset to any railway, he’s a railway enthusiast.

 

My Parents have said something very similar.

 

An interesting viewpoint, mirrored by many in the industry on the current pay/conditions change on the big railway.
Conversely my employers held the same view until the 90's when experience at a senior leaves of the industry was seen as a non necessity and often as a negative. Even at my low management level I was told that what we want is experience from other industries not from here. If you want a promotion start applying for jobs elsewhere.
So the GM has been there for what 3 or 4 years and in that time had the impact of and after effects of a global pandemic. I would suggest staying much longer would not look good on a CV and lets face it £90k, if that is the salary, is probably way below industry norms for a business of this level and responsibility.
Maybe many in our hobby or older ages still regard moving on as disloyalty, as it used to be seen, rather than today's views of employment.

 

We may not be talking about the same place then!
The 813 fund stall is now in a vehicle in the carpark at Bewdley btw if that helps, I'll not go into the politics behind it, but it would be useful to them if folks could spread the word on that.

 

From what I see on this forum I do wonder if the real cost of running a preserved railway and cost of restoration etc is reallybunderstood by all the volunteers, and how much income you need to keep going. Maybe there needs to be more communication of real costs and why they are what they are. The reality these days is very much if you don't run and attract fare paying passengers then you are not going to survive. I also think the public are more savvy these days on value for the experience including understanding/experiencing the historical aspects etc.

 

I'm sure it isn't - just as my church experience tells me that the real costs of simply keeping the building open aren't sufficiently understood. And that especially includes the value that volunteers ascribe to visitor numbers and donations - very frequently seeing objectively low numbers and small donations as important, when they are in reality marginal.

 

How many Robins are there that would want this role with the offered job description, in this location and at this time? A rhetorical question, only to illustrate there might not be a huge pool of Robins from whom to choose.

Accepting it's a generalisation, it's a pretty wide one. On the SVR:

Michael Draper (1976-1993) - came from finance
Alun Rees (1993-2006) - came through the ranks
Colin Binch (2006)
Nick Ralls (2007-2019) - came from heritage/tourism. Became a volunteer
Helen Smith (2019-2023) - came from heritage/tourism

It's subjective, but I don't think one would say the SVR's track record after 2006 (or indeed before 1993) is 'not good'. More balanced would be to say they all had strengths and weaknesses, but that senior managers who come to the role knowing something about railways will have a head start.

From editing the SVR newsletters I can attest that Helen Smith has been very open and forthright about finances, cost of running the railway, and the challenges it faces.

 

People don't want forthright and honesty, they just want to run big locos and empty trains. JohnB has a real bee in his bonnet about Helen Smith and she clearly was handed a bad hand with COVID coming up just after she took up the position but running a modern heritage railway takes more than knowing about trains. Which I'm sure that bee will be just as buzzy when the new manager takes office and sees its not all about playing trains.

 

Nick's father is/was a volunteer so Nick was also familiar (to some degree) with the SVR beforehand.

 

Sorry John but I think this is a really poor comment.

Having someone that has worked there way through the ranks will not necessarily make them a good leader of a heritage railway. A modern leader needs a knowledge of HR (equalities an imminent major issue for many I suspect), finance and company/charity law, as well as a commercial grounding and understanding of the sector they operate. Heritage Railways are not a sector of their own, rather being a leisure / historical attraction and need to compete for visitors with Castles, theme parks, so on. There will be other senior members of staff / directors that can advise on the practicalities, e.g. H&S, Engineering, Operations, of running a heritage railway, the GM's job being to make the day to day decisions using their advice.

It appears two of the 'premier league' heritage railways are suffering; away from the SVR the NYMR has - through seeking of regular arts funding - admitted it cannot balance the books on fare income and donations alone. That organisation is run by an enthusiast. The HR business model needs to change.

Fresh ideas and perspective from out with heritage railways should be celebrated; its not the 1970s anymore and 'this is the way its always been' can't fly anymore. Away from the immediate financial priorities, brining volunteers on board the required change journey will be one of the hardest tasks for any GM / Board going forward.

 

The more staff that you have you eventually need to have other function you end up with a Human Resources department pensions other railways outsource some off there function catering to reduce the number of people you directly employ. There are also paid staff at the SVR trust as well.

 

It shouldn't be forgotten either the increasing complexity of employment and personal relations legislation much of which applies to both paid and volenteers. Added to that is the fact that the Charity Commission continues to up the procedures it requires in place which you need to keep up with, I would add most of it for good reasons and lessons learned from things that went wrong in various charities. A lot of this a pure heritage enthusiast wouldn't be able to cope with, but someone capable will keep all these aspects smooth and keep under the radar of those overseeing these things.

 

I remember a colleague of mine who had been there and got the t-shirt as a (former) director of a heritage railway expressing the view that the business model of heritage railways was fundamentally broken. That was pre-covid; I don't think things have improved since.

There are three possible responses to that challenge.

1. Do nothing and hope magic happens
2. Do nothing and await the inevitable collapse
3. Do something that fundamentally changes that picture

My sense is that an awful lot of non-active members (and some active members) of heritage railways are banking on option 1 (but will in the process get option 2 without wanting it). The good ones in management and director roles are focused on option 3.

The question is then what does option 3 actually look like. I think for the bigger railways (of which the SVR is one, of course) there is something of a fork in the road. One possibility - which is the one the Bluebell appears to be taking, and I think the SVR, NYMR etc - is to attempt to remain a "big" railway. There is a focus on operating costs, days of operation etc, focus on which days and trains are remunerative; together with a push towards big - but not necessarily enthusiast-friendly - events: trains of lights, ice skating and all the rest. Effectively save the railway by driving high margin services. It's a tough sell, because without really good change management, you risk starting to alienate some of your core stakeholders of volunteers and enthusiasts.

The other side of the fork was alluded to above by @1472, a slimmed down, simplified, much more volunteer-focused railway. Essentially you try to make the railway run as far as possible on volunteers, cutting costs on staff (rather than driving income). My hunch is that that route potentially keeps your stakeholders more engaged. The difficulty is whether it is genuinely viable: to what extent will you continue to be able to fill roles of significant legal accountability from volunteers as the regulatory environment becomes more onerous? I think the very lean railways will potentially survive the next couple of years better than some of their more employee-heavy neighbours, but longer term the issue is going to be the viability of that model with increasing regulation and decreasing numbers of skilled volunteers.

It's a worrying time, and requires good leaders. The options on the table feel to me quite stark: a gradual financial collapse; an increased focus on events, services and reduced normal service that moves ever further away from preservation ideals; or a lean model that carries the risk that critical regulatory roles simply can't be filled by volunteers. (Also: history seems to show that volunteer organisations eventually grow increasing numbers of staff; I'm not aware of any organisation that has significantly gone the other way by choice).

Tom

 

I can only say what I see, the SVR is not the happy place I once knew and any railway that parts company from its roots does so at its peril. The bread and butter income may well be the family groups who pay the fares, travel on the Santa trains etc but they are not the ones who put their hand in their pocket when disaster strikes such as the floods in 2007 or when there is a share issue. Tom has alluded to what is happening but doing things that are alien to the enthusiast world are all to the good if it brings in the cash but it needs to be done with care and not go alongside alienating the natural supporters.
I began to have my doubts about the direction of the Valley when they wanted to build that hideous glass affair at Bridgnorth, thankfully later kicked into touch, the final straw was withdrawing lineside passes and photo charters. I know I wasn’t particularly important as a member and shareholder, having not been a working member since the early days, but I I know I’m not the only long standing member to have left. If I was responsible for membership I would want to know why someone would cancel after 52 years, I, and two others I know just got a one line email saying that they had complied with instructions and cancelled the direct debit.
Hopefully the Valley will get a Robin Coombes type replacement, it doesn’t matter about their professional background, probably the best GMs were Alun Rees and Michael Draper both of whom were railway enthusiasts.
To bring in new blood as volunteers a railway needs to sell itself to what is now a dwindling supply. I visited the Valley in 2021 followed by a few days down at the Bluebell with Clan Line, the difference in atmosphere and enthusiasm of the people was obvious.
I’m now a Bluebell member btw.

 

Not me, thanks.