Happy to support SVR

3:11pm Saturday 10th May 2008

Comments (1)   Have your say »

I AM replying to letters from Mr Nock and Mr Burgess to defend the Severn Valley Railway.

To my knowledge SVR has not received £3.5million of taxpayers' money. The figure is the current estimated cost of the repairs.

The amounts offered by Advantage West Midlands were (according to their website):

So a total of £1.25 million for repairs plus any rate relief given by Wyre Forest District Council - this is less than 50 per cent of the total so not "mainly taxpayers' money".

It has been widely reported that certain types of local businesses have seen dramatic loss of business whilst the railway has been closed. Pubs restaurants, hotels, shops and garages all benefit from the extra trade generated by the railway which helps to promote the area as a destination for more than just day trips.

The balance of the cost will have to be found by the company and its members from The Flood Damage Appeal, insurance, company reserves and, if necessary, loans.

Mr Burgess is technically correct when he says the SVR is a profit-making company. However, this is misleading. Severn Valley Railway (Holdings) is a plc and as such is legally required to submit accounts and trade "profitably" - anything else would be potentially illegal.

SVR Holdings does not to my knowledge pay a monetary dividend. It only provides travel benefits to its shareholders. Profits are retained in the reserves for funding repairs and investing in the infrastructure exactly as Mr Burgess would wish.

The SVR is NOT a charity. Some preserved railways are, however. The management decided it was not appropriate to operate the SVR in this way as it lacked sufficient flexibility to operate the railway in the most prudent manor.

Certain activities have been established as charities - fr example the SVR Rolling Stock Trust to protect historic items separately from running the railway.

Clearly if the only beneficiaries from these public contributions were the membership there would be an issue , but Advantage WM will have to justify that its money has been used appropriately.

Most of the money spent with contractors will have been with local firms and the restoration of the line will improve the prospects of encouraging more visitors.

I, for one, have no objection to the use of my tax money in this way. I have additionally contributed to the company and the Flood Damage Appeal.

It would be a great shame to see the railway disappear and this would seem a much better use of my taxes than many things which have been in receipt of public funds.

R PEARSON Areley Kings