Alexandria - yes they are active.  They post all of there sermons on their website.  It is servi.org.  I listen to their sunday sermons.  And, I must say, they are very good sermons.  

Here a priest of Servants of the Holy Family tells the name of the Bishop who ordained them after explaining how it happened and why they did not initially reveal the name: https://www.instagram.com/reel/CvuzBaYLfTB/?igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

I always dislike it when a priest or bishop isn't willing to be forthcoming about his orders, what bishop ordained or consecrated him, what that bishop's lineage is, whether the priest was ordained in the old or new rite, and so on.

Why not just put the information out there, front and center, and let the faithful make up their own minds?  If a priest was ordained in the new rite, and/or by a bishop who was consecrated in the new rite, just come right out and say it.  Those who object to this can just stay away.  Those who don't mind it, can agree to receive that priest's sacraments.  It's not complicated.

Tell the truth, the whole truth, and let the chips fall where they may.  The traditional faithful shouldn't have to go "digging" to find out what their priest or bishop won't tell them.  That breeds nothing but distrust.  Put another way, there's nobody who thinks "the priest won't tell us the circuмstances of his ordination, oh, how wonderful, he's definitely a priest from whom I want to receive the sacraments". And we've all seen in recent years what can happen when a priest is a "man of mystery" whose past history and present life circuмstances aren't fully known.

Not hardly.

To a point, I can understand hiding the precise identity of the bishop (SSPV did it for +Mendez until he died), to prevent him from getting into trouble with the Conciliars, but at least they should have been forthcoming that this bishop 1) was ordained in the Traditional Rite before Vatican II but 2) was consecrated in the New Rite after Vatican II.  With at least this much information, which does nothing to leak his identity (since that applied to probably a couple hundred bishops), the faithful could at least decide whether to go there for the Sacraments.  Yes, you have to "trust" them that they're not lying about it, that a consecration did in fact take place and it was done in the manner they claim, but they shouldn't have to "trust" and accept their theological judgment that the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration does not labor under positive doubt.  Without knowing these details, and without trusting them, I wouldn't so much as darken the door on their chapel.