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

I am not sure planners would be insisting on a 'modern' environment, just something that does not appear a modern take on the original station design. If you walk around Bridgnorth high town, all within the said conservation area, with many listed buildings, you will not see anything like the proposals that appear to be being made for Bridgnorth station. A good example is the terraced row of newbuild houses at the top of the Cartway. The SVR claims to be a heritage railway. What appears to being proposed, fly's in the face of the name heritage.

Like others have stated, I will attend the meetings. BUT until then my chequebook will remain firmly closed.

 

If the buildings are Grade II* rather than II, English Heritage will get the final say-so on the proposals rather than the local planners.

(EDIT - Just checked and they're not II*, they're Grade II. See http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/Details/Default.aspx?id=254340&mode=quick)

There are no set rules regarding modern development in the wider historic environment. Modern intervention is indeed encouraged, but more so for sites and building which have evolved over time and display different phases of development, the logic being that the current alteration should reflect that tradition. It's different where you have a cohesive piece of townscape of one particular phase - i.e. if there was a gap in Bath's Royal Crescent you woudln't do anything but infill it with a replica of John Wood the younger's original designs. This analogy may apply to Bridgnorth, but for my money I agree with the poster who stated that the buildings were ok but the footbridge was ill-considered. Besides, glass ballustrades with steam locos passing under several times a day? Wrong on a number of levels but definitely not sensible from a maintenance point of view!

 

Perhaps these appalling designs are a cunning trick by those that want to extend the SVR northwards. If it were to become a through station you would be under no obligation to stop an "soak up the ambiance".
Joke over. I agree with a number of the other posters here. I will bide my time and see what final designs appear. If the SVR fails to get them changed for the better my wallet will stay firmly closed.
Where does SVR plan for the WLA and P-way departments to go so they can build the new dormitory block? Do you want to eat or drink in part of a branch of Aldi or a B&Q warehouse? That being the look of the new bar extension and cafeteria. I think the planned glass and chrome/stainless steel footbridge will look grossly out of place. The designer has clearly not thought through the cleaning and maintenance implications of steam and diesel trains passing underneath it. For how long will it look all swish and modern?
I have to ask what sort of mish-mash will the site appear like when viewed from the War Memorial?

If the SVR management fail to challenge these design rules they will have failed the heritage movement and in my view their share issue will deserve to fail.

 

All very interesting, but what do the rules state about building an extension on an existing GradeII listed building that is within a Conservation Area?

 

The same, see SVR forum for a more detailed explanation.
Also from the SVR forum

 

What's happened to the post about the Director's shareholdings?

 

Can I please quote from official documentation with regards to altering or extending a GradeII listed building.
"Extensions and alterations must be carried out in such a way that the character of the building is protected."

 

A bot is a program on the Internet that carries out a task, typically logically simple but very repetitive, where the ability to carry out the same task over and over very quickly is valuable. They can be benign or malign.

Benign examples would be the search spiders that visit every page of a website so it can be indexed for a search engine - a task that would be beyond human capability to perform. Good etiquette labels these bots with recognisable names so that software for tracking web traffic can ignore them when calculating user stats.

Malign examples (which, not surprisingly tend not to neatly identify themselves) can be programmed e.g. to leave comments in blogs, forums etc, normally with the intention of getting unsuspecting users to click on a link to another website with possibly dodgy consequences. The ability to study other postings on the website and imitate the text makes it sometimes difficult to spot (though not in this case, it sounds).

Because sites such as blogs, forums etc normally require that you register before posting, the best way to stop a bot posting is to stop them registering in the first place, which is why "captcha" type software has grown up as a key component of registration systems in the last few years. But it is an arms race; as captcha software improves, so does the ability of bots to crack it and register themselves.

Right, as you were, back to the SVR share issue...

Tom

 

Ralph, you can call me any names you want but please, never a "bot". And while I note that David1984 finds it gobbledegook, I am reproducing it again below, because even in the 21st century good corporate governance and strong leadership still matters.

--------------------------------------------

The passion in this Forumfor the built environment at Bridgnorth is heartening. So too is the news that the SVR got a launch day response of £130,000, which is quite a lot of money. This of course includes the “bow wave” of applications made before the opening date from very loyal supporters. Some more of it will be from people who would have bought shares this year anyway (210,000 were sold like that last year, whenthere was no formal Issue as such) and leaves just £2.87 million to go. Plusthere remains the other £7 million the Directors have identified in the Share Offer Document as prudent or desirable expenditurewithin the foreseeable future but have yet to identify a source of funds. (Thereis always the Heritage Lottery Fund again of course, and some regional developmentfunding is still there despite the Bonfire of the Quangos that sank Advantage West Midlands. If the worst comesto the worst they can, like the Vicar of Titfield, put on the Mikado again).

But there is some discombobulating information lurking in Part 11 of the Share Offer Document about the SVR Holdings Directors who are seeking investment – and remember that legally this is a PLC, not a Charity. (There IS an SVR CharitableTrust Limited, but that is organisationally independent of the PLC,and raises funds for itself. They have imaginatively arranged a charity screeningof the new James Bond film in Worcester later this month, among other things).

But for the PLC, one thing any investor looks for before getting his cheque book out is the level of personal commitment shown by the Directors or Promoters of a Company. This is seenas a measure of the faith the promoters have in their own forecasts and ability to deliver. Investors like to know that if it all goes Pete Tong (and in the business world it often does) the Directors will be sharing their pain when the money glugs away. Inthe most literal sense, Directors are expected to put their own money where their mouths are.

There are 11 serving Directorsof SVR Holdings. In total they have previously bought, between them, less than 18,000 shares of a total of 4.2 million, or a tad short of 0.5%. One, the Safety Director, has 60 shares, worth £27 today. The biggest single shareholder on the Board has 8080. The Director of Commerce has just 500. Collectively, they have invested just about enough of their own cash to buy a Transit Van and a bucket, and set up a window cleaning round. 99.5% of SVR capital has come from supporters and well-wishers.

To keep their holding ateven that pitiful 0.5% the Directors will have to stump up about £15,000 between them. By way of comparison, Phil Swallow (yes, the Taw Valley one) has amassed 227,524 shares, or 4.7% of the total, and is not on the Board at all. Perhaps someone from SVR (H) would like to say in this forum how much of the £130,000 received to date has come from the Directors themselves? If they have personally stumped up a reasonable amount, say 5%, of the £3 million being sought those supporters maytake them more seriously. And the railway really does need the money.

Leadership by example is unbeatable..

 

If I can be permitted an outsider's viewpoint on geekfindergeneral's post.

Firstly, a declaration, or rather a non-declaration - I'm not an SVR member or shareholder, though I am a Bluebell member and shareholder and imagine there are similarities in setup between organisations.

GFG's main issue seems to be that, by maintaining very small shareholdings, the directors aren't "putting their money where their mouth is", so to speak. He contrasts this with more commercial companies.

However, I think the situation is very different. In a commercial company, the objective is to make money and ultimately pay a dividend. Therefore, if directors have a large shareholding, financially they stand to benefit when the company does well, which means there is an alignment between the interests of the company's shareholders and the directors. (At least that is the theory, it doesn't always work out quite that way as recent events in the City have shown).

However, in a company like the Bluebell Railway PLC - and presumably like the SVR company - there is little financial benefit in holding shares. (I get free tickets as a shareholder benefit, but no cash dividend, so there is no financial advantage in holding a large shareholding). Moreover, the main shareholder in the company (in our case the Bluebell railway Preservation Society, and presumably similar at the SVR) maintains a majority shareholding so that it can maintain a majority vote to ensure the policy of the company is not to make a large profit and certainly not to redistribute any profit as a dividend.

In that circumstance, the personal financial investment of the directors in shares is irrelevant. What matters far more when voting for or against a particular individual I would suggest is the skills and experience they bring to the job. Indeed, it is likely that for almost anyone involved, their personal investment of time as a volunteer will far outweigh any cash investment they may have made in shares.

So while I understand GFG's concern, I don't think it is relevant in this type of share offer. Certainly I think when standing for election anyone should declare their interest in shares, but really it is irrelevant to the future prospects of the company whether that shareholding is 50 shares or 50,000. It's not as if, by doing a good job, anyone is going to get rich and therefore will be incentivised by a large shareholding.

Tom

 

I think you'll find that's been heavily altered from what was posted the other night which had sentences running into each other with no full stops and was posted in at least 3 different type sizes, and had the look of something which had been poorly copy and pasted from numerous different articles elsewhere, the version you have just posted has obviously since been proof read and heavily corrected.

And you saw the original post did you ?, if not then who the hell are you to criticise me ?, I apologuise if I messed up, but it certainly didn't read as if it had been typed by a human im afraid, as I say, hardley any spaces between words and 3 different font sizes made it look like a bot had just lifted words from somewhere.

 

Is more how the original version read, If I messed up I apologuise, but that did look suspicious the other night, you don't have to be an english teacher to notice 3 sizes doesn't look right ?, Im not criticisng the poster as a person, more that it made me think it was a dodgy copy and pasting effort by some software with a dodgy intention.

 

Having now read carefully through the share prospectus I have come to what I hope is a reasoned judgement. It comes as a shock to find that the SVR, of which I am a long-standing member, requires in excess of £10 million to set its house in order. Like other regular contributers here such as michaelh I have a number of questions to ask at the Bridgnorth display. In these difficult times I wonder how realistic it is to expect the share issue to be fully subscribed AND the other £7 million or so to be raised by "a major charitable fund raising campaign calling on the support of individual benefactors, corporate sponsors, statutory funders, grant-making trusts, and in due course gifts from the wider community". ( from the prospectus)
My main question will be about "priorities", if only part of the total required is raised, which elements of the "shopping list" will get priority? I dont want to find we build this large restaurant/toilet/retail amenity behind platform one only to find that we are still short of steam locomotives in the service fleet to run a reliable steam service, and over a permanent way from Kidderminster to Bridgnorth that is not in good order and continues to give the P-Way and Civils headaches. In respect of the latter Falling Sands viaduct requires major work, and somewhere in the pipeline but not mentioned in the prospectus is the now due overhaul of the Bridgnorth bypass road bridge, together with ongoing regular track renewal, and presumably a contingency for any nasty surprises our bad riverside/hillside ground throws up at us. Loco fleet? well the situation today is better than it was a couple of months ago, but we do need to increase the number and frequency of overhauls to take the service fleet up to say ten engines. We know that a full "heavy general" can cost up to £500k. No mention by the way of any thoughts about covered accommodation for the service fleet. We spend lots of money on an overhaul and then by and large the locos stand outside in all weathers.

Depending on how much is raised, do we--taking the prospectus figures--spend £4.5 million on "Visitor Amenities" or roughly the same amount on "Rolling Stock and Locomotives" and "Infrastructure" ?? I will pose my question at Bridgnorth! I know where my priority would be!!

As an aside, it is interesting that this debate has generated a number of new posters to Nat-Pres. Particularly those with strong views about the architecture of the proposed new buildings at Bridgnorth. Are you all SVR members? If so, welcome!

46118

 

I agree, the most important thing is to keep the railway running.
As for the amount of money needed, well it was only 5 years ago that the floods happen. I get the impression this is to set the house in order from that event and its consequences.
As for myself buying shares, a few perhaps, the minimum as I don't have heaps of cash knocking around at the moment by any means of the imagination.

 

This accords with my own thoughts - I agree with the Board that Bridgnorth needs improvements - but these need to be affordable (both in capital and revenue terms) without draining away investment which is essential in other areas. I think many of us have been appalled by the steam locomotive situation in the last few years, and I fear the prospect of a number of swanky (and possibly inappropriate) new buildings at Bridgnorth served by diesel hauled trains.

 

David1984, I am sorry my poor typing upset you, it went a bit haywire because I am partially-sighted. Hopefully this time I will do better.

My post was intended to provoke serious potential investors to read the Prospectus carefully. The money can only come from one of two places – out of the persons’ disposable income, or out of their children’s inheritance.To do either thing is a big decision for most people. It will in the end always be an emotional and intuitive decision, but it should be an informed one. I think 46118 has understood the problem of being informed very clearly. If you solicit public money, you have responsibilities. This is why a Public Limited Companymust behave with transparency and why they are regulated more stringently thanprivate companies.

“Informed” means knowing what you are investing in. In this case the funding gap (sometimes called the “black hole”) between what the Directors are seeking from the Issue (the £3 million) and the total they say they require is £7 million. There is no reference that any of the potential funding agencies listed have committed to anything, not even an HLF Phase 1 pass. The Directors must have some confidence that they have “wriggle room” to continue trading if the £7 million is not funded or the share issue falls short, although it is hard to discern from the Accounts where it can come from.

There is no statement of what will actually get built if the Issue is fully subscribed and the additional £7 million is delayed or not available at all, or if the Issue falls short of target. The various aspirations will have to make do with a slice of cake that is less than one third of the total required. Further bank borrowing is unlikely: the £500,000 loan taken up last year for HMRI-mandated emergency infrastructure works, and the level of mortgage and first charge held by HSBC over the railway land, fixed assets, cash at bank, the company-owned locomotives (4930, WD600 and 45110), future income and even the logo (copies available from Companies House for £2 if anyone wants to see them) pretty much closes that avenue.

SVR has a very loyal shareholder base to draw on. There are about 9000 of them still alive and some have been in since the first “Gerald Nabarro” issue forty years ago. Others signed up to Kidderminster and the Boiler Shop in the 1980s. Historically they have been good for £1 million a time (at net present values) when asked. But they are older now, a “Dad’s Army” of stalwart shareholders, many no longer working, and Ineritance Tax looms large in their lives. Many are only still with us because average UK male life expectancy has increased from 71 to 78 years since SVR was formed. UK household net worth has doubled in real terms since the last issue, but that does not of itself mean the stalwarts will run to the full £3 million this time, when they never have in previous issues. £2 million can be justified on historic performance but there is no hard evidence they will be good for the full £3,000,000.

As of yesterday the Bewdley office had received applications for £260,000. Good stuff, but not a tsunami of cash. It would be realistic and responsible to have a contingency for raising no more than £2 million, which after the most pressing infrastructure works are done and the bank gearing reduced means that fears expressed in here and on the SVR Forum about the built environmentat Bridgnorth are a little premature – for £2 million Steam Works will just be a new buffet at best, which no-one could argue with as an essential and prudent investment. But that will be all. The nice-to-have things that so exercise this forum will remain an aspiration. This might be just as well.The last big capital project, the Engine House, has done nothing for visitor numbers, and added new day-to-day operating costs for heat, light and staffing, but the financial benefits of keeping stored locos under cover and weather-proof won’t trickle down to the bottom line for a decade, when the next generation of Heavy Generals take place. Until then it is just a cash drain. A decade is along time when your cash reserves are diddly-squat and ticket sales are stubbornly refusing to go the right way. Michaelh has noticed this risk.

Notwithstanding the democratic element of electing Directors recently and wisely strengthened by SVR Holdings (although the Guarantee Board has not followed suit) – I do not believe that anyone would put forward a serious argument that leadership skills and personal commitment are NOT qualities one would expect from Directors of a PLC, volunteer or otherwise. This Share Issue is a Do Or Die matter for SVR as it is presently structured. Last year,speaking in a restaurant in France and presumably confident his remarks would not return to haunt him here at home (never a wise assumption), a senior Director told a fellow diner that SVR Holdings was “one push from the edge”. This from a man whose personal exposure to his company failing (as of July, according to the Share Issue Document) is a paltry £500. He may well have unbridled passion for the railway,but try paying supplier invoices or HMRC with passion and see how far you get. You can’t run a railway or anything else without optimism, but the wing and a prayer days are long gone.

SVR is and always has been powered by the energy of the volunteersand lay supporters, but it is wholly controlled by the Holdings Directors and it falls to them to provide leadership by example. The Guarantee Company only has about £80,000 cash to its name, and so will see their percentage stake in Holdings cut by 40% which is the end of them having a serious say in how the railway is run. This places an even greater burden on Holdings Directors to show leadership and a safe pair of hands.

So I ask again...how much have the serving SVR Directors stumped up to support the Issue they want us to give money to? If they haven’t, why not, and why should anyone else?

Best regards

GF-G

 

I think we all agree Bridgnorth needs development.
I take a very harsh view of postings on here where people have sat at home and shared their oppinion on the matter. If you have any doubts to the direction, feasibility or the planning of the project. Attend some of the open consultation meetings being held to gauge the response to the artists impressions.

These impressions were put to a group of upto 80 people at Bridgnorth on Saturday evenin and the main emphasis of the meeting was not the feasibility or the planning of the project it was based on the asthetics of the buildings. The impressions presented were general received as not fitting in with a 1860s stone station building. Dont copy whats already there but building something to complement what is already there. The funding will also dictate which part of the project happens when. With 4 lines of funding being negociated as we speak.

The 10million ESTIMATE brings home the reality of what we as an industry have to put up to keep our hobby and livelihoods going. The SVR is not the only railway performing projects such as this. NYMR bridge replacement and also an existing share issue. Bluebell with raising capital for their extension. To name a couple

Our railways were built over 100 years ago. Most of them on the dirt cheap. So its projects like this that we need to keep this going!

Sorry rant over.
The

 

Looks like NatPres has had another raid by the Unofficial Grammer Police.

As we've said many times before: if you don't understand a particular post, then ask for clarification. Don't just have a go at someone's grammar or spelling. Members continuing to do this will be dealt with by the moderators.

Richard