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

I find the choice of 4930 slightly odd. Why pick a loco that already has a dedicated group raising funds when 45110/600 are both PLC owned but without their own separate fund raising group? Bit of a kick in the teeth too towards the Friends of 4930, in that having spent all this time raising money for her the SVR have turned around and said they'll do it themselves now. I know choosing 4930 means less money should be required from the share issue so there's more available for Bridgnorth Development etc, but just my view point of this selection.

Having read Heritage Rly my interest in donating has waned, as the aesthetics of what is planned does not seem to compliment what is already there. Understand (having read this thread) that there are restrictions as to what is allowed but a steel/glass footbridge just doesn't look right where its planned to go. And then there's the practicalities of locating it next to a steam shed, as it wont exactly stay clean very long... I'd love to go the Shareholders weekend tbh however I already have prior engagements so can't make it. Hopefully someone who does attend will let us know what they learn.

 

I must say I see your point with regard to which of the SVR owned locos should benefit from the share issue, but I hardly think the selection of 4930 is a "kick in the teeth" for the Friends. The group has had a fund raising target, for some time, of obtaining £100,000 towards the restoration. Note this is a contribution, not payment in full. As I understand it these monies will still be used for the purpose they were intended and the inclusion of 4930 in the share issue is to gain any additional funds needed for the overhaul (which incidentally is hoped to be reasonably straightforward...ish) along with the restoration of ex GW coaching stock.

I too would love to see the black 5 back in traffic, although I'm less keen for a return of the WD, but it's quite possible that these locos may benefit, albeit indirectly, from the share issue too following the planned investment and improvements to BH MPD.

All I can say for the aesthetics of the development plans is that nothing is set in stone, and indeed the plans seem to be evolving day by day. Don't put the padlock back on your wallet until everything is finalised!

 

One thing I don't understand about this proposal. If the only reason for the glass towers is for lifts (for disabled access), why not maintain such access via board crossings, with supervision from platform staff?

If you do that:

- You don't contravene the DDA (because a wheelchair-bound or otherwise infirm visitor still has access to all parts of the station that they would otherwise have via the footbridge)
- You maintain safety (by ensuring that all such access is controlled by a member of platform staff)
- You save expense (one part of the plan doesn't need implementing at all)
- You preserve more of the "heritage" appearance of the station

Seems to me someone has thought "DDA - access to two platforms - we need a lift - now how do I implement that?" when actually the thought process should be "DDA - access to two platforms - how do I implement that? - use the foot crossing and put in place a process to ensure it can be done safely".


Tom

 

Tom, if you ever travel to Liverpool, have a look at the frontage of Lime Street station. One half is the superb North Western Hotel, now student accommodation. On the other half there was an office block and shops, with an entrance to the station, up steps, in between. The office block/shops were demolished and an excellent stepped open area was put there. The whole frontage was spoilt by one thing, a lift. This was built on its own, away from the station and about 50 ft from the Hotel building. It was built despite both sides of the station having exits at pavement level. There was no need for it and it is an eyesore.

 

As I indicated earlier this share issue is trying to target too many things and is hence "wooly" to say the least. Why the real need to include any loco when the SVR may have just about turned the corner in its shortage?
The whole thing about an aquarium on platform one containing a lift seems to indicate someone from the big railway has muscled into the design team. Is the current method of DDA compliance via a properly worked barrow crossing no longer acceptable? Is the station speed limit to be raised so through trains can get over the ski jump more easily on their way to Ironbridge?

How did the architect come up with such an inappropriate design? Has that company any experience of developing heritage sites in a sympathetic manner? Was he properly briefed by those from the SVR with a knowledge of GWR building style? Is there anyone on the design team with knowledge of GWR building style? Why fly in the face of a number of GWR building styles that could be used that are markedly different to the existing? Why release such comprehensive artists impressions to the railway press if the design isn't already in "tablets of stone"?

 

I'm sure that is true (I'm not familiar with the building). As I say - I have nothing against making places wheelchair friendly. But in the case of Bridgnorth, I can't see why you need an expensive, ugly, lift when a cheap, visually-harmonious barrow crossing will allow the same level of access without significantly endangering the lives or disadvantaging those in wheelchairs!

The requirement under the DDA (or rather, now the Equalities and Human Rights Act, which swept up various bits of legislation including the DDA) is to make "reasonable adjustments". I'd suggest that a barrow crossing is a "reasonable adjustment" in the sense that it allows a wheelchair bound visitor the same level of access to both platforms as an able-bodied visitor, provided the platform always has station staff available to escort wheelchair users across the crossing.

Tom

 

But wouldn't this be taking the public across the operational railway? This may have been "acceptable" in the past, but don't think it would pass the safety tests nowadays. Also, I doubt that the gradient of platform ends would comply with the requirements of wheelchair ramps.

Richard

 

Are SVR directors paid positions or volunteers ?

 

We need to ask what would it say about any organisation that after spending millions on a station upgrade made disabled people in wheel chairs be bounced across the barrow crossing.
I think that the infastructure needs to take priority over things such as loco and stock refurbishments which would be nice but are not essential compared to bridge repairs or the station refurbishment giving a bigger shop and modern improved volunteer accomodation. I assume this will mean the removal of the grren coaches from the end of the station are these for scrap sale or refurbishment.

 

It’s more than that Tom. I take your point on cost and, if it was just this point it would I think have a lower priority The proposed lift and footbridge however serve several purposes:

a) A way for wheelchair/infirm and buggies to cross the line. I don’t know the extent to which it is DDA driven (if at all), but as others have pointed out it’s not acceptable (from a visitor services standpoint)

I agree with that!

b) It gives access to all to the new viewing gallery of the workshop, currently access is banned

c) It gives level access to the rear car park, currently the field, which is currently accessed via a grass hill, past the containers, through the muddy boiler yard etc. The rear car park is planned to have a much bigger part to play going forward

No.

This was explained in the BH meeting last Saturday and no doubt will be again this weekend. There are rational reasons, including around Conservation Officer discussions on contemporary design (discussed above) and using an open design to give views of the station.

The architect displayed both modern and historic/heritage projects in which they have been involved.

I don’t know details of the brief but I do know that members of the team have a very good knowledge of GWR building style. As mentioned above, several times, Conservation Officer discussions suggested a contemporary design, rather than aping the current style or a pastiche of other GWR-styles.

I don’t know but I’m pretty certain (a) the main piece of work has been determining the number, size and function of the buildings on a cramped site (Form A), (b) detail will come later (Form B) and (c) the share offer has a fixed deadline by which the launch has to be made, which was before designs are finalised. Remember that in modern construction the face of the building, whether mock-Georgian or art deco, is to some extent just fixed on to the structure underneath!

It’s been made clear the aesthetic design is not fixed, and permissions are not yet given for works anyway.

No directors receive pay or expenses (that’s from the share offer).

I very much agree.

Yes.

I don’t know, but suspect they’re past their ‘scrap by’ date?!

I’d just add a few points.

As others have said the project team last week reaffirmed these were proposals for consultation, and they are consulting. The meeting was supportive of the number, size and function of the buildings and were impressed by the results, but gave clear views on the aesthetics of the proposed buildings. There are more consultations to follow

Secondly, short of a lottery win these projects are not all immediate and may take some time to come to fruition.

Thirdly, it’s no secret the railway’s looking for funding from other sources, and the priority of projects might be governed by availability of external finance, if it can get a grant for one part of the project that would move up the pecking order.

Lastly, no-one with the good of the SVR can doubt that the railway needs support. Please support the share issue and get involved in the consultation.

Just in case anyone's interested, I'm a member, shareholder and volunteer but have no position on any of the bodies associated with the SVR.


Patrick

 

Well, Patrick has given an answer anyway, citing access to more than just the platforms given by the footbridge and lifts. But I don't see that safety should be a particular concern: we (on the Bluebell) have board crossings at Sheffield Park, Horsted Keynes and Kingscote for disabled or infirm passengers without any problems - train speeds are low and there are porters can be stationed when trains are running in. I'd agree it is not appropriate in many cases on the mainline where trains run at speed and may not stop at stations and platform staff may be in short supply - but none of those apply on a heritage line. I'd also query the point made that visitors expect better facilities - I think visitors expect a "heritage" experience; you go to railways partly to escape the modern world, and provided that doesn't actively discriminate against disabled visitors or prevent them getting the full "experience, I don't see a problem with mediated access via a board crossing.

Havenstreet (IoWSR), Corfe Castle (Swanage Railway) are other examples I can think of. At Havenstreet access for all passengers to the platform - which is an island - from either the museum side or cafe side is via a locked wicket gate that is opened when there is no train due. I certainly can't imagine what a footbridge and lift would look like there!

Tom

 

This viewing platform is new build so will need to conform to modern standards why should disabled people be forced to use a different was across and not be able to access the viewing platform into the workshop area.
The SVR are building a tourist attraction in the 21st century which should have good access for all if this means lifts that might look a little out of place that is a price worth paying.
I believe that DDA legistlation applies to all new build so they may not have a option but the legistlation is not retrospective.

 

A number of the SVR community have commented that such a viewing gallery will give the "ne'er do wells" the ideal platform from which to case the joint. A point with some validity.
Although I'm not too sure it fits in aesthetically, if the design committee are hell bent on creating a minimalist glass clad structure for the lift at least create true minimalism by ridding it of that lump on top, presumably containing the lift motor gear.

 

A scissors style life might alleviate the issue. Such things are not unknown although usually in industrial settings for heavy lifting.

Tom, there are already barrow crossings all over the SVR, at all stations except Kidderminster with its island platform. Two, at Hampton Loade and Highley are public access, the others are staff only but disabled people are regularly walked across. This also happens at Bridgnorth - it's the only way to get to Platform Two without using the footbridge. As others have said, the issue in this instance is where the planned footbridge leads to.

Don't get me wrong, I am not at all against disabled access, just that those lift towers are aesthetically horrific. There must be a way around this. I don't think the already-extant barrow crossings are an option in this instance however.

 

Yes, there are such things as hydraulic lifts where the operating mechanism is at ground level.

PH

 

Like the Listed Building "regulations" I commented on earlier in this thread, the Disability Discrimination Act is not as rigid as some think.

Partially quoting from the RNIB website: where a physical feature - for example something to do with the design of or access to buildings - makes it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled people to use, the service provider has to take reasonable steps to:

• remove the feature
• alter it so that it no longer has that effect
• provide a reasonable means of avoiding the feature
• provide a reasonable method of making the service in question available to disabled people.

It's all about degrees of reasonableness - and in the case of Bridgnorth Station it would be reasonable to provide a system to allow safe use of the barrow crossing (as has been done at Havenstreet) but unreasonable to insist on a lift. However, I imagine a lift would be required to access the proposed loco shed viewing gallery at first floor level, there being no reasonable alternative unless a ramp is possible. It may be that it's more expedient to provide the access to gallery level as part of a footbridge rather than as part of the viewing gallery itself.

The fundamental point however is just like the listed buildings arguement, there are no regulations so prescriptive as to insist on modern-looking access arrangements at Bridgnorth. If the architects cannot design a footbridge-come-viewing gallery in sympathy with the historic environment it may just be that the SVR have chosen the wrong architects!

 

There are a lot of useful comments and suggestions being posted on here - I just hope that these are *also* being passed through to the correct people at the Severn Valley.

Richard

 

Strong stuff indeed!

I am no architect, and never will be, but I know what jars to the eye in a given context. Much of what I've seen of the exteriors so far, to me, does just that. I don't know what criteria were applied when selecting the architect right or wrong, experienced with a heritage environment or not etc.

What I do know is, simple logic says, it would require the admission of a wrong decision for someone to say they have chosen the wrong one but I'm certainly not calling for his head on a pike.

 

As the SVR is trying to raise £10million from a variety of sources, I thought a few words about how the Bluebell went about raising a broadly similar sum might be in order, if only for some helpful pointers. I should note that this is someting of a view from the edge, not the official Bluebell Fundraising committee line.

Firstly, the target was £5.8million, of which £1.8million was from a share issue and £4million from other sources (more later). Of that total, I'd say we are probably about £500,000 short now give or take; it is hard to say exactly since as well as money coming in, the major cost - of doing the northern extension - has come down and all published figures have been about funding gap, not funding.

The Bluebell has nominally about 10,000 members - so for the the SVR, with 13,000 members to be trying to raise £10million is, in my view, ambitious, but not unrealistic. The SVR may also be able to deliver cost-savings on projects when they get into the detail; so the important number to fixate on is the funding gap; not the total funds raised. A clever project manager knocking £500k off the price of some deliverable is just as valuable as a fundraiser raising £500k!

Share issue
The share issue was widely seen as underwhelming at the time. At the time, it raised about £700,000, i.e. £1.1million short, and a small amount to plug that shortfall has subsequently been raised via a deferred share purchase scheme. Fortunately, the Bluebell tri-partite structure (Society / PLC / Trust) means that eventually the shortfall will be raised by converting the BRPS annual surplus (mostly from membership fees) into a loan to the PLC which will eventually get converted to shares. So in time, the full £1.8million will be subscribed, and the BRPS will strengthen its majority shareholder position in the company, but that might take 10 years. It certainly wasn't the major "kick start" to finances that had been hoped for.

At the time, the financial regulator was all over the issue, checking every fact with a fine tooth comb. For example, the share prospectus said "the BRPS President Bernard Holden was born in Barcombe Station House in 1908" - so that couldn't remain as it stood without checking birth records etc. So it was a very time consuming process to put the prospectus together, which unfortunately delayed it sufficiently to the point where the economy entered a downturn. That probably explains why takeup wasn't greater than it was. <cynicism mode="on">Maybe the regulator should have spent more time checking Lloyds, Northern Rock etc and less checking on us!</cynicism> Certainly, it seems the regulator struggled to know how to vet a prospectus where the objective of anyone investing was fairly explicitly not to make money from their purchase of shares!

There was also a lot of furore over our minimum purchase (£250). However, it is worth noting that generally shareholders stay in for the long term; they will have to receive notice of the AGM and the accounts each year, and accurate records have to be kept. All that costs money. So if the minimum offering is too low, you may find in time the admin swallows up all the capital raised - that is one of the things that struck me about the SVR offering a minimum holding of £100.

Other sources
The remainder of the money was targeted from three main sources: individuals in relatively small amounts; high net worth individuals (HNWIs) and trusts and other funding bodies.

Year 1 (and continuing to the present) was mostly about small donations from a large number of individuals - partly members of the BRPS, but also non-members, for example through the very successful on-train "Tenner for the Tip" collection, which raised over £250,000 in small amounts.

It is worth noting that although the high net worth individuals may provide a large amount of funding, for small donations it is a numbers game to demonstrate grass roots support for the project. If you are going to ask Mr City Slicker who happens to be mad about trains if he'd like to slip you £100k or so, it helps to be able to say "look, already 10,000 people have donated to our appeal and it has real on-the-ground support".

So the HNWIs weren't particularly targeted in year one while the low end support gathered momentum; however, a lot of groundwork was done in year 1 to build up a network of contacts so that when the push came, it happened in a very targeted way. The Bluebell employed professional fundraisers for that task, which in my view paid off financially in a big way. (They were financed via the Trust).

I think donations from trusts and other bodies - the third leg of the plan - was a struggle. Certainly there were some successes: the local council has given in total £100k to the Northern Extension; the Lottery "People's millions" gave £50k for conversion of a wheelchair-accessible Victorian coach. But that side of the plan is a real struggle: a lot of form filling and chasing leads for often not much reward. We didn't actuively target the main lottery as a source of funding; firstly because we already had one £3million lottery project running anyway (the Sheffield Park carriage shed and museum); and secondly because an extension isn't really preservation and so doesn't neatly fit the Heritage Lottery blueprint. Once EG is out of the way, I am sure we will go back to the Lottery with a more suitable project - but it is a lot of work.

We are also seeing real benefits of a combination of HNWIs and small-donors via the "match funding" initiaives. The first "double donation dash" leveraged £40k (initially; subsequently £60k) of seed money into a final total of £200k; the next DDD has £125k of seed money which with any luck could result in £250k - £300k (with gift aid) of funding.

PR
Finally, a bit about PR. I know that the Bluebell, here and elsewhere, has copped a lot of flak for not being very open about progress on the project or how funding is going. Particularly in the first year, when the share issue had not really taken off and most donations were concentrated in small amounts, there was a lot of doom and gloom and gnashing of teeth. However, it is the nature of these things - especially when dealing with grant awarding bodies or HNWIs - that negotiations often have to remain private. In year one, when a network was being built and a lot of important groundwork was being done, yet which didn't directly lead to immediate income, I'm sure many of us would have had more confidence if only we had been able to see what was happening behind closed doors, so to speak. But inevitably that couldn't happen - so in year two, when all of a sudden major progress on the project was made (which is the visble sign that fundraising was proceeding strongly), I think it took many by surprise.

So while I am sure there are PR lessons to learn about keeping people up-to-date, I'd urge any SVR members and other interested persons to have faith that maybe the people on the ground do know what they are doing, even if they can't always tell you exactly on a minute-by-minute basis!

Hope this helps, if only to give a sort of heads up to friends and potential friends of the SVR what sort of rollercoaster of emotions they might be on for the next three or four years!

Tom