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

You have summed up my own feelings pretty well 46118.

As a member since 1967 and a shareholder from the start I have real concerns about what is proposed at Bridgnorth. It would seem that planning restrictions plus conservation area requirements are dictating the design of what is proposed. My own view is that if we cannot do it sympathetically then it should not be done at all.

Moving on from that I would also ask why we need another restaurant at Bridgnorth. We have excellent facilities at Kidderminster plus, in my view,
an underutilised restaurant at the Engine house. Has any consideration been given to the running costs of this proposed restaurant at Bridgnorth.
Increased business rates/utility bills/staff costs etc.

The 2011 annual accounts no longer provides a breakdown of turnover/cost of sales however from the 2010 accounts total catering turnover is quoted at
500k accross the whole railway with the cost of those sales at 412k. To my mind that is a very poor margin.

Whilst I agree that visitor facilities at Bridgnorth do need to see some improvement, particularly toilets, I cannot see that development on this scale is
warranted. My own more modest suggestion would be to remove the existing buffet building and erect on that site visitor information/retail shop/toilets.

As for the proposed new footbridge/lifts well I cannot think of a more inappropriate use of money.

We need to think very hard about what the Severn Valley Railway is for and remember the priorities set out by the founders of the SVR way back
in 1965. That was secure the infrastructure of the railway as the number 1 priority. No point in having fancy restaurants if our infrastructure is failing
and we have a lack of steam locomotives to operate our trains.


There is much more of concern to me but I have said enough. I will be attending the presentations on Saturday with an open mind but I have yet to be convinced that my intended modest four figure investment should be made.

 

I agree with 84A's comments about Highley, in that a second platform would indeed destroy the character of the station. I was making the comment as an answer to the "crush" that appears to develop there at busy times. However, making Highley a full passenger train crossing place would increase the line capacity, but there again how often would it actually be used?
I totally agree with the sentiment above expressed by Richard D. We dont want to destroy the ambience of what we have, and the plans for Bridgnorth to me are a step too far. Modest developments yes, but not the monsters seen in the artists impressions.

The sad and indeed worrying issue for me is that if only a proportion of the money is raised, will it actually get spent on securing the line and steam operation, or on these large buildings at Bridgnorth. I have a sense of foreboding that "Heritige" will be sacrificed for, as the GM puts it, "customer spend". Wrong decision folks.

 

Another outsider question: Does the SVR have a "Preservation Standards Committee" or something similar?

Thinking of my own railway, we have such a committee, and they have to be consulted, amongst other things, about any development within specified boundaries at each station site. (This is entirely independent of any local authority planning process).

It is not a perfect system and there have been a few hiccups in the past, but it does at least put some kind of a check on out-of-character development, either removal of existing facilities or building of new. Certainly my reading of this thread is that the destruction of the heritage ambiance at Bridgnorth and Highley is a major concern, so I wonder what internal checks the railway has about what is acceptable development? I'd point people at the new museum / toilets / pullman catering servicing complex and carriage shed at SP as an example of fairly successful development: undoubtedly it has changed the feel of the station, esepecially the up side (less Sussex branchline; more outer London suburban LBSC) but equally all the platform facade has been done to blend with the existing architecture as well as successfully screening a huge carriage shed and I suspect, in years to come, a casual visitor will be hard pressed to see the join between old and new once everything has weathered down. Given the artists impressions I have seen for Bridgnorth, I don't think you will ever be able to make that claim.

(I'd give Harman's Cross station and the new signal box at Corfe Castle on the Swanage Railway as other examples of successful modern development. How many visitors to that line realise that Harman's Cross is actually a modern station masquerading as a Victorian one?)

Tom

 

I'm open to correction but I believe the nearest thing the SVR had to a Preservation Standards Committee was a Heritage Building Committee. This was subsumed into the Engineering Committee which was subsequently reduced in numbers.
The membership are informed, since it is grade 2 listed, that the new build must be materially different to the existing Neo-gothic structure. I've yet to be convinced that something with the same character as Kidderminster Town, Birmingham Moor Street or Leamington Spa wouldn't be acceptable.
Elsewhere I have asked for something with more "Wow" factor; something the SVR may be proud of in years to come. Much of what has been published thus far may be found on almost any modern high street or business park.
Elsewhere I have congratulated the design team on how well it has judged the facilities needed. . . .but please; in something that doesn't jar quite so much.

 

My view is different, it might do so from the bottom of the donkey gallop (steps) but from other angles it looks less so, IMO. It has been explained and demonstrated that care has been taken to set the building line back from the main station building so that it is ‘hidden’ from many north-to-south views.

Also, incorporating the shop and buffet in one building reduces the footprint on a quite developed site. Split them out and you lose ground space. IMO the plan (if not the aesthetics) is a good one.

I disagree for several reasons, even though all your points are important. The BH facilities are life-expired, the toilets are very poor, the bar takings constrained by the space, the buffet a 30-year old portakabin, the accommodation a Mk1. I read recently a quote from a manager about Bressingham that the public (90% of our customers) want good parking, good loos and good catering as a minimum.

Also, if grants can be found from regional/local development, tourist and/or HLF it will in many cases support such facilities, and require matched funding. A £1 from the railway might unlock other funds, then generating revenue for reinvestment elsewhere.

And it’s revenue that will pay for staff in the MPD, rather than the (very much needed) capital investment needed there.

My guess is next to none. I don’t think our customers in any numbers say “I won’t eat in the portakabin at BH, I’ll go to the cafe at HY instead”.

I've said a lot on this thread, I hope people don't mind me continuing to contribute

Patrick

 

I am not saying "do nothing at Bridgnorth" I am simply saying that we need to secure the infrastructure and permanent way for the future so that we can actually run trains. For instance do we know the cost of sorting Falling Sands viaduct and giving the Bridgnorth bypass bridge its 40-year refresh? We cannot just keep arranging bank facilities for this sort of work. Next I am saying we need an adequate steam service fleet to pull those trains. If this means we have less to spend at Bridgnorth then the architects and the steering committee will have to scale back their designs.

It was Tim Smit of Heligan/Eden Project fame who said "parking food and loos". In respect of "parking" at Bridgnorth I think the second footbridge has merit, doubling as a viewing gallery, but important in that it will help to give passengers a good route from the "field" car park. The difference in availability of all-weather car parking Kidderminster vs Bridgnorth must be a factor in the number of journeys started from KDR.

46118

 

I am not saying "do nothing to secure the infrastructure and permanent way for the future or an adequate steam service fleet". We cannot just keep arranging bank facilities for this sort of work; I am saying we need to invest in visitor and volunteer facilities that will generate revenue (and, incidentally, have a chance of attracting grants). If this means we have less to spend on overhauling 4930 then the railway would have to delay its overhaul plans.

We have different opinions here, but ultimately it will be the SVR(H) Directors who will decide.

Thanks for the steer on Tim Smit

Patrick

 

I think we can both agree that it depends crucially on how much money is raised through whatever means. In an ideal world we raise £10 million and do everything, but we know that is unlikely.

Hopefully after the presentations over the coming weekend it will then be down to individual investors to make their own personal decision. I think I'll leave it at that.

 

Well; Well; Well! Going by the majority of comments it would seem the design team could not have got it any more wrong if they had really tried.
I'm sure they honestly believe they had done a really good job in hiring Howl Associates. Similarly, I'm sure Howl Associates honestly believe they had done a really good job producing their contemporary designs.
If the "people" had wanted "modern" they'd have strung the OHLE up years ago.
If I were a member of the design team I would be feeling rather embarrassed over the quite negative reaction shown.

So what next?
I suggest the design team get rid of all the fancy talk about the design presented taking hints from this and echos from that etc. in typical architect speak. Go back to Howl Associates and ask them to have a complete rethink and come up with a more acceptable design that will take on-board the comments here and on the SVR forum site yet satisfies the conservation planners.

To not do so may blight this share issue.

 

The point is loco repair should only be funded from revenue money capital money should only be used to fund repairs and upgrading of infastructure the is going to last over 20 years the bypass bridge and the new shop and other parts of the development of bridgenorth station and this will bring in the increased revenue for loco repairs
The toilets are bridgenorth are not of the standard you would expect of such a big visitor attraction and there is not enough of them to cope with peak demand.

 

Given the expressed need for the provision of larger gift shop and restroom facilites, along with a means for public viewing of activity in the shed and, ideally, better access to the field carpark, all without "mimicking" the design of the existing station (i.e., no "mock-Mock Jacobean" style), my thoughts turned to the manner in which the GWR extended Wrexham General over the years (I have always been interested in the older stone frontage there, as it is otherwise very similar to the style used by the SVR when it built Kidderminster).

http://lds.localdataimages.com/large/1061/10611954.jpg

http://www.wrexham.gov.uk/images/transport/rail_wrexham_gen.jpg

In these photos, in which we might consider the original stone Wrexham General to be the moral equivalent of the present Bridgnorth, note how the GWR made no effort to match the style when it added the brick extension. The "respectful" connection of the old to the new by means of the iron and glass canopy, it seems to me, is the sort of thing that would be welcomed by the planning authorities today. Could not a range of brick buildings in similar style to the Wreham extension be build on the site of the present Bridgnorth buffet? Indeed, this could be done in phases as funds allow: a new buffet and gift shop, and then later a glass link to the original station, after relocation of the signalbox as has been suggested. The link could be extended through to connect with a platform canopy along the length of the new range, which in itself would be a great improvement. Likewise, as and when funds allow, restroom extension could be built adjacent to the Railwaymens' Arms in the same "GWR brick" style, perhaps also incorporating a section of platform canopy (nice place to enjoy a pint).


Wrexham General also provides an inspiration for the footbridge/shed viewing gallery/carpark access problem. wrexham general station - Bing Images If the rightmost canopy in the photo is imagined to be adjacent to the Bridgnorth buffet/gift shop structure I've proposed above, one can easily see parallels to Bridgnorth's Platform 2 and the siding along the shed which the SVR has elsewhere suggested could become an engine release road. To reduce the miles and miles of footbridge proposed by the current architects, I'd locate such a structure further north, so that it entered the shed adjacent to the machine shop/former goods shed. A viewer would proceed through the shed in a high-level glass-enclosed walkway, and exit through the far side onto a ramp and path onto the hillside. Indeed, this would be the station entrance for those parking in the field.

As to volunteer accommodation, the proposed design is an utter abomination. It seems a shame to use the lovely stone terrace opposite Castle Hill in such a manner - a landscaped "event" area with tables for patrons of an adjacent buffet would be much better. Instead, how about gradually acquiring several of the small industrial units behind the boiler shop and replacing them with "railway cottages?" Each two-story "cottage" in such a row ought to be able to accommodate, hostel-style, as many volunteers as can currently be accomodated in each of the current Mk1s.

Perhaps the SVR should conduct a design competition for the Bridgnorth improvements? Candidly, it could hardly do worse than the present architects' scheme.

 

Anecdotally, and shamelessly off topic as light relief, Wrexham General has a further somewhat tenuous connection with the SVR in that the ornate crestings atop the Italianate towers are of the same pattern as those replicas on the towers at Kidderminster Town. The originals were produced by W MacFarlane & Co. Ltd at the Saracen Foundry, Glasgow. Further examples may be found decorating parts of the roof at Slough station and HSBC bank in Derby (of all places!).

 

Hi JChase, welcome (if I may). An excellent first post

To keep it short what you've proposed (with the addition of relocating the signalbox to the south end) is I understand very close to the original ideas for the station.

At the earlier presentation the route *through* the MPD was said to have been considered and found to be impractical.

The idea of purchasing property has also been considered, it was discussed last weekend. There is a vacant car dealership adjacent to the station - the owner won't sell but the annual rental is £82k (which gives a freehold market value of c. £1m). Money would then need to be spent on it. It's unaffordable, without a rich patron.

Hope this is of interest

Patrick

P.S. PDF of the members' and shareholders' event this weekend (all welcome, lots of extras, 6 engines in steam) now on http://www.svr.co.uk/pdf/specialevents/MemberShareholderWeekend.pdf -- link now off the 'latest News' item on the website.

 

I am both surprised and relieved that so many posters find the present proposals for the redevelopment of Bridgnorth station out of keeping with the ideals of a Heritage Railway. Many varied and interesting ideas being proposed. The real question is: will the SVR management listen to the concerns being expressed both here and on the SVR online site. Given the recent publication of the original images on the Bridgnorth facebook site, one has too wonder.

Another question has to be asked. Why are such unacceptable design proposals being released at such an important moment in the railways history.

 

The recent publication of the original images on the Bridgnorth facebook site are to assist in feedback (I've asked) rather than for any ulterior motive, I think the below will demonstrate that.

The railway SVR-Online Forum :: View topic - Bridgnorth Station redevelopment page 10 has posted up a lot more info regarding Conservation areas

Two 'as is' photos of the site added on facebook Bridgnorth Station | Facebook

Both of which will no doubt fuel more debate!

Also, a couple of quotes from SVRA forum:

"Response from the Conservation Officer is "I think involving people is critical & the more people passionate about historic buildings (& trains obviously) the better!""

"Comment continues to be made on NatPres...All constructive comment welcomed, on whatever forum is preferred - it is all being read"

Cheers

Patrick

P.S. £339,423 raised so far (@svrbridgnorth)

P.P.S. http://forum.svra.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=35101#35101 - Chris Thomas (Director) sets out some of the thinking.

 

However, on the SVR site they are still talking-up the view from the big windows on the southern end of the new building. This leads one to assume "we're listening - but we've made up our minds anyway". Any major change at this late date would require a massive face-saving exercise. Not something they are used to.

 

Assuming that larger facilities will automatically generate more revenue (and more importantly profit) is not proven - have you seen how many empty shops there on High Streets?

The catering facilities at both Kiddy and Engine House certainly did not deliver the expected profit levels when they opened - though that may have improved since as a result of cost cutting measures, it's ddifficult to be sure as the SVRH Accounts only contain the minimum statutory numbers.

 

EX SR Class U 2-6-0 No. 31806 - Replaces the T9 this weekend for operational reasons. 4566 not shown as running. Severn Valley Railway - Latest News

Patrick

P.S. ‏@HowlAssociates Display ready to go for exhibition @svrbridgnorth tomo -pls come along, find out more, air your views & get involved! pic.twitter.com/7FoIfLay

 

I posted this earlier on the SVR forum, sorry if anyone has to read it twice! Comments welcome:

Firstly I think it's important for me to acknowledge the hard work that a lot of people are clearly putting into this project. Also, I cannot think of another instance of a railway having such an open consultation process; it seems you generally want hear people’s views. I have been following the process from afar since the first initial ideas were mooted and today I have finally sat and read through various sites and forums/fora (?) and looked at the currently proposed images.

The section above that made my eyes widen was this:
Should the SVR be seeking to replicate the past in a similar way to Kidderminster station or should it consider a similar approach to many National Trust properties where new visitor facilities are expressed in a contemporary way and do not seek to copy the style of the original or confuse the interpretation of the site’s history?
Do we attempt to replicate the past, creating a ‘film set’ response to provide a nostalgic setting, or do we provide a more contemporary building which is ‘honest’ and respects the ‘primacy’ of the original station building?

Surely the primary reason d’être of the SVR and railway preservation is to protect or replicate the past? When the SVR started and had to rebuild HL signalbox they didn’t build a concrete block and install modern lights. While this is obviously a tongue-in-cheek example, it seems that at every stage in the SVR development we have tried to stick to the ‘feel’ and appearance of existing structures (with the exception of the big carriage shed/engine house which had mitigating circumstances and don’t directly impinge on existing structures) and the railway as a whole. I can’t help feeling that the current proposals to my eye seem way off line in terms of appearance. I am not commenting on the layout and facilities, which others can judge far better than I, purely the aesthetics. I personally would like to see something that blends in and that looks appropriate.

I think the “middle” building looks out of place and seems too tall, this may just be the perspective from one angle, but it looks very strange to me. The material also jars with the existing building in my opinion. Has the use of the same stone as the original building (or something similar) been completely discounted? Is it even possible? I am sure a few carefully placed plaques could ensure no-one confused the ‘primacy’ of the original building.
Bridgnorth Redevelopment Project | Facebook

Just some smaller issues:
One poster mentioned that the North end of the site wouldn’t be used due to the sacrifice of parking required. Has any thought been given to taking away the bay platform there (where coaches are currently restored?) I know this would result in a loss of track space, but would free up some more land? Would it now seem that the new facility will definitely be to the south of the original?
The document makes varied mentions of facilities for ‘inclement’ weather, so why is the footbridge open and uncovered? There is a lovely covered footbridge at Bewdley, has that style been considered? We don’t want people waiting for a lift in the rain, or not going across to the works because of rain.

Also in regards to the footbridge, the idea of glass above a running line and next to a loco yard makes me shudder. Despite my biased views on aesthetics (stick to the style of the line), from a practical point of view, who is going to spend a few hours a week with a ladder and some windowlene? (Same goes for the lift shafts.) Engines sit in that yard 300+ days a year for hours in the morning and evening emitting smoke. Has this been considered?

I know you asked for constructive comments and hope everyone will do their best to oblige. With that in mind I am not sure what to say about the proposed volunteer hostel. I think it looks very poor. I know cost/weight/capacity limitations are in place, but (I reiterate I am talking aesthetics, as I do not feel qualified to comment on requirements re layout and facilities) the proposed building would ruin the wall and to my mind makes for a very drab building.

Sorry if this is longer than you wanted or sounds negative. I know I am only one voice in 1000s and may well be out of touch with what others feel. For the record, I am 29, have been a SVR member from birth, was a volunteer for a short period a few years ago before moving abroad and consider Bridgnorth to be the heart and soul of the railway. This is a great opportunity to make something wonderful on this overlooked gem.

I would like to again recognize the efforts of those who clearly have the railways best interests at heart (or they wouldn’t be doing it) and thank you all for giving me the opportunity to give my few thoughts.

(Sorry if I waffled.)

 

I also posted this earlier on the SVR forum, sorry if anyone has to read it twice! Comments welcome:

Yesterday I visited the Members & Shareholders Day where Chris Thomas invited me to join Hannah and Phil from Howl Associates plus Paul Taylor, Chris & Sue Thomas from the steering group.

In a small tent at BH were site plans and exhibition boards. Howls had also extracted comments – both supportive and critical - from the online public forums and posted them on boards.

Visitors were reminded these were proposals for consultation and no decision had been made, firmly encouraged to ask questions and to record their thoughts in one of two comments books, anonymously or otherwise as they wished.

The following are my reflections from one who has no position on the railway or steering group (and has qualms about parts of the proposals): others will have their own view how it went.

It was fairly busy, particularly when trains came in, but not overly so. There was a full range of comments, from outright rejection to wholehearted advocacy for development in contemporary style with modern materials. There was no attempt at persuading people to support plans, where people were critical they were encouraged to record it verbatim. Most people were keen to engage in discussion, to ask why things had been proposed in a certain way - even if it didn’t alter their view, and to make suggestions.

Discussions about Conservation Areas and the counter-intuitive views on not replicating what we have came up frequently, and it was not widely understood.

Where concerns were expressed about the buffet/shop/toilets new-build (at the south [Kidderminster] end of the site), they principally covered size, and there were a few suggestions it be reduced to a single storey. Verbal suggestions for improvement included lowering the pitch of the roof/matching the station roofline, including blue engineering brick, adding more decorative brickwork (as did GWR), reducing window size and including glazing bars, and on the south end elevation removing the cladding and adding a small canopy and winch (giving the impression of a goods shed). The timber clad building linking the current station and the proposed new one also brought some comment.

The accommodation block (at the north [Ironbridge] end of the site) brought less comment than I thought. There was still a sizeable view that something more traditional would be in better keeping – perhaps terraced cottage frontage (Derby 4 - great minds think alike!)? An alternative to piling was suggested – concrete slab.

The new-build 'SteamWorks reception/classroom' (where the current buffet portakabin is) brought a lot of comment, much of what has been aired here. The 'field' (overflow) car park development and linking in the footbridge/viewing platform/lift was not well undersood; people had viewed each part in isolation. The incorporation of lifts had a lot of support, the ‘towers’ were disliked and the modern construction and use of glass in a sooty environment divided opinion.

The absence of a turntable was mentioned several times.

There will be more feedback today, and the books contained many entries – I haven’t read them.

All my personal comments you understand, not an official version

Patrick