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

I've downloaded the pdf and I think it was almost a complete waste of bandwidth. Other than some minor fiddling round the edges I see no difference in the design. It still has more Woe factor than Wow factor.

To clarify: -
Despite advice by many to remove high maintenance wood cladding it remains.
Despite height reduction link building still overpowering.
No really noticeable change to accommodation block, lift shaft, footbridge or cafeteria/shop block.

Ergo "almost a complete waste of bandwidth".

Please ask the team to make some real changes, then republish for consultation.

 

I think you've misunderstood, Brian. To repeat my response on the SVRA forum, these are the "pdf files of the display boards compiled by Howl Associates for the Members' & Shareholders' Weekend exhibition", posted to allow wider consultation. Therefore, they won't include any redesign, or other changes, that may arise from the feedback from the consultation.

IIRC the Steering Group is sorting through the 100 responses received so far and I would be surprised if there were revised proposals yet, the members and shareholders weekend was only a week ago. Also it has meetings with English Heritage and the Conservation Officer next month, which I guess will preceed any published changes to proposals.

Patrick

 

Share Offer update
Enquiries 1,625
£606,018

SVR-Online Forum :: View topic - Share Issue

Patrick

 

Clearly I did. Hence why so little had changed. I'll try harder to keep up. :rolleyes1:

 

Patrick, if not too late, have you noted the new footbridge at Dawlish? It's plastic (to withstand the stormy weather) and has been constructed to look just like the rusted one it replaced. It even has imitation rivets moulded into it. So I don't get this fear of supposed EH objection to pastiche on or adjacent to listed buildings. Admittedly I don't know if Dawlish is listed, but it ought to be! I have found that one should beware local hobbyist officers of EH and take it to a higher level if necessary.

Hope that helps, Regards, Howard

 

Thanks Howard

I'm not part of the railway or steering group - just one of many interested station volunteers - but I know the steering group are reading this. I'm volunteering Saturday, so I'll mention it as well

Today's update: Total £644,583 (SVRA forum)


Patrick

 

The new footbridge is, indeed, Grade II listed and it does look very good.
Also, the station has been Grade II listed for some time.

 

I wonder if the design team has allowed itself to be influenced in just that manner by a junior. One has only to look at what nearly happened to Paddington's 4th arch to realise the EH conservationists are imperfect.

 

Official News on the share issue and Bridgnorth 150 http://www.svrlive.com/Pages/News.aspx:

October was an extremely eventful month with the successful launch of the 2012 Share Offer which at the time of writing has topped the 700,000 shares sold mark. This bodes well for the future, and for bringing forward the range of schemes encompassed by the ‘SteamWorks’ concept. Key presentations associated with the Share Offer were made at the Boiler Shop in Bridgnorth, at Highley Engine House and at the exhibition staged at Bridgnorth over the Shareholders weekend. These were well attended by working volunteers, staff, SVR members and visitors interested in the future of the SVR and the current share issue. We have also presented the proposals to a range of potentially significant public bodies (European Regional Development Fund, Heritage Lottery Fund and DEFRA) and private agencies whose support will be essential to achieving the projects set out in the Share Issue document. Whilst a great deal of work is required to secure this additional funding in an extremely competitive environment, the feedback from meetings has been extremely positive, with a strong recognition of the strategic objectives set, and the approach being followed by the SVR.
The consultation with members has been lively, with a wide range of (often impassioned!) views expressed. Overall, the feedback has been very positive with over 70% of people attending the exhibition being supportive, albeit with comments both practical and aesthetic as to how the proposals could be improved. The Working Group and our architects are analysing the points submitted and considering what revisions need to be made. We are also taking into account the requirements of key funders and the advice of Planning and Conservation staff at Shropshire Council and English Heritage. Bridgnorth is an area of special design consideration since the station is Grade II listed, lies within the Bridgnorth Conservation Area and is immediately adjacent to the Scheduled ancient monument of Panpudding Hill – this sensitive location will demand an approach which is in line with best conservation practice.
Another key milestone in the month was the securing of planning permission for the new Store and Mess facility in the works area. Ongoing work on this project will involve the pursuit of Building Regulations approval and consideration of access and other associated infrastructure works. The overall development of a programme of implementation will be dependent on the success of the Share Issue and the prospect of securing funds from the additional sources mentioned above.
In support of these fund raising initiatives, the Working Group is focused on pulling together a range of information that will be required to support funding submissions for the project, including revised plans, an Interpretation Strategy, Business Plan and Training Programme for our future apprenticeship schemes.
Nick Ralls (General Manager)

At 31 October update: Enquiries 1,704 = Total £720,343 (24% of target in the first month) Severn Valley Railway - Shares Issue

Patrick

 

Why is there a ban on Americans, Canadians and Australians buying shares?

 

Certainly in respect of the USA, it is the cost of meeting the requirements of US regulators in order to offer the shares to US investors.

I presume that Canada and Australia are the same.

Steven

 

The recent Bluebell share issue had the same conditions, for the same reasons.

Tom

 

70% supportive - really?

Just goes to show that you can manipulate statistics to back up the outcome that you want to portray.

From my own unscientific research looking at the posts on here and on the SVR forum there appears to be far less than 70% support, but that view would go against what the SVR want us to believe.

As Ive said before I get the feeling that we have essentially a 'done deal' on our hands. Consultation should have been undertaken before the share issue was launched, then views on different designs and styles could have been aired and a broad consensus agreed upon. But given that the share launch has gone ahead with only the one design style I feel what we have already seen by way of design will be largely what we get as the final outcome give or take a few minor tweaks here or there to pacify the disenters. The designes as proposed are a total disregard for the heritage and preservation principles and should be challenged as such.

What is done now will not be undone in our lifetimes. SVR dont make the wrong call. Get more advice on what constitutes a different style that does not to detract from the original structure. I dont doubyt that development to better serve increasing visitor numbers is required but give us some railway/heritage styles that compliment the existing historic station, dont modernise and lose sight of why the station was preserved in the first place.

 

Come on, you are twisting words there. You have only quoted half the sentance from Nick Ralls. The vast majority agree that expansion is needed, but are questioning the style of the buildings.

 

Not twisting words at all, Nick ralls states that 70% of visitors to the exhibition are supportive.

Also, if you read my last paragraph I too agree that development is necessary but not in the current style.

My point is that I think we will get stuck with essentially the current style, I will be very surprised if what is built is substantially different from the proposals as they stand.

 

Yes, supportive of the development in general. You don't have to agree with every facet of the plan to come to the conclusion that it is in the best interests of the railway. Why not just wait and see? Maybe you will be surprised.

 

I'm not wishing to get embroiled in any difference of opinion that posters here may have but, having spoken to a reasonably representative selection of people at Bridgnorth, my gut feeling is: -

a: Very few people are taken with any of the slight variations in aesthetic style presented. Without being too absolute; most seem to prefer a style more akin to that which may have been used by the GWR in the early 20th century - not an architect's contemporary interpretation of it.

b. Some people believe the basic floor-plan is already a fait accompli and there will be little or no scope for alteration. Although the proposed layout seems to serve its purpose I would have liked to have seen what alternatives were considered.

c. It is generally agreed we cannot do nothing.

 

The expressed concerns about the built environment atBridgnorth are less of a problem than some posters have yet realised. The response to the £3 million share issue is fading fast – weekly receipts are down from £300,000 to £50,000 and still heading south like an avalanche. Projecting the decline forward,it will have dried up altogether by Christmas at around £950,000 and perhaps not even that much , leaving a £2 million shortfall. The biggest single investor so far unbelted for £60,000 but a very large percentage of responses have been for the £100 minimum. As a way of unlocking capital, this is hard work.

The shortfall means the SVR boardroom is getting quite crowded with elephants in the room. There is not enough cash for the really essential business-critical stuff like track and viaducts, and nothing at all for the Bridgnorth redevelopment or for 4930 Hagley Hall and the “train of GWR carriages” as promised in the prospectus.

The latter may turn out to be a blessing in disguise. The new loco contracts have not played well with the private owning groups. Only 7802/7812 have signed up so far despite a year or more of negotiation. The rest are showing no great enthusiasm for letting SVR off the financial hook for past “quiet enjoyment” of their machines. So the nasty little toxic secret of a contingent liability for loco overhauls exceeding the value of the whole company remains, and will have to appear as a note to the Holdings accounts sooner or later, unless they sign or take their machines away. Better to lose a few engines than drown in a sea of red ink and angry creditors, but it is not a good place to be and Hagley Hall is a potent weapon to bring things to the boil at the worst possible time.

The private owners are not in a rush to bring SVR down either, but sometime next year the company has to lay on the bed of nails it has made for itself in putting the repair of 4930 in the prospectus and at the head of the restoration queue. How they handle it will inform the position taken by the other owners further down or not in the queue at all. If they drag 4930 to Bridgnorth and solemnly dismantle it before looking theatrically surprised that it needs a new cylinder/valve chest/saddle casting (which it does – the one in it now is scrap) they face a conundrum. Putting it back together for another decade out of use while the 4930 Fund raises the full £300,000 on its own means the other loco owners will simply sigh, but the investors will be disappointed and the 2013 AGM will be even bloodier than usual. If they press on regardless and order a new cylinder block, at least one of the disgruntled loco owners will probably break ranks and seek legal remedy. Hagley Hall is dearly loved by the SVR family, but it was a very silly thing to put in the prospectus and it could yet explode in their faces without even a pound of steam on the clock.

A better answer may be to hand anything with wheels to the recently renamed SVR Charitable (formerly Rolling Stock) Trust, which enjoys full charitable status and some serious people to run it, but the Holdings Board will feel quite emasculated if they don’t have an engine to call their own. After all they are only human, and fallible as the rest of us. They have been under huge financial pressure since 2007, and the strain is starting to tell. They are polarized – the new boys on the block (by SVR standards at least) are the Worcester Warriors cabal, who like to think of themselves as businessmen, enjoy the patronage of the biggest private shareholder, and are running a kitchen cabinet of their own. The other Directors - Les Ancienes du Bridgnorth - who remember happier simpler times when the SVR was the Premier Line (and don’t really understand why it isn’t any more) dislike this intensely but are not sure what to do. Few of them – perhaps just two - are financially literate, and one of those is almost older than God, having served on the board since the Nabarro era. The new boys can run rings round them.

Desperate men do desperate things. If this stab at financial stability has misfired to the tune of £2 million, SVR continues to face the prospect of catastrophic and overwhelming financial failure in the foreseeable future. Cash flow is the only thing that matters, because it is the only thing that can’t and won’t wait. If they put the share issue income to catching up with deferred but now pressing infrastructure maintenance and restoring the cash reserves, they will live to fight another day. If they don't, they won't.

 

I've got to correct you here. The EMF (owners of 7812/7802) have a completely different running agreement with the SVR than any of the other ownership groups do at the present time. The agreement that they signed, some time ago, has nothing to do with the discussions that are currently taking place with the other groups. Therefore, to suggest that the EMF have decided to grin and bear it whilst the rest are dragging their heels is wholly inaccurate. There is a consensus that the current situation must change for the good of all parties.
The detailed (ongoing) discussions RE running agreements are not an item for public discussion, which sadly only encourages misguided and innacurate statements like the one above to be jetissoned off into the ether.

 

The reason the share offer is showing signs of decline is because the current Bridgnort plans are not acceptable to a large number of volunteers and members. People are not going to raid their bank accounts to a cause they are not in favour of. I am sure a railway design, early 20th century to GWR design would have been far more acceptable, even if views for improvement were expressed. How the obvious escaped the good and great is somewhat a mystery. Fingers pointing at 'planning officers' will not do.

This blunder concerns not only the share offer, but is raising questions from volunteers about the purpose of their labours. If we are moving to a business model rather than Heritage railway, this issue could cause more problems than those at the top table could ever have imagined.