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

I am sure GF-G is more than capable of defending himself, I will leave comments concerning him alone.

This is a thread which started about the Share Issue, which I wish well. Problems originated with release of images of the proposals for Bridgnorth Station redevelopment - much needed. This has led to many and varied comments, suggestions and ideas both here and at the other place. The overwhelming reaction everywhere being that the original design proposals were unsuited to the Railway. One of the problems for this discussion appears to be that a member of the committee involved in the, I hope discredited - but, who knows, original redevelopment plans, has now taken the role of 'retreating defender' of said plans. This has resulted in perfectly reasonable comments, suggestions and ideas being met with some hostility - they are not "constructive", and in all probability being discarded. Remember the 70% approval message being sent 'upstairs'.

I make the point once again in the hope that those who imply that any comment is inappropriate, remember that this is a forum - ideas, comment, tittle-tattle, suggestion and gossip. Whilst a few might object to freedom of speech and expression, there have been some very positive discussions and ideas. Of course not everyone will agree with everything being proposed, nor will there ever be 100% agreement for the final plans - but we are all big boys and girls.

What would be most helpful from those who feel the importance of being on the 'inside', would be some basic idea of the outline details of the rethink - not just wait until February or even April. The proposed plans have to be acceptable this time round, even if only a small part is likely to see the light of day in the near future. General direction of the current thought process would probably surfice. There is a bit too much of the 'I know something you don't'. A little respect, rather than disdain for those who are paying would probably be a great help, and give the Share Issue a far better chance of some success.

I'll get my tin hat and wait for Tigger !

 

The last two pages of posts have been enlived by a response from the railway, and I have enjoyed watching it, but what a shame it was so incoherent. It sets out to show I am talking dribble, and then together with the matching thread in the other place, confirms everything I said about social media plans - especially an insistence on real names. The Bridgnorth SM may or may not be a moderator, theSVR protagonists seem to disagree with each other, but Hey, its only a little thing. The issue is how it the railway is run, not whether it can invent some cloud based interaction solution (WTF is that anyway - feel free to PM me).

My main theme, for the best part of a year, is that SVR is in the doldrums through poor weak leadership. If the present hierarchy could deliver the sort of passenger numbers enjoyed up to 2005, there would be no need for this vexed and confused share issue. There would be no crisis with the loco owners. There would not be an overdraft close to a million. In the real world, managers are set sales targets. On Planet Valley as presently directed (for want of a better word) you can meander about as sales figures go through the floor, still drawing a salary in the GMs case, and go cap in hand to the shareholders and public gift and grant to stay afloat. And that IS the essential character of this share issue. Forget what is in the prospectus, all of that will be kicked down the road as soon as decently possible. This was about preventing the SVR going bust in the first half of 2013, which is exactly what would have happened if the stalwarts had not brassed up again.

The flood arguement is moving but dribble. The railway reopened in 2008 having used just £260,000 of its own money to drag itself out of the river. The rest was gift. It has had four years trading since.

Aye


GF-G


PS When did I say I was a working member?

 

Plainly, it doesn’t.


Patrick
[SVR member, shareholder, volunteer & occasional tweeter, but with no position on the railway and no intention of having one. Not sure if that makes me a “protagonist”, but if so I’m one of around 15,000!]

 

One simple question.

Out of everyone who has debated and commented on wishing the SVR well for the Steamworks Project.

How many have put their hands in their pockets to ensure the project is a success?

 

One simple answer from me.

I have already openly stated that my cheque book is closed, shut, ferme, dichtdoen - until such time as I see evidence of acceptable, in my view, development plans / ideas for Bridgnorth. Just the buffet, shop, toilet building should be an easy start !

 

I have, just as I have supported them for the last 30+ years !!!

 

I was tempted to, but upon seeing the final plans I have shut my wallet until I see something more to my taste.

Whilst my contribution would not pay for much on its own I do not want to contribute something that in my eyes would see part of the SVR destroyed, which with the glass footbridge and ikea style cafe is what I feel would happen.

If the new plans come back and the designs are more appropriate for a Great Western station / railway then I will be more wiling to support, and going off this thread I am not the only one.

Yes that's not putting the SVR first, but I enjoy the fact the SVR does in general recreate what a Western branch line once was and it is one of the main reasons I visit. I do not want to support something that dilutes this recreation, especially when a solution that fits in with what is already there could of been implemented. Highley got a 'new' footbridge more in keeping with its environment, so why can't Bridgnorth be treated the same?

 

Me for one, increased my shareholding by 150% [even though, like everyone else, I could pick holes in parts of it]

Patrick

 

Hi all,

I have not been following all pages of this thread, so please accept my apologies, if "my" idea has been raised before.

Much discussion is about the Bridgnorth upgrade and the current proposals which include quite a few building in modern, i.e year 2012, style. Many contributors on here do not like that. Have you ever considered that this is in fact an attempt to preserve Bridgnorth "as it was"? Once you add extra GWR-style buildings you probably will not be able to tell old from new in a few years time. Bridgnorth will not be a GWR station but an SVR station built in old GWR style. The modern architecture will clearly tell which is which, old GWR buildings and SVR addition. Just a thought...

Regards

Christoph

 

Given the number of posts on this subject perhaps it is time to go back to the share Prospectus to see what that document says about how the money, of which the share issue is only part, will be spent, but with the caveat that there is no apparent order of priority stated.
The three strands to the investment programme are:
1; Visitor Amenities-"to meet the increased expectations of visitors": Projects within this heading are mainly at Bridgnorth as follows:-
-SteamWorks.
-New SteamWorks Visitor Centre.
-New SteamWorks "Station Gateway".
-New Gallery to SteamWorks.
-Station Building Conservation (Bridgnorth station).
-Bewdley Station: Buffet/canopy/car park.

Total cost of the above: est. £4.5 million.

2; Rolling Stock & Locomotives.
-Improved MPD facilities.
-Restoration of 4930 Hagley Hall and associated GWR carriage set.
-Overhaul of Locomotive Fleet.

Total cost of above: est £3 million.

3; Infrastructure.
-Kidderminster Carriage Works, roof to be made watertight.
-Falling Sands Viaduct, requires waterproofing to extend life.
-Track refurbishment.

Total cost of above: est. £1 million.

Also in support of these projects:
-Heritage Engineering and Building Training Academy.
Est cost: £0.5 million.

Volunteer Accommodation, Bridgnorth and Hampton Loade.

Est cost: 1.5 million.

Hope this is useful to provide a refresher as to the stated aims of the share issue. I make no comment whatsoever about what the priorites should be, except to say that I hope in future years we will continue to see steam hauled trains over the full length of the line, a large-enough "service fleet" of suitable steam locomotives to avoid steam motive power problems, with trains running on decent P-Way, and infrastructure in good order. Hope that is not controversial. If deemed to be so,then I apologise in advance.

46118

 

Thank for reminding us of what the money is planned to be used for. As we only have only a little over 10% to hand of the total required and a number of posters think the likelihood of achieving the goal of £3M is looking extremely unlikely it may be intriguing to think about what items may be deferred.

Clearly the new locomotive department building will need to proceed fairly quickly as the main locomotive building is getting increasingly crowded with the items displaced from the Exeter sheds that have recently been demolished and from the shipping containers some of which have now been broken up.
In the unlikely event that this building costs the full £500K stated that will, as things stand, leave a shade over £1/2M in the pot.

In my view the next immediate priority will be the new restaurant/bar building. How much will this soak up and will any grants be forthcoming with which to top the kitty up? Will the cosmetic changes being hinted at be enough to quell the high level of dissent shown sufficiently to re-accelerate the income rate to that which the coffers were being filled initially? Will those cosmetic changes change the cost estimates of the building? (Even such details such as guttering style, window frame detail or arched window heads have an influence).

A number of the recent posts at the other place suggest the underlying facts of GFG's comments may have struck a chord in high places. It would be a very foolish board to completely ignore Sidmouth's comments above.

The most puzzling announcement from the SVR is the need to create an in-house forum that would ban the use of pseudonyms. Some posters prefer not to be identified for reasons associated with their profession. Despite being well known at the SVR; both tigger and D1039 continue the practice along with many others.
This forum serves its purpose well and the other one does reasonably well despite being over moderated sometimes by certain individuals. I believe a "real name" forum will inhibit truly open debate and (horror oh! horror) prevent whistle-blowing.

 

Well known eh - or should that be notorious? My nombre de plume isn't however to disguise myself and I also sign off in my name. I can't even remember why I used it, other than it's my WLA identity. Anonymous and personal or abusive posts, as there have been some on here, undermine the case for allowing an internal intranet to be anonymous.

Just a reminder that the Share Offer is avowedly only the start of a multi-year project, even though (for EIS reasons?) the offer iteself is time limited. Around £7m is posited to come from the other sources as set out in the share document.

As to other questions, I ask direct - feedback@svr.co.uk - and to date I've always had a response

Regards

D1039 (a.k.a. Patrick)

 

I thing Lingus was implying the "other" forum (i.e. the SVR one) was over-moderated, not this one.

Tom

 

Watching this from a distance and the similarities with the Bluebell experience are certainly striking.

- Very vocal critics, both on "internal" forums and "external" ones like here? Tick!
- An accusation that the Directors are out of touch with the membership? Tick!
- Complaints the railway doesn't communicate well? Tick!
- Abject doom and gloom when the Share Issue is slower than hoped? Tick!

It is worth remembering that people are always quicker to criticise than praise. So while I think careful consideration of valid criticism is very important, it is also worth bearing in mind that critics (in any walk of life) will always be more vocal than supporters, so it is also important to keep things in proportion.

Two other points of similarity / difference I would make.

The first is that on the Bluebell, we aimed to raise 1/3 of the money through the share issue and 2/3 by other means. On the SVR it seems to be 30% through the share issue and 70% through other means - a very similar split. But crucially, I don't think most Bluebell members woke up to the bigger, 2/3 share of the fundraising until the share issue was done and dusted and fallen a bit short. Similarly, I really get the sense reading this thread that regardless of whether ultimately the share issue raises its allotted £3m or not, the far bigger task is raising the other £7m, and there is precious little discussion - and I'd suggest awareness - of that task, on this forum at least.

The second point (and in as much as I have a criticism of the SVR, this is it) is that, in comparison to the Bluebell where there was a single very clear objective (get to East Grinstead), this appeal - for £10m, remember - seems a bit of a ragbag of issues, which makes focusing on the task at hand much harder.

Tom (an SVR outsider, remember; just an occasional visitor)

 

That was exactly what I meant and is one of the reasons for my presence here.

It is possible the SVR's management doesn't want to prioritise the various items. Whilst I have expressed my view that the new catering building is of great importance it is possible in these hard times the bank may start pressuring for their overdraft to be repaid. It is possible to read into some of Tigger's postings that only the "educational" bits will attract grant aid. Is that so? I would be very surprised for such aid to be available for the catering/bar/trinket shop.
Perhaps someone could clarify.

A reasonable statement, but fails to explain the need to reinvent the wheel. Members of the SVR's top table are already moderators at the other place to apply a blue pencil to those that are thought to overstep the line. Hasn't the SVR got enough to deal with presently? Or; it there a frustrated webmaster in the SVR's midst who eagerly wants to show her/his prowess?
The SVR's Chairman could re-engage the volunteers and members far more easily by simply signing up to this forum or the SVR's existing one.

 

Let's assume and hope that after all that has been said, the Bridgnorth Station redevelopment plans are in safe hands. The very fact that the SVR is reconsidering the original proposal should be applauded.

One of the interesting points made on this forum, and so far ignored, is the question of passenger numbers. Whilst it is true that many Heritage railways must be facing severe pressure due to the economic downturn and dreadful weather, including the SVR, how is the problem of more bums on seats to be confronted ? The SVR has some really excellent crowd pulling events, Autumn and Spring Gala's, Santa's, Heralds, Diners, and 40s weekends to name just a few, where seats are a sell out or close too. This leaves the periods in between these events as obvious targets for marketing. A rough calculation would suggest that just a 20% market increase in these reasonably short intervening periods, would leave the Railway in a comfortable financial position. In order to arrest the steady decline in passenger numbers, it would seem important that these target areas are addressed. How this might be done is something that everyone, management, members and arm chair supporters, who have the future of the SVR at heart might like to consider. I guess one could wish for better weather conditions or an economic upturn, but these are outside the control of anybody ! Fares appear to be at a reasonable level, given the product on offer. So the question is - how does the Railway increase passenger numbers - The GM can not force people to travel with us !

For a starter I will throw in additional efforts to attract group parties - I know we do reasonably well in this area, but more could possibly be done. If you ever have the misfortune to visit Bicester shopping mall, the place is packed full with overseas visitors, on coach tours of Oxford, Stratford on Avon and Warwick. Making some inroads into this type of captive mass market might make a significant start. I meet the odd overseas visitor who has found us by accident - publicity in hotel rooms, but never larger groups of Americans, Chinese, Europeans or Japanese.

Passenger numbers are the key factor in the economic survival and prosperity of any transport system, the SVR is no different.

 

A comparison between the current share issue and the flood damage cannot really be drawn though. Whilst you are correct that the same management team and board was in control of the SVR then, many contributed because, quite simply, we wouldn't be running a railway between Bridgnorth and Kidderminster today! Many of the items in the share issue are not of vital importance to ensure that the SVR keeps running, and coupled with the disapproval (of many) of the proposed designs for Bridgnorth station probably goes some way to explaining the previous thirty or so pages of dismay in this thread.