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

Come on chaps, it's a forum for discussion, views, opinions and ideas. I get the very strong impression that all contributors on this thread, bar none, have the best interest of the SVR at heart - they just have different views on the complicated pathway to a succesful future. I for one find it a positive feature that so many want the best for the Railway. Ideas and views stimulate thought and should be encouraged. For the record I am a great fan of GFG. His posts contain many interesting ideas, and an unique sense of humour - even if I might take exception to being branded amongst the great 'unwashed' ! Long may he continue to contribute.

 

May concur with your comments regarding GFG etc. however it is a pity posters, like myself, feel reluctant to use the SVR's own forum using their own name for fear of reprisals or severe editing by "old guard" moderators.
Whilst it is unacceptable to severely flame individuals; constructive criticism and suggestion, as on this thread, should be encouraged and heeded.

 

The SVR (H) Board is as we speak deliberating on a new policy to control social media, sponsored by Nick Wright, board member for (hilariously) communication. It deals particularly with the public part of the SVR Online forum, and that will probably be abolished, replaced by a real name only forum within the SVRLive intranet. Part of the difficulty SVR will continue to experience is that so much debate - some of it quite informed - has migrated to this place because of the blundering way they have tried to deal with even mild but constructive dissent in their own house.

Neither does the board paper recognise that the SVR thread here often gets more daily hits ( a thousand on a good day) than their entire forum.


Pending the dawn of the great glorious day, Lingus need have no fears of reprisals - one of the moderators is the Station Master at Bridgnorth, a man for whom the hobby of dwarf hurling was invented.

 

Puzzled by this - the ASM Bridgnorth/H board member is not aware of such a paper?

 

Sorry to hear a board member is in the dark. See SVR News, Winter issue, Boardroom Notes. Mr Mellor will provide enlightenment. Can I help you with anything else?

Best

GF-G

 

If the Tigger here is the same one as at the other place it is reasonable to infer comments here are being fed back to that member of the SVR(H) board. How confident that board member feels to fearlessly pass the comments on to the gang of four is open to speculation. I do, however, believe any move by the SVR to more closely control its own forum will lead to postings there becoming bland and barely informative.
Conversely, the anonymity and lack of excessive moderation presently afforded by this forum allow posters to express their concerns more openly.

Now that is of concern.

 

The SVR Winter News refers to the staffing committee "*is to* circulate to Directors a new policy for the use of internet and social media *by staff*...." (my emphases). I work for a company which has a policy for the use of internet and social media by staff, as injudicious use could bring my employer into disrepute.

It does not say, as does GFG, the SVR (H) Board is deliberating on a new policy to control social media (to which Tigger has cast doubt), nor that it is sponsored by Nick Wright, nor that it deals particularly with the public part of the SVR [actually SVRA] Online forum, nor that that forum will probably be abolished, nor that it would be replaced by a real name only forum within the SVRLive intranet.

Please could GFG clarify? Thanks

While I'm on I think GFG is incorrect, the moderators of the SVRA forum are shown on the index page, as webmaster (Paul Garner) and Chris Thomas. Neither is the Bridgnorth Station Master.

(For completeness the media forum SVR-Online Forum :: View Forum - In the Media moderator is me (hearn_p) but that simply posts Newspaper & magazine articles that mention the SVR, and is not part of the discussion forum - nor am I a moderator for the rest of it).

Patrick Hearn/hearn_p/D1039

 

1. Paul Garner does an excellent job running the official unofficial svra forum, and it will/can not be closed down unless Paul chooses to:

"The Railway does not have anything to do with the Forum site. The Forums are something I do on a volunteer basis. As a self-employed person I run a small web hosting service mainly for the use of my customer base. Therefore, I have the inhouse resources to publish this site. The whole site started around 8 years ago, long before the SVR had its own site. I proposed the idea of a website and a meeting was held at Bewdley, but nothing ever came of it. A while later the Railway decided to have a professional job done rather than a volunteer run one. Initially this was to concentrate on the more commercial aspects of the Railway ie group bookings, catering and the like. As my site held a lot more general info about the SVR, it was decided that my site should be called the 'official unofficial SVR Website'. Following the decision in recent years for the main site to publish more general info, I decided to cut my site down as it only duplicated the info. Therefore, today we are left with a basic picture gallery and the forums."

The svra forum moderators are Paul Garner (admin), Chris Thomas (all public areas) and Chris Walton (general area).

Would be interesting to learn of the origin of this nat-pres forum, and the background of the moderators?

2. The SVRLive cloud-based website will indeed have a new forum area, as part of the business plan 'communications' component to be targetted early in 2013, which has been informed by a PR professional/MPD volunteer (Iain), and be led by the director Nick. Those eligible to participate will be bona fide working members/staff, and the result will be an invaluable web-based discussion and learning zone. It does not set out to replace the svra forum, as it has a completely different remit.

3. Revised architects plans for the Bridgnorth Redevelopment project, to be revealed in due course, will show the careful attention paid to the concerns expressed during the consultation process. Seems to me that, if certain outspoken participants on this forum can choose to stay anonymous and thus avoid risk of having to account for themselves, then secrecy on the part of the revised proposals for Bridgnorth station cannot be criticised? How can you complain about 'lack of communications' from those in authority, when you choose to stay secretive about your real identity?
It is however comforting that GFG's 'spies'/informants have been unable to tell him anything about the excellent progress that BH ASM Chris is making with the revision to the designs for the redevelopment, and the involvement of those who are helping us with the HLF grant application. Bridgnorth Station's wellbeing and industrial/engineering integrity continues to be in good hands.

4. The next Q&A - for working members and staff - is two weeks time, on Saturday 12 January. If anyone chooses to submit a question - in their real name - to me, I will have that question raised, and the answer obtained. I will then put all such Qs and As on a thread on the svra forum, just like I posted all the comments about the Bridgnorth redevelopment consultation.
Will anyone be brave enough to take me up on this?

Tigger

 

Hi Martin
I was asked to keep a radio silence to enable the million to make a big bang. I did so. That's all. Now we've reached the million, we're back to daily updates.

Facebook and Twitter did not 'go in house'.
It was agreed at a meeting of relevant people that official facebook and twitter accounts would be set up, and suitable people sought to run them. Patrick helps on twitter.
I run twitter, facebook and other social media accounts as Bridgnorth Station, as it's my home and I know about it. The two twitter feeds retweet each other - hopefully it works well.

Hope that helps.

I am now looking to create loads of 'behind the scenes' video clips to put on YouTube, to edutain and maybe even encourage a few new volunteers. If this is something you could help me with, that would be good.

Kind regards
Tigger

 

GFG is not an SVR working member, and I am increasingly believing that much of his postings are speculation and guesswork. Writing with an authorititive voice does not automatically mean he is accurate.
The section of the business plan on communications is to be tackled next by the SVRH board, which will include a section of SVRLive for 'internal' discussion and debate amongst bona fide members, using their real names. This is very simply regulated, and the SVR members database will be used to check applicants, in the same way that annual renewal of working member passes happens.
Thus GFG posting 'policy to control social media' is incorrect - it is a policy to utilise social media methodology to enable cloud-based interaction between the working members who choose to participate.
An excellent further step to aid communication between the widespread but like-minded group of people (over a thousand) who give their time to help run Severn Valley Railway.

So why the mocking, and why the apparent total unquestioning of anything GFG posts?

Tigger

 

Tigger Thanks for this.

Just one point of clarification - the terms "member" (which includes me) and "working member" (which does not include me) seem to have been used interchangeably here. Am I right in thinking that the new discussion forum will be limited to the latter?

 

I would expect the new discussion forum to be limited to those who are willing to be identified with a real name, as a member and/or a working member. I am sure this will be announced at the forthcoming Q&A.

About SVRLive:
About
[TABLE="class: MS_WH_ZoneRow"]
[TR]
[TD]Why two web sites?
The main svr web site (www.svr.co.uk) is well-established and has seen constant improvement, but it is primarily aimed at the travelling public.
It has long been felt that a second site is needed - a site which would offer more timely, detailed information, which could be accessed by people who need more detailed information about the railway. Also, it is becoming more and more important to improve communication with those who work on or are members of the railway. This site has been created in response to these needs.

[/TD]
[TD="class: MS_WH_ZoneSpacing"][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="class: MS_WH_ZoneRow"]
[TR]
[TD]Timescales
This site (along with a more private site) is undergoing a 3-month development period, during which we will be establishing the facilities required, how updates are performed, and in particular assessing the costs of delivering what is required.
After this initial period a proposal will be presented to the Board and, if approved, we will continue to expand and develop the site until the end of 2012, when another assesment will take place.

[/TD]
[TD]
How can you help?
During this development phase it's important for us to get an idea of what information you want to see on the site, and whether the site is working for you. If it is, we need to know.
Issues you could comment on are (for instance):

• General impressions of the site.
• Usability - can you get around and find what you need.
• Is the information supplied useful? If so, what's good and what's not.
• What other information would you like to see.

Please let us have your comments via the email contact form on the 'Feedback' page. All your emails will come direct to us and we will read and act on (if possible) every one.
Thanks in advance!
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

Good, specific concerns being expressed, that can be discussed in a responsible manner. So can you elaborate:

1. "Lack of focus on what is the most important things for the Valley" - what do you believe this comprises?

2. "Management team and board that is not in control" - your reasoning/evidence?

We experienced a devastating flood five years ago that could have closed us forever. It didn't. The same management team and board was in control then (the GM had started just a few days before). What are they not in control of, in your view?

And remember the Q&A offer

Tigger

 

All SVR directors are volunteers, including H chairman Nick Paul, H vice chair Mike Ball, G chairman David Williams.
Paid managers attending board meetings are general manager Nick Ralls, and accountant Matthew Harris.
Other paid managers, eg operations manager Phil Brown, infrastructure manager Chris Bond, marketing and communications manager Clare Gibbard, attend on request for specific matters.

All senior managers prepare monthly department reports for the H board meetings, and the board papers which directors must pre-read amount to several dozen pages.

Board meetings are monthly, and many directors also have specific responsibilities, including Steve White (safety), Chris Thomas (operations), Diane Malyon (staffing), Alan Longdon (stations co-ordinator).

 

Oh I have been reading them, thanks. But that does not necessarily mean that I agree with them. I remain extremely sceptical that the Inchcape site is of use beyond parking, although I will concede that Volunteer accommodation could also be placed there. The other suggestions you make, such as having large scale storage on that site, I am dubious of, because of the difficulties of moving railway stores - which I am sure you know are generally extremely heavy - over the two levels.

You are mistaking my scepticism with the Inchcape site with an enthusiastic acceptance of the proposed changes to Bridgnorth. Yes, I too have my doubts over the proposed buildings for Bridgnorth. To me, as with many others, they seem excessively modern/downright weird, and it is heartening that latest news is that the plans are being reconsidered. So in answer to your questions - Yes with reservations and No. Yes, as the Exeter sheds were very tired. Very, very tired! But, like you, I would appreciate a more considerate replacement. No, as some of the proposed buildings are very odd.

My main point is: the Inchcape site is not a magical panacea to the perceived ills of the current plans. Do not mistake my opposition to lumbering the railway with large annual rent bills for that site, with the possible but by no means assured eventual purchase of that site - for a cool £1million plus - with outright approval for the current plans.

 

Are we to assume you will be no longer posting as tigger?

Let he/(she) without sin cast the first stone.

 

You are not reading them very thoroughly and hence are very mistaken over the Exeter sheds being referred to. They are not those recently demolished to make way for the new locomotive department stores building. If you are familiar with the Bridgnorth site you would be aware of the Exeter sheds that accommodate the Permanent Way Department and Western Locomotive Association.

These Exeter sheds are the last remaining original ones at Bridgnorth station. The "Grand Plan" as presented takes no account of where these groups will be displaced to and is therefore a very poor plan. . . . . Well polished - with lots of pictures; but a poor plan.

Was there such reluctance to initially rent/lease the Kidderminster Town site at the southern end of the line? Had we been less bold we might now have a pagoda shed tucked behind a Morrisons or Tescos for our southern terminus.