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

Thank you Panda. That is really hard not to like. Designed by volunteers, men of blatant passion and sympathy, at no cost to the Company. And affordable – it would be a very hard nosed shareholder who would not unbelt again to get that done. Stuff match-funding from the public purse.

Ian Baxter has written a lucid informed and definitive paper. His logic is unarguable. Have the muddle-headed peddlers of Steamworks really been sitting on that since 24 October? With all the reputational harm and division they have bought down on the railway? How will any of them have the nerve to show their faces in public ever again?

Aye

GF-G

 

My wife & I like to visit the S.V.R. & have a ride from Bridgnorth to Kiddy & back. The only let-downs are the toilets at Bridgnorth & the cafes at Bridgnorth & Bewdley (although no complaints about the food !)
To me , 'plan B' looks a lot better than that proposed by the S.V.R. board. Good luck to the volunteers - I hope that you get the building that you want.
For your information it isn't only the S.V.R. that suffers from boards of directors that are out of touch with their working volunteers & sometimes also out of touch with reality !

Bob.

 

Wow, what an erudite, well presented and sympathetic proposal. The associated PDF is inspiring.



...although it is a shame that it appears as though 'the members' (or at least a proportion of them) feel their only way of getting heard is to take the step of setting up a public website, and writing open public letters to try and get those spearheading the development work to consider all the options.

 

Good news that some volunteers with expertise in the field have decided to release their own, well considered proposals. One has to wonder why they felt the need to go public at this late point in time ?

This document is so definitive that its hard to understand why there has been no comment on the proposals from the company.

 

Much of the information at the plan B site has been available for several years.
I do recall a presentation in Bridgnorth Buffet where the speaker clearly indicated all previous work was being put to one side and they are starting afresh.
WHAT CONCEIT!
We must now demand an answer to the question; how much has been spent/wasted with Howl Associates Ltd when major elements of a far more sympathetic design has already been created by volunteers?

 

This development (the letter, the plans, the website etc) blows the existing--now allegedly being revised--plans, totally out of the water and the least the project leaders can do is to call a halt and pause for thought, particularly if the money clock is ticking with Howl Associates.
Maybe all this should have been made public last year when the "modernistic" plans were unveiled, but perhaps in fairness the people behind this latest proposal wanted to see how the members reacted to the first proposals.
I respectfully urge everyone with an interest in this project to read the document to be found under the heading "Environment" on the plan b website.

 

You can do that later. What matters at this moment is for the February Holdings Board meeting to stop throwing ANY further monies at Steamworks, and acknowledge if not adopt the volunteer led scheme that has met with the enthusiastic approval of people here and in the Other Place.

In due course they can, as you rightly call for, be held to account for the harm they have done and the poor judgement they have displayed, and for the insensitivity and arrogance on their part that has caused loyal men to create an external website of protest. The AGM is the proper place for that. It is the only window of opportunity to actually take any of the buggers out of post.

Aye

GF-G

 

What a cracking design. I would put my hand in my pocket to support that. Serious questions must be asked about what is going on at board level, at the right time, of course. I cannot believe that the SVR have been ignoring/hiding that design work.

 

I think we all owe a debt gratitude to the members involved in the 'Bridgnorth B' web site. 'Evil can only be done if good men stay silent' comes to mind - maybe a bit strong but you get the point. I would expect there to be widespread support/ approval from a majority of members for these proposals.

The one remaining problem is letting the Board know the strength of support behind these proposals, unfortunately the web site does not have an e-petition function. Members and volunteers tend to work or associate in small groups. Comment not in line with 'policy' at the other place is not always welcome or sees the light of day.

Improved communicaton too the membership was supposed to have been on the agenda, but excellent, free ideas like this do appear not to be heard

 

Plant B is absolutely correct in what should have been proposed, well done in launching these proposals as web site for all to see and comment on!

I would also wish to congratulate these members of the defunct Heritage Building Committee for their resolve in proposing this much more suitable alternative development.

However, I would like to ask why did the ‘SVR’s powers that be’ dissolve the’ Heritage Building Committee‘ when it had such worthy members sitting on it?

_________________
Are you in the dark?
Plato: life (The Classics Pages)

 

Perhaps it came up with the wrong answers

 

Nah, I dont like it one bit, my money will stay firmly in my pocket:smile:

No seriously, its brilliant, well done to those behind plan B, that is just what is required.

Will peruse the full website and document over the next few days, but these guys deserve our support and thanks for showing a clear way forward.

 

Must just say that I would also be fully in favour of Plan B - at least from a passenger perspective. In my mind it answers all of the questions that are required from redevelopment of Bridgnorth as a destination station. There are some other issues which would need to be attended to - the training academy is a must and obviously volunteer accommodation needs to go somewhere - but from the perspective of what should be on Platform 1 this seems near on perfect.

 

All part of project Xanadu to inflate the ego of the project team and attract external funding.

 

Er no - more like absolutely essential if the necessary skills to maintain the SVR (and no doubt other heritage railways) are to be available into the future.

 

As I understand it, the railway already takes on apprentices in the traditional sense.

Whilst a catchy buzz word to put in glossy brochures, just what exactly is the "training academy" intended to consist of, and why is it essential for it to be located in a new building at Bridgnorth rather than being located or provision provided elsewhere?

 

It's called 'Empire Building' & the people responsible are probably on an ego trip. Time to part company methinks !
I'm sure that the necessary apprentice training scheme is quite adequate & is on a par with other heritage railway's schemes.

Bob.

 

Well, 1472, maybe. Or just a demand with menaces for another ludicrous sum of money from MPD, the single most out of control department of the lot. Tyseley – whose engines work a lot better and cost less than the SVR fleet – just completed a project that creates workstations for four Class 8 engines with their tenders (or six 4-6-0s without) to be fiddled about with undercover simultaneously and an overhead travelling crane that will lift a boiler, for £350,000 all in, with £100,000 of that as grant.

We are supposed to believe – unquestioningly - that building a £500,000 Papal Residence at BH will fix everything. The engineering bid teams at Bury, Crewe, Llangollen and Carnforth, not to mention down the Warwick Road, must be laughing their socks off at us. Not one of our PLC Directors is a competent steam engineer. We are right to challenge and test their decisions when so much money is at stake.

Aye

GF-G

 

Not to answer your post but on a purely factual basis:

The plans describe two of the buildings at Bridgnorth: "New training academy office and artefacts storage" and "New heritage training academy accommodation building" http://www.svrlive.com/Documents/MASTER PH 4.pdf. The latter includes volunteer accomodation.

The Share Offer http://www.svr.co.uk/pdf/Share Offer/Severn Valley Brochure LOW RES.pdf states:

"Heritage Engineering and Building Training
Academy - With an ever ageing workforce, there is a
need for the SVR to develop a new apprenticeship and
training scheme for young people. This will imbue in
them the traditional methods of working and train them
in the essential skills of locomotive fitting, boiler making,
carriage joinery, maintenance and restoration as well as
the restoration of heritage buildings. The SVR’s various
workshops are already well developed and provide
an excellent environment in which to learn under the
tutelage of experts.
The ‘Hagley Hall’ and GWR carriage overhaul project
would provide the perfect opportunity to ‘kick start’
the Engineering Training Academy, employing young
people on a project that combines so many skills and
disciplines. Restoration of the Kidderminster Carriage
Works would provide the opportunity for building
training. Training would involve working on site and
also attending a day-release scheme in conjunction
with local colleges. On completion of their training,
the apprentices may be well placed to find continued
employment on the SVR or elsewhere in the evergrowing
heritage industry"

I think it can be inferred that the "locomotive fitting, boiler making" will be undertaken at Bridgnorth but the academy would not be entirely located (in a new building or otherwise) at Bridgnorth - not that your post said it was

Patrick