If you register, you can do a lot more. And become an active part of our growing community. You'll have access to hidden forums, and enjoy the ability of replying and starting conversations.

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

Discussion in 'Heritage Railways & Centres in the UK' started by geekfindergeneral, Oct 16, 2011.

  1. Jamessquared

    Jamessquared Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Messages:
    26,103
    Likes Received:
    57,427
    Location:
    LBSC 215
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    With regard the "training academy". Is it a physical building (with classrooms etc), or simply a name for a programme of apprentice training? If it is the former, then it does smack a bit of "project Xanadu"; if the latter, then I'd suggest it is clearly worthwhile.

    The Government are putting a lot of money into apprenticeships. The general route is through your local FE college(s); you would have a programme that is a mixture of classroom learning (in areas such as English and Maths) and on-the-job training in the various skills required, with, at the end of the programme, recognised qualifications. Obviously some of that learning needs to take place in a classroom, but often that would be at the local college for the general bits (i.e. English and Maths). The Government would part or fully-fund the training; it is up to the employer to fund the difference and pay any wages. Even so it is quite a generous scheme.

    There are also Lottery grants to help pay the Railway's contribution (and these are an area where I think it is worth chasing the grants, because the outcome the HLF will fund is entirely congruent with what the railway would like to achieve). The Mid Hants Railway is an example; they have HLF grants to run a training programme that will train 14 apprentices for two years each. See Skills for the Future projects - Heritage Lottery Fund (scroll down). I'm sure there will be news on the MHR website as well.

    I'm sure the SVR Directors know all this: my point is that if the "Training Academy" means a physical building, I wonder quite what they hope to achieve; if instead it means a programme of study for some apprentices, that is entirely laudable and also probably fundable by the HLF with a minimum of compromises needed.

    Tom
     
  2. tigger

    tigger New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2012
    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Bridgnorth
    1. The Board well knows the strength of support.

    2. The open letter and drawings/plans on this website have been sent individually by post to all holdings directors.

    3. Speaking now as an individual, having been displaced from the project group, I invite emails from named individuals (names in confidence) to our station email at hello@bridgnorthstation.co.uk with written comment, which can then be collated and provided to the board as a package (petition?).

    The email addresses steamworks@svrlive.com and feedback@svr.co.uk can also be used, though these are 'official' addresses, not volunteer-run.

    4. The station website Bridgnorth Station | Home and facebook Bridgnorth Station | Facebook and email and twitter, blog and youtube accounts, are all run by me as a volunteer.
     
  3. I. Cooper

    I. Cooper Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2011
    Messages:
    567
    Likes Received:
    666
    Location:
    Salop

    Thank you.
    So in essence an office, storage facility and bunk house.
    Although I'm not so sure of the relevance of a bunk house to an on going day-release apprentice scheme? Clearly that is needed as a general facility for the railway and volunteers, situated somewhere along the railway. As I said before, I was led to believe the railway already operates an apprentice scheme, in which case anything further can hardly be championed as something groundbreaking and new.

    As for 'artefacts storage', from what I can gather the railway has a general lack of storage facilities for its current operational departments, a homeless S&T department for one would no doubt be quite glad of somewhere to store their artefacts as well. This provision doesn't need to be located in the station building though, I would have thought better storage facilities in general could be tackled as a seperate 'project'. That just leaves an office - presumably not too difficult to revisit proposals and see if there's room for office facilities (space currently occupied by unfashionable toilets perhaps? - could even become an ensuite office! ;o) )
     
  4. D1039

    D1039 Guest

    Apologies to all, I'd missed a bit (it wasn't titled). In addition to the "New training academy office and artefacts storage" and "New heritage training academy accommodation building" http://www.svrlive.com/Documents/MASTER PH 4.pdf, "the Gateway building provides exhibition space and teaching facilities for visitors and Academy users".

    Patrick
     
  5. michaelh

    michaelh Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    3,080
    Likes Received:
    1,291
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Very comfortably early retired
    Location:
    1029
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Isn't there more than enough exhibition space at the Engine House?

    This is another example of providing it just to get the grants
     
  6. D1039

    D1039 Guest

    If this comment relates to the person I think it is, I have spoken to them once for around a minute and have no personal interest, but I raised this with the mods for the very reasons stated.

    http://www.raib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/100408_R72010_Hampton_Loade.pdf states: "9. Severn Valley Railway (Holdings) Plc and Severn Valley Railway (Guarantee)
    Company freely co-operated with the investigation".

    Patrick
     
  7. Sidmouth

    Sidmouth Resident of Nat Pres Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2005
    Messages:
    9,635
    Likes Received:
    8,303
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Alderan !
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    I have moderated a number of posts in relation to an allegation made by GFG .

    Firstly allegations such as the one made have no place on internet forums . It is (to my mind) the worst and unacceptable face of the internet that serious allegations can be made whilst hiding behind the cloak of anonynymity and has no place on nat pres

    Since it was quoted subsequently i have tried to edit / remove these as well

    any I have missed please report and I will tweak as necessary
     
  8. b.oldford

    b.oldford Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2009
    Messages:
    245
    Likes Received:
    55
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Shropshire
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    My understanding from the SVR(H) Chairman's comments at the recent Bridgnorth Q&A that the Academy will be more a "virtual" thing. That however leaves me unsure why the building shown on Plan A proposed to occupy the approximate location of the existing buffet contains what appears to be a lecture theater.
     
  9. Lingus

    Lingus New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Messages:
    144
    Likes Received:
    3
    It's reported that you have been doing a good job providing minutes/secretarial services to the project team. Your "displacement" may be taken, rightly or wrongly, to imply you have been seen as a member of the awkward squad. If this and Ian Baxter's post at the other place has any truth it suggests there is far more to be concerned about the SVR than an inappropriate building design.
    Speculation; yes, but not without reason or perhaps it's simply cock-up and not conspiracy.
     
  10. Ruston906

    Ruston906 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2011
    Messages:
    455
    Likes Received:
    99
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Worcestershire
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    All

    I have looked at plan b there would have to be design changes for it to comply with current DDA legistlation ramped access and tactile slabs. The plan does not profide disable access to platform 2 other than the barrow crossing which for a modern visitor attraction will need to be changed to something more suitable.
    This can all be done at be in keeping with the rest of the station.
     
  11. std tank

    std tank Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    3,808
    Likes Received:
    946
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    Liverpool
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    A correctly built barrow crossing is quite acceptable for wheelchairs and buggies.
     
  12. Jamessquared

    Jamessquared Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Messages:
    26,103
    Likes Received:
    57,427
    Location:
    LBSC 215
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer

    Before we all go round and round in circles, we did discuss this issue of board crossings, and whether they were acceptable as crossing points for disabled access:

    http://railways.national-preservati...ch-%A34-000-000-share-issue-9.html#post508506 post 83 and following couple of pages.

    Now, as I recall, that discussion was in connection with the proposed footbridge, which had lifts which not only gave you disabled access from one platform to the other, but also access to the Steamworks viewing platform. If you didn't need the access to Steamworks, then in my mind, a barrow crossing would be perfectly acceptable under the Equalities and Human Rights Act requirement for "reasonable adaptations". But, I am not a lawyer...

    As for how much access you would need in Plan B: the real issue is whether a disabled visitor could get access to equivalent facilities in the existing building. If so, I don't believe that you would have to make the new building accessible to wheelchairs (though you still might choose to do so and in many cases, it would not be especially hard to do if properly planned to start with rather than retrofitted afterwards, which is normally more expensive).

    Tom
     
  13. Ruston906

    Ruston906 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2011
    Messages:
    455
    Likes Received:
    99
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Worcestershire
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    I think all access into the new building would need to be wheel chair accessible as the DDA act say you must provide disabled people with the same service as the to other members of the public they would require access to all the new buildings ramps and doors that wheel chairs can easily get through.
     
  14. Jamessquared

    Jamessquared Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Messages:
    26,103
    Likes Received:
    57,427
    Location:
    LBSC 215
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    No, the DDA requirement (or rather, the Equalities and Human Rights Act, which subsumed the DDA) is "reasonable adjustment", not "same service". Admittedly, with a completely new build, you would probably have to make sure you had access ramps, wider doors etc, none of which need to be expensive if you design them in at the outset. But, how you use the rooms can have a bearing. For example, if you have a restaurant split over two floors, there is no absolute requirement to allow wheelchair access to the top floor, because a wheelchair-bound visitor can get access to the service offered (buying and eating food) by accessing the ground floor room. Whereas if you put your restaurant only on the top floor and therefore you didn't have any other dining option, you would probably have to ensure that the top floor room was wheelchair accessible, particularly for a new build.

    The rules about adaptation of pre-existing facilities are less stringent, which is why I continue to think that, for the simple matter of cross-platform access, a barrow crossing (with, where appropriate, an agreed working method and staff on duty) is entirely acceptable. I can't see how such access could in any way be deemed anything other than providing an equivalent level of access as an able bodied passenger using a footbridge.

    Tom
     
  15. Plato

    Plato New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2012
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    West Midlands
    Plan B has received a great deal of positive support on here and on he other place.

    But! This is not the first time the Awkward Squad has felt it had to get involved with accurate and historically correct Architectural Matters. Because the ‘Powers That Be’ came up with inappropriate designs for large scale investments projects.


    1. The side extension to Kidderminster Station.


    1. Kidderminster Overall Roof.


    1. Highley Footbridge.

    Are just 3 of these examples?

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

    gios Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2012
    Messages:
    310
    Likes Received:
    1,003
    I guess I would be a member of the 'Awkward Squad'. There is indeed a list, I would include the dreadful fencing infront of the signal box at Highly, neglected lengths of telephone poles etc. The sum of all these small items does indeed make the Valley a less attractive proposition for our visitors.

    The public release of a professional volunter inspired plan for Bridgnorth is fantastic and much welcomed - and all for free !

    The chase the money and build what the grant giver wants, with the ongoing expense of running the place, has already been well illustrated.

    The Board really needs to listen to the common sense voice of its members.
     
  17. b.oldford

    b.oldford Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2009
    Messages:
    245
    Likes Received:
    55
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Shropshire
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    If trying to convince people to do right thing such as:-
    Accurately replicate architrave mouldings, install signage with authentic GWR fonts, not use poorly replicated ball top gate posts, not build inappropriately styled buildings etc. makes me a member of the awkward squad then please sign me up.
     
  18. TheCathedralsExpress

    TheCathedralsExpress New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2013
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    Many thanks to everyone who has expressed support on here and at "The Other Place" for Plan B. (If anyone can post a link or copy this to the SVR forum I would appreciate it, as the registration procedure on there is a mystery to me).

    The adoption of contemporary and pseudo-railway architecture for this scheme has been driven by a subjective philosophy, not the requirements of planning legislation or guidance. We have been warned of the danger of presenting 'false history'. This is a meaningless concept on a heritage railway which, for over forty years, has been preserving the past and reconstructing it where it has been lost.

    The company has allowed this project to start off on the wrong foot. Instead of presenting a traditional style to planners and battling any opposition, it has inexplicably sided with a particular branch of conservation theory which to most of us seems completely at odds with its purpose. Now, in the face of substantial and inevitable opposition, it is back tracking towards the point it should have begun at.

    There are numerous examples of listed buildings which have had extensions designed in traditional styles. Ian Baxter illustrates some of them in his paper which forms part of our website. This approach only fails when little consideration is given to proportion, materials and detailing. We are not trying to fool visitors into thinking that the GWR built this extension if 'honesty' is a concern. The intention is simply to present a sympathetic modern building in a historical style. And there is nothing shameful about that; after all, the revival of historical styles formed the basis of western architecture from the Renaissance to the early 20th century.

    I am convinced that if this scheme goes ahead in anything like its current form, the rest of the preservation movement will not be looking at us with envy. They will be looking at us in utter astonishment.

    Kevin Simpson
     
  19. Jamessquared

    Jamessquared Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Messages:
    26,103
    Likes Received:
    57,427
    Location:
    LBSC 215
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    I know I have mentioned this example before in another thread, but worth re-stating: When the Bluebell took over Horsted Keynes, all the buildings on Platform 1/2 had been swept away by the Southern Railway in the 1930s. Subsequently, the entire Horsted Keynes station site was "listed" grade 2, severely restricting what development could take place. Yet against that backdrop, the railway was able to completely re-instate the canopies and buildings on platform 1/2 (winning a Heritage Award in the process...) in a way that has been done so that it is explicit that you can't tell the difference between the original 19th century canopies and buildings (on Platform 3/4) and the 21st century ones (on Platform 1/2).

    So whoever is pushing the particular branch of conservation theory that says new additions should be distinct, my feeling is that it can and should be resisted. Afterall, there is so much documentary and photographic evidence about the rebuilding at HK, that no future architectural historian is ever going to mistake the new building on Platform 1/2 for the original building on Platform 3/4; but the fact that many of our visitors do just that I would say is a bonus. For those that are intetersted, there are discreet displays that tell the story and point out what is old and what is new. I'd venture to suggest that the same process should be possible at Bridgnorth.

    In fact I'd argue that the SVR station at Kidderminster is a bigger fraud - but who can argue that it is anything other than a wonderful place to start your journey? It's a strange view of conservation that allows an entirely new "fake old" station at Kidderminster, but wants to desecrate a "genuinely old" station at Bridgnorth!

    Tom
     
  20. TheCathedralsExpress

    TheCathedralsExpress New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2013
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tom has made an exceptionally good point. In the future there need be no reason why a building's evolution is shrouded in mystery. How many photographs exist showing Bridgnorth station as it is now? I've got a plan of it as it was in GWR times even. The evidence of its development is well documented for those who are interested in such matters.

    Of course, the casual visitor without much architectural interest may think plan B was built in the age of steam, but if they do find out the actuality, I'm sure they wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

    When an architectural historian looks at one of our historic cathedrals, they can tell which parts were built by medieval masons and which were Victorian alterations. In the same way, the architectural experts of the future, even if all documentation is lost, will be able to distinguish a 19th century GWR building from a 21st century one which looks like it. There will be clues.

    In case anyone should think I'm a complete reactionary towards modern architecture, you're wrong. When I was a conservation officer I dealt with schemes to alter listed buildings which used contemporary design and had no problem with them. If I was the impartial conservation officer responsible for Bridgnorth and the railway came to me with their proposal I would probably support it, because heritage railway considerations aside, it is attractive. If they came to me with plan B I could support that too. But as a working member of the SVR for 23 years I cannot see why the company would go to the planning authority with a contemporary design in the first place.

    KS
     

Share This Page