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

I feely admit it's a poor choice of words on my part, but as I know not it would consist of, I was trying to being vague. Other than saying there might be something next on it, I don't know how I could have put it.

 

Clearly this thread within a thread has helped those at the other place get their thinking caps on. Clark_T has suggested inclusion of a mention of the Master Nevers Association. It wouldn't take a great deal more effort to have Clare's ideas box brimming over. I'm sure those within the inner sanctum could relate many many tales of the MNAs daring-do.

 

Back to topic, the Share offer finished on £2,001,391. Considering the economic climate and the lack of direction/suitable plans, not too bad...
We shall have to await the release of the new plans to see what is intended now.

 

Quite a number of people are surprise how well it did despite the initial monumentally bad decisions supported with the likes of Looby Loo.
Although severely cut back from project Xanadu we see significant improvements in the area formerly occupied by the Exeter sheds. In addition to the shiny new Portacabins we see continuation of the demolition of the rusty eyesore shipping containers. I'm informed other containers in good condition will replace them in the short term.

As yet we still see no progress in the area that really matters i.e. that seen by the public. Altogether; that may not be such a bad thing as there will be plenty of time when train operations cease whilst the Santa is busy with the children at the other end of the branch.

Rumour has it the first area of building activity the public will see is enlargement of the bar area into the bookshop store-room. Clearly alcohol sales are more profitable than dead tree sales. Perhaps a popular move such as longer opening hours would have boosted bar profits equally without the need for such expenditure.

 

I seem to remember that the plan was (at one point) to move the ladies toilets to a new position, give the old one over to the shop and then the shop can be the waiting room as it once was with the shop storeroom becoming part of the pub.

 

I'm given over to understand that was one of the various ideas that has been and gone. It might yet be resurrected in a further amended form.

Very little seems to be happening in the public areas except for some bricklaying activity during a visit by the Waterways Recovery Group in the lower car park. This is the one which some of the patrons of The George treat as being provided by SVR for their use.

This low cost activity is accompanied by the relentless, almost frenetic, activity in the loco dept. Much week-day demolition work by paid engineering staff has seen a significant portion of Tranter Towers (aka Alvin's folly) demolished to reclaim shed working space. This enlarged space will allow even more engines to be dismantled. Space must be created for one of the star items of the share issue - Hagley Hall. It is suggested that a second engine to be pulled apart soon will be 42968. Coincidentally both come with a nice fat dowry from their respective support groups.

If all that comes completely to fruition in the near future the list of engines in bits will include: -
7714, 75069, 34027, 4930, 42968, 813. Dunrobin and Warwickshire.

No dates have been published for the next engine to emerge from works.

 

Pulled apart and in bits!!! Have you ever heard of the term "being overhauled"? Taw Valley is, certainly, not "in bits".

 

Yes: the term "being overhauled" has not quite escaped us. Nobody should need to be reminded a loco needs to be pulled to bits to be overhauled (dismantled if you wish to use a slightly less emotive but longer word). When last seen Taw Valley's boiler was not in the frames along with pipework, cladding etc. etc. Ergo; it's in bits, as it has been for some not inconsiderable time.

Perhaps a little more focus on a few less projects might see completion of some.

 

Or perhaps someone is getting their act together with workflow relative to the works and the boiler shop. 34027 is thought to be pretty much complete as a rolling chassis, and will then await the boiler, where the virtually new firebox is having stays fitted, lots of them!. Likewise 7802's boiler is at Bridgnorth and the chassis at TYS. 7714 is I think now mainly boiler work, and Pat Goss's loco 813 is awaiting the boiler unit which has had a new inner firebox fitted. 34027 by the way is a contact overhaul for the owner.

There will however be more engines under overhaul at any one time than we have seen for some time.

As Baldrick would say, perhaps someone has a "cunning plan" to increase the size of the working fleet over time....

46118

 

You really can't please all of the people all of the time, can you?

 

There are less piece of Taw Valley lying around week on week. The only large piece is the new smoke box. The chassis is more or less complete with paid staff working on more pipework.

Everyone expects a published finish date. The old saying will always ring true. It will be ready when its ready. Take 34053 last year. Arrived in May and a lot of people assumed it was the finished article. It took until the August bank holiday to actually pull a train.

 

Accepted that it is going together again after lord knows how long. But is SVR wise to have two class 7 engines in use with the possible attendant increased costs?

 

We work with what is available. The valley isn't the only line to be running class 7's where they aren't "required". Looking at the immediate overhaul queue the focus is very much on the "ideal" sized locos for SVR service... 7802 is progressing on two sites, 7714, 75069 are under overhaul with 4930 about to get started, followed by 42968. The comment about a "nice fat dowry" coming with particular locos fascinates me. What exactly is it about owning/supporting groups that are proactive in fundraising and restoration work having their efforts recognised that so offends?

Next year we'll also have a class 8, 5, 4, 3 & a 2 available with another class 4 to come back in service at some stage during the year. The valley is getting pretty good at rostering locos where they will be most economical - the use of 1501 & 4566 on the diner turns throughout the year being a good example.

 

I am sure that your undoubted extensive project management experience will be welcomed at Bridgnorth - when will you be visiting to offer advice as to how things should be done?

 

Such a statement said with such resignation leads on to the deeper question why aren't more suitable locomotives being made available with greater haste?

 

Andy2857: I dont think the comments about a "nice fat dowry" are intended to be negative or cynical. It does indeed appear that such a "dowry" does help with getting into the works, even if it is circa 27 years for 4930! I for one would contribute to a "Friends" group for 45110, but there appears to be little realistic interest. Of the engines in works, "Taw Valley" is a contract overhaul for the owner, as is Pat Goss's Port Talbot 813. and "Dunrobin" for Beamish. As mentioned both Hagley and 42968 come with funds, but so be it, if the economics of running the railway and finding circa £500k every ten years for the overhaul of each medium/large loco on your line dont add up, as indeed they dont, then volunteer/friends groups raising funds for a particular engine has to be welcomed. I dont see it as negative at all.

It also has to be positive that with the additional space in the Bridgnorth works it looks as though three mainstream locos ( 4930, 42968, and 75069) will be soon be under overhaul and does justify my earlier comment about "increasing the size of the working fleet" ! About time, many will say, but positive and welcome.

46118

 

So which locos do you think the SVR should be restoring?

 

What part of "We work with what is available..." do you find so hard? What do you think is going on at every Heritage Railway in the country, every day of the week? We are all working with what is available. Some loco owners or supporters get together money more effectively than others. Would you rather that the railway said "no thanks, we are going to wait to see if we can raise the money for that other engine". I can tell you that you would half the number of available locos pretty quickly if you did that.

Pragmatism is everything. It might be preferable to get the smaller loco running, but if the money is there for the bigger one then to be honest the additional running costs aren't likely to be the biggest consideration.

As to why more locos aren't being made available with more haste, all I can say to that is....you try it! I think the SVR have turned their loco situation round very quickly. I am not privy to their inner workings, but I imagine a lot of that is to do with picking which ones can be most easily and cost effectively rebuilt, not necessarily which ones are most "suitable" in anyone's view but their own, and in any case most lines need a spread of types to cover the different services/loadings.

 

Yes, most places have to work with equipment originally selected and rescued on a "wouldn't it be nice" basis rather than a "wouldn't it be useful" one. A very big mistake which everyone has to live with and, alas, all too many "newbuilds" are perpetuating.

PH

 

That's not really quite true, is it? With the exception of a few lines like the Bluebell and the IoWSR that were able to target specific locos (and even then only within a small range), most lines are stocked on equipment selected on the "what happened to go to Barry?" basis, coupled with a smattering of "what did Billy Butlin take a fancy to?" basis and a bit of "what were the NCB still using in the late seventies" basis. In other words, the stock of engines is very largely dominated by what survived long enough to get preserved (bearing in mind that many preservation schemes didn't really get going until the 1970s/1980s). Which explains the relative large numbers of BR Standards, GWR locos, smaller numbers of SR and LMS locos, fair smattering of industrial tank engines and comparative rarity of LNER locos currently in preservation. It would be ideal if there were lots of 84xxx tanks and similar populating our heritage lines - but they didn't survive, whereas numerous larger 4-6-0s and 4-6-2s did.

Tom