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

So much for the great and the good. My sources inform me that much of the negotiations between those purporting to represent the SVR and the Planning Officers have not involved anyone with any real knowledge of GWR architecture. Isn't a sewage engineer part of that negotiating team?

 

This (apparently) is not the case:

More 'business' talk from a heritage railway - you only have to view comments on both here and the SVR forum to realise that 70% is hogwash. I cannot believe that the original people who halted the redevelopment of Bridgnorth in the first instance and effectively saved the SVR would back these plans. There is a nice post on the Severn Valley forum by the user ding ding to this effect, and is repeated below:

I am glad i'm not the only one that thinks this way!

 

I had decided not to express any further points of view on this subject BUT, I notice on the SCR online forum that some feel that opinions which do not comply with the company line, or are made by people with an 'blunt axe' to grind, should be ignored. I am a SVR member, volunteer (20 hours a week), supporter and have NO axe. I give my time, as do many others, to the railway because I believe it is something special that deserves to be supported and preserved. In the absence of any official statement over concerns raised about the proposed development at Bridgnorth, I feel those concerned for the future of the SVR, as a Heritage Railway should be allowed to express an opinion. I am sure we all want the best for the SVR.

Having said that, surely the significant number of posters, and many others concerned about the proposed development a Bridgnorth deserve to be heard.

I repeat my previous position. Bridgnorth and its' environs is in urgent need of some form of development - I think there is universal agreement on this point. In my view the present proposals fall far short of anything that fits in with the ethos of a Heritage Railway, by any stretch of the imagination. Without saying more I leave it to the previous poster to make the case.

Until I hear some official confirmation that the present proposals will be revisited, I have no intention in partaking in the share issue. This does not mean that I wish to see the share offer fall short of its' aims. Without doubt infastructure, locos and rolling stock deserve support.

To those who think some of the very helpful suggestions being made about the redevelopment are being negative, I say change your glasses, make an effort to see that these suggestions are made with the best intentions and the future of the SVR at heart.

 

Gios, I don't think it's quite correct to say that: "... In the absence of any official statement over concerns raised about the proposed development at Bridgnorth..." and "Until I hear some official confirmation that the present proposals will be revisited...". The GM has posted:

"...The Working Group and our architects are analysing the points submitted and considering what revisions need to be made.........the Working Group is focused on pulling together a range of information that will be required to support funding submissions for the project, including *revised plans*, an Interpretation Strategy, Business Plan and Training Programme for our future apprenticeship schemes". News

What changes there might be, and whether they meet greater approval, we'll just have to wait and see. On the SVRA forum one of the steering group posted up (from memory) the next meeting with Officers is next week, and revised plans will not be drawn before that time.

I'm a volunteer too, and if anyone's around at Bridgnorth station tomorrow I'm the guy with blue overalls, glasses and a movember, probably doing in or benches around the old ripped tent at the Railwayman's Arms end of the site. Feel free to say hello!

Regards

Patrick

 

In response to a sharp intake of breath from SVR working members on their own forum today, after the Shropshire Star revealed that the first £500,000 (of the £3 million they haven’t got) is being spent on a big stores hut and mess room for MPD staff, an SVR Holdings Director (one of the old Bridgnorthian Directors, and therefore out of the loop as far as his Chairman is concerned) has replied this afternoon in the following terms:

“I'm not going to make a habit of commenting on MPD matters, but it is worth noting that the building also enables "Tranter Towers" to be removed, which will provide more space in the main shed for loco overhauls - which is exactly what SVR needs. We all know that overhauls get longer, more complicated and more costly as everything gets older. We also know that "nasties" often do not become apparent until a loco has been stripped down. More space in the shed should allow one loco to be in "stripping/evaluation" mode while heavy repair is carried out on another. When the repair is finished,we'll already know what the next one needs and should be well on the way to getting materials, parts, etc ready for it. That's the theory.....

We also need to be able to accommodate out-of-course repairs; if these can be done without wasting time shunting other locos out first, that can only help productivity. That we need more steam locos available for traffic is self-evident. It therefore seems logical to try to provide whatis needed to achieve this”

Well, quite. Progress is of course essential, and history is bunk. Can all concerned please forget that “old” MPD, sans £130,000 wheeldrop and new £500,000 hut, managed to field engines to operate as far away as Fort William and Plymouth, and played an active role supporting national events such as Rocket 150 and GW150...while also sometimes being able to steam as many as16 machines for a gala without a single hire engine in sight, with most if not all the participants being MT276 compliant. It also managed to complete heavy general repairs on Class 7 and 8 engines for less than £1,000,000 a time, even allowing for inflation. It understood that tender wheels should have working springs on all axles and Class 4s or any other class do not get put into traffic without them,no matter what threats may be made to MPD staff by Directors. Overhauls are indeed becoming more complex, but is that not offset by the reducing presence of Barry wrecks and the associated need to make from scratch anything vaguely portable or non-ferrous after it had been stolen? And are not the 82045 people saying that Bridgnorth MPD, even without a £500,000 hut, can turn out a brand new 2-6-2T from scratch?

In the words of Captain Blackadder, "I think the phrase rhymes with clucking bell”.

Sharp-eyed readers will also note the distressingly flippant“That’s the theory”...comment. Nice that they have such robust faith in the investment they are making with other people’s money. SVR Directors – in the loop or otherwise – would do well to remember the priceless inheritance they preside over. Since 1967 volunteers and shareholders have gone the extra mile as a matter of course, and there is only a railway to be Directed at all because more than a few of them have sacrificed their own family lives, relationships, bank balances, career progression, and in some cases their health. Not all the shareholders are multi-millionaires – in fact fewer than ten of them are. The rest have found their contribution out of taxed income and have stumped up faithfully over the years when asked. This expensive hut will have to be funded out of members pockets – none of the other funding bodies have stumped up yet.

When it comes to leadership and direction the SVR family deserve nothing but the best. What they are getting right now is anything but....

 

Ding Ding Dave - what a brilliant post - encapsulates things nicely.

Ive said before this whole redevelopment needs to go back to square one, improvements are required but not at the price of selling your soul.

 

..they are expecting a trip into the past, such as at Blists Hill and the Black Country Museum. Both of these are recreations of the past both of whom have segregated very well the modern facilities away from the historically important buildings and artefacts. Both of these sites have been created from scratch on brown field sites, not at an historic English country town station.
Agreed

Bridgnorth is the birthplace of the modern SVR. It is really the essence of the SVR. The fact that the site supports so well the engineering facility which grew from nothing is a wonder in itself. We are the guardians of all of this for future generations, and I don’t think that the early volunteers gave up their lives, time and very hard earned money to have the fabric, the heart and soul of Bridgnorth station threatened from within in this way.
Agreed - which is why I originally coined 'Bridgnorth - the spiritual home of the SVR'

I agree that there is a need to refurbish essential facilities such as toilets and provide a decent cafe but surely this can be done to blend into and disappear into the existing Bridgnorth with minimal desecration. If there is no way to fit in these new facilities without the aesthetic destruction of the site then should we even consider shoehorning them in?
This is the impossible-but-got-to-be-tackled situation that the project core group are trying to resolve

Old railway stations are precious historic sites, apart from stately homes, castles and other heritage attractions. A lot of time and effort has been put into making things look right. Correct and proper. A recreation of the past, almost a time machine.
Agreed

The Bluebell have created a quality restaurant/shop at Sheffield Park and their new building is in the true Brighton line style, it looks like and feels like a railway building. Surely something like this could be achieved at Bridgnorth, but if not lets just say no to this scheme and lets keep Bridgnorth preserved as it is...as an English country town railway station.
Call it a film set if you like, something like Blists Hill or the Black Country museum but please don’t let us create the Shropshire branch of IKEA, to match the Tesco superstore at Highley.If we need to comply with these planning rules to release lottery or grant money then I think that that is too high a price to pay.
Noted

I am at the time in life where I could invest a bit of money into this share issue, as are a lot of other like minded people of my age, but sadly I really don’t think that I can trust the decision makers to use and spend this money wisely.
You and others are saying this

Finally lets not forget that it was ordinary people that created all that exists on the site today.
Indeed

And it was the same ordinary people who stood up to Gerald Nabarro's plans in the 1970's and succeeded in saving the fabric of the railway from redevelopment all those years ago.
Indeed

I really think that now again it is time for ordinary people to speak out and save this historic site from this redevelopment scheme.
This message is now being heard clearly by the project core group

To conclude, I am doing my best to keep communication lines opened, posting on facebook, the SVRA forum, and now here.

I would welcome direct contact from anyone who could help me 'constructively inform' the deliberations that the project core group are working through - their next meeting is Monday. While forum comments are all being read, direct comment by email from named individuals will inevitably carry more weight with those in authority - I can keep real names confidential on request.

 

Sue
I'm glad to read some upbeat comments here after some of those more recent ones. I think by now the development team have a pretty shrewd idea of what the majority would and would not find acceptable. What is becoming clear, to me at least, is the reluctance of many to part with their hard earned cash until that acceptable design is arrived at.
Picking up on your postings of the progressive amount raised on the SVR's own forum. I can't help but speculate how much better those figures would have been had Howl Associates been briefed better by its client.
I accept there are certain constraints placed by the various authorities but that alone doesn't automatically prevent those views being challenged.

Finally; it was not me who said the original proposal looked like an IKEA. I said it was reminiscent of a B&Q.

 

from Jamessquared (with my emphasis in colour)

As the SVR is trying to raise £10million from a variety of sources, I thought a few words about how the Bluebell went about raising a broadly similar sum might be in order, if only for some helpful pointers. I should note that this is someting of a view from the edge, not the official Bluebell Fundraising committee line.

Firstly, the target was £5.8million, of which £1.8million was from a share issue and £4million from other sources (more later). Of that total, I'd say we are probably about £500,000 short now give or take; it is hard to say exactly since as well as money coming in, the major cost - of doing the northern extension - has come down and all published figures have been about funding gap, not funding.

The Bluebell has nominally about 10,000 members - so for the the SVR, with 13,000 members to be trying to raise £10million is, in my view, ambitious, but not unrealistic. The SVR may also be able to deliver cost-savings on projects when they get into the detail; so the important number to fixate on is the funding gap; not the total funds raised. A clever project manager knocking £500k off the price of some deliverable is just as valuable as a fundraiser raising £500k!

Share issue
The share issue was widely seen as underwhelming at the time. At the time, it raised about £700,000, i.e. £1.1million short, and a small amount to plug that shortfall has subsequently been raised via a deferred share purchase scheme. Fortunately, the Bluebell tri-partite structure (Society / PLC / Trust) means that eventually the shortfall will be raised by converting the BRPS annual surplus (mostly from membership fees) into a loan to the PLC which will eventually get converted to shares. So in time, the full £1.8million will be subscribed, and the BRPS will strengthen its majority shareholder position in the company, but that might take 10 years. It certainly wasn't the major "kick start" to finances that had been hoped for.

At the time, the financial regulator was all over the issue, checking every fact with a fine tooth comb. For example, the share prospectus said "the BRPS President Bernard Holden was born in Barcombe Station House in 1908" - so that couldn't remain as it stood without checking birth records etc. So it was a very time consuming process to put the prospectus together, which unfortunately delayed it sufficiently to the point where the economy entered a downturn. That probably explains why takeup wasn't greater than it was. <cynicism mode="on">Maybe the regulator should have spent more time checking Lloyds, Northern Rock etc and less checking on us!</cynicism> Certainly, it seems the regulator struggled to know how to vet a prospectus where the objective of anyone investing was fairly explicitly not to make money from their purchase of shares!

There was also a lot of furore over our minimum purchase (£250). However, it is worth noting that generally shareholders stay in for the long term; they will have to receive notice of the AGM and the accounts each year, and accurate records have to be kept. All that costs money. So if the minimum offering is too low, you may find in time the admin swallows up all the capital raised - that is one of the things that struck me about the SVR offering a minimum holding of £100.

Other sources
The remainder of the money was targeted from three main sources: individuals in relatively small amounts; high net worth individuals (HNWIs) and trusts and other funding bodies.

Year 1 (and continuing to the present) was mostly about small donations from a large number of individuals - partly members of the BRPS, but also non-members, for example through the very successful on-train "Tenner for the Tip" collection, which raised over £250,000 in small amounts.

It is worth noting that although the high net worth individuals may provide a large amount of funding, for small donations it is a numbers game to demonstrate grass roots support for the project. If you are going to ask Mr City Slicker who happens to be mad about trains if he'd like to slip you £100k or so, it helps to be able to say "look, already 10,000 people have donated to our appeal and it has real on-the-ground support".

So the HNWIs weren't particularly targeted in year one while the low end support gathered momentum; however, a lot of groundwork was done in year 1 to build up a network of contacts so that when the push came, it happened in a very targeted way. The Bluebell employed professional fundraisers for that task, which in my view paid off financially in a big way. (They were financed via the Trust).

I think donations from trusts and other bodies - the third leg of the plan - was a struggle. Certainly there were some successes: the local council has given in total £100k to the Northern Extension; the Lottery "People's millions" gave £50k for conversion of a wheelchair-accessible Victorian coach. But that side of the plan is a real struggle: a lot of form filling and chasing leads for often not much reward. We didn't actuively target the main lottery as a source of funding; firstly because we already had one £3million lottery project running anyway (the Sheffield Park carriage shed and museum); and secondly because an extension isn't really preservation and so doesn't neatly fit the Heritage Lottery blueprint. Once EG is out of the way, I am sure we will go back to the Lottery with a more suitable project - but it is a lot of work.

We are also seeing real benefits of a combination of HNWIs and small-donors via the "match funding" initiaives. The first "double donation dash" leveraged £40k (initially; subsequently £60k) of seed money into a final total of £200k; the next DDD has £125k of seed money which with any luck could result in £250k - £300k (with gift aid) of funding.

PR
Finally, a bit about PR. I know that the Bluebell, here and elsewhere, has copped a lot of flak for not being very open about progress on the project or how funding is going. Particularly in the first year, when the share issue had not really taken off and most donations were concentrated in small amounts, there was a lot of doom and gloom and gnashing of teeth. However, it is the nature of these things - especially when dealing with grant awarding bodies or HNWIs - that negotiations often have to remain private. In year one, when a network was being built and a lot of important groundwork was being done, yet which didn't directly lead to immediate income, I'm sure many of us would have had more confidence if only we had been able to see what was happening behind closed doors, so to speak. But inevitably that couldn't happen - so in year two, when all of a sudden major progress on the project was made (which is the visble sign that fundraising was proceeding strongly), I think it took many by surprise.

So while I am sure there are PR lessons to learn about keeping people up-to-date, I'd urge any SVR members and other interested persons to have faith that maybe the people on the ground do know what they are doing, even if they can't always tell you exactly on a minute-by-minute basis!

Hope this helps, if only to give a sort of heads up to friends and potential friends of the SVR what sort of rollercoaster of emotions they might be on for the next three or four years!

Tom



One thing I don't understand about this proposal. If the only reason for the glass towers is for lifts (for disabled access), why not maintain such access via board crossings, with supervision from platform staff?

If you do that:

- You don't contravene the DDA (because a wheelchair-bound or otherwise infirm visitor still has access to all parts of the station that they would otherwise have via the footbridge)
- You maintain safety (by ensuring that all such access is controlled by a member of platform staff)
- You save expense (one part of the plan doesn't need implementing at all)
- You preserve more of the "heritage" appearance of the station

Seems to me someone has thought "DDA - access to two platforms - we need a lift - now how do I implement that?" when actually the thought process should be "DDA - access to two platforms - how do I implement that? - use the foot crossing and put in place a process to ensure it can be done safely".

REPLY: The lifts are to enable fully-DDA access to the 'SteamWorks' viewing gallery, and the revised access route to the overflow (field) parking above the station. The gallery route will 'land' level onto the parking field slope.

Download the full (proposed) plans at http://www.svrlive.com/Pages/BH150.aspx

 

There is a difference, as Beeching knew, between a blunt axe being ground for the sake of it, and a scalpel being carefully wielded to cut out life-threatening infected tissue from a much-loved but very poorly patient.

The regime now presiding over strategic business at SVR have lost a quality that was a crucial hallmark of the previous two General Managers and three Holdings Chairmen – the ability to be self-critical. This happened before, in the early 1970s, and spawned a Palace Coup by Angry Young Men (mostly locomen, many now sadly not with us) that led Nabarro to the tumbrils and then in short order to SVR being the undisputed market leader – the organisation that set the standard for the heritage railway movement - for 30 years.

It achieved this remarkable feat by close and unswerving attention to detail, supported by an intuitive feel for how to run a safe railway. It had to, because there has never been any money and if you don’t have cash, the only thing left is to be clever and careful.

Spending money you don’t have is neither clever nor careful – any fool can do it. Both visitor numbers and the share price are in the toilet. Bank debt is close to a million pounds and everything, literally everything, is mortgaged to HSBC. The Hampton Loade derailment was shaming and those who know how it really happened feel an intense and quite proper sense of professional disgust towards the senior Director whose fingerprints are all over it, even if RAIB missed them.

The idea of spending £500,000 on MPD stores leaves anyone who can add up asking “what problem is this supposed to be the solution to?”. It would be cheaper to appoint a proper Locomotive Engineer, or as one ex-Chairman has proposed, getting out of heavy overhauls altogether on the grounds that SVR is no longer any good at it. There won’t be much contract business left when the real cost of Taw Valley’s overhaul shows how hopelessly uncompetitive the place has become, and not manyof the incumbent private owner tenants will be wanting to find a million quid to queue-jump under the new as-yet unsigned Loco Agreements, even if they could.

A £10 million wish list should be just a dribbling nocturnal fantasy. Publishing it as a serious corporate goal – with the inevitable failure, loss of credibility and recriminations to come - has created a ticking time bomb under the SVR, and betrayed everything and everyone that has gone before. Tinkering with Steamworks is just re-arranging the deckchairs on Titanic. The whole desperate plan should be binned and replaced with something affordable and deliverable.

 

I have unapproved a recent reported post for discussion within the team before it is either approved again or stays moderated.

Thanks, Neil.

 

Assuming that the share issue does not raise as much as hoped i assume there will be certain items that will now not get done. The essential bridge and infastructure repairs must be done or you are left with a timebomb.

 

Ruston: Absolutely agreed. All the money to be spent at Bridgnorth is, to my opinion, risky, if as a first priority the SVR does not ensure that in future years it can with reasonable certainty run steam-hauled ( sorry. "mostly" steam-hauled**) trains over the full length of the line from Kidderminster to Bridgnorth. The fact is that the SVR has along its length some significant structures that require upkeep, along with some difficult underlying geology, and no doubt a constant requirement to replace track and ballast along the way. The lack of deep ballast at some spots on the SVR makes the p-way very "green" at times.

** due appreciation of the part diesel locos do play on the SVR.

 

Severn Valley Railway 2012 promotional video is at About the SVR. Looks really good

Patrick

 

Agreed. Over 6 minutes with just the right content balance between the "bucket and spade brigade" and the hardcore enthusiast. Well done!

 

Share offer update
Enquiries 1,761
Total £818,943

Severn Valley Railway in line to make £3m from its shares « Shropshire Star

"Severn Valley Railway in line to make £3m from its shares. Bosses of The Severn Valley Railway say they are on track to raise £3 million from selling shares – and have sold a quarter of their total in just six weeks.

The railway, which runs steam trains between Bridgnorth and Kidderminster, passed the £750,000 mark this week, with bosses seeing a surge in sales during the run-up to Christmas.

(snip)

For further details or to receive a copy of the share offer document, Share the Passion, visit The Severn Valley Railway or email shareoffer@svr.co.uk"

Patrick

 

Share offer update £882,798, from SVRA forum

Severn Valley Railway - Shares Issue

Patrick

 

They need to be careful as spending any monies received from the share issue on any projects different to those in the prospectus would amount to obtaining money under false pretenses.

 

Share offer update £902,348 - passed the 30% mark.

Patrick

 

30%? I thought they were after 4 million?

The share issue does appear to be struggling a bit. The future for the SVR does look bleak without the fully subscribed share issue.