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

I'm not convinced that is necessarily the case. The eaves purlins would need to be modified and a dormer would need to be added to each aspect of the shed roof. The internal viewing gallery portion could then be totally enclosed and glazed to low level affording a good measure of insulation from workshop noise and isolating the workshop from weather ingress. It would shorten the walking route and remove the odd dog-leg in the walkway.
To create the viewing galley as proposed presently will require modifications to the "engineers" gallery that provides access at high level (possibly to the roller shutter mechanism).

 

Thanks Brian.

To create the viewing galley as proposed the architect has drawn the plans to avoid modifications to the roller shutter mechanism. (There is a difference in height in the plan between the footbridge at the top of the lift of P2 and the "gallery" as a result, which has been designed to meet the DDA gradient limits).

@svrbridgnorth feeds:

"Lots of valuable feedback to our w/e display of plans for much-needed expansion of visitor & training facilities #nowfortheanalysis "

"share offer: 1449 enquiries = £456,559. Severn Valley Railway - Shares Issue - help us expand our visitor & training facilities"

Regards

Patrick

 

For clarity: I made no mention of modifying the roller shutter per se. I think my suggestion eliminates the need for DDA complaint ramps and certainly the dog leg. Also the undercover portion gives a measure of respite from inclement weather during that long walk from the field car park.

Workshop noise = Coarse Anglo Saxon

 

Really? I must have been going to a different station then, have a look at these pictures and tell me that this isn't still a quiet country station. On the evenings of these pics I shared the station with 2 staff and about five passengers and bystanders, listening to owls in the woods, the distant sound of whistles (of horns!) and the great atmosphere as the train could be heard a ll the way up from Arley. The WHOLE of the SVR gets very busy at gala weekends, so that isn't an argument. The engine house has been fantastic for looking after out of ticket locos which must already be saving a fair amount off the overhaul costs and its given a new destination and a new reason for coach parties etc. to come to the railway. It's all positive and you really don't have to work very hard to get the experience you want, feel free to sit at the station after the coach party has wondered off, it hasn't changed!

Over the years things do change, personally I think the SVR has got most strategic decisions right. For me I would rather keep the Bridgnorth new buildings ( I hope no one is arguing there are not needed!) more in sympathy with the original buildings rather than a modern contrast, but we should bear in mind that the giant block that is the engine shed and works will always mean that Bridgnorth can never be the simple station it was in the past. More work needed on the aesthetics but I think the facility plan is sound.

 

TV Alert: Extensive report on BBC "Midlands Today" at lunchtime live from Bridgnorth station. Much mention of the new heritage training academy to train apprentices in "disappearing skills", also mention of improvements at Bridgnorth station.
Interviews with Mr Paul, and in the works Mark Drinkwater who is a current apprentice and John Robinson. Also the GM, Nick ralls.

Two figures quoted by the BBC for share take-up over the past two weeks, the highest being circa £500k.

Good publicity.

 

The original comparison in my original post was between Highley station before and after the Engine House. The atmosphere around the place has undoubtedly changed. In your reply, you have reasserted my opinion on the platform at Highley. The whole of the SVR is busy at gala weekends, so how long before we are considering extending platforms everywhere? That is why I am against the extension/building of a new platform, because you are effectively destroying what has been set out to be preserved.

Like I said, the initial aim of the SVR was to preserve the past, and many posts appear to agree with this view. So I therefore dont understand why there is a need for glass towers and red brick buildings. Either way, whilst I directly support the restoration of 4930 and the setting up of more apprenticeships at Bridgnorth, I do not back the share issue as a whole as I do not believe it aligns with the original aim of preserving a railway.

 

I agree the aims of preserving a railway in some historical context should be one of the more important criteria. Whilst improvements at Bridgnorth are clearly needed, the proposals being made will, in my opinion, destroy the very ethos of the railway. Of course I am not advocating historical buildings being moved onto the site, but is it really so difficult to construct new build which sits with the ambience of the railway ? There are examples of structures, even on platform 1 at Bridgnorth which are not 'original' , but sit well in their environment, and co-exist well with the original aims of the railway.

Is it really beyond the ability of architects to understand the context in which their designs are expected to co-exist, rather than mimic the poor design seen all to frequenty up and down the country.

It has been pleasing to see so many constructive alternatives to the plans being proposed. From official responses so far, I have no sense that a major re-think, beyond the minor, ie. small areas of wooden cladding being replaced by brick. For these reasons I am also unable to support the share offer.

 

gios: I think what came out of the recent weekend was that the architects and the SVR team are very much open to comment, and nothing is set in stone as yet. Make your views known as others have done, and do also please consider the wider context of the share issue, ie apprentice training, as featured on the BBC piece yesterday (available to view from the BBC news website), also the work that needs doing on existing buildings and structures, as well as locomotives and rolling stock.

 

Was there not a number of schemes drawn up several years ago? One seemed to try and turn the existing building into a stately manor house, another seemed to ape a Mk1 carriage crossed with a signal box and the third showed respect to the existing structure whilst being of a totally different style without being over-powering. Has this design been dusted off for review or does Messrs Howl, Dancer, Ralls et all have too great a measure of conceit to regard those original ideas having any merit?

 

Dont actually remember those plans, Lingus, and I have been around the SVR for a long time, however I will defer to your better recall.

46118

 

Going O/T you can become a 'friend' of 4930 by simply making a contribution to the overhaul fund. There is no specified minimum amount, as all donations will be gratefully appreciated. Donations can be made as either single or occasional payments, a standing order can be set up if required. If you wish to contribute to this worthwhile restoration project, please click here for a printable Standing Order form Friends of Locomotive 4930 Hagley Hall.

Back on thread, I do hope you can support the share offer (£510,844 raised to date)

Patrick

 

Written comments submitted during the display at Bridgnorth last weekend. Each paragraph is a separate visitor comment, numbered for ease of reference.

SVR-Online Forum :: View topic - Bridgnorth Station redevelopment

Patrick

 

Well my cash is still firmly in my pocket.

Although the SVR team have said that suggestions will be looked at all I can see is minor adjustments to what has already been proposed, such as doing away with the wooden cladding, looking at the glass footbridge again. What I havent yet seen is any alternative along the lines of a major rethink to the critiscms that have been raised on here and on the SVR forum. It seems to be a given that the buildings will be in the locations already identified and with the only changes as a result of feedback being largely cosmetic.

As I said earlier I fear that with the proposals being published in the prospectus and the press that the decison is essentially a done deal. What should have happened is that a series of alternatives of design and location of structures should have been put forward for a consultation period (in which they were debated along the lines of what is now happening), a final design agreed upon, perhaps by a vote of SVR members, and then go for the share issue to fund the chosen design. Instead we have it almost turned around, the share issue has gone ahead, but the design isnt finalised - really?

My solution, stop and rethink from square 1 right now. I suggest the following;
1) retain the existing buildings as they are, with no new development anywhere near them.
2) accepting that some newer facilities are required, move the signalbox to the south end of p1 near to the existing footbridge.
3) build a new building on the site of the current buffet and signal box, perhaps even extend all the way accross the carparking here, in effect become the gateway to the SVR. Make this modern by all means, include the shop that you have to pass through all do all visitor attractions these days, then once through this building you are then transported back in time to the railway itself. For an example of this I would refer you to the Black Country Museum, they have a nice new entrance/retail building, go through this and be transported back in time to the older exhibits.
4) Yes you lose a bit of carparking, but there is land around the station that could be bought as and when it becomes available.
5) this plan could be built in stages as and when the share issue becomes subscribed.

The SVR must remain faithful to its roots and ethos, do not become a theme park or an extension of national rail, preserve what you have, dont modernise. If the plans dont work then dont go through with them, decisions made now will last the lifetime of most enthusiasts, dont get them wrong.

 

Won't your proposals convert Bridgnorth station site into an gateway entrance not too dissimilar to that at Alton Towers? I.e. a Theme park; something you're wanting to avoid.

One area where I am inclined to agree with you is with the attitude portrayed by a very few of the planning team that may easily be taken to read it is a done deal. I sincerely hope that is not the case and we will eventually see a scheme that provides all the facilities required in a style that is acceptable to the majority.

Those culprits portraying this image, perhaps unwittingly, must be made to realise that such "smarter than you" attitude undermines what credibility they have and may be counter-productive to the share issue.

 

I see your point the gateway may well resemble Alton Towers, Black Country Museum, et al but it would form an entrance to a time period of the past, by doing so the integrity of the preserved buildings and the associated atmosphere would be maintained, it would keep the new and the old well apart and maintain the ambiance of the old steam railway, which to my mind and wallet is a better alternative to the current proposals. To me the current proposals just throw the new build next to the old and to hell with the preservation aspect, which becomes totally destroyed in the name of progress and increasing revenues.

I think its a touch unfair to compare to Alton Towers which does not set itself out to be a heritage attraction, but you do need to compare to places such as Black Country, Beamish, Crich, Portsmouth & Chatham dockyards and many others such as NT/EH, they wouldnt dream of putting up new builds adjoining what they are trying to preserve or wedge in modern structures into scenes which are meant to evoke a time gone by, they go to great and imaginative trouble keep them at arms length and thus ensure they dont detract or destroy the reasons why the place was established in the first place. Currently this SVR plan has lost that.

Im not for one minute suggesting what I proposed above is the right solution but I would have liked to have seen some more imagination used and a variety of alternatives to chose form rather than what has been proposed, which to me throws away the preservation ethos. Once this scheme is completed its going to be there a long time and theres no going back. Destroy what you have at your peril.

 

Not necessarily! See

Battle visitor centre (EH):
Dannatt, Johnson Architects: Battle of Hastings visitor centre, Battle Abbey, East Sussex | Architecture Today
Kenliworth Castle visitor centre (EH):
Visitor Centre, Kenilworth Castle:: OS grid SP2772 :: Geograph Britain and Ireland - photograph every grid square!
Chiswick House café (EH):
Chiswick House: And the caff's pretty classy too | Art and design | The Observer
Stonehenge visitor centre (proposed), EH:
Stonehenge: English Heritage reveals new visitor centre - Telegraph

 

The display boards from the Members & Shareholders open consultation have now been converted into images and put on Bridgnorth Station facebook - link here:
Draft proposals for consultation | Facebook

The boards themselves, A1 size, are available to view in the platform 2 waiting room, and constructive criticism continues to be invited.

Over 100 comments received so far, all being read and appraised, and will contribute to the discussion with the English Heritage and Conservation officers.

Patrick

 

The Stonehenge Centre is 1 1/2 miles from the stones, so hardly a relevant comparison

"The proposals for the centre at Airman's Corner, 1.5 miles west of the prehistoric stones "

 

Indeed... One reason for the Airman's Corner proposal is to get rid of the ugly modern visitor centre at Stonehenge and return the site to something closer to its original setting without modern intrusions. Just a thought.

Tom

 

"You can now download the pdf files of the display boards compiled by Howl Associates for the Members' & Shareholders' Weekend exhibition. Constructive comment welcomed. To download the pdf file of the six display boards (11.8MW), click http://www.svrlive.com/Documents/MASTER PH 4.pdf

To comment:

email us at hello@bridgnorthstation.co.uk

go to the SVRA Forum thread at SVR-Online Forum :: View topic - Bridgnorth Station redevelopment

go to our facebook page at http://on.fb.me/NkZFPz"

Bridgnorth 150

Patrick