SVR General Discussion

The monthly Branch Lines e-newsletter is available to download at https://www.svrlive.com/blsep23 - enjoy!

 

Interesting read as ever Patrick ( no use of my Dad’s photographs again but hey ho )
In all seriousness, with the railway trying to save cash is there any chance of having our sparkys having a look at where else could benefit from having LED’s fitted? It all counts at the moment

And without sounding like a bitter and twisted old man (and this isn’t a pop at you or Lesley) But who exactly has bought fifty one ten? I appreciate there might be some sort of confidentiality agreement with where it’s gone but I know myself and several others would like to know, we have a rough idea that it’s gone to an organisation fronted by some people that despite their prep school education and are rather fluent in Latin have great difficulty in understanding plain English from the ORR (more than once) but it would be nice to know for sure.
Cheers, Matt

 

Thanks.

We get images from those uploaded by the 'official' voluntary photographers group, those that share them internally on Teams, and those that send them to branchlines@svrlive.com . There's usually another set on social media but unless we have or seek express permission we can't use them - and usually I lack the time near the publication date to be actively asking for permission. I'd welcome more, and more variety. Coaches, for example, are much rarer images.

I don't know. I suspect that the reduced running costs have to be weighed against the capital outlay (this one was TMD volunteer funded) - is it better to wait until they're life-expired and its stocks of tubes are exhausted? Has the Railway got the cash to fund x replacements of lights currently working adequately?

I've no idea and haven't enquired! I suspect that as people are still asking who it is means that the confidentiality has been maintained - only when you have the answer will the confidentiality clause become moot! There's a Q&A shortly, is there anyone you think that could ask the question? ;-D

 

The SVR have announced an official partnership with Network Rail
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-66876835

Sent from my moto g(7) play using Tapatalk

 

Featured as the lead item on BBC Midlands Today at lunchtime. Live from Kidderminster.
Billed as a win-win for both parties. Network Rail get a safe training environment and the SVR receive redundant but usable trackwork and other components.
46118

 

The SVR's own announcement with a bit more detail.

https://svr.co.uk/news/railways-go-back-to-the-future-with-landmark-partnership/

 

Nice strategically placed 73 in the background there
In all seriousness I don’t think this is a bad piece of news.

 

It should also help with the maintenance of the carriage works at Kidderminster. I've heard about it needing a new roof for a while now. Given its location, NR's help is essential to do so.

Sent from my moto g(7) play using Tapatalk

 

The SVR hasn't the cash to renew it, but they did take advantage of a recent possession through Kidderminster (main line) to to some work.

As you've inferred, I think it was moved there for the occasion

Patrick

 

If youve got a spare 7 figures for it. It would be welcome.
We already had a working partnership with NR in regards to the Pickfords building. We have piggy backed local possesions to assess the brickwork and the scaffold walkway on the NR side of the roof.

 

Headed North close by to the M6 motorway, south of The Lakes.

 

There was a Q&A last week that reiterated confidentiality is a contractual condition of 45110’s sale.

 

Hasn’t gone down well with quite a few I spoke to the other week. Cowboys was possibly the politest word I heard used, there was another beginning with C that I best not use.

 

Really? - As a SVR volunteer pretty well everybody close to the railway that I have conversed with regards the sale of 45110 as a necessary positive - providing the sum realised was appropriate. Folk bemoaning the sale have had decades to form a supporters group similar to the Hagley Hall one but had simply "sat on their hands" postulating.

The reality, acknowledged by most, is that 45110 is now more likely to have a working future within the forseeable future. With well over 20 steam locos still on and affiliated to the SVR the loss of one (oversize for the job) loco is not seen as a grave loss.

 

If this sale really was in the best interests of the loco the SVR could have struck a deal similar to that which the KWVR struck with Ian Riley for the hire of 45212. But the sale of 45110 isnt for the benefit of the loco at all (which was perfectly safe and under cover remember) - its for the SVR coffers. This major decision should have been put to the membership with a deadline to either set up a fund to buy it or it would have to be offered on the open market. That would have explained the position, involved all of the SVR's supporters highlighted the severity of the SVR funding crisis and if all failed there would still have been a buyer outside the SVR and it might even have realized a higher price.

 

That assumes such a deal was on offer, or that there was time to go through a democratic process such as you suggest - bear in mind that it’s about both collecting pledges and then cash.

Given the buyer’s insistence on confidentiality, I suspect that attempting to negotiate in those terms would have meant no sale.

If the sale was essential for the SVR coffers, then the board were right to use their judgment. If it wasn’t essential, they will be accountable in due course for their stewardship.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

It was never going to be hard to sell 45110

 

At what price? And how quickly? And if one offer had stalled after being put out to consultation, what would the effect have been on other possible buyers?

 

Offer it to the membership with a price and a deadline, membership dont meet the deadline put it on the open market. No need for a consultation on the 'suitablity' of potential buyers but would expect the Board to do due diligence and not sell it to a theme park or such like. As it stands no one apart from presumably the board know what the future holds for what was a core part of the SVR's identity up until very recently.

 

And if the offer is subject to confidentiality provisions, what is the board then supposed to do? The board's duty is to the organisation, and if there is an asset disposal, then their duty is to maximise the value from that.

Now, if members were to vote for an asset disposal policy that required designated heritage items to be placed on open offer with first refusal to member led consortia who must have a given period to prepare an offer, that might change my view of how they should approach a sale. But if I were a trustee, I'd be concerned that this would undermine my ability to get best value.

All of the above assumes that we're only focusing on purchase. That's fine, but a board also need to consider long term motive power requirements (one of the reasons that 45110 has been laid up and not a priority for overhaul). If members fundraised to purchase 45110, and then focused their fundraising on getting her overhauled, one of their considerations is the impact this has on the railway as a whole.