GWSR Broadway Developments

Particularly apposite as the original Tudor hall burned down in a fire, so these are presumably Victorian replicas (apologies if they are part of the original hall and I am showing my ignorance)

 

Are my eyes deceiving me, or is that Dinmore Manor (7820) that they have pictured arriving?

If so, why was this chosen. AFAIK she is based at the WSR.

(sorry if this has been noticed / already asked)

 

I think that picture contains the solution - however I look at it there's just no way that locomotive will fit underneath the bridge, so the bridge is about to become matchwood..................

Andy

 

It's time for the "person or persons unknown" either to confirm that they had good reasons for their decisions and to explain those reasons to those who have raised concerns, or to apologise for getting some things wrong and to start discussions on how to put them right. If they do neither it implies that they really don't care about the heritage aspects nor about the feelings of the people doing the physical work.

 

You have summed up the big difference between, on the one hand, the very high-class work that has been carried out at Horsted Keynes, Kingscote, Ropley, Corfe Castle and Bodmin cited in this thread and, on the other, the Broadway station project. These attractive buildings have all been constructed on station sites where the main building survived intact and, dare I say, in each case have complemented the existing Victorian station building/s extremely well. They are, however, obviously not the main building on the respective sites.

At Broadway, by contrast, the GWSR has started with a derelict site and this debate has focussed around the main buildings at what may well be the railway's premier station.

Sometimes there are various constraints affecting new-build stations in important locations. Take the Bluebell's East Grinstead terminus or the Spa Valley's station at Tunbridge Wells West (sorry to be using mainly Southern examples, but these are the lines I know best). In both these examples, the respective railways have had to cope with a very restricted site which was not the location of the original station. Considerable compromise has therefore been therefore necessary and any reasonable person will accept this. This does not apply at Broadway so I agree totally - why not aim for the very highest aesthetic standards?

Two other questions:- (1) If the end product is less than the best in certain areas, are the unsatisfactory features capable of amendment at a later date? (e.g., knocking down a chimney and replacing it with a more accurate reproduction) and (2) Why the rush? Two other significant stations which spring to mind, Kidderminster Town SVR and Leicester North GCR, saw their first trains several yeas before all the station buildings were finally complete. I can remember hanging round on the shelter-less platform at the latter on a rather cold, miserable day while waiting for the engine to run round. Not my fondest memory of the GCR! The point is, however, that like most people. I accepted that just completing the extension from Rothley had been a big undertaking so if consequentially Leicester North was still very much a "work in progress", well, that's life! In the same way, if in March 2018, visitors to the station site at Broadway are not greeted by a 100% complete main building, will anyone mind as long as they can buy a ticket somewhere and catch a train? I wouldn't have thought so. Surely it's better to take a bit longer if the net result is a better-looking station - or am I missing something ?

 

I don't think you are missing something, that was exactly my reasoning in post 970.
Open the station to traffic with minimum facilities and grow from there.

 

With reference to the chimney, yes when the scaffolding is down and the station opened the scaffolding could be put up again, workers and materials bought to site, the old chimneys demolished and rebuilt to the correct ( Toddington) Pattern. But what a waste of shareholders money that would be when now 1. the scaffolding is up 2. the workers are there and are fully capable, after all its just a bit of extra corbelling and they have been doing that for years 3. The materials are all to hand.

The only element that is lacking is the will of the person or persons unknown directing the job and hopefully by our constructive criticism we are helping supply them with that will. Or they can explain themselves to the Railway Press when they get wind of this controversy in due course.

 

As I understand it, from my visit to Broadway at the BAG open evening at the end of May this year, that is exactly the situation as you have suggested it should be. When Broadway Station reopens on 30 March 2018, only platform 1 will be in use, the signal box will probably not be operational (although the S&T team are doing an incredible job to get all the signalling & associated infrastructure in place), the station building will not be completed internally and the footbridge will not be in use. There will be no car parking facilities and probably temporary portaloo facilities (in case the toilets in the station building aren't ready - a wise precaution). Of course, I can only report what I've heard and seen and apologise if I've misunderstood or misrepresented anything. What I can confirm is that the progress made on the extension and the station site between my visits in May and earlier this month is amazing and a credit to the volunteers, including the management who have to oversee the whole thing. There are issues with the station rebuild, clearly, and some of these issues will no doubt be addressed as 2018 progresses. I look forward to the future (for once!).

 

Kinghambranch, you are pretty much spot on to what I also understand is the position. The unfortunate additional cost of repairs needed to the embankment has meant a significant cut in the budget needed to get Broadway station finished in time for the opening.

At the AGM it was mentioned that when the first trains arrive at Broadway on 30th March 2018 it would be seen as a "soft" opening date and further work will continue for a later proper opening later that year, date to be confirmed.

 

I know half the answer to this, and will take a crack at the other.

They want to open next year because an extremely large amount of the railway's own money has been sunk into the extension (there were funding drives for the bridge work, and the rails, but a lot of the expenses have been funded internally), and they really need to have it start producing revenue.

As to why not go the porta-potty route, my guess is that although using a building site for a station may be acceptable for the more, ah, railway-aficionado visitors, they're looking to the average 'family with two small kids', to whom real toilets, decent food, etc, are important (and, I suspect, a large share of their visitor base).

So I think the press to get something done by a fixed date (remember, they will probably be selling advance tickets) is entirely reasonable.

Noel

 

People talk about shareholders demanding heritage solutions, well there are probably more shareholders who are more interested in the opening date. It seems to me (no inside knowledge here) that having the scaffolding down on P1 and having some loos would be a reasonable position to be in by the end of March, with the rest of the building still to be internally fitted out, work which could probably continue whilst trains are running.

It's certainly getting exciting though, with emails being circulated about volunteer trains etc.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

While I suspect that your deduction is, sadly, correct, I think it should be pointed out that apparently not all the volunteers doing the work are upset about the non-originality issues.

E.g. this post from a volunteer who seems to be more concerned about the back-and-forth over originality issues, than the originality issues themselves (my apologies to the poster if I have mis-understood their concerns). Not that there's anything wrong with that weighing of priorities; I myself am not too fussed about some of these details, merely supportive of those who are, when there is no time/cost impact from 'doing it right'.

Noel

 

Noel,

I have either not explained myself very well or you have miss interpreted what I am saying. I do care that what we build is the best that it can be. I am no heritage expert, I leave that to others to sort out, I turn up every week to do the job that I am allocated to do, to the best of my ability.

What upset me was the fact that there is lots of discussion on blogs and forums, instead of all the parties involved getting together to sort things out (which appears at this late stage to have happened). We only want to do things once, not several times, so as not to waste shareholders money, valuable resources and our time, which has happened.

What we are building will be a beautiful station that everyone will be proud of, I have no doubt. I support those involved in researching the heritage issues and how station should be built and looks. My beef, if you can call it that, is that discussions were happening in the wrong place, which hopefully has now been resolved and that agreement of how things go forward will happen.

I am sorry if I have misled you.

 

Well it would certainly be good if true..... so it would be useful if TPTB made a public statement on how this will go forward and then everybody could get behind them -- with out a forum like this there is no other way to reach TPTB.

 

Not sure which, but 'no problem'.

Right, but my understanding is that people did try and work these things out through 'the appropriate channels', and got nowhere (to their great frustration). And this wasn't a one-off, it happened again and again.

Anyway, if the online kerfluffle (and washing in public) has finally gotten through to people, and helped sort things out, so that things are now running more smoothly, with greater weight given to accuracy (where tnere is no significant time or cost impact thereto), nobody will be more pleased than me. (Clouds, silver linings, etc.)

Noel

 

Following the meeting reported in an earlier post, flimsy wood fixed to the top of the canopy will now be replaced by more solid (and authentic), and the chimney tops are being rebuilt in GWR style, although it is too late to make them into doubles (the supporting chimney breasts are not wide enough).

 

After the "washing in public" seems to have have had some effect on two of the areas of detail.... would a list of other areas of discussion be worthwhile? I seem to recall a comment on this weeks Building Blog that the internal plaster finish should more heritage rather than the more current fad for 90 degree angle. ( this comment has since been removed), There has been discussion on the design and construction on the footbridge steps.... discussion on how the footbridge steps interface into the canopy. The extenal finish of the construction camp at the end of Platform 1.. and I am sure there are more....

 

Not sure if there is a GWSR thread as such, but has the railway ever given thought to stabling a set at Cheltenham? With the big car park and transport links there to me it makes sense. Even if the DMU ran up in the morning and back in the early evening daily (either on a regular basis or high season / summer weekends). Obviously Toddington is the maintenance depot, but the WSR/SVR/NYMR have their main MPDs at the other end of the 'main starting point' of the line where suitable facilities have been made available to prep steam locos.

 

We wouldn't dare - have you seen the stuff south of Cheltenham!? Bound to be vandalised unfortunately, especially when the travellers pass through the racecourse...

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk