Broadway Station GWR Roof Fund

Therefore, Toddington station building is a known fire hazard. So much for passenger safety.

 

No, but if the design of the building was like the original which I expect is load bearing masonry, rather than the a steel frame, I cannot see it would be a problem. The sections of the original steelwork design might be too small to get the required fire rating if an intumescent paint is applied ( or if possible expensive due to the number of coats required).Have they looked at the building being in load bearing masonry ?

 

The use of fire regulations to justify the rather controversial roof design at Broadway is to say the least strange.
Is there anybody on this forum who has a expert knowledge of fire regulations ?
Surely if the Broadway building needs to be a fire box , a fire proof flat roof could be installed and a proper GWR style roof installed when the cash has been raised.

 

It seems that the whole proposed building has been designed around the steel frame, which will project beyond the actual brickwork to support the canopy. Door and window spacings (and presumably thus internal spaces) are predicated on this frame also, so a lot of modification may be needed to truncate this frame and fit a flat roof. Does the existing building at Toddington have some form of "grandfather rights" when it comes to fire regulations?

 

I should imagine so, it's one of few original buildings on the line. Also, positioning of the doors and windows seems to be used as an excuse. Is it me, or would you rather have a heritage get canopy than the doors positioned at the correct authentic spacings (from what I read of it.)

 

If it was thought to be so it would be closed to the public!

I suggest you speak with the local council and fire brigade. They will explain the latest building and fire regulations. You would be surprised what present day legislation requires.

 

duplicated post.

 

Good point. I wonder if the real story here is that despite the promise of a true replication of the original Broadway as promised in the planning application notes, along with photos of old Broadway Station, the intention has always been to have a steel framework structure from the ground up and including the canopy and the Builder engaged is capable of little else.

Especially not of recreating Victorian building techniques in the 21st century.

 

I thought the BAG were going to build the station buildings? They've done a great job with the signalbox.


Keith

 

One has to wonder why it has been fine to build the Broadway signalbox to an authentic design using authentic materials and construction techniques (in contrast to other examples on the line) using volunteer labour, yet it is not possible to apply the same to those buildings on the site that will be used by passengers.

 

And tonight Bill Britton has posted that he has resigned as Chairman of BAG and Head of Department, Broadway. That probably says it all...

 

Beat me to it by seconds; a sad day.

 

Bill was between a rock and a hard place.

Basically the Chairman Alan Bielby was formerly the Project Director for Broadway before his elevation. He was therefore deeply involved in the plans for Broadway station and they were submitted on 2 nd July 2013.

I have been carefuly studying those plans today in detail and it is evident that the roof trusses had been designed into the building at 2 metre intervals from outset. On a 38 metre building. Hat tip to Frazoulaswak for that, as it isn't at all clear unless you blow up the plans and count the truss support beams marked by a T on the Ground plan of the station.

That means that from the very outset the Chairman. Alan Bielby, has been deceiving every body , especially the BAG team , that they are building something remotely like a GWR station. How can it be with 20 thick horizontal steelwork beams holding the roof up.

It gets worse. Knowing full well that the Station could never be remotely considered a GWR replica, the Board THREE MONTHS LATER on 15th October 2013, produce a prospectus for the Bridges to Broadway share issue, full of pretty pictures of Toddington and Old Broadway and the tag line "Bottom line it is all about preservation". Many shareholders buy shares because they believe that a close replica of Broadway is going to arise from the ashes. I read the prospectus and that is what I believed until two weeks ago.

Having sat on this secret knowledge, and not having consulted the BAG members, he decides to bounce them into acceptance of his plans by presenting them with a fait accompli .Almost two years he had hid this knowledge from them. Only telling them at the last minute before the foundation is poured so they have no chance to organise and oppose his plan.

But they do. At the AGM they rebel and Chairman doesn't like that. So Bill pays the price.

This GWSR Board is quite possibly the worst there has been in the Preservation world. They have betrayed the countless hours of honest toil by the BAG group that we have admired week in, week out, as well as their shareholders.

They should consider their positions.

 

Why do so many brilliant, inspirational and dedicated people have to suffer the incompetence and high handedness of those who one would expect to show understanding, direction and leadership for the preservation movement ? What is it about their character that makes these individuals feel they can run rough shod over the majority, who's unstinting time and efforts have made preservation what it is today ?

I trust this is not the end of the matter, and other volunteers will whole heartedly support the principled stand being taken by people who really care about the movement and what it represents, and make their views known.

An extremely unsatisfactory and disappointing state of affairs.

 

A sad day for Broadway and it certainly looks (to me as an outsider following the blog) that the volunteers have been deceived. Perhaps it is time for them to show solidarity with Bill and down tools until the issue is resolved?


Keith

 

Hello,
Did any of the team turn out at Broadway on Wednesday?



Nick

 

This is a very sad turn of events.

Forgive me if I am being slightly naive, but is there a reason why it is the Board's way or nothing? The Broadway Group have been doing fantastic work and when funds for a particular project (slabs, phone box, signal box window) have been needed have been able to raise them. I know a station building is a big step up but why can't a similar process be used here to get the correct roof design? Or do building regs completely preclude the original design and the withholding of this fact from the Group is more the issue here?

If building regs are an issue with the roof design, perhaps an alternative GWR building design would work as a compromise structurally and authentically - Castle Cary comes to mind or closer to home the design of Monmouth Troy now at Winchcombe?

Either way, thanks Bill for all your hard work. It's damn shame it has come to this.

 

Having visited both blogs, ( crc2 and Broadway) almost on a daily basis over the past two years or so, ( blogs, incidentally, that my "home" railway the SVR is singularly unable or unwilling to develop), you almost feel a part of these projects, and can now well understand the feelings of utter dissapointment of the good people involved. Has there been a better example of volunteer dedication and skill in the railway heritage movement recently? I doubt it!
Hopefully the Board will see that they risk alienating this band of volunteers, put the station building project on hold, and reassess what is possible, perhaps as others have mentioned following the "Bridgnorth" example, which mercifully looks to be going the right way now.

Unfortunately I cannot now find a link to the "Bridgnorth Station plan B" website--probably no longer in existence--which had some input from Adrian Vaughan on GWR architecture.

 

I would think that this design is purely for cost saving & that they are using building regs & fire safety as an excuse. There is no reason that I can think of where a single storey building cannot be built to the original design while keeping its heritage appearance & also complying with the regs.

Bob.

 

You are quite right Thomson1706. Modern bulding and fireproofing materials are good enough that a single story building could be constructed with sufficient strong points to support a replica GWR canopy.

But it would have to be designed like that at outset, when the plans were submitted. Alan Bielby's plans were totally different, despite having assured the Council in the Background Notes that

" We therefore intend to build a new station building as close as possible in appearance to the original. Using old photos and details from the similar Toddington Building....."

Instead, unless GWSR members take a stand, Broadway station will resemble something that Network Rail would produce were they in charge of the build.

Whether BAG members want to build it is another matter.