Broadway Station GWR Roof Fund

Doubt it has been activated yet, I suspect you need at least one post before it becomes visible.

 

I have followed all this with sadness but not, having worked in institutions all my career, surprise. I had hoped that cool heads would prevail and that Mr Bielby and Mr Britton would sit down over a pint and come to a sensible compromise. However, having now looked at the plans in detail and the pictures of Toddington is seems that there is a fundamental principle at stake and I would ask Mr Bielby to post in clear terms on his little used Boardroom Blog (still harking on about Wartime in the Costwolds, irony of ironies!) exactly what the point of a preserved railway is. I fully appreciate the need to make ends meet and I have noted the concern of some people that the BAG tail is wagging the dog but the fundamental question remains, what is the point of a preserved railway? Surely it is to produce as perfect as possible a replica of the railway of times past and to create a magical door into a bygone world. If this takes just a little longer and requires a little more fund-raising effort then why not. Otherwise let's just call ourselves theme park and make the whole thing out of plastic.
Mr Bielby, please give the concerned enthusiast an answer!

 

There has still been no official word from the board, apart from a couple of comments on the Broadway blog...

 

I have spent the morning looking at the photographs taken by Bill in February and the drawings as submitted to planning...

AFAIKS..... there should be no reason why the building can not be constructed exactly as per the submitted design - with the following exceptions....

1, The vertical steel uprights designed to support the roof structure are capped with a full length steel RSJ Ring Beam - allowing a tradiional design roof to be added later or piecemeal as funds are available.
At Toddingtom the roof is supported and bolted to the top of the structural wall and this ring beam would allow the transfer of load to the floor slab exactly as designed....

2, If negotiations with planning and building control fail to reach agreement with regard to the vertical fire wall....this could be set back and angled back to be less intrusive and also constructed to be less obtrusive.

This approach would allow all sides to progress forwads with the slab and start of ground prep in the knowledge that the roof design can be looked at and what ever design is finally agreed on it will not inpeed construction progress.

further I would have thourght that a skilled CAD draftsman should be able to creat a detailed drawing of the construction of a traditional style roof such that fabricated roof trusses could be water jet cut and assembled on site by vollunteers as a project just as rewarding as brick laying and resut removal on bridges....

I am sure that the team at Kidderminster were not phased for a moment when the said they could build 7 new bays of platform canopy to extend the recoverd Wolverhampton Low Level components..

http://www.svr-association.org.uk/kiddercanopy_01.html

Oh and before anybody asks I an not a GWSR member but have from Day 1 been donating to the BAG in the belief that Broadway would be an accurate reproduction, not a new build with scant regard to the past...

Ian H

OK putting more money where mouth is.... £500 towards any additional structural or design considerations....

 

Of those I construed Alan Bielby's to at least indicate the possibility of a traditional canopy as at Toddington if possible subject to cost etc. . Henry Howard on the other hand gave the impression that they would build what they wanted and if you don't like it you can lump it.

Interestingly, the latest Cornishman states that a curtain wall will be needed and if so point 2) of ianh's post is an interesting suggestion maybe.

 

Good post and you've raised a number options which should be looked at in detail - the RSJ ring beam seems to tick all the boxes.

Regarding the SVR project - could there be financial benefit to both railways by collaborating on costs for the new roof lattice work required for both projects?

A proper job is possible, it just takes a little work!


Keith

 

Very well put, thank you. It is why I joined the GWSR. Your lovely summary 'a magic door to a bygone past' also encapsulates the GWR Trust's objective: To establish and maintain a railway museum, for the benefit of the public. It is our duty to show how it was.

 

A brief read of this inspiring blog from Kidderminster reads in Report 03

"Design

Design development is focusing on an A-frame canopy arrangement similar to the Moor St island platform example which feed-back suggests is the enthusiasts preference."

So clearly they are doing things the right way around instead of the GWSR's horse before cart approach of design building, submit plans, 2 years later admit GWR roof not envisaged to members, ask members for feedback several weeks before foundations laid.

 

I would say this is perfectly feasible having recently been involved in the construction of two waggon underframes in exactly the same way. Designed in CAD and laser cut complete with holes, then hot riveted together in a weekend. All done by volunteers. I'm not saying you can do it in a weekend but it could be done and i would have thought the works at Toddington has all the facilities needed to make them. The trusses don't look especially complex apart from the rolled angle on the arched ones.

Tim

 

Yesterday, I took the time to look up whilst at Kidderminster station. The roof frame work above the circulating area appears to be of welded construction using angle and flat plate for gussets. I would say that forming the rolled angle arches is not a problem. There are companies that specialize in that work.

 

Going on the topic title; As I'm too far away to be an active member or volunteer, since Chicken curve I have been chipping in several hundred pounds annually,firstly buying shares then direct to BAG, as and when the need arose, which I had planned to carry on doing till at least 2018 (then depending on how Ashburton station goes) That contribution will either cease or increase by £200ish/annum depending on the outcome of the boards final decision.

 

CAD design, RSJ ring beams, water jet cut trusses, welded angle and gussets!

I think the collected talents of the Nat Pres membership have cracked the design problems attendant on a new GWR roof at Broadway and without breaking the bank, All that is required now is the will to build it on behalf of the Board.

As Barry Mathews and many others have pointed out here and on the now closed Broadway Blog, their funding will cease if the Board presses ahead regardless with its present plans. So not only will future fund raising be put at jeopardy but exisiting cash flows will dry up.

 

Just one question, does the firewall have to be brick? I assume its to stop any hot ashes from the trains landing on the roof and catching it alight, so if thats the case can't it be glass?

 

This picture of Broadway's sister station at Henley in Arden shows more detail of the roof. It's a very modular structure.
The roof was covered in corrugated iron sheets, and glass. It can't catch fire.
The footbridge at the back was identical to the 1904 example at Broadway, but has now been taken down.... and moved to Broadway, where it is currently under repair.
If you can't see the picture, then it's because I have a software issue, so let's hope it appears. Otherwise I will ask someone to do it for me.

 

I have forwarded a couple of these suggestions to the chairman and will see what reply I get, does anyone have any guesses as to cost for the manufacture described?

 

It appears that once again preservationists, those who care about the preservation environment and have been paying the bills, are speaking with one voice.

In my experience, important people sometimes find it extremely difficult to accept that they might just have made the wrong call. The deafening silence from the Board suggests that they are finding it difficult to come to terms with the implications and realities they have created. Their options appear straight forward.
(1) Continue with the present plans which have been presented as a take it or leave it option, with little evidence of sufficient consultation to those most involved with Broadway, and accept the clear and inevitable consequences.
(2) Take a step back, accept that the current proposals have met with almost universal rejection, and consult widely.

If the only sensible option is accepted. Start a dialog with those involved or concerned with the Broadway project to try and reach an accommodation as to the sensible heritage and historical way forward. Probably by building in several well defined and costed phases. Bring on board those with specialist knowledge in the design and construction of GWR architecture for their invaluable input and Civil Engineers if they are to be found amongst the membership.

Make decisions public as quickly as possible, to stem the adverse publicity and financial implications this poorly thought out proposal is creating for the railway. Failure to make the right decision quickly will certainly have long term consequences.

 

Barry - I suggest you email the development office (development@gwsr.com) to explain how much you've been contributing in one way or another, and why you will be stopping. That's what I have done (was contributing monthly directly to the development fund), although interestingly it's the first time I've contacted the Office and not had a response. But at least they will then start to understand the effect the decision will have.

 

That I shall do

 

Has anyone looked into using the canopy from nearby Gloucester which I believe was due for demolition? Perhaps it might not suit the original GWR design, but at the very least its available and indeed GWR authentic.

Whatever happens I hope they find a way forwards. Ive enjoyed the blog, and the recent disagreement can do nobody whom cares for the GWSR any favors.

 

Just as a general point, it seems to me that boards of preservation lines need to look at their strategy statements again. A few years ago, I read one from the WSR PLC and there was no mention of preservation in it - just all about being an economic benefit to Somerset and such like.

It's not even financially sensible to go down this road, as we read today of large grants being made available for preservation projects, so charities are turning their backs on potential funding, were the real purpose of these preservation lines to be lost from view.

I appreciate there are discussions to be had about purity, but I am sure all here would agree that a preservation of a pre-WW2 line does not typically involve long welded rail or modern components. This as an example. A longer line could emulate different periods in different places without losing the aim of the charity.

I know many wish to see an eventual rebuild of some of the features at CRC. The signal box does rather stick out like a sore thumb.