GWSR Broadway Developments

So which Board was responsible for the Trumpton style signal boxes at Cheltenham and Gotherington?

 

When visiting Corfe Castle station all the visitors "look up" and admire the beautifully accurate rebuild of the Corfe Castle Signal Box.

When visiting Kidderminster station all the visitors "look up" and admire the reproduced period detail of the roof and canopy

When visiting Ropley station all the visitors "lookup" and marvel at the new waiting room with its correct period trusses and colour scheme.

When visiting Horsted Keynes all the visitors "look up" and marvel at the completely new period platform buildings and zince canopy on the reconstructed Plarfom 1 and 2.

When visiting Broadway Station will all the visitors have to look down because their is nothing to see here other than a sight that resembles the inside of their prefabricated garages.

 

I will concede that those two structures whilst being a fair facsimile of period GWR boxes fall short of perfection, however those decisions were taken many years ago. I daresay that few if any of the current board could be held accountable.

 

Quite; anyone know who the board members in those days were? Can compare then. Pretty sure at least one or two of the current directors weould have been ex-pats at the time!

 

The point is, we should not repeat our mistakes. The situation 15 years ago when opening that extension was very similar.

 

ive looked carefully at the documents for the planning application and the contrast between the proposed canopy and that at Toddington.

i cannot see anything wrong with the proposed canopy, and to my mind has significant advantages over the GWR type. canopies can be a maintenance nightmare, and the proposed new canopy gets round most of this problem by incorporating one half into the room of the station building. the whole concept is much better than the GWR type.

cheers,
julian

 

"Better" in the same sense that diesel multiple units are "better" at moving passengers than steam engines and traditional carriages, presumably?

Tom

 

Well steam locomotives can be a maintenance nightmare, and take a long time to prepare at the beginning of the working day, and to "put to bed" at the end it. Modern diesel multiple units would make a lot of sense, it's not as if you can even see the locomotive when you are sitting in the train

 

This particular debate highlights the reason why many railways have an associated charity or at least a support group that has a specific "heritage" brief. There are costs associated with traditional or "authentic" infrastructure and/ or rolling stock, motive power and operating practices. Sometimes the heritage approach is not easy to justify on purely commercial grounds, and this is where extra sources of funding from the charities, "Friends of.." or direct appeals to members and shareholders etc can come in, and enable a more expensive but authentic solution. The PLC's that run many of our heritage railways absolutely need to keep an eye on the profits, making continuous losses will endanger the future of a railway; however sometimes a baby and bathwater situation arises, in such cases the enthusiast community will often rise to the challenge of additional fund raising for both one- off and ongoing costs.

 

The last steam train on red timetables is now a diseasel as well, as crews have a long day otherwise.

 

...which is entirely reasonable. A trip down the line on a heritage DMU is actually quite interesting, especially if you get a seat at the front. I used to enjoy such journeys on the Mid-Hants until we sold our nice Bubble car and three coach set to the GWSR! Despite my avatar, I used to dislike commuting on thumper units, far too smelly!

I hope that the station at Broadway may get the canopy it deserves, building regs allowing: As my wife comes from the Cotswolds, I would be happy to send a small donation to any appeal to top up funds to ensure a more authentic building.

 

We do have a "heritage group" but they've only recently been set up and I'm not entirely sure what they're for, other than they want to reconstruct Hailes Abbey halt. Whilst I still don't want to condemn the board's decision entirely, I can't see any problem with anyone who feels strongly emailing the chairman at Chairman(at)gwsr.com to let them know how you feel.

The way I see it, yes, the often ignorant travelling public buy the most tickets and spend the most on food, souvenirs etc. but this only really covers the day to day operation of the railway. I suspect that the vast majority of donations to causes like the bridges fund etc. will come from people more interested and thus in the know, and upsetting them would not be good for the future development of the railway.

 

But at least on those railways that have noticeable gradients and not just an amble along a flat track, you can usually hear the steam locomotive hard at work.

 

This is the image of the GWSR used by Trip Advisor. it is what the public come to see as much as the trains and the scenery.

Broadway will be the jewel in the crown when completed, if it looks like this and not another shed.

The Board have suffered a massive collective failure of will to make it so and need the help and support of us all to make Broadway happen as it should.

 

I have to agree with you there. Of course the poster who mentioned the maintenance issue does have a point, funding needs to be in place for any additional ongoing costs - such as might be incurred if painting is needed more often or is more complicated. Those of us with a leaning towards heritage /authentic solutions need to be mindful that we don't saddle our railways with greatly increased ongoing or future costs without our continuing support. The plus side of course is that a better/more authentic environment may increase the numbers volunteering, but that would be hard to measure to give a quantifiable benefit for the bean-counters to include on the balance sheet:-maintenance costs are far more obvious.

 

Perhaps this heritage group should be made aware of this potential plan, if they didn't already know, and enquire if they intend to take any action on this matter.

Certainly it'll put this heritage group to the test, to see if they can hold true to their mission of protecting the railway's heritage.

 

Indeed, and I have no problem with inauthentic materials, anachronistic techniques etc. - I'm not one of the people asking for it all to be exact. but I do think having a canopy that looks right not just from a distance but from close up is important, and I have now emailed the chairman asking for the reasons leading to this decision.

 

I'll try and find out a bit more about it, as I was considering getting involved, but probably not practical until I have my own transport.

 

hi tom,

so far as the new station is concerned a small relatively insignificant alteration/improvement will lead to a better building from a cost and long term maintenance point of view. let's also not forget that arguably the 'new' station looks far more 'traditional' than the one it is replacing!

cheers,
julian

 

A small relatively insignificant alteration?? The entire roof, an entire wall, the components of all these? Have you actually been following this thread at?

How can the new station look "more traditional" if it looks like the inside of a garden shed. Please go away and study the pictures attached to various posts and infom yourself of the the problem here Julian before you make any more fatuous comments.