recreating the past or enjoying preservation

Point taken, but there must be a way within the modern planning regs to build new "period" but in such a way that it does not try and purport to be the same age as the original listed building. ( Kidderminster station and concourse for example ) For instance you use new wall and roofing materials "in the style", but being new materials rather than say recycled old material it is clear that the new building "is" a new building, but in the style of the original.

Simplistic view maybe, but the people who draft the regs are greater minds no doubt....

46118

 

An example I saw on TV. Restoring an old stone castle an internal wall became unstable. The owners were not allowed to use the old stone or even newly quarried stone but had to use concrete blocks. I agree with your post apart from the final sentence. As I said intellectual........

 

Indeed!

( to be fair I was being ironic!)

46118

 

I disagree about St Pancras. The new extension certainly isn't "iconic" architecture, but quite a polite structure that defers to and is subservient to the Barlow/Ordish shed. Better they did what they did than built a replica of the Barlow shed which doubled its size and destroyed the proportions of the original, no?

There's definitely a case for the "modern intervention" when extending historic buildings, although also something to be said for replicating the style of the original when the whole environs are "of a piece" - qv Bridgnorth.

 

With respect - you need to open your eyes a bit! OK, the buildings may be as they were built, but what about fittings? What about paint schemes? And that is before you consider new additions such as the Engine House (which, OK, is outside the "historic" area of its station), or Highley footbridge (which most definitely isn't).

This isn't meant as a dig at the SVR: rather, it is to point out that there is more to presenting a "historic" view of the railway than simply ensuring that the core buildings are preserved. Indeed, even if you only thought about buildings, you could conserve every one exactly as built but paint the station building on 1930s GWR colours and the signal box in a Network Rail scheme - both could accurately be said to be accurate representations of historic liveries, but the assemblage would be wrong.

Even preserving things "as built" may not be what you actually want to achieve. "As built" means the middle 1860s: no lock and block; very limited signalling; probably cinder ballast; certainly no electric light; in fact despite being "GWR", it would be a long way from most people's chocolate-box image of a GWR branch line, and certainly would look weird with the predominantly 20th century locos and carriages that the SVR has. So the strategy needs to think about what you are actually trying to portray - I sincerely doubt there would be a lot of support for portraying the line "as built" once people thought through what that actually meant in practice.

Which is my point about how the "public realm", or "heritage strategy" if you prefer, would work: it is not enough simply to ensure that all the main structures are preserved. It is also easy to lose bits of the historic appearance piecemeal if you aren't careful: a board crossing gone here, a cobbled approach road replaced with tarmac there. Those are the areas that I would expect the heritage committee to also be paying careful attention to.

Tom

 

Tom - there has been discussion re the Engine house on SVR forum. Built to a budget it is externally not to everyones taste. Cant agree about the footbridge though as it is a replacement for a structure demolished on safety grounds

 

I was simply making the point that, contrary to what 46118 says, in no way can the SVR stations be sad to be preserved "as built".

That's not necessarily a problem. Stations change all the time, almost from the day they open. But it is only when you realise those changes that you can start to think sensibly about what it actually is that you are seeking to portray. In that sense a missing board crossing or a gravel-surfaced platform replaced with tarmac can be just as much a loss as a new building in an unsympathetic style.

Tom

 

In response to some of the comments and questions raised above. I think a part of GF-Gs missing post gives as good an answer as is possible. I hope he has no objection to me re-posting the relevant paragraph.

"As for trying to second guess the SVR Heritage Committee, why bother ? They have a series of monuments to their professionalism and panache - Moor Street, Kidderminster Town, Kidderminster Railway Museum and Leamington Spar. There is no-one here who can show us such a track record so why even try ?
Sometimes it is best to just have faith. Plan B will be as good as it can be".

I am sure these outstanding attributes will make themselves felt over the whole railway.

 

Tom: My comment, even if ill-advised in your eyes--was intended to convey the fact that the fabric of the station buildings is in most cases as built, ie the "bricks and mortar". I absolutely accept that there will have been changes to the fixtures and fittings, ie electric lighting, mains water, signage, platforms, p-way, signalling etc.
Now you could do what the GCR have done with their stations and represent a different period in the lines history, ie GCR/LNER/BR by means of how you "dress" each station, but as far as I am aware that is not the case with the SVR.

It is a little unfair to bring the Engine House into play. That building is at least 100 yards from Highley station, and the style of building was dictated by the underlying poor ground which required extensive piling before the modern structural steel building could be erected. Love it or hate it, but the site would simply not support a traditional building.

Cost also comes into it. No doubt in an ideal world the Bluebell's new carriage shed and museum at SP would have been a traditional build, but "traditional" is expensive, isn't it?

46118

 

Very few "preserved" stations have escaped modern life - whether it is a modern engine she/carriage shed; catering outlet or whatever. I applaud the attempts to keep as much as possible looking original but we fool ourselves if we think that the majority look anything like they did "back in the day" unless you wander around with your eyes half closed trying to ignore the post preservation additions. Drawing a tight definition around the "public domain" does nothing to dispel this IMHO.

 

I wouldn't disagree there. The problem was (is) that originally HK had a very complex junction layout, very obviously not "modern", full of diamond crossings and single slips. As the lines north and west were closed, the junction layout was rationalised to a simple terminal arrangement; then, as the possibility of an extension westwards became a possibility again, the junction was re-instated - but in a more modern idiom. Coupled with signalling that allows bi-directional running through each platform from each possible route, the new arrangement is far far more operationally flexible than any of the old LB&SCR or SR arrangements - but it is also demonstrably not a very prototypically SR arrangement.

But in a way, that is indicative of my point: there is more to heritage than the shells of buildings. It is also very easy to lose historic features, but much more difficult to reinstate them once gone.

Tom

 

You will probably know where I will be coming from before I say it! (I don't have the Bluebell particularly in mind either)

Preservationists are not, in general, particularly good at presenting a reasonably accurate representation of how things were. Dressing up your early 21st. century train crew in waistcoats etc. and scattering luggage barrows laden with empty suitcases about only makes it worse because it never convinces. Also remember that an M7 was expected to haul 150 tons tare up the 1 in 36 out of Ilfracombe before persuading yourself that you really must have a 9F to head the six Mk.1s which is all your platforms can accommodate. Keep everything simple, that's how it was.

P.H.

 

people may should accept you can not recreate the past preserved railways now run on concrete sleepers and will eventually use long stretches of welded rail as it reduces cost.
There is now way you can stand still and just do the same think with looking to be more efficient so some historical accuracy must go. The welshpool and Llanfair can show this with the historically correct pickering coach but also some days the service train look like some they are in central Europe does it spoil the enjoyment of the visits I guess not.

 

But with all due respect, you are not the one who they are trying to "convince." In any case, heritage railways do a better job of representing how things were than if we had no heritage railways at all. As for your 9F quote - I presume you blanch at Bulleid Pacifics hauling short trains too but this is exactly what they did day in and day out, especially west of Exeter. Even A4s could be found on locals whilst running in or eking out the miles before a general. The railway scene of yore wasn't quite as simple as you seem to think it was. Even 92220 worked three coach locals when for some reason she returned to the S&D in '63, the year after all through trains over the line had been rerouted.

 

Yes I do, very largely on economic grounds. One absurdity does not justify another.

PH

 

Showing your lack of knowledge of things west of Exeter then. There are well known pictures of Bulleids hauling a one coach local between Padstow and Wadebridge. No doubt you consider this "absurd" but it was good practice. The Bulleids went to Wadebridge to turn and rather than send them light engine, they worked the local as part of the turning move, thus saving a path and the use of another loco on the local. Another regular "absurdity" was a Bulleid working a Barnstaple to Torrington local tender first. The purpose of this though was to get the Bulleid in position and the right way round to work the 12:45 goods from Torrington to Exmouth Jct. Again, more light engine mileage saved. Filling in turns to increase utilisation of locos were not uncommon - were these all "absurd?"

 

This started out as an SVR thread so I will put the SVR prospective on train lengths. The SVR loops can acomodate 8 bogies, platfforms are shorter but this is managed by the TTIs. Trains load to 270ton for which a class 4 or larger is required. On Monday my train is 7Mk1 + a saloon for cream teas. This necessitates a large loco and I have 2-8-0 2857. I have no doubt the train will load well. 2857 looks good and sounds good but is totally unrealistic, why. It is fitted with screw couplings, vac brakes and steam heat. fittings it would not have needed as a plodding freight loco. Should we therdore be purists and remove this kit? We dont run revenue earning freight so as a total drain on resources its a useless hulk which might as well be cut up. Er hang on we are preservationists - we had better think that one out again.

Preservation requires some compromises with absolute fact and as there is only so much mainline work we are going to have to use larger locos on shorter trains so they can earn their keep. Incidentally it was not only the far SW which had pacifics on short trains. Weymouth trains would be a 4 or 6 set to Bournmouth. Add the Bournmouth West 6 set on the back and the pacific is needed for the onward journey. That is why the Southern had pacifics on 4

Dave

 

There was an interesting series on TV recently which basically discussed the tendancy of this country over the many decades (even centuries) to revel in the past, but to conveniently ignore the accurate truth in the quest to enjoy a version of history that is more acceptable or desirable to the generation in question.

Modern 'preserved' railways are no different. If someone is looking to accurately reasearch railways of the past, then certainly avoid a preserved steam railway and start the research in period photographs, period rule books, operating manuals and documents of the time. The modern preserved railways are run as a tourist business that happens to use old equipment and an olde-worlde atmosphere to attract visitors and volunteers to run it all. As is often beaten to death on the fourm, locomotives appear in forms they never existed in during their pre-preservation 'working' career, hauling rolling stock they are very unlikely to have regularly hauled in the past (if at all). Station buildings are littered with modern concessions, whether that is nice modern toilet facilities, a gift shop, modern refreshment facilities, a card machine at the ticket office, disguarded luggage on platforms that remains unmoved from one year to the next and looks rather 'weathered' as a result, sidings full of rolling stock (and full of rolling stock either being restored, or unrestored), trains that are longer/heavier than likely to have originally been encountered on that line (because they're much more popular now than ever they were before they were closed). Whilst SVR trains may be longer than the platforms, I think a great many of the stations have already had platforms extended somewhat from original as well.

Is any of this a "problem"? No, I don't think it is. Modern visitors (and volunteers) have certain expectations, along with modern rules and regulations that have to be met as well. If those are not met then the railways concerned will struggle to survive. Perhaps the best thing is to accept the railways and 'preservation scene' for what it really is - a nostalgia trip that presents a general impression of how things more or less were in the past, without being really accurate to anything in particular. Enjoy them for what they are, just don't get worked up about (or pretent they are) something they're not.