Should Broadway's Box have Plastic windows?

Toddington?

 

I seem to have upset some people here regarding signal boxes, perhaps I should try wording differently. This is a genuine question; would, at the time, building a more authentic box at crc have cost significantly more or taken significantly longer to construct than the current building? If the answer is no, there really is no excuse and I retract all my previous comments. If yes, then whilst perhaps not the best place to cut costs, quicker building would have meant twice as many trains in crc due to new signalling capabilities meaning more revenue to expand other parts if the railway; it's all swings and roundabouts...

 

A historically accurate signal box built of traditional materials would of been more expensive, and probably of taken longer to construct.

 

At the time, management would have understandably wanted to get operational signalling installed ASAP for more trains, so although we may not like it, the decision makes sense. Now that I know that us almost,certainly the reason thanks to the answer to my previous question, I'm relatively happy that the costs saved will have at least, gone elsewhere on the railway, even if it is perhaps not where we'd like it.

On a happier note, the gwsr is having a volunteer meeting fairly soon and it's a pretty good bet that someone will bring up the broadway box issue up, considering how many comments it generated on their blog.

 

Maybe , but then, like the originals that are being destroyed en mass till not one remains by Network Rail, they would last 100 years or more. It is very short sighted of a so called Heritage Railway to prefer a marginal improvement of the financial bottom line for say 2-3 years and in the process lumbering the railway with ersatz structures that are straight out of Disneyland.

 

It's all very well gnashing teeth and having sharp intakes of breath but you may also notice that money for heritage projects is not exactly falling off trees. If you do feel strongly about it how about getting involved and offering help to offset the cost difference and support with the ongoing maintenance. I think most heritage railways will tell you that an appeal for a loco raises more interest than appeals for donations for S&T or building projects.

I am not totally in favour only that it is not difficult to see the attraction of this option during times when money is tight. I would however suggest aluminium frames rather than upvc. From experience large windows in upvc tend to warp in strong sunlight (which we tend to get a bit of here). We have both types installed around the same time and the upvc are already draughty.

 

But if you just take the easiest/cheapest way of doing things, it begs the question of why we have heritage railways at all.

 

You know that's just being awkward, if we took the easy option everywhere life would be very dull indeed. The gwsr can't throw money at everything, and I suspect back in 2000 or do weren't in nearly as comfortable financial position, so they have to make savings somewhere.

I still have high hopes for proper windows at broadway though, all the hard working people there I'm sure wouldn't want it ruined and the financial position is rather good st the moment from what I hear

 

Hear, Hear! Always strive to do the best possible job, to me that is the only way! No cutting corners, do it properly.

 

Couldn't agree more. And to be fair to previous GWSR Boards of Directors that was always their attitude. The painstaking reconstruction of Monmouth Troy station and Halls Green signal box at Winchcombe are prime examples. Would the present Board have gone to such pains, I doubt it.

One need only consider the fate, which has just emerged, of Exminster Signal box, a listed structure and the removal of which was only allowed on the understanding that it be re erected. According to comments on the Broadway blog, the project was managed by an existing Director and when it became clear it wouldn't fit in with the Broadway plan it was secretly scrapped and no longer exists.

I had followed the blog regarding its dismantling and was surprised when the blog and its link disappeared. Now I know why.

Pics of the dismantling are available here

http://photos.signallingnotices.org.uk/index.php?col=2#16

 

Doing it right generally works out less costly than doing it wrong, and then subsequently correcting it, as well!

Tom

 

I must be in a minority in not being bothered by the boxes at CRC and Gotherington, I don't know if they are to an actual design or freelance, and are not the usual style of what was the Tyseley - Cheltenham line, but to my eye they don't stand out that much, hardly like plonking New St powerbox there.

As for Broadway's windows, I'm not too fussed what they are made of, providing appearances are what they should be, plenty of loco modifications are tolerated like spark arrestors and hopper ashpans providing the outward asthetics are the same.

 

Just a quick question, if you are "not fussed" about preserving our railway heritage, why are you subscribing to a forum entitled National Preservation?

Your not a GWSR Director by any chance!

 

That chip on your shoulder must be quite stale by now surely ?, how dare anyone have a different opinion to you and get away with it, you really have a way with words...

I presume you must have been in North Korea recently to miss the GWR's cashflow has taken a huge hit with major pway repairs running into millions, in which case, I'd say getting to Broadway ASAP to attract more fair paying passengers is a higher priority than playing in the dirt at CRC for 12 months because Mr Arnold thinks a there should be another line of bricks in the build.

The concept also seems to be lost on you that there's nothing to stop the box being replaced for a model of the more usual type at a later date.

If people have a different opinion, that's fair enough, it's a discussion forum afterall, but a post giving attitude will get a similar reply I'm afraid.

David (not a GWR director!).

 

Actually I was just making a legitimate point. I had presumed that contributors here were united by one thing, the preserving of our Heritage as it pertains to railways and railway artifacts. Clearly you are not, you are "not fussed", but thankfully in the minority. Now these are all your own words so no need to get personal.

I am perfectly aware of GWSR's travails. They have required millions of pounds from us to rebuild their embankments. They require millions more to extend their railway.

Since we, the ordinary enthusiast, are footing their huge bills, is it not fair to question what kind of railway it is they envisage building, and whether it will bear more than a passing resemblance to the GWR of old.

 

There are quite clearly two conflicting approaches here, I don't agree with what they have done, but the GWSR have achieved a working railway between Toddington & Cheltenham, with good infrastructure and are now busy pushing towards Broadway. Obviously there is the financial argument that pushing on to Broadway will increase footfall and thus bring in more revenue. They have also got 2 signal boxes and a station building at Cheltenham that not only were cheaper and quicker to build but cheaper and easier to maintain, but personally I think they've opted for quantity over quality.

I also don't understand the conflicting approach at the railway, why go to all the effort of transporting Monmouth Troy Station and re-building it in Winchcombe, and then not bother taking the same care and attention to detail elsewhere.
I could almost understand if the signal boxes were isolated examples, but the modern welded steel footbridge at Winchcombe station looks completely out of place, and at Cheltenham they were offered the original station from Bourton on the Water, but turned it down and its now been demolished. Obviously as pointed out above the new board have different priorities, but you wouldn't find this approach in other areas of railway preservation, you wouldn't fit UPVC windows to a coach just to get it in traffic any sooner, or fit a fibreglass tank to a tender because its easier maintenance. Things like different ashpans and spark arrestors are all well and good, but you don't see them.

To try and answer a few of the questions from above, the GWSR website says the two new boxes have been built to a standard GWR design but using modern materials, this I can see, the boxes in question resemble what is referred to as the GWR 'gabled' variety, basically double pitch roof with gables, or flat triangular panels above the two short ends. These were mainly constructed of wood, but some later ones had brick bases. I don't recall having seen one with a stone base, but the railway builders tender to use whatever was the local vernacular building material so no doubt this was used also.
The box at Toddington, is a 'hipped' variety, again its because it has a hipped roof, which basically means all sides slope. The base is constructed in red brick, as is the railway station, and goods shed. I would assume most of the buildings on the route were built in this style.

 

17B raises an interesting point as to what was used originally on the line. The majority of the station buildings and signal boxes were as per Toddington being brick built, but some notably the still extant Gotherington and the long gone Bishops Cleeve were Cotswold stone. I believe (but am happy to be corrected) that the signal box at the latter had a stone base (http://www.imagesofbishopscleeve.info/Old_Pictures/image86.htm) so perhaps that at Racecourse isn't too far from the accuracy though a hipped roof would improve the looks if being fussy.

 

Nice picture, looks the same design as Toddington but using stone instead of brick.
Just shows the builders made use of whatever was the available material in the area, be it stone, timber or brick.

 

pictures of Cheltenham racecourse box can be found here, a timber structure only open on race days. I knew there were some knocking about on the website somewhere, was there ever a 'box at Gotherington by the way? Can't even see any evidence of a second platform in the picture on here, but I suppose there must have been one.

 

What a beautiful box that was at CRC. Being of wood construction it would surely have been relatively cheap and quick to erect.

In terms of reproduction GWR boxes Danny Scroggins website has a good picture of the box at Kingswear which does look the part, with correct windows, a slate roof and appropriate colour scheme.

http://photos.signallingnotices.org.uk/photo.php?pc=493&p=IMG_7799.JPG

Compare and contrast as they say with this

http://photos.signallingnotices.org.uk/photo.php?pc=121&p=DSCF1876.JPG