Broadway Station GWR Roof Fund

It's as I said before earlier on this thread, it's all well and good bemoaning and lamenting about these unauthentic station roof plans, but complaining on a chatroom online is not realistically gonna change a thing. This whole affair appears to be sufferring from a lack of genuine drive to do something about it, both an endearing and annoying British trait that: Complaining till our throats go soar about something, but just letting it happen all too easily anyway.

As someone has pointed out, money doesn't seem to be a huge issue, nor does time necessarily. It's just the matter of getting the Board's attention and spelling it clear to them this matters a great deal to a lot of people, and that there's a genuine drive and willingness to do something about it. How one gets the board's attention? Well it would appear they've so far shown little sympathy to the course, so if the will to see this job done correctly is truly there, then I'd suggest taking a more direct approach.

The BAG group could refuse to work further till the issue has been looked at properly, as many folks as possible could go to the next shareholders meeting and confront them with the matter directly, in front of the other shareholders, thus forcing the board one way or another look into or even rethink it completely.

If there is really a drive to see it happen, a genuine concern, then take action, do something. If no notable action is taken against this, then really it becomes clear to most that there wasn't any real opposition to these plans at all, just hot air.

 

Whilst I really don't like the idea of the BAG going on strike, I'd fully agree that any shareholders who feel strongly go along to the PLC AGM on Thursday the 25th of June at 8pm to make their feelings known to the whole board, face to face.

 

Well I hope BAG make their feelings felt. It may be however that they are happy to build this bastard son of a GWR station and a garden centre, in which case a change of name is called for from BAG to BBC, the Bielby Building Corporation!

 

Both pretty good points I'd say, though I feel I should confess now that while I'm not pleased with the idea of cutting corners on what is supposed to be the jewel in the GWSR's crown, I'm not necessarily as heated by it others appear to be. I'm just not one to as concerned when it comes to making something authentic to the minutest detail, though I still appreciate it when it is done to such length, if it stands out to me that is...

Truth be told I'm pleased to see it's actually having a canopy roof full stop, as that's somewhat a rarity on many heritage railways in itself, especially ones as large and dominating as those on many ex GWR lines.

Gotta to give a hand to the GWR, gave sod all to the footplate crew's comfort and wellbeing, but boy did they have style...

 

I think you've made this unnecessarily personal to Alan Bielby, who by all accounts is a nice chap who always says hello and is often seen around the railway keeping up to date with all that is going on. From what I've been told from both volunteers "on the ground," volunteers elsewhere on the railway, and a couple board members is that the majority of the active workforce at Broadway are perfectly happy, whilst there is a small group who want everything to be entirely authentic, such as not having insulation and roofing felt on the signal box, which brassed a number of people off.

 

Well it is probably because his name is on all the documents submitted to the Wychavon Planning office, and whilst he might well say hello to you chaps, he doesn't say " bye the way I have unilaterally decided we don't need an authentic GWR station".

In a sense you are right though. You chaps have an AGM coming up, if you support his plans then you will own whatever gets built at Broadway collectively.But you will probably have to pay for it yourselves.

The whole point of this thread is to underline that there is no end of support outside the GWSR for a pukka canopy. It is doubtful that that can be said of the back of a fag packet, knock it out in a weekend on a cheap CAD system design, that is being proposed.

Remember you need a successful share issue to get the funds for it, and the pictures in the brochure had better be accurate next time.

 

I am sure the Broadway group have made their feelings known and maybe you are being a little unfair to them.

Although they will ultimately assist in the station construction, in whichever form it takes, really it is for shareholders and volunteers as a whole , not just the Broadway Group, to make their feelings know and the forthcoming AGM would be the ideal opportunity to do so.

 

You are quite correct. The AGM is on 26th June and these are 4 questions that the volunteers and shareholders may care to ask Mr Bielby, hitherto Chairman AND Project Manager of the Broadway Station Build.

1. Why, despite the BAG group going to extraordinary lengths to recreate a genuine station over many years, did he not consult with them regarding the design of the station, before he submitted it to the Wychavon council.

2. Why has he made no effort to find a way to design a genuine GWR roof when it has been said that the use of ring beams will allow the correct spacings and the parts can be cheaply fabricated by welding and laser cutting.

3. Why did the Bridges to Broadway offer document contain pictures of Toddington and old Broadway stations when it was already known that the submitted design was nothing like them.

4. Since widespread financial support has been indicated, will he commit to exploring the feasibility of a replica GWR canopy and submitting the option to members and shareholders before an irrevocable step is taken in the build such as the casting of the foundations.

GWSR members its over to you. Preserved Railway or Tourist Trip?

 

Unless you have absolute incontrovertible evidence that the contents of question 2 are correct, I would recommend that it not be asked. The contents might indeed be correct but, as someone who worries about solicitors, I would be wary of asking it unless I had full command of all the facts. (Facts? On an Internet forum? You're having a laugh.)

The other questions seem perfectly valid to me, and other questions are available, but in question 1, there may have been some consultation with BAG regarding the station rebuild plan; I'd be surprised if there was not, but I agree that the question should be asked.
I regret that I cannot attend the AGM but I do hope that it goes ahead in a positive and civil manner. No heritage railway can afford squabbles. However, at the end of the day, it's the shareholders and volunteers who can make their feelings known. The offers of financial assistance from supporters to help to do an authentic a job as possible at Broadway may well provide the leverage required, especially if accompanied by polite and reasoned argument, not by personal jibes.

 

You are right of course and I have deleted question 2 and renumbered the others.

 

You will find that you need to be both: preserved railway and tourist trip in order to pay the bills.

 

Have to agree with your last point. The form of the building is clearly important, and the discussion goes to the heart of just what sort of railway the GWSR aspires to be. As such, it is to be applauded that those in favour of an authentic building argue the case with passion.

But - if there is one thing that other little fracas in the West Country shows, it is that passion is one thing, but personality is another: I would hope that this can be argued on the facts and not the personalities of the main protagonists. After all, one way or the other this situation will be resolved, at which point everyone will have to settle down together to operate the line: that future will be so much easier if it isn't clouded by 600+ pages of "he said, she said" back story preserved in perpetuity on the Internet...

Tom

 

Agreed they are not mutually exclusive, but when the Board unilaterally decides that say 90% of its customers are tourists, so corners can be cut on the Preservation side, then little by little the Railway ceases to be a Heritage Railway and become a tourist ride.

Consider this, if Broadway Station goes ahead as proposed, then only 5 of the railways 17 structures can be considered GWR pattern standalone structures appropriate to the area. The signal boxes at Winchcombe Toddington and Broadway and Toddington Station and Waiting room.

The rest will be mostly sheds.

 

If the figure quoted is correct I am sure that a high percentage of passengers on many of our Heritage railways are, in fact, just out for a good day out, with a degree of nostalgia thrown in, I also believe many lines get a lot of repeat visitors who liked what they enjoyed and saw on a previous visit to Heritage line.
This suggests that their experience is within their general idea of what a Heritage line is - albeit with regional variations. Providing a steam locomotive appears, with coaches looking unlike those currently running on main line railways and the general ambiance of what is there and how staff react with them, will, I suggest, fulfill their expectations .
Yes, we enthusiasts all know what our favourite line(s) should look like, but a very large percentage of our visitors are not so steeped in railroad traditions. I doubt there is any Heritage line in Britain that has not, somewhere along its length, gained one or more of the functional, but generally featureless, structures common in todays architecture.

 

The positive that since the arrival off those sheds the number of locomotive restored has gone up. Also how many days were lost to the weather before then so its a case of needs must and authenticity must be sacrificed for operational needs.
The SVR have done the same with there carriage shed.

 

I'm sorry, but that's rubbish! Would you care to list these?

 

I use the word "shed" as short hand for a generic 21st Century building method of throwing up a steelwork skeleton and then cladding it in brickwork or panels, Cheap and cheeful, perfect for garden centres, and easily distinguishable from handbuilt structures to Victorian GWR designs.

So by this definition the proposed Broadway Station and Waiting room qualify. CRC and its signal box. Gotherington Signal box and Waiting room. Winchcombe carriage works and Waiting Room. Toddington engine sheds. I make that 8 modern "sheds"or more than 50% of the built environment on the GWSR.

This is why it is important that Broadway has a correct canopy. A steelframe hidden in the brickwork is one thing, but with a structural steelwork canopy its another shed.

But, you know, Flying Scotsman 123 the choice is yours. If you and your fellow members decide the railway is just for tourists who know no better, then vote for it at your AGM.

 

You've forgotten all the heritage buildings we do have; Gotherington, Winchcombe and Toddington station buildings and waiting rooms, Cheltenham ticket office, Winchcombe, Toddington and Broadway signal boxes, the historic goods shed at Winchcombe, the historic goods shed at Toddington; which is the railwayside one by the way so hides the more modern stuff, and we'll hopefully soon be having hailes abbey halt reinstated historically accurately too. I make that 13, at a stretch 14 if you include Broadway goods shed which we don't own any more, but is still trackside and is part of the heritage atmosphere of the journey (or at least, it will be, when track gets there!)

Broadway station even as it is will still be more heritage than CRC. I would certainly urge all shareholders to raise the issue at the AGM; I'm not a shareholder so can't go.

 

Bit rich to flog off the family silver, in Broadway Goods shed, and then claim it makes you a Heritage Railway don't you think.

Winchcombe Good shed doesn't count as a "standalone GWR pattern" structure anymore does it; its dwarfed by a modern shed extension. The same goes for Gotherington station building, its had a house grafted onto it.

Are Winchcombe and Gotherington Waiting rooms even vaguely GWR, I think not.

Winchcombe station itself is very nice and GWR but from outside the area, but that is splitting hairs so I will concede you that.

Point is if half of your built environment is modern or compromised by modern extensions, building two more sheds will tip the balance from a Heritage Line to a Tourist Line.

 

Just as a general comment. In many cases what is being asked of a building on a heritage railway is well beyond the scope of their original design. A country station would not be expected to handle the traffic that a modern themed family event brings. A country station did not have loco/carriage overhaul capacity. You can talk about historical accuracy as much as you want but the basic facts are that the requirements have changed.

If you sent a family on a day out to a historically accurate station in the middle of nowhere with a one hole toilet, no ice cream or drink I suggest that it would not last long as a family destination. To survive you need to adapt, the railways have been doing this since inception.

The overall point is balance. I am in favour of Broadway being more like the original, but having renovated various houses I am more than aware of the modern requirements which steer you away from 'traditional' solutions. Public buildings are subject to various norms and regulations which in many cases are incompatible with the original design (access, insulation, structural calculations etc.) If you a putting up a new building you have to comply.