If you register, you can do a lot more. And become an active part of our growing community. You'll have access to hidden forums, and enjoy the ability of replying and starting conversations.

GWSR Broadway Developments

Discussion in 'Heritage Railways & Centres in the UK' started by Breva, Aug 1, 2014.

  1. flying scotsman123

    flying scotsman123 Resident of Nat Pres

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    10,440
    Likes Received:
    17,941
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Cheltenham
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Letting the railway know your thoughts is definitely a good option I'd think, I'd also suggest to the Broadway team to come up with a convincing case as fully costed as possible for a more heritage alternative canopy. I know you said it would be difficult, but I bet it would be easier than erecting a canopy that no one is happy with.
     
  2. b.oldford

    b.oldford Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2009
    Messages:
    245
    Likes Received:
    55
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Shropshire
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    I see parallels emerging here between the GWSR's mindset and that originally adopted for the development of Bridgnorth. Suffice to say the powers that be were eventually convinced that "authenticity" was the way to go.

    May I also mention that it took the SVR about 20 years to add the final wing to the station building at Kidderminster Town and the construction of a canopy along its platform has yet to commence.

    Quite simply my advice would be to do as much as you can afford to now, but do it right. These structures are going to be there for a very long time to come.
     
  3. frazoulaswak

    frazoulaswak Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Messages:
    778
    Likes Received:
    1,862
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired (at last!)
    Location:
    Hartford
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Anyone who is interested can find the planning application documentation for Broadway station here: - http://wam.wychavon.gov.uk/WAM/show...show&appType=Planning&appNumber=W/13/01373/PN

    Not only do the architectural drawings in the general layout plan clearly show a trussed canopy over both the main station building and the waiting room on the other platform, the accompanying rubric in the Design and Access statement states in section 5.1 "We therefore intend to build a new station building as close as possible in appearance to the original."
     
    GWRArry and Kinghambranch like this.
  4. JMJR1000

    JMJR1000 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    843
    Likes Received:
    698
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Cleethorpes
    Well that gives me some more security on the matter at least, as since they have clearly stated this in the planning application when they submitted it, then I'm pretty sure you can't just change an aspect of the design (i.e. the canopy) after the plans are submitted for approval, what you build has to correlate to the specifications of the plan that was applied. If they really wanted to do such an action as build a different sort of canopy, then most likely you'd have to rectify or completely resubmit the plans again, and that takes time and more expenses to do so.

    Bearing in mind as well that changing the canopy design might bring up asthetic issues, something that comes up in many areas known for their natural beauty, and could be objected on the grounds of it being unsightly and not blending with the rest of the heritage building in the area, Broadway itself being a big factor on this issue.

    One hopes that's how it would work anyway...
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2015
    ghost likes this.
  5. frazoulaswak

    frazoulaswak Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Messages:
    778
    Likes Received:
    1,862
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired (at last!)
    Location:
    Hartford
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    By happy coincidence my son-in-law is a planning consultant by profession. I will certainly be asking his opinion on how much leeway there might be for making drastic alterations to a structure after planning approval has been granted based on designs submitted with the application for consent.
     
  6. Breva

    Breva Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2010
    Messages:
    2,158
    Likes Received:
    3,790
    Location:
    Gloucestershire
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    This is the canopy that is to be built. It is not a GWR canopy, it is a freelance design. There is a wall all the way down the middle of it (only visible as black stripe in the drawing) and hence it will be cut in two, with no latticework arches down the middle of it. Have a look at Toddington; that's what it should look like. Then compare with CRC, which is what the proposed roof will resemble. The trusses we were told will be of modern box section steel, the chimneys dummies (although one fireplace since conceded.)

    This point is valid: 'the accompanying rubric in the Design and Access statement states in section 5.1 "We therefore intend to build a new station building as close as possible in appearance to the original." but it contains the word 'appearance' . As I mentioned earlier, we were told it only had to ''look OK from a distance, and how many people will look up?'' As close as possible is a stretchy point. The drawings do not really give the roof detail, and it was only when a friendly engineer pointed out the black line rising up into the apex of the roof that we (BAG) realised that it was a solid brick wall, and that the canopy in fact was nothing like the original at Toddington. Just the shape, from a distance, is similar.
     
  7. Checkflaps

    Checkflaps New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2015
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    14
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Civil Engineer
    Location:
    South Glos (Home), Taunton (Work)
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Long time lurker, first post - please be gentle, lol

    Not wishing to dampen the enthusiasm for originality (I helped source some of the blue platform bricks from Taunton), having looked at the planning drawings, there does appear to be a lot of insulation above the rooms in the station. Perhaps the need to 'fill in' the gap in the truss is a consequence of planning regs and building control in that the original station building design would not meet currents standards for thermal insulation and fire safety. This is afterall, a new build - albeit on the footprint of the old, and incorporates a commercial kitchen and cafe.

    I wish you luck in overturning the decision, but regulation may be against you (sadly).

    Was Toddington a rebuild? or was it salvaged before the wrecking ball came through?

    Garry
     
    flying scotsman123 likes this.
  8. GeoffS75

    GeoffS75 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2009
    Messages:
    234
    Likes Received:
    47
    Location:
    Worcestershire
    Toddington is original (as is Gotherington albeit now privately owned).
     
    michaelh and Checkflaps like this.
  9. Checkflaps

    Checkflaps New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2015
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    14
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Civil Engineer
    Location:
    South Glos (Home), Taunton (Work)
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Thanks.
     
  10. frazoulaswak

    frazoulaswak Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Messages:
    778
    Likes Received:
    1,862
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired (at last!)
    Location:
    Hartford
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    In the light of the above, I'm beginning to think that I might have completely misunderstood the gist of Breva's first post about the appearance of the station canopy. Am I now correct in thinking that his main objections are twofold - use of box section steel, rather than L or T section, for the roof support trusses and also the hiding of the void above the station building by extending the platform facing wall upwards to meet the canopy?
     
  11. davidarnold

    davidarnold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    436
    Likes Received:
    392

    Speaking as someone who opposed bitterly the proposed installation of plastic windows in the signal box and willingly parted of his own money to make sure this didn't happen, I am amazed that we seem to be going down this same path again.

    There clearly is a recidivist element on the Board of GWSR who cant resist making the mistakes of the past. These people need to be identified and voted out.

    In the meantime a new campaign has to be waged now, here and in the general railway press, to repeal this vile edict. We owe it to every person who has contributed to the ideal Broadway Station by their labours or by becoming a shareholder. Otherwise they will all feel they were betrayed by those who asked for their contributions in the first place.
     
    michaelh likes this.
  12. Breva

    Breva Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2010
    Messages:
    2,158
    Likes Received:
    3,790
    Location:
    Gloucestershire
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
  13. Selsig

    Selsig Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    862
    Likes Received:
    365
    Location:
    Coventry, United Kingdom, United Kingdom
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    It seems that the correct design more lends itself to a staged reconstruction (building first, canopy later) than the revised one. Ok, so it means that Broadway wouldn't be "finished" for reopening, but at least it'd be an option. The CRC design seems to be integral with the building, and would not lend itself to a more sympathetic rebuild later if heritage was deemed to be of more importance by a later board.

    John
     
  14. frazoulaswak

    frazoulaswak Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Messages:
    778
    Likes Received:
    1,862
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired (at last!)
    Location:
    Hartford
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Thanks for posting the links to those photos. CRC certainly compares unfavourably with Toddington as far as appearance goes!
    How far apart are the trusses in the canopy at Toddington? There seems to be at least eight glazed panels in the roof between each pair of trusses so does that make the distance between trusses around sixteen feet? Close scrutiny of the plan for Broadway's main station building (http://wam.wychavon.gov.uk/WAM/doc/...=1001&contentType=application/pdf&pageCount=1) appears to show the roof trusses will be spaced around two metres apart. So, does the proposed canopy design for Broadway require at least twice as many trusses (not to mention that brickwork...) than the equivalent building at Toddington?

    If modern building regulations dictate the need for that walling then there may not be much that can be done. But if that's not the case, then what is the difference in cost between replicating the structure of the Toddington canopy against the proposed design? If that can be quantified, then you've got the target for a fund-raising campaign.

    Is there anything left in the Bridges to Broadway pot?
     
    Checkflaps likes this.
  15. Breva

    Breva Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2010
    Messages:
    2,158
    Likes Received:
    3,790
    Location:
    Gloucestershire
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    - We have (earlier) commissioned a general arrangement drawing of the Toddington roof. This shows the trusses to be just over 6m apart, in a regular pattern. There is no reason it can't be built as such. Our heritage consultant has advised that building regulations can usually be met, one way or another, with a bit of ingenuity and flexibility.
    - I would rather not go into the fine detail, and hang out all the dirty washing. The point is, the GWR heritage roof will not go ahead; the reason given is cost. And ''how many people will look up?'' The pictures above show what they might see.
    - The Bridges to Broadway project was a big success. There was a small overshoot, which went to an excellent cause, with which I'm sure we all agree: some new rail for the extension!
     
    Checkflaps likes this.
  16. Checkflaps

    Checkflaps New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2015
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    14
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Civil Engineer
    Location:
    South Glos (Home), Taunton (Work)
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Thanks for the comparison images. It would be a real shame to 'throw away' all the efforts at authenticity that have undertaken by the BAG for the sake of a 'few' pounds. If it was financially unviable to rebuild the station authentically, then why would the decision be taken on high to go to such lengths to recover period materials for the platforms and signal box at the start?

    Best of luck 'Breva' with the struggles ahead.

    Garry
     
    Kinghambranch likes this.
  17. Kinghambranch

    Kinghambranch Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,868
    Likes Received:
    1,588
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    White Rose County
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Many thanks for posting the photos together for easy comparison and contrast. Whilst the current CRC platform building is a significant improvement on the original wooden waiting rooms, which disappeared long ago before the GWSR was formed, and the CRC "jewel" is really the extant booking office at road level, which has been lovingly restored (funny how some critics of the GWSR forget this!) there is no doubt that the authentic (for Broadway) "Toddington" design, gives a much more graceful and airy appearance than the CRC example. These designs were not built without reason and our Victorian & Edwardian forebears usually had a practical reason for doing so. As you say, your heritage consultant has provided advice on current building regs so things ain't over yet.
     
  18. JMJR1000

    JMJR1000 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    843
    Likes Received:
    698
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Cleethorpes
    Since Breva your the one that's brought this situation to folks attention, may I ask how you've come across this info, yet no one else had heard a whiff of this beforehand?
    And have you any plans to take some of action against these plans?
     
  19. flying scotsman123

    flying scotsman123 Resident of Nat Pres

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    10,440
    Likes Received:
    17,941
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Cheltenham
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    I suspect it'll be because Jo volunteers there :rolleyes: (or so he says, I reckon he spends far too much time taking photos for blogs:)) We get told all sorts of stuff no one else knows... Will be interested to see the answer to the second question though.

    When I'm next in I'll try and collar any passing directors, our company secretary is also head of C+W so should definitely see him at least. Now going to take a closer look at the planning drawings compared with pictures of CRC and Todd...
     
  20. The_Bristolian

    The_Bristolian New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2012
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    16
    It is easy to run away with the idea that all heritage railways need is people of vision who have a passion to recreate that which a previous generation has wantonly destroyed. Most heritage railways that are here today would not have got off the ground without such people. It is however an inconvenient truth that such passion alone is not enough and must be allied to sound business acumen in order to keep such railways running as viable entities (Think Weardale Railway). All the passion for steam you like won't do you any good if you are on credit hold with the coal merchant or can't afford to pay your full time staff, few as they may be. The board are having to balance the cost of recreating Broadway as authentically as reasonably possible against all the other calls on money that running the GWSR generates. I'm not saying in this instance that they are either right or wrong, just that they have to view a much bigger picture and will have to hand more information than any of us do on which to base those decisions. I know a few of them and have spoken at one time or another to most of them, they are all reasonable people. If this issue is of such importance, then please take it up with them directly rather than in here. At the worst they may explain why they have come to the conclusions that they have, at best they may agree with you and change the plans. I would be surprised to discover that they were aware of the strength of feeling displayed here. One last point is that the decision on the station building would almost certainly have been taken when Malcolm Temple was chairman of the PLC board. It may well be that few of the current board are up to speed with decisions that may well have been taken before their tenure. Do talk to them, you might be pleasantly surprised at what transpires.
     
    flying scotsman123 likes this.

Share This Page