Broadway Station GWR Roof Fund

I am starting this thread as a spin off from the Broadway Station Rebuild thread so that the specific design of its roof and methods of funding this may be considered.

In summary it became apparent last week, that after 5 years of hard labour in the apparent belief that the Board supported a GWR Roof Design, the members of the Broadway Area Group were told in writing that for reasons of speed and money, the design would be the same as at Cheltnham Racecourse.

The two designs are pictured above.

The GWR design is light and airy. The roof void is not bricked up and its cantilever design made up of lightweight but strong trussed girders. It is, in my view, the one thing that makes a station a GWR station. Take it away and the single storey building below could be any other station building in any region.

The Cheltenham design, the B and Q design, is cheap, quick to erect and heavy and crude looking. It is my contention, and I hope in the opinion of others who cherish our railway heritage, that it is inappropriate for a place like Broadway. Or indeed any Railway that considers itself a Heritage Railway.

The Chairman of the GWSR said in the Bridges to Broadway Share offer that " bottom line it is all about Heritage".

So taking him at his word I have today emailed him at his blog at chairman@gwsr.com and offered to contribute 250 GBP if he will start a fund to finance the extra cost of the GWR roof.

If others are prepared to do the same then perhaps they could indicate their support below ahead of the Broadway AGM.

That way a ride on the GWSR won't be from one B and Q shed to another!

 

So, what has been passed by the local planning department?

 

I can do no better than quote Frazoulaswak from the Broadway Station rebuild thread and stress the last sentence.

"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."

 

Can I just say that the CRC roof design is obviously not identical (different architects) but the picture does show the essential difference between the GWR heritage design, and what is now proposed to be built. I.e. there will not be the lofty latticework arches down the middle, but a brick wall, and the trusses sticking out from it. The CRC roof is therefore similar, but not identical, to what is proposed for Broadway.
The bigger point is that we are a heritage railway, and as has been pointed out by other posters, we have said so in public. The brickwork of the rebuild will be fine, but above eye level it is completely freelance, because 'how many people will look up?' That is wrong, and we will be stuck with it for 100 years. Build in haste, repent at leisure.

 

Are there any conceptual drawings available for the proposed new canopy Jo?

 

Only the outline on the planning application, from which it isn't very clear at first sight how different from the GWR original it is.
It only has to look right from a distance, is the current intention.

 

Given that the plans that have been passed by the local council are nearly two years old, how come people have suddenly discovered the non-prototypical design work?

 

Have a look at the drawings submitted with the planning application. They are not very detailed. The long brick wall down the middle of the canopy can only be identified end on. The material the trusses (modern, welded box section steel) will be made of are not outlined. You can't tell the GWR latticework isn't there. And the statements 'it only has to look right from a distance', and 'how many people will look up' were made only 2 weeks ago. This rang a large alarm bell. Our values are different!
If Kidderminster can build a large replica GWR station, the we can certainly build a small one. We are a 'living museum' and have a duty to show history the way it was, not a distant impression in the form of a freelance design. It is treating neither the customer nor the enthusiast volunteer seriously.

 

Thank you, Breva. You have my full support. I do feel that the management are being very dis-respectful to the Broadway team and the fantastic work they are doing.

 

If all that has been presented is true, it is to be much regretted that your Board have taken a decision, against the wishes and without consultation with their superb Broadway volunteer workforce. In doing so they exhibit a grave misunderstanding of the purpose and attraction of preservation. You also have my full support. Maybe you can gain some inspiration and encouragement from a similar misunderstanding which occurred in the recent past at the SVR, and the inappropriate plans for the development of Bridgnorth station. If your case is as clear cut as you suggest, I am sure support from concerned preservationist's will be forthcoming.

I wish you well.

 

Being (so to speak) "up close and personal" to the debacle over the Bridgnorth development and knowing how close Kidderminster Town's canopy roof came to being something akin to a Wyevale Garden Centre I can only echo the comments of the posters above. If what's stated above is correct, it'll be a sad reflection on the GWSR grass roots membership if its directors are allowed to loose their way to such an extent. Fortunately the board of the SVR not so much saw the light but were shown the light on both occasions. Those interventions resulted in what we have today at Kidderminster and the style of the Bridgnorth development now seems to be back on track. I would, however, like to think those with taste will continue to remain vigilant.
I can only encourage the Broadway volunteer workforce to re-double their efforts to show their board the light and get an appropriately detailed station.

 

Thanks for the info B Oldford, I had no idea that Kidderminster nearly didn't happen. A lesson for all.

Just to remind ourselves what this is all about, here is a picture of Broadway in its final form before demolition ( Photo from John Mann Collection). Note the lightness of the canopy cantilever design and how it almost seems to float over the one storey building beneath.

It is nothing short of a work of art, and well within the capabilities of the Broadway Area Group to reproduce if the Board gets on Board. I'm amazed that they could contemplate anything less.

So to the purpose of this thread. Are there any more of you who would contribute to a fund to achieve the above, were it to be set up and assuming money is the only obstacle. Now is the time to stand up and be counted because the BAG AGM is on Saturday and a demonstration of concrete support may strengthen their hand.

Otherwise its a Garden Centre.

 

Would it be possible at this stage, I wonder, to commission an estimate of the extra costs and timescale involved in making a proper GWR-style canopy as depicted in David's picture above? If someone were to come up with some figures, if the Board is sympathetic, it would be then worth going to the members (and indeed the wider enthusiast community) and seeing if the support was there for doing the job properly, especially given the considerable skills of the Broadway Group.

Oh, and as a GWSR member (albeit relocated to Sussex), I too would be willing to make a donation.

 

I'm currently buying GWSR shares via monthly direct debit but I would be very happy to re-direct the money to a Broadway Roof Fund instead - especially if gift aid could be recovered from whoever is resident in 11 Downing Street following the election!

 

I took another look at the plans and, as others have observed, the brick wall is clearly shown extending full-height. The canopy will still slope down towards the platform edge and it looks to me like it will have a large number of glazed panels in it to let light through (Georgian wired cast glass on Howells HG3 patent glazing bars). With the addition of some decoration to the girders (hanging baskets anyone?) the travelling public might not notice anything amiss. That said, I would of course prefer the wonderful open feeling of Toddington's canopy.

(written by a GWSR shareholder keen to see the railway prosper!)

 

What is not apparent from the plans is the clunky nature of the box section trusses, and only if you look at the floorplan very closely will you discern that the trusses will be spaced at approximately 2 metre intervals (rather than about 6 metres at Toddington - so three times as many trusses). Add in that wall, and you have an awning (As that is what it will appear to be to those that bother to look up.) which compares very unfavourably with the light and airy true canopy at Toddington.

 

Thank you for that explanation! It illustrates perfectly how deceptive the plans were at first look. I too did not realise the clunky nature of the trusses, and their large number.
The whole thing is just wrong! It s clearly not designed by someone with knowledge of GWR architecture. How will we look back on it in 10 years' time?

 

Count me in to make a donation if a Broadway Roof Fund is set up, with money raised ringfenced for an accurate reproduction of a GWR design.

Andy

 

RMweb.? Andy York.

 

I don't quite understand the previous post - my name is not York...............
Andy