Broadway Station GWR Roof Fund

I think gwr man just thought you were someone else due to your username, Andy York is the owner of RMweb and presumably thought you were him, and you're not. Simples.

 

I am afraid ten years will be a very long time to spend regretting a major preservation error - the following ten even more difficult. Best course of action is to get it correct first time around, even if it takes a little longer. You can then spend ten years happily contemplating what a wonderful piece of preservation architecture has been produced by those involved.

 

Some interesting parallels here re Kidderminster & Broadway. The current Kidder (SVR) station buildings came about when the railway was extending because a dedicated individual took it upon himself to design an appropriate building as close as possible to GWR practice. Fortunately his ideas were embraced by the railway at the time & replaced previous distinctly non authentic ideas. Interestingly, despite being floated during recessionary times, the share issue which featured the authentic design was well over subscribed.
The proposals for Kidderminster are yet to be completed with platform canopies to be added amongst other things as the project has several phases. Surely the GWSR would be better phasing the Broadway development at a pace which allows for authenticity rather than appearing to adopt a "job & finish" approach hell bent on total completion by a particular date with the now apparent rather drastic & devaluing consequences.

 

A very good analysis, thank you for that ! Very helpful and much appreciated.

 

Seconded! So what happened at the BAG AGM today? Bill says he came through with only a few flesh wounds!
Steve

 

Bill also gives the reason for the Chairman and Commercial directors attendance.

" This was to help the volunteers understand the current Broadway Project Financial and Design Strategy."

also

" I think everyone appreciated the time taken by Alan and Colin to further our understanding of some of difficult decisions ahead"

Sounds a bit like one way communication to me. The design now carved on tablets of stone. Remind you of anybody?

Perhaps the concerns raised by many here, on the Broadway Blog and on various other channels were taken on board and a way forward to a proper GWR canopy will be at least explored but I doubt it.

 

During the regular BAG AGM yesterday, the special subject of the canopy was discussed for a whole 2 hours, before finally moving on to the normal business. It was a big issue, and BAG members felt passionate about it.

The chairman explained that the pot of cash we have, and will have over the next three years, is of course limited, indeed insufficient for what the complete extension project needs if everything is built as planned. On the other hand, all BAG members that attended now understand what roof was proposed, and what the real GWR canopy looks like. This is a big step forward in the process.

There was a consensus that the Broadway stakeholders would prefer the real GWR canopy, but how to fit this in with the insufficiently large pot?

It was agreed that the BAG committee would draft a proposal to the board on how to go further. One member, also member of the Bluebell and in fact responsible for the beautiful new HK canopy, explained how the Bluebell addressed the issue of its new northern terminus, in the light of a limited pot of cash. Members of this forum have also outlined how the SVR successfully handled its Kidderminster and Bridgenorth heritage issues, and no doubt GWSR management also look into this forum. We can learn, our problem is not unique. We need patience, and a LT vision. That said, members also agreed that the extension should open on time, in order to plug into the extra cash flow that it should generate.

We await the proposal, and its acceptance if found workable.
Wish them God speed, and if it involves any extra fundraising, help them ! Thank you for your support.

Breva

 

Breva, many thanks indeed for the update, it is much appreciated.

I know from what has been posted here and in other places that there are people who have generously supported the Broadway Station project work in the past who may not do so in future if the heritage aspect on the Station Building itself is compromised. I for one am very grateful to read that the GWSR and the Broadway Group are not alone in facing the problems of how to deal with a "draining cash pot" and that we can, at least, draw upon the experience of 2 very successful heritage lines, the SVR and the Bluebell, in this regard.

I'm also aware of the need to get Broadway "up and running" soonest, after all, much investment has already been made. I'm sure extra fundraising will be needed but we have come so far already and patience at this stage to achieve a result worthy of the work already undertaken is indeed needed. Meanwhile, I note that your work goes on and that Broadway Signal Box slate roof is now close to completion!

 

When the origin (Glass and Chrome) scheme was presented to the staff at Bridgnorth we were informed "There is/was no Plan B". After a number of iterations and a huge amount of work by a small but dedicated team the present, far more fitting, comprehensive scheme was settled upon. I would suggest a revision to the design of a canopy roof is a mere bagatelle compared to the revisions made to the Financial and Design Strategy for the whole Bridgnorth site.

It should be mentioned that the whole planning situation at Bridgnorth is quite sensitive because of the station's listed status. After many searches and studies including traffic impact, bat surveys and the ubiquitous search for Great Crested Newts etc, I am informed there is a strong possibility that ground will be broke during September.

 

b.oldford. It may well come under etc., but you have omitted the required fruitless search for musket shot and cannon balls at the Bridgnorth site !

It is interesting to follow on from b.oldford's contribution. There were indeed major changes to the original plans for Bridgnorth. The revised plans, put together by the dedicated, hard working and recently reformed 'Heritage Group', have received universal approval. They are GWR in design and appearance. Approval, in all aspects is of course just the start. It is almost certainly going to prove financially impossible to commence construction of the entire project in one single phase. Here we come back to the fundamental questions of finance and priorities, which are such an intrinsic part of our movement. My understanding is that the first phase will be centred around a much needed replacement buffet and associated facilities. The clear lesson from both Kidderminster and Bridgnorth, to all Heritage Railways, is to adopt the longer term approach, and proceed with this plan as and when funds allow.

Don't dilute the efforts of the earlier pioneers, nor risk the name Heritage, by building structures completely out of character with their environment, and which will prove to offer little long term value.

 

On the fundraising point: it is always difficult to raise money for a "finished" project.

That suggests to me that decoupling the issue of the canopy from the more general extension fundraising is advantageous. If the canopy is just another of the things that have to be ticked off to "finish" the Broadway extension, it will be hard to fundraise once trains are running. But if the extension opens sans canopy, then it is easier (not easy, note!) to have a specific appeal just for the canopy. Call it "raising the roof" or similar ...

I assume having a functional canopy is not on the critical path for the extension, i.e. trains can be operated successfully with or without cover. In which case, as others have said, why spoil the ship for a ha'porth of tar? Better to open with an incomplete station than an inaccurate one, especially given that buildings probably have a design life of 100 years or more.

Others have mentioned East Grinstead: worth remembering that trains were operated into the station for about a year or more before there was a working water crane (despite the operational need, which had to be covered in other ways) and it has been over two years to get a platform shelter, though passive provision was made for one during the initial construction of the platform so that, once money was available, the new canopy could be installed without undoing any previous work. Passengers at the opening event had to brave blizzards at EG without shelter, though that has now gone down into the collective folk memory of the railway.

Given the choice of:

- Opening late with everything right
- Opening on time with some things wrong or
- Opening on time with some things incomplete, and finishing them off properly at a later date

which looks most sensible?

Tom

 

Totally agree with Jamessquared. Obviously given financial constrictions the last option is preferable.

The sequence could be, as fund raising and ticket revenue allows,

1. Open with basic signalled loop , platforms, and footbridge ( necessary because too expensive to move offsite, cheaper to erect)
2. Waiting room. Smaller building so a test bed for the roof canopy techniques to be perfected.

3. Station building, incorporating lessons learned in 2.

Benefits

1. Extension opens on time no loss of revenue
2. Building techniques learned under no pressure. Quality assured.
3. A final result with a flexible end date to match uncertain funding.

Works for every other Heritage Railway with a Heritage objective why not the GWSR.

 

I think we can be more ambitious than that, given that it was planned to have a significant amount of the station finished with a non-heritage canopy, I think we'll still be a good step ahead facility-wise from the East Grinstead opening, the Corwen opening, and potentially even the Kidderminster opening?

It's certainly sounding a lot more optimistic; it's as I said right at the beginning, if the two parties just sat down and had a chat a way forward could be found - and surprise surprise it has. Pity it had to have people getting upset first, but at least things are happening now.

 

I made my first visit in 20 years to the GWSR yesterday. For me, it’s the equivalent of a fine Victorian building with UPVC windows. You can still appreciate the workmanship and effort in its construction, but the character is somewhat diluted.

The details let down the stations; the platform buildings at Cheltenham, the ancillary buildings at Winchcombe, the footbridge at Toddington. There are strong comparisons for me between the GWSR and the GCR; both ex-main lines and both running through pleasant if unspectacular scenery. Where the GCR succeeds however is in its attention to detail; the place really is a timewarp. But the GWSR has the appearance of trying to “recreate the experience” on a budget. Nice locos and coaches though.
Go for authenticity at Broadway and I might change my mind!

 

Thanks for the comments. I don't think there's a huge amount that can be done about CRC, what's done is done. However, there are definitely plans to do quite a lot at Winchcombe, I think it might be the next major thing after Broadway, as I can't imagine that we'll be wanting to charge south again immediately after (even though that's the eventual plan). The main reason the tatty looking wooden building on P1 hasn't been repainted is that it's going to be replaced, so thinking about it, it might be even sooner, as there have been a number of us who have asked if we could give it a quick lick of paint, but told there's no point as it won't be there for long. I don't think the footbridge at Toddington really detracts from the experience, although it would definitely be a nice to have for one day.

 

Some very good points in this post and indeed in many others on this thread. There is clearly plenty of helpful advice out there and if this translates into actions and funding then things should work out well for Broadway. I disagree that the scenery on the GWSR is "unspectacular" but I'm biased having been brought up in the area! I also find the Toddington Stn footbridge to be perfectly suitable.
It is also well worth remembering that the GWSR is still a relative newcomer to the heritage railway scene with very few original buildings and no track whatsoever when the GWRS (as it then was) moved in in 1980-81. That is not an excuse not to get things "right" but the Railway is moving on. It will never be what it once was (it was built as a GWR cut-off main line not a history lesson) as nothing can be but a quick look back at photo albums of the Line in the early 1990s shows just how much has been done.

 

If money is tight (isn't it always?) to get Broadway up & running surely all that is needed is:
A. a single line to passenger standard which goes there with a simple run round with ground frame at the Todd end & hand points at the N end
B. no signals & one engine in steam working by staff
C. a single platform with (temp) ticket office, toilets, waiting shelter
D. car parking
Once there & open, an assessment of the real increase in passenger income can be made to allow a phased plan for subsequent development at a pace which can be afforded. That is the way many previous extensions have been tackled elsewhere.

 

The signalling needs to be operational as Toddington - Broadway will be the longest section on the line so the management want it fully capeable as soon as opening. We've already got two platforms, and I suspect we'll have more than a temporary shelter. I get the idea that the original plan was to have Broadway finished by the time trains arrived; that no longer looks realistic but I think we will still be ahead of other extension opening facilities.

 

I have now had a reply to my email to the Chairman of the GWSR Alan Bielby.

It is quite frankly extraordinary. Instead tackling my points regarding the implicit promise of the Share Offer to build Broadway as it was, and the perception that GWSR alone among the major hertiage lines adopts non heritage designs in the built environment, he instead accuses me of disseminating totally incorrect information about the design of the canopy roof.

He states the new design is nothing like that at CRC. He asks me not to pursue the issue further.

Helpfully he attaches a PDF , a standard handout I presume to anyone else who enquires about this subject. I reproduce it below.

In it he states that in fact the new canopy is going to replicate that at Toddington in every respect except those that it wont, which is to say all of them.

So it is just as I stated , no GWR trusses but steelwork instead, a bricked up roof void, and non standard frame spacings.
Just like CRC only bigger with rooflights. Some things are beyond parody.......

DESIGN OF BROADWAY STATION BUILDING
We have recently become aware of some incorrect assertions being circulated with regard to the design of the roof of the station buildings. This information is totally misleading and in no way reflects the true design of the roof for which our design team has sought to replicate the design used at our Toddington Station as far as current design practices and building regulations permit. The primary objectives involved matching the building set-back from the platform edge with a full width canopy, and matching the building height and extensive use of glass in the roof to give a light and airy feel. The only significant change, apart from a full height roof void wall to satisfy fire regulations, has arisen from the use of an internal modern steel frame for the building which is extended into the roof supporting system instead of the original angle iron latticework. This design allows the adoption of the original GWR grouping concepts for doors and windows without the need to space the supporting internal frame uprights in an equal manner. We have looked at the implications of trying to adopt the concept of angle iron steelwork but the need to space uprights equally to support the lattice structure would impact on the traditional door and window groupings. Re-adjustment of these would further increase the length of the already extended length building – if it could be accommodated into an already tight location. In addition, the building cost would be substantially increased to accommodate the design, approval and manufacture of the complex lattice steel support system and the additional underpinning framework.