Broadway Station GWR Roof Fund

If this is the canopy on platform 4 you are referring to, it was removed in March 2014

 

Just read the latest update from Mr Bielby on the station building at broadway and seems there has been a bit of an about turn on certain aspects of the full height wall and the canopy infrastructure.What made me laugh the most was he would like the readers to pop along and see how there doing.
Perhaps he hasn't been told that the readers that live a fair distance away signed up to the broadway blog and donated money in their thousands to see the progress from a far.
Any one else feel the same or is it the norm.

 

Where can one read the update?

 

Ok I have found it now on the GWSR main site.

http://www.gwsr.com/news/latest-news/what's-happening-at-broadway-and-cheltenham.aspx

Well it seems progress of a sort, the full height wall to the apex is deleted, and some decorative lateral steel lattice work added. The steel box section roof remains with cross members more packed together than at Toddington.

The most telling comment by Mr Bielby is this one..

"The design of the building was produced more than two years ago and it was this plan that gained planning permission.

"Any changes to the design must be therefore be limited to to what can be covered as a 'Non-material Amendment' acceptable to the planners.

So there we have it. The plan was drawn up and submitted by Mr Bielby without consultation with the members or the BAG group. Two years have elapsed since planning permission was granted and only now are members being allowed any say. As a result. and with two years wasted when plans might have been amended, alternatives sought, and with a self imposed deadline by Mr Bielby of 2018, the original design with cosmetic changes is being pushed through.

There is no comment on the option for a proper complete angle girder roof as that at Toddington being explored or costed up.

Others may disagree but in my view it is still only putting lipstick on a pig.

 

Hang on a minute. Everyone was informed that the vertical wall was there because of fire regulations. What has changed, or has a certain person been telling porkies?

 

It was there for fire regulations, but they have always said that they were trying to find a way around it. Good to hear that is looking more likely.

 

I would read the situation as being that those who are now so concerned about the design did not bother to study the submitted planning application and are now blaming others for their own lack of attention.

 

I don't think that is correct. If you study the actual application here

http://wam.wychavon.gov.uk/WAM/show...show&appType=Planning&appNumber=W/13/01373/PN

You will see that the canopy support system is not shown in any detail as to spacing, and only one truss is shown in a side view and could be either angle or box section. The frontal elevation shows only the outside of the roof.

You have to remember that Mr Bielby chose to inform the BAG group, that a GWR roof of angle trusses and lattice work was not feasible, only a few weeks ago, in a written note, two years after the planning application. That this came as such a shock to the BAG group and 45000 blog followers was because up to that point we had believed that the Project Manager, Mr Bielby, had the same vision that he had perpetuated in the pictures attached to the Share Issue Bridges to Broadway.

You can read that here

http://www.gwsr.com/BridgestoBroadway.pdf

Which is why he is now trying to row back in the hope that the issue will go away. Whether it does or not is another matter.

 

Can I just add a quote from the share issue documents
"and a planning application has been submitted for recreation of the station buildings and footbridge, very much in the style of the originals"
I will say no more.

 

Lets just take a stock check shall we? The full height wall looks likely to be going, which is great news. It was said before that it was never really wanted, so that fact that they've found a way round it surely means that they at least have an awareness of heritage aspects. We've now got the decorative latticework as well, which seems like a big improvement. Making it non-structural seems like a good compramise. It keeps the planning people happy, the bean-counters happy, and anyone looking up happy that some effort has been put in to replicate the ornate iron work of the GWR.

That just leaves the spacing of the canopy supports. I'm still not quite sure what the issue is here, could someone enlighten me please? are they too close/too far apart? Too equally spaced/not equally spaced enough?

 

"We've now got the decorative latticework as well, which seems like a big improvement."

do you have a referance for the decorative lattice work? - i presume you must have seen drawings to say that it is a "big" inprovement..

Ian

£500 still on offer towards any serious costs in reworking the Bielby faite a complis to a more heritage approach.....

 

Well from nothing to something seems like a big improvement to me!

This IS the more heritage approach, it seems like a good compromise to me, apart from the support spacings which I still don't understand as to what if anything is wtong with them.

 

If you look up at the canopy at Toddington the next time that you are there, you will see that the trusses that support the canopy are about twenty feet apart - call that six metres - and made from riveted angle section steel. If you then look very closely at the floorplan included in the Broadway planning application documents, you will just about be able to discern that the trusses at Broadway will be only two metres apart. That equates to three times as many trusses at Broadway, of a different, much bulkier, box section steel - meaning that the view up into the canopy at Broadway will be nothing like as airy and spacious as that at the authentic GWR designed Toddington.
Quite how the 'decorative lattice work' that is now on the cards for Broadway is going to look at two metres between the box section trusses is anyone's guess.
Cheers,

 

Deleted duplicate post.

 

"We've now got the decorative latticework as well, which seems like a big improvement. Making it non-structural seems like a good compramise." This compromise may well be a big problem. In the GWR design, the latticework will be structural, and forms an arch which can support the roof with a good distance between trusses, and also provides diagonal bracing along the length of the canopy. It just happens to also be elegant and decorative! As soon as the latticework becomes merely decorative with no structural purpose, then the strength must be provided by other means - closely-spaced chunky trusses......................
The canopy should be built as a faithful replica of the original design IMHO.
Andy

 

Thanks for that. So box girders are less strong than a lattice design then if more are required? That sounds a bit odd.

 

It seems from the latest posts on this thread that there is now much speculation and some assumptions regarding what form the "redesigned" Broadway Station building structure will now take. It's only human nature and very tempting but I would wager that FS123 and some others have not seen the actual revised plans (albeit they are still probably in draft form) but are attempting to accentuate the positive (never a bad thing in itself). AndyY gives us a good description of why the GWR design is like it is and it's done that way for a reason.

Unless someone posts details of the proposed alterations to the Broadway Stn building in the public domain I guess speculation will continue.

Whilst I personally concur with AndyY's view (and others) that the building canopy should faithfully replicate the original, life is full of compromises and I would speculate (naughty!) that some compromise will be inevitable. Ianh's offer is most generous and, if more people do the same, then "the problem, she is pretty well solved."

 

I guess I just default to defending the railway! You're quite right, I haven't seen the plans, but now I understand the supports issue I'm less positive, can't quite see how the latticework will work given the current design, without looking squashed.

 

Well I have already pledged 250 quid for an authentic GWR roof andhave already helped pay for the wooden windows of the signal box. If you look at the 135 posts on the now defunct but still online Broadway Blog then you will see most offer to sponsor any extra cost. And that blog had 45000 followers! So money isn't an issue.

Neither is time, even though two years of developement work on the roof have been wasted, this compromise has been rushed out in two weeks!

The only problem is the mindset of the Project Manager Alan Bielby. He is secretive, opaque as to his intentions, prefers to lead by autocratic clique. He has never had it in his mind to create an authentic roof at Broadway because he is more concerned with delivering the project "on time" .

He brings to the project the commercial Project Manager mindset that would be fine if he were tasked with throwing up a new branch of Lidl on time and on budget.

However he seems not to be in tune at all with the aspirational side of the Preserved Railway movement. One that wants to recreate the past no matter what the challenges. One that says it will be ready when it is ready. And one that we all will subscribe to financially if the aim inspires us, in the way that an authentic Broadway station would.

 

"So box girders are less strong than a lattice design then if more are required?" Depending on how they are used, I believe the answer must be 'yes'. The latticework frame founded on an arch will be very stiff in its ability to support the ridge of the canopy, only requiring support under its ends. The presence of a station building is a bit of a red-herring, the GWR used the same latticework frames supported on columns where the canopy extends along the platform, or over a platform building then the frames sit on the building structure. If that stiff longitudinal frame is not provided, the ridge will require support at more frequent intervals by something else. In the design we are all speculating on it looks like this support would be provided by trusses every six feet.

I'm sure the original GWR frames would have been rivetted - an acceptable compromise may be to weld them, as I believe has been done in the canopy over the concourse at Kidderminster SVR.

Andy