Broadway Station GWR Roof Fund

I have watched this thread with a mixture of interest, dismay and apprehension. I am in the camp that believes the original preservationists intention was to preserve a small part of our railway history for prosperity, and allow future generations to capture the essence of the past. That they were successful beyond even their own dreams is reflected in the modern preservation scene. The important word is 'preserve'. It is of course impossible to preserve that which has been destroyed, and modern facilities such as toilets and eating facilities are essential. That the total experience of preservation can still be captured, without significant additional cost, can be seen in several recent station projects. It seems that with a few notable exceptions, there is much support for a traditional GWR design. I hope the railway's membership decide to take this route. Should they do so, financial support will surely follow - I would certainly throw something into the pot.

It appears a win/win situation, but requires the foresight and goodwill of all involved to grasp the moment, and make the correct decision. The original preservationists would certainly have understood the purpose of their labours, and have had little doubt about what was required !

 

I didn't say anything about doing nothing, far from it. Several contributors to this thread have made reasoned arguments for getting things right (or as right as possible) at Broadway and I'm appreciative of that.

You may wish to stand as a director yourself, Bill Britton did at the last election.

Meanwhile, I'll be interested to see if anyone has any feedback on how the AGM went; unfortunately I could not attend.

Going off thread slightly but still concerning Broadway; work is now progressing on reinstating the ballast formation and track to Little Buckland Bridge. See: http://broadwayextensionblog.blogspot.co.uk/
Let's hope the weather stays favourable although some rain might dampen the ballast dust!

 

It's good to see Jo back and reports starting to flow again from both CRC and the railhead. But there is still no news from the Broadway Station crew. Apart from the brief and somewhat obscure statement from the Head Office, we've heard nothing for over a month since Bill stepped down and the BAG had its AGM. The new Steaming to Broadway site exists, apparently run by "Vic", who has maintained a resolute silence to date.
For all the information coming through one could be forgiven for thinking that the entire BAG has downed tools and marched off, apart from those still working at CRC. There must still be work going on at Broadway and an update need not be contentious !

We can understand that there needed to be a re-assessment of the canopy design but there has been no response to the suggestions for overcoming this problem nor to the requests for information on the costings for the various design options, nor acknowledgement of the offers of extra funding to assist with a more authentic structure. It would also be helpful to understand why there suddenly appears to be a cash-flow problem when the company reported better-than-expected results for last year and good trading in the earlier part of this year. If the available resources are limited then why not make an agreed fixed sum available to BAG to cover the basics and leave it to them and us, the behind-the-scene financial supporters, to work out how to supply the "frills"?

As Kinghambranch commented on the other thread : it is a matter of managing expectations. The old Broadway blog was attracting international attention and support not only for the station rebuild and rail extension but also the railway in general. The current silence is damaging that support and appears to reflect an administration that does not value either its members or its supporters. I'm sure this is not the case but the complete failure to communicate, or to enter into discussions, can only lead to further misunderstandings and disillusionment.

I want to see the rails through to Honeybourne before I die

Mike

 

Is it a NP thing, or perhaps a British thing, to try and win an argument by being as personally insulting as possible about those who hold a contrary view?

I must admit I have largely kept clear of this thread, getting my "fix" of intrigue from the WSRA Matters thread (and real life ) instead!

Hence, I haven't read every single page but have dipped in and out - for the benefit of "outsiders" like me, can those unhappy with the present proposed design advise me as to what is the extra cost of an "authentic" roof and can it be done within the fire and building regulations?

It seems to me there are plenty in this hobby who have never had to shoulder the responsibility of actually having to take and be held responsible for the key decision, but also there can be decision makers who get so ground down by the day to day that they can miss the opportunities of having something to "sell" as the basis of an appeal to "fund the unaffordable". I have seen and indeed probably at times been both!

The greatest success is when those with the necessary grasp of detail and those with the wider vision accept and embrace each others' skills and work together to achieve great things. Name calling and vilification can only assure such things are impossible!

Steven

 

To bring you up to date

The station roof has been designed from outset to have a 21st century square section girder roof such as the one at Cheltenham Race Course.

Fire and bulding regulations don't come into it, they can be overcome, as they were with the curtain wall, thankfully no more.

No detailed costing has been done of providing a GWR lattice style roof. Entreaties for such a costing and design have been ignored, as have pledges of cash from supporters of such a roof.

The AGM has passed and with no news, it is assumed that this, the only opportunity to build an authentic GWR station from the ground up to arise in this Century. will now not happen.

There is a blackout of news from the Broadway site and I expect this will continue as the station build gets under way to avoid negative comments from the 45000 supporters who expected something better.

If I have missed anything out I am sure others will fill in the blanks

 

Fair play, I think this post should be pinned on the wall of every railway messroom and boardroom in the country...

 

God!. You blokes sound like Private Godfrey!

You had better cover your ears because Australia are playing in the Ashes soon , and the language!

 

I'd suggest that the majority of the 45,000 will be perfectly happy with what's planned; from what I can work out, the majority of volunteers (and even a number of BAG volunteers) will be too.

 

Well I suppose that the trouble with consensus is that it might make this forum a dull place....

If I did offend easily then I probably wouldn't have railway preservation as my hobby of choice.....

 

If that were true, why has there not been a donation to your Broadway Station rebuild fund since April, which is still
98815 pounds short of its 100000 pound target.

 

How can anybody be "happy with what's planned" when we have not seen any design ?
As for there being a news blackout, why ? Who is afraid of what ? I'm quite open to good explanations and but we are not getting any, and that looks suspicious. (You've only got to look at the WSRA to see where that approach leads ! )

As far as I am concerned : No news, no money.

 

Surely the 45000 was the number of visits to Bill's page rather than the number of individual visitors? Great though the work that the BAG were doing is, I would be amazed if 45000 people (which I think is 15x the GWSR membership) were following the progress. If it were the case then fundraising for the new roof would be a doddle, couple of pounds each, and the previous ten pages could've been avoided!!!

 

My thoughts entirely. Had the powers that be at the SVR been a little more forth-coming during the planning of the original "Glass and Chrome Gin Palace" they might have saved themselves the red faces they then suffered. Although there appears to be more openness the removal of the drawings of the proposed station enlargement hasn't gone entirely unnoticed and questions will be asked.

 

Well there is some news today re Broadway on the main GWSR site and it looks like curtains for the GWR roof.

The article is posted by an Ian Crowder who says

"There has been some discussion and indeed misinformation - surrounding the historic representation of the main Broadway Station building."

By misinformation he continues the attack line on those here at Nat Pres who pointed out that the roof supports would be of structural square section steel. would have different spacings and a curtain wall. All things that have proved to be true.

He then suggests people study Toddingtons roof and goes on to say

The original design would fall short of modern building regulations

Right. So the Victorians who over engineered station canopy roofs to this pattern and which have stood for over 100 years without mishap on hundreds of stations all over the country. their design now fails modern building regs.

What utter cock. If someone, anyone can quote the relevant regulation I will give 50 quid to the charity of their choice. And help dismantle Toddington as it is unsafe.

Then the final blow

a similar visual solution will nevertheless be achieved at Broadway, reflecting the historic integrity of the original building

How? With a raft of structural trusses six feet apart instead of eighteen. With no longtitudonal rivetted trusses. A decorative non structural truss made out of steelwork.
photo courtesy of Martin Loader.


These things will not replicate in any way the sort of canopy we see here at Toddington. One simply cannot build a replica out of modern materials, to another design, and call it a GWR replica roof.

When you boil things down to basics, a Preserved Railway is 20th Century designed steam trains, hauling 20th Century designed Coaches between Victorian designed stations. The GWSR Board could choose to build a Victorian design station.
They have the time and we have offered them the money.

The problem is they just can't be arsed.

 

right well I will not now be bequeathing to this railway nor buying more shares as I had planned.the hard working volunteers have basically been given two fingers up from the stuffed shirts.

 

It is rather unfortunate that this increasingly polarized disagreement, on what constitutes heritage, cannot be resolved by discussion and sensible compromise, rather than what is apparent from the post above from davidarnold, management notices of intent. The history of heritage railways is littered with similar disagreements, and there is little reason to believe this one will not follow historical precedents.

The previous post from billbedford regarding financial support should sound alarm bells amongst those charged with management and leadership. The GWSR will find that ignoring the views of an unknown number of supporters can carry a heavy financial price. Ignoring the essential elements of what customers regard as a heritage railway experience will simply make the problem one that will prove impossible to resolve. In addition, once trying ones best to recreate the past within modern requirements is ignored, cutting corners can quickly become a very slippery slope. The sum of the component parts is crucial to the overall experience.

If you are going to do something, for goodness get it right first time around - second chances are prohibitively expensive.

 

There's always a tension in heritage railway circles between what I would call, loosely, the "operators" and the "preservationists". For the operators, running a safe and reliable service is the key outcome. They may prefer to do so broadly with heritage rather than modern equipment, but they don't generally get too hung up on such (relative) minutiae as whether a specific loco is appropriate to the line, or whether the track plan and signalling put in for operational expedience is a direct facsimile of what was needed in very different circumstances half century or more ago. Whereas for the preservationists, such matters are of arch importance, even if they take an impossibly long time to achieve.

Of course, within that broad generalisation, it is important to realise that neither group can survive without the other. The preservationists need the operators, because without operations, there is no money. But the operators need the preservationists, because if the railway doesn't, in some sense, represents a tangible link with the past, then what's the point - why would anyone visit?

The final sentence is the important one: people will visit a heritage attraction that is pure preservation and very light on operation (as for example, many historic houses, ships and so on). But a supposed heritage attraction that is all operation and no heritage - is that not setting customers up for a slightly disappointing experience? As a relative latecomer, the GWSR has had to construct more than some other lines as there was less still in existence when it took over. But that is not an excuse for simply building a modern railway. People are not stupid, they will recognise the difference. Either way the trains will still go "chuff", but surely the intention is to encourage visitors to switch off from the 21st century and linger between trains, rather than simply going from A to B and back, and then on to the next attraction?

Tom

 

And there is the East Lancs Railway erecting a station canopy using components over 100 years old. The only modern requirements were the use of steel stanchions instead of the original cast iron and the use of polycarbonate sheets instead of glass. I must say that it looks grand.

 

Totally agree Tom. Lets not forget that other ralways have been faced with the same challenges as the GWSR, not much infrastructure, rotting buildings, and torn up track and in the same number of years have produced new build stations and signal boxes of Heritage excellence.

The Swanage railway has built three Signal boxes two of which are award winning.



The Mid Hants had to relay all its track too, but its new build at Roply is so authentic that it looks as though it has always been there, which is the ultimate compliment to a Heritage Building.



So why can't GWSR do the same?

 

When I first travelled the extension to Cheltenham racecourse station I was so disappointed with the station buildings my first thoughts were it was a place to only travel away FROM and certainly not to!I'm surely not the only passenger to think like this and not want to linger any longer than necessary whereas Toddington and Winchcombe are both absolutely delightful.Broadway volunteers have been working very hard to achieve this too and it would be such a shame if it ended up as a place to only travel from and not to.