West Somerset Railway General Discussion

I have not spoken of blame but rather having processes in place to help, encourage and support.

We have, for example, a whole variety of forms of woodwork on GWR benches around the Railway. But last year John Baines of the RAMS team worked with me to produce a specification for the correct woodwork working from a GWR original for all new bench woodwork. . Not hard but requires a little thought and time.

Robin

 

A good start!

 

I have to agree with Robin. In my view it would have been sensible for someone from the PLC, either paid staff or a volunteer, to have kept a watching brief on the CH goods office project as it progressed. The PLC, after all, owns the building now it is complete.

Sent from my Lenovo TAB 2 A10-70F using Tapatalk

 

Mark Smith, who had the 'heritage' brief amongst the Directors (but is very busy with HRA matters) resigned as a WSR plc Director a little while ago. I understand the WSR Plc Directors met before Xmas to decide on new Director and other roles. It will be interesting to see what they announce about the heritage role shortly.

Robin

 

What will be the function of the building

 

Regarding the roof pitch...Planners often require a building extension to be set back from the original building line, and to have a different height for the roof apex. This is to mark an extension as not being original (stupidity in my opinion!). Examples can be seen all over the country. I note that:

"The station building was extended on the south-east gable to provide a disabled toilet facility in 2003"

From one of the drawings it would appear that the pitch of the extension roof differed from that of the station building. (see elevation top right):

https://www.westsomerset.gov.uk/onl...OPOSED_LAYOUT_AND_STREET_ELEVATIONS-70311.pdf

The goods shed roof pitch appears to match that of the extension, rather than the station building. There is only one way to verify that... measure it with an inclinometer or spirit level!

Robin L

 

This is a sterile argument. Nobody is seriously going to consider changing it now. How about some suggestions on how to help FOCHS raise the £10K they need to finish paying for the job?

 

It isn't an argument. It is merely an observation.

 

Mere semantics. The point is the same. Discussion about something that is not going to achieve anything is a waste of bandwidth. How much have you contributed to the project?

 

Well, I will seriously suggest it, but perhaps not now. The project has not fully achieved its heritage objects because the roof line and form of roof construction do not match the original, which was the objective. It is not a disaster. The vast majority of the expensive stonework need not be disturbed. It'just' required the slates to be removed and conserved, the timber roof structure to be removed (much of which can be re-used) and the top edges of the gables to be rebuilt and the above process to be reversed.

Best to enjoy the building as it is for now, fundraise to clear any outstanding funds and then fundraise to complete the project which presently stands unfinished until the roof is corrected.

It's a shame but important to correct for the long term.

Robin

 

Do you really think that this would be a good use of the FOCHS money? Are you willing to pay for it yourself as you seem to set such store by what is really, to most visitors, a non problem? In any case the agreement of the planners is not a foregone conclusion. Much better use could be made of the money.

 

How does Ian Colby show the buildings for CH (if at all, my copy isn't to hand)?

 

I have contributed to the project already and will no doubt contribute to the fundraising to fill the £10K gap and would contribute to fundraising to finish the project.

Arguments about 'better use for the money' would no doubt also apply to the Goods Office project as a whole and can easily be made for any 'heritage' project against, say, volunteer accommodation at Bishops Lydeard. But it is not an either/or. If we claim to be a heritage railway, we need to pursue heritage projects to a successful completion.

Robin

 

Maybe. What I am saying, is it worth spending money just to satisfy the few that will actually notice the difference? I don't think it is.

 

Yes.

If it's wrong, it's wrong.

Say it was one of the locomotives that had a similar problem with a new cab roof. What would you say then?

Robin

 

The difference is the number who would notice.

 

And at that point we start descending the slippery slope.

 

Depends on the 'pitch' of the slope.

Robin

 

Given the much more important things that could be done with the funds can the WSR really afford to be pedantic about something 99% of visitors will not notice?

 

99% of visitors would not have been aware of the absence of the Good Office in the first place.

Robin