GWSR Broadway Developments

Give the guys a chance to finish what they have started.... the cabins will be required during the platform 2 building works, I am sure that Broadway will in the fullness of time be a proper jewel for the railway.... hopefully the cabins (and team) will have life left for future projects http://www.miac.org.uk/images/5988.jpg

 

Yes.

 

It will be.

 

There was not originally a requirement for a 'future maintenance facility'. Indeed Toddington and Winchcombe manage quite well without. Only CRC has a shipping container, tucked well out of sight.
Originally this area in question was pencilled in on the draft platform layout plans for a partial reinstatement of the horse dock that was once there, say a short siding and a platform. It could have been used to hold a DMU, or a carriage / wagon for storage or display. This idea was not taken forward.
Eventually the 5 shipping containers that had accumulated on site had to be moved. Where to? This is when the initial idea of re-excavating the horse dock site re-emerged, but only to store 2 containers there. The other three were moved to platform 2. A suggestion to place the containers on upside down concrete sleepers was rejected in favour of a 9 inch thick reinforced concrete pad, installed by a contractor.

 

Secure absolutely - it would tick that box. But whatever locking protection used on a shipping container can be incorporated into another structure.

I totally agree with the short term benefits that a shipping container provides. There are a bazillion of them out there fulfilling that role. It would be preferable if they(?) are only short, or even medium term given what is trying to be achieved. I don't think anyone in the know has commented about that on this thread to shut down further comment.

Seeing as it is not my money being spent here, and I wholeheartedly applaud what has already been and will be completed, my last word on the shipping container matter is "odd". My thoughts go no further than that!

 

A fifty year old loco or coach is heritage, whereas a fifty year old shipping container is a shipping container.

Bob.

 

Until I saw magazines extolling the virtues of both telegraph poles and electricity pylons (I kid you not), I'd have agreed with Bob's sentiment unquestioningly, but, hey!.... everybody needs a hobby.

 

Pylonofthemonth.com was a popular site for pointing-and-chortling about 15 years ago. No idea if it's still going.

Personally, I like the idea that there are people out there dedicated to preserving the stuff others find boring. Gives me hope for humanity.

There was a guy that used to live in my home town who collected the porcelain handles from toilet chains. He had about 200, hanging from the ceiling of his kitchen.

 

On a preserved railway, yes. But I guess if you were trying to recreate a container terminal the converse might well be true...............

 

How many spaces will there be in the car park?

 

Have you not read this thread before? Yes it will, in the future, when they can get funding. Look at the third to last picture on the latest blog post, presume those white X's have something to do with the canopy extension http://broadwaystationgroup.blogspot.co.uk/2017/09/more-sheets.html

 

We're stuck with a footbridge that was built too close to the building. At the moment we are trying to come up with a solution that nonetheless looks about right, and that is structurally acceptable. The crosses were put to give a better idea where (some of) the pillars might stand. It's not definite, just to give one a better idea from above. Another ridge purlin, fascia board and truss lie at Toddington.
Then funding comes into play. At the moment scarce funds are directed into getting the extension up and running. Steps and P2 come in a second phase. But of course we can think about it now.

 

The car park will be at Toddington, at least for the 1st year of the extension's opening.

 

i

I thought that Wychavon had specified in the Planning Permission that the station could not open unless and until the car park was available?

Parking is at a premium in Broadway through the summer months as it is.

 

All I know is they rejected our plans to build it in stages, they wanted it done all at once but e simply can't afford to do so. I suspect when we open and people are double parking on yellow lines (which obviously, the railway wouldn't encourage, but it'll happen) due to lack of parking they may change their mind...

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

Interesting difference in planning policy in different areas of the country. When we opened to Kingscote (in 1994) and East Grinstead (2013) in both cases the planning requirement was for no public station parking, beyond a couple of disabled parking spaces at each station.

Tom

 

I'd say personality and lack of knowledge has played a part too much in the bluebell planning incidents that you cite, rather than policy perhaps. After all, planning committees are made up of humans, with varying degrees of experience on such matters. The bluebell case sounds to me like they thought, "if no parking is provided, then no one will drive there, and then we don't have an increased traffic problem". Which is never true, people will always drive to attractions regardless of whether they are aware there is parking or not, the convenience of personal transport means that people would rather double park, park on verges etc than try any other form of transport. If the bluebell had the space to provide parking in those locations the. That is all the more foolish a decision of the planning committee, they've just given themselves a load of traffic problems on gala days etc. The broadway planning committee on the other hand came to a sensible conclusion IMO, they knew there was an existing parking problem in the area, and they knew that people would drive there whatever decision they made, so parking is a necessity from the get go. A bit unfair on the broadway team to get it up and running I'll admit, but sensible.

 

Are the two matters of reopening and car park provision (in whatever form) divorced? or is it not possible to legally reopen without adequate parking provision?

It sounds a tad irresponsible to encourage a situation where parking might become an irritant for locals and road users.

 

Was'nt that simply to appease a rather NIMBY local populous in that particular village?