Monday 5 October 2015

Quite an interesting day today, as we hired in a dumper and a digger, and a large crane lorry came to take away one of our two containers.

The first thing to do was disconnect it from the mains and pull out the reinforced electrical cable.
I said PULL !!!!
A lot of struggling and pulling went on, but without the desired effect. Finally, patience snapped, and larger means were obtained.

After all, we had a mini digger on site, so why not? The reluctant cable then emerged from the undergrowth, and the container was free.
This is our materials container, and we decided to send it to Broadway for storage of joinery delivered, but not yet used. The other reason for its dispatch was to clear up the space it was taking to dig out the platform to level crossing path to its full width. Over the last few Mondays we've been clearing out the container, until there was nothing left inside it.





Yes that's right, there's nothing left in it. This is because we moved all the stuff into our tea hut!

So here we are, forced to drink our tea in the company of 15 sacks of cement. We're sinking pretty low here. End of the day, we're even parking the mixer in here. Just as well that the atmosphere is as good as ever. Just a lot dustier.






Shortly afterwards, the Vic Haines lorry came with its 17T HIAB. Still not strong enough to lift the container from that distance, so need to drag it a bit nearer.

Once it was within a safe radius it was lifted up and placed on the lorry. We shall see on Wednesday if it arrived safely at Broadway, and what colour they will paint it. Not brown as well, we hope, as we now have two, and it is confusing to say that you have put something in the brown container.



Now for the CRC2 work. The two Petes are sent off to the far end of the site to retrieve the shuttering for the last step. Our senior brick layers are privileged to remain standing there, until they return. That's the difference between management, and workers, old as the hills (the custom, not the management).






While the container lorry was setting itself up, Pete and Keith set out the inspection covers for the lamp posts, to make sure they are the correct height and level, for the forthcoming tarmacing exercise. A man with a little wheel came along to measure the platform length (200m, we could have told him that!) and shortly afterwards we should have some quotes for the job. We are going to move this forward now.





At the same time Peter was busy back filling the rear of the slabs we laid along the edge, to make the job look nice and neat.

Despite an awkward commute from Malvern by public transport, Peter was back for his second day on the job. Well done Peter!




We had hired in the digger and dumper for a test day of putting down the penultimate layer on the platform, some fine ballast. We ordered a trial load of 10 tons and spread it out, to see how far it went.

We made ourselves a gauge, so that we could spread the ballast evenly, while leaving a margin of 2ins for the ultimate layer, the tarmac. It was quite a slow job. It's OK to dump and spread the stuff with a shovel, but then it has to be made perfectly level, with no dips anywhere. Although we brought up two big rakes to do this, in the end the best way was for two of us on their hands and knees, spreading the last bits by hand left and right.

Another load arrives, a bit under a tonne at a time. Doesn't the platform look neat now? Almost finished, we are.
At the end of the day, the conclusion was that you got 15m out of a 10T load. Next week we are going to order 60T, and get two dumpers, which will be twice as big (2T load, instead of the 1tonner we used today). A lot of time was spent today slowly bumping along the uneven infill in reverse, so with bigger dumpers we should be more efficient.

This is what the platform looked like at the end of the day. Pretty professional, wouldn't you agree? The inspection cover on the left is just at the right level now. You can also see the last step in the foreground, cast last week. In the picture we're packing up our tools, as we have used up all of the first delivery of ballast, and it's starting to rain more consistently now.

This week's question

Last week's answer was Hurricane, we all agreed. This worked rather well, it is very pleasing to get such help from the community. Thank you all for your most interesting contributions, and reasonings.

This week's question might be a bit trickier.

You might recall that during an archaeological dig on the embankment at Broadway, we have found quite a bit of broken GWR china. The finds seemed to peter out, until we put a proper tool on the job - the 45T excavator! While digging the 15 trenches, quite a bit more china was found in the piles of debris that it extracted. One of the pieces was different form the others - it was flat, white glass, with remnants of black lettering. Then another turned up, and another, until we had 8 pieces.

Cleaned up, and arranged in order, they made up two plates of glass like this:


It looks like CHELTENHAM SPA. The dimensions are 75mm by approx 350mm. There is a shadow around the outside, as if the plates have been inside a frame of sorts. They look too large to have been inside a petroleum lamp, but the white glass suggests they were designed to have been back lit. They were found inside a layer of locomotive ash, inside which were also the GWR china shards, animal bones, and various bottles, even a pricker from a tank engine appeared. The location of this layer of ash was on the shoulder of the embankment alongside the siding by the goods shed, where race trains are known to have been stabled.

So what do people think the name plates are, and how did they get to Broadway? Were they thrown out on the spot, or did they come with the ash from say Cheltenham St James?

17 comments:

Eric O said...

Jo, how about you turn your Depth Gauge into a plough blade, by nailing a couple handles on it, and pushing the hardcore back up the platform till it overtops the blade. Repeat until it breaks :)

Anonymous said...

I am alarmed at your suggestion that you will shortly be tarmacing this platform. Please look at the other platforms we have and see how they have moved, despite being vibro rolled and left for many years to settle. Toddington Platform 2 was left for 10 years, but this sank, as did both Winchcombe platforms. Check with Pete Dickinson and Pat
Green.We should learn from past mistakes, not repeat them.
Bob Mackintosh

Michael Johnson said...

At first glance the signs look like they were fitted into platform lamps like the one in this picture, which has a frame for a sign at the top of its front panel:

http://www.ukrailwayana.com/20120005/imgs/73_v.jpg

But if so, the signs should have angled ends, to fit the lamp frames which get narrower from top to bottom. These ones have straight ends.


The GWR did use another type of platform lamp which had straight sides, usually fitted to a wall. It's possible the glass signs were designed for this type of lamp.

Here's a picture of a straight-sided lamp, although this one has no frame for a station name:

http://www.talismanauctions.co.uk/lot_images_MAY2015/397.jpg


I wonder if Broadway station needed extra lamps at some point, so a couple of spares were taken out of the stores in Cheltenham and sent up the line. Obviously the lamps couldn't be used with the wrong station name in place, so perhaps the Cheltenham signs were simply removed and discarded.

Jo said...

I don't think they panels are from a lamp, as they are quite long.
How about a destination board. Did the rail motor or Coffee Pot have such glass destination boards?

Graham said...

Looking through a book I have between 1960 and 1966 malvern road station had new lights installed along the platform, so these may be as a result of these.

That said something nags me about autotrains and railcars having these, or even railmotors above the front and rear centre window.I have a picture which appears to show this panel on a railmotor at bishops cleave.
Graham (BAG member)

Michael Johnson said...

I wondered if the signs might possibly be destination boards from railmotors, but I discounted that theory for a few reasons.

In the absence of electricity they would have to be mounted on some sort of light box containing an oil lamp, which would be a pretty bulky item. I can't find any pictures of railmotors which have that kind of fitment.

They couldn't simply be mounted in the cab windows, because the cabs would not be illuminated when the railmotors were being driven.

In any case I think it's unlikely that glass would have been used because the risk of breakage as the panels were repeatedly inserted and removed from the frames would have been too great.

As far as I can find out, railmotor destination boards were painted wood, carried in slots on the carriage ends.

Here's a photo of the railmotor recently rebuilt by the Great Western Society, with its destination board above the centre cab window:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/GWR_Steam_Railmotor_93_(7882271804).jpg

One other possibility is that the glass panels were built into the window frames of a station building. Unfortunately I can't find any pictures of such a window, although I've got a nagging feeling in the back of my mind that I've seen one in real life...somewhere...

Toddington Ted said...

So Bob, your negativity surprises us. Rather than just being alarmed, what would you suggest instead of tarmac then? There's a difference between constructive criticism and the other kind. In early GWR days, platforms were not tarmacked but gravelled, with the main areas in front of buildings etc being slabbed. Perhaps this is what you might recommend. If so, then recommend it, rather than "hitting us with them negative waves."

mike slipper said...

Superb picture of the two Petes, worth a framing !

Rob Pryce said...

Fantastic job being done, chaps.Can't wait to be able to catch a train to Broadway from your platform.( I think of it as your platform until commissioned! ) Wish I could help but distance and health prevent me doing anything constuctive. I will have to settle for cheering you on from the sidelines.
Rob Pryce.

richard said...

The railways used to take rubbish away train from stations etc as well as deliver store; it is therefore possible the broken items were the result of the civil engineer backfilling with hard core collected as rubbish at some stage after the line was built, recycling is not as modern as some make out, Swindon Works used to take all tools back and either refurbish them of melt them down and make new ones

Anonymous said...

In reply to Toddington Ted, the platform should be left with a gravel top for at least 5 years, as should Broadway. Even with the best laying of the infill there will be many small voids into which it will sink.

We can't afford that much tarmac anyway, nor do we have any operational use for platform 2 until we can afford a bridge. Broadway could be slabbed, at least the main area. They can always be relaid (as at Toddington).
Bob Mackintosh

Anonymous said...

Good job

Anonymous said...

Whilst i agree with what you are saying Bob, there are more proactive and less negative ways to raise concerns towards a project especially where volunteers are involved. Lets not upset volunteers unecessarily, they are doing an outstanding job across the railway and we should be extremely proud of our collective achievements.

Toddington Ted said...

I presumed (quite possibly incorrectly) that Platform 2 at CRC could be used immediately, without a footbridge crossing, as there is a foot (and vehicle) crossing at the north end of the platforms. I understand that such a crossing would need to be manned to allow passengers to travel safely, as I have seen at both Toddington and Winchcombe. I am aware that the original method in GWR and BR days was to use the footpath on the southern overbridge at CRC but that would clearly be suicidal toady with vastly increased and faster road traffic. However, the extant foot crossing near the CRC signal box, if manned appropriately, would be OK, so I assumed.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps thats an option, maybe this issue could do with some clarification from the board, so we and yourselves at Cheltenham have a clear understanding of what the railway intends to do and how. :)

mack said...

Hmm, when network rail build platforms, like say, the new ones at honeyborne, did they wait 6 years before Tarmacing it??... Nope. If it works for them, surely a layer of type 1 and wacker plate/roller will suffice then Tarmac

Michael Johnson said...

Fair point above - it's certainly possible to build a new platform without experiencing any subsidence problems. Network Rail does it all the time.

There's obviously an established technique that works - which is, I suspect, essentially the technique that's been used at CRC. Build up the fill material in layers, each one compacted as it's put down.

Leaving a new platform to 'mature' for several years isn't done on the big railway, so I'm not sure why it should be necessary for us. If all the preliminary work has been done right, the surface will be fine.

If anyone thinks the preliminary work has not been done right - well, it's a bit late to flag up those concerns now, with the platform nearly finished!

In the 1980s, when Toddington was rebuilt, the GWR was at a very early stage of development and best-practice techniques were not necessarily used. As I recall, to a great extent the platforms were built up by chucking in old ballast scooped up from the goods yard and stamping it down with wellies.

Personally, I think Toddington platforms have stood up very well, especially as they now carry more foot traffic than the station ever handled in the old days. I actually think Toddington platforms were better built in some ways than Winchcombe, which features some 'economy corbelling' because bricks were hard to come by at the time.