Rugby station roof.

Status
Not open for further replies.

hstmatt

Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
224
Location
Merseyside
Hi
Just seen a few old videos from Rugby and i have noticed that it had a overall roof which is no longer at the station. I think it looks alot better with the overall roof but the roof did look run down.
Does anyone know why it was demolished?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Harbon 1

Member
Joined
30 Apr 2011
Messages
1,002
Location
Burton on Trent
Hi
Just seen a few old videos from Rugby and i have noticed that it had a overall roof which is no longer at the station. I think it looks alot better with the overall roof but the roof did look run down.
Does anyone know why it was demolished?

I believe it was taken down when it was re modelled to allow a few extra platforms, the wall is still visible on the platform 6 side and it is a shame really because it would have looked good if it had been St Pancras-ified
 

David10

Member
Joined
25 May 2012
Messages
391
Location
Manchester
It was demolished in about 2000 and the current structure erected. Under the original plans for remodelling Rugby as part of the WCML modernisation, the existing station and near new multi-million £ canopy were to be demolished, before the plans were changed to incorporate the existing building.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
15,392
It was planned to be demolished at least as long ago as 1992 - it was a maintenance liability, with bits falling off regularly. It didn't get done before s there was no cash.
 

hstmatt

Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
224
Location
Merseyside
They should of just refurbished the roof. It would look better. Its a shame network rail wont build overall roofs but thats because of money saving.
 

MidnightFlyer

Veteran Member
Joined
16 May 2010
Messages
12,846
Unfortunately not every case is a Bournemouth or St Pancras (as in a stunning renovation) - it was run down, and as has been said, it was falling to pieces. I'd rather the millions be spent on a modern WCML, not making trainsheds look nice. Sorry, the chief point of a railway (after safety et al) is to get people and goods from A to B in good time, not to make roofs nice and clean. Besdies, for all we know, it could have been retained for £5m in 2000, yet needed another £10m spent this year because it's in a bad way again!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Nice first tag BTW :|
Actually just thought - does any station in the country with an overall roof have 125mph running through it. As odd as it might sound, would there be any limits on it, despite being so high, because of turbulance from trains below?
 

ChristopherJ

Member
Joined
8 Aug 2005
Messages
383
Location
London, UK
would there be any limits on it, despite being so high, because of turbulance from trains below?

I guess restrictions to line speed to control turbulence and noise of passing trains is dependent on each individual station design. In France there are several covered stations which have TGVs that pass at 300km/h, some examples include Aéroport Charles de Gaulle 2, Lyon Saint-Exupéry, Valance and Marne-la-Vallée - Chessy.

Video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RN6q9l1u1o
 

Mojo

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
7 Aug 2005
Messages
18,342
Location
0035
What's the speed limit through Wembley Ctl? The fast line platforms are closed as no services call here, and the platforms on the slow lines are only unlocked a few Min prior to departure.
 

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
Unfortunately not every case is a Bournemouth or St Pancras (as in a stunning renovation) - it was run down, and as has been said, it was falling to pieces. I'd rather the millions be spent on a modern WCML, not making trainsheds look nice. Sorry, the chief point of a railway (after safety et al) is to get people and goods from A to B in good time, not to make roofs nice and clean. Besdies, for all we know, it could have been retained for £5m in 2000, yet needed another £10m spent this year because it's in a bad way again!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Nice first tag BTW :|
Actually just thought - does any station in the country with an overall roof have 125mph running through it. As odd as it might sound, would there be any limits on it, despite being so high, because of turbulance from trains below?

Not exactly an overall roof, but the Stevenage booking office really echoes when an HST passes beneath it.

Didn't Peterborough once have a roof over the eastern half? I think that went in the 1970s. Pity about the Rugby roof really, and all the nice canopies being torn down in places such as Reading and Sheffield. A lot of railway character is going. Still, onwards we go.
 

Welshman

Established Member
Joined
11 Mar 2010
Messages
2,802
Didn't Peterborough once have a roof over the eastern half? I think that went in the 1970s. Pity about the Rugby roof really, and all the nice canopies being torn down in places such as Reading and Sheffield. A lot of railway character is going. Still, onwards we go.

The old Peterborough North did have an overall roof, but that was when it was on a dog-leg curve with a 20mph psr!

Leicester Midland used to have one too.
 

Rugd1022

Member
Joined
19 Feb 2010
Messages
565
Location
Rugby
Rugby's LNWR overall roof was in a run down state simply because it was deliberately left that way, it had a few licks of paint after the last of the glass was removed until a decision had to be made on it's future. During it's destruction I worked several of the engineering trains at the time, including the daily shunts in and out of No.3 Bay with open wagons full of cast iron drain pipes and roof supports etc. I managed to save a tiny piece of the original 1854 drain pipe and it now lives in my wood shed (cleaned up of course!). Personally I was very sad to see it all go. It's also a shame that the LNWR iron railings at the top of both ramps were removed in favour of modern 'square' railings... they could easily have left them in place but there you go.... I'm just glad I recorded as much as I could before the changes took place...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/2904835662/in/set-72157606518794795

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/2903999279/in/set-72157606518794795

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/371088958/in/set-72157594510352537

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/371088953/in/set-72157594510352537

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/371088950/in/set-72157594510352537/
 

Scouseinmanc

Member
Joined
7 Jan 2009
Messages
126
Location
Manchester
I'd rather the millions be spent on a modern WCML, not making trainsheds look nice. Sorry, the chief point of a railway (after safety et al) is to get people and goods from A to B in good time, not to make roofs nice and clean.?

Not a case of making it look nice & clean though is it. It's about protecting passengers from the elements. I'd much rather get to 'B' warm & dry...

Also, it's part of the railways heritage. Far too much of our rail infrastructure has been left to rot, with ultimate demolition not too far around the corner.

The railways were built by people who actually gave a toss. Unfortunately, now that is not the case. It's a case of less is more, to hell with the past & lets do it all on the cheap (the current UK way of thinking generally).

If these things were managed properly & dealt with first time round, then these things would be an awful lot cheaper & quicker to put right & we would have much more in the way of well built, original infrastructure.
 

MidnightFlyer

Veteran Member
Joined
16 May 2010
Messages
12,846
Not a case of making it look nice & clean though is it. It's about protecting passengers from the elements. I'd much rather get to 'B' warm & dry...

Which indoor waiting rooms, shelters and concourses can also do... I find some stations with trainsheds or partial roofs also turn into wind tunnels on occasion, Crewe and Preston spring to mind.

I agree with you that heritage is important, however in my eyes, money destined for the future should not be spent on sustaining the past, especially not when viable alternatives are available (like I mentioned in the first sentence).
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
26,175
Location
Yorks
Not exactly an overall roof, but the Stevenage booking office really echoes when an HST passes beneath it.

Didn't Peterborough once have a roof over the eastern half? I think that went in the 1970s. Pity about the Rugby roof really, and all the nice canopies being torn down in places such as Reading and Sheffield. A lot of railway character is going. Still, onwards we go.

The old overbridge at Ashford used to have some impressive sound effects when boat trains sped through underneath.

I don't know how rescueable Rugby's trainshed would have been, but having gone through Reading this past weekend, it does seem a crying shame when perfectly serviceable and attractive canopies and platform buildings are swept away in the name of progress.

I've never quite managed to work out - are the current through platforms at Reading actually being moved or just added to ?
 

Rugd1022

Member
Joined
19 Feb 2010
Messages
565
Location
Rugby
Rugby's roofing would have been salvagable if the right amount of maintenance had been kept up down the years... it was built to last but sadly it wasn't looked after properly in it's last two decades of life - when the cast iron drainage was dug up it took a hell of a lot of force to smash it up and remove in smaller pieces, which is quite surprising considering how brittle cast iron can be.
 

John55

Member
Joined
24 Jun 2011
Messages
800
Location
South East
Not a case of making it look nice & clean though is it. It's about protecting passengers from the elements. I'd much rather get to 'B' warm & dry...

Also, it's part of the railways heritage. Far too much of our rail infrastructure has been left to rot, with ultimate demolition not too far around the corner.

The railways were built by people who actually gave a toss. Unfortunately, now that is not the case. It's a case of less is more, to hell with the past & lets do it all on the cheap (the current UK way of thinking generally).

If these things were managed properly & dealt with first time round, then these things would be an awful lot cheaper & quicker to put right & we would have much more in the way of well built, original infrastructure.

The railways were built by Victorian businessmen who knocked down old infrastructure without a second thought so don't get all sentimental about them. For example the first Train Shed ever built was demolished in 1846/7 to make way for the first ever glass and iron Train Shed which was demolished in 1870 to be replaced by the current train shed at Lime St station. Were the directors of the GJ/L&NWR who did that vandals?
 
Last edited:

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
26,175
Location
Yorks
The railways were built by Victorian businessmen who knocked down old infrastructure without a second thought so don't get all sentimental about them. For example the first shed ever built was demolished in 1846/7 to make way for the first ever glass and iron train shed which was demolished in 1870 to be replaced by the current train shed at Lime St station. Were the directors of the GJ/L&NWR who did that vandals?

I'm afraid that whatever the sins of our Victorian forebearers, I far prefer their lofty iron train sheds to either underground "car park" stations or today's modular canopies.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
26,175
Location
Yorks
Which underground car park looks like Lime St?

I was making a pointed reference to the recent propensity to replace trainsheds with underground car park type stations such as London Victoria, Cannon Street, Liverpool Street, Birmingham New Street etc.
 

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
With the Victorians, it seemed more about showing off that building something workable and useful, but they liked to combine the two. For example, compare the old section of St Pancras with the new one. Both lofty, airy trainsheds, but the old part with its brick-built sides and wrought iron arches (painted a nice pastel blue) looks a heck of a lot better than the new one. Even leaving out the gothic look outside. The new one is functional, but the old Midland would have put some fluting into the columns and worked in the coat of arms to say "THIS IS THE MIDLAND RAILWAY AND WE BUILT THIS!". They would probably have painted the columns something with a bit more colour to them as well.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I was making a pointed reference to the recent propensity to replace trainsheds with underground car park type stations such as London Victoria, Cannon Street, Liverpool Street, Birmingham New Street etc.

To be fair, that's only 'recent' as in late 20th Century. More recent is the trend towards putting aggressively modern, simplistic structures in place of the elegant, complicated Victorian ones. The canopies at Reading or London Bridge would be good examples of this. Modern structures often rely on being clean and orderly to look presentable, forgetting that railway stations are alive with passengers, pigeons, diesel engines and other sources of muck. Shapely Victorian structures can look elegant under the grime, most modern ones just look mucky.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
26,175
Location
Yorks
To be fair, that's only 'recent' as in late 20th Century. More recent is the trend towards putting aggressively modern, simplistic structures in place of the elegant, complicated Victorian ones. The canopies at Reading or London Bridge would be good examples of this. Modern structures often rely on being clean and orderly to look presentable, forgetting that railway stations are alive with passengers, pigeons, diesel engines and other sources of muck. Shapely Victorian structures can look elegant under the grime, most modern ones just look mucky.

Ha ha, recent enough for me :)

A good point though.

Most of that Victorian ironwork only really needs a decent coat of paint every few years or so to look as good as new.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
15,392
Most of that Victorian ironwork only really needs a decent coat of paint every few years or so to look as good as new.

That's what was said about the Forth bridge in 1890, and they only finished painting it a few months ago ...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top