Very interesting episode, spotted the remnants of the 'I' beams in the upper wall areas and enjoyed the depth you went into re. the canopy and other modifications Looking forward to the next episode as usual
What a fascinating video Julian. Following your research is just great. I really think you're on the right track. No pun intended ! Cant wait to see the next mock up and your progress. Brilliant stuff. By the way, we're all shivering here in the UK. 😂😂 Kind regards. Simon. 😀😀
At 15:47 that I beam is the mid original beam that supported the Outer/Extended canopy to the out platform after the smaller inner glass section. The I beams would be steel I guess? But that is where the had 6 beams that had the larger cover area to form a better weather protection for passenger on the station. After closure that was cut off with a Oxyacetylene gas torch to remover the last railway version of an Outer/Extended canopy of which you see now in the screen grab. The blue columns seen in the same screen grab, yes they would be the original columns that held up that last larger Outer/Extended canopy, but as you say further out. At 19:50 Yes those are the I beams that are now cut off of which you see in the earlier screen grab. As you have shown at 20:11 that is the seating point in the wall for the I beam there should 6 in all across the front of that platform side. Lastly yes you have counted 6 I beam locations that would have up the Outer/Extended canopy.
Interesting as always. Unless you have images to show otherwise (and despite what the drawing you have shows), I would conclude that the station was built with the full-width canopy on the platform side, right from the start. In other words, the drawing you have shows what was initially proposed, but it was changed to have the large canopy at a later date. Maybe there was a later version of the drawing(s), a supplementary drawing to show the new arrangement, or it was simply left to the contractor to provide it. Once you have that main canopy support attached along the entire platform side of the station building (probably a wooden, lead-lined gutter beam, to intercept the rainwater running back towards the building and from the inner glazed area), you remove the need for the drawing's proposed 'fancy' ironwork brackets in the recessed area. These were only originally necessary, in order to support the front edge of the 'inner' glazed roof, so the larger canopy design being original, is why there is no evidence for any old bracket fixing holes or remnants of the stone corbels indicated on the drawing to provide additional support to them. Additionally, those main steel beams (now cut off) look clearly to have been built into the stonework as the building was being constructed, not a later insertion requiring location sockets to be 'punched' into pre-existing stonework and made good afterwards. Finally, the whole main canopy design looks a little crude overall, possibly because the elements (cast columns, brackets, beams, etc.) were chosen from a supplier's catalogue, rather than designed from scratch for these buildings. In one of the poor black and white images, you can however make out that there was a conventional (wooden) valancing around the outer perimeter of the main canopy, which has clearly been long-removed in the later 'modern' photos, which would have gone some way to make the whole edifice more aesthetically pleasing.
Detective Julian puts out another great research video, I found it very interesting on how you determined where the canopy was and clearly by the photos you are not wrong.
Hi Julian, looking at the zoomed in photo it looks like the two holes in the brick wall by the door could be a sign that would be perpendicular to the wall possibly identifying what’s through the doorway. Keep safe and well Andy
Maybe the upper (ornate) sections of the pillars were difficult to cut from the I-Beams (and leave them usable), and it was just easier to shear through the column below them.
That was absolutely fantastic you really got involved in that and everything you said made sense it's a pity they can't put it back as it was there's a lot of work to do to that building but I think they're going to make a good job of it and I know you will make a good job of your building can't wait to see it
My first job post University many decades ago was converting old paper plans to CAD, in my experience a lot of old plans, especially ones to give overall looks have quickly sketched in details, in the Railway Stations Case often the company was building multiple stations at the same time, they would have one company supply all the doors, windows and other joinery to a standard design, the architect would just draw up the plans with the correct sized openings and then quickly sketch in the basic shape of the door with the right number of panels etc. For detailed views they will do greater detail as the builders will need to know which way the doors open, or if there are opening windows etc Also the overall frame sizing . Often with Station Buildings built at the same time there will be a separate set of "Standard" drawings for all the bits that were used on all the stations, so a set for cast iron canopy parts, a set for windows and doors, possibly a set for fancy stone or brick details, then the architect will just reference those details on each individual station drawing. Locally to me I have three almost Identical Stations built at the same time, they were built to the same basic design, but one is on the flat, one at the bottom of a cutting and one located where a cutting blends into an embankment so whilst each stations roofline is Identical, at ground level elevations wise they are all very slightly different, likewise each had a signal box the upper part of which is of identical wood construction but one was beyond the end of the platform whilst another was inset into the platform and a third sat part way in the platform and part off the back edge of the platform P.S it could be worse one job I had involved the QE2, the plans for the ship were long and narrow and must have at some point been kept in a damp location, when we digitised them the plans were slightly banana shaped AND we found the distance from the centerline to one side of the hull was up to 2.5 feet wider than on the other side. We had to send someone out to the drydock at the start of the refit to take measurements of the as built sizes at various locations on the ship
Some nice forensic architecture Julian. I do think I concur with your findings. May I suggest that the two unattributed holes to the right of the doorway were anchor points for signage, 'Exit, Booking Hall, Next Train On Platform 1' etc?
quick internet search, which may , or may not help BARRY RAILWAY Most of the woodwork and metalwork was painted brick red, with window frames in white (HMRS Journal April 1981). Station running in boards and signs were enameled, with white lettering on a dark blue background. Thanks to Meic Batten for the information.
As an ex draftsman I can tell you that had drawings were never perfect, the problem with the metric system and computers is that people assume you can build to 100% , you can’t I have seen drawings where people put on dimensions with 0.5mm which is impossible on a building site. However in think you are on the right track I wouldn’t worry too much about miniscule details as you are reducing by a factor of 76
Why Victorian buildings so high in internal ceilings. 2 reasons - 1) Coal fires can be quite hot , heat rises , to reach a fair equilbrium you have to make a room of a size that is not too small as the it will overheat. 2) Gentlemen wore Top Hats so you would need clearence for them
Paper is asumed to never change, but it wrinkles, it sags, it stretches when danmp and shrinks in the heat. I believe the drafsman probably did a really good job, and then the paper took over, giving you seme wonky bits.
I wonder if most of that iron work was scavenged during either of WW1 or WW2. It was a common thing to do at that time as metals were desperately needed for the war effort.
The Metalwork would have been Iron, the columns would have been cast iron, the I beams almost certainly wrought Iron, no reason they could not create new cast iron brackets if they want them. The bottom of the gable ends probably had a lack of maintenance which resulted in rot which ended up being chopped out
Very interesting episode, spotted the remnants of the 'I' beams in the upper wall areas and enjoyed the depth you went into re. the canopy and other modifications
Looking forward to the next episode as usual
Fascinating detective work.
Thank you for the history lesson, Julian!
What a fascinating video Julian. Following your research is just great. I really think you're on the right track. No pun intended ! Cant wait to see the next mock up and your progress. Brilliant stuff. By the way, we're all shivering here in the UK. 😂😂 Kind regards. Simon. 😀😀
Julian , Very interesting and great research. look forward to seeing the station built Regards Greg
Fascinating stuff Julian
At 15:47 that I beam is the mid original beam that supported the Outer/Extended canopy to the out platform after the smaller inner glass section. The I beams would be steel I guess? But that is where the had 6 beams that had the larger cover area to form a better weather protection for passenger on the station. After closure that was cut off with a Oxyacetylene gas torch to remover the last railway version of an Outer/Extended canopy of which you see now in the screen grab.
The blue columns seen in the same screen grab, yes they would be the original columns that held up that last larger Outer/Extended canopy, but as you say further out.
At 19:50 Yes those are the I beams that are now cut off of which you see in the earlier screen grab. As you have shown at 20:11 that is the seating point in the wall for the I beam there should 6 in all across the front of that platform side.
Lastly yes you have counted 6 I beam locations that would have up the Outer/Extended canopy.
Interesting as always. Unless you have images to show otherwise (and despite what the drawing you have shows), I would conclude that the station was built with the full-width canopy on the platform side, right from the start. In other words, the drawing you have shows what was initially proposed, but it was changed to have the large canopy at a later date. Maybe there was a later version of the drawing(s), a supplementary drawing to show the new arrangement, or it was simply left to the contractor to provide it.
Once you have that main canopy support attached along the entire platform side of the station building (probably a wooden, lead-lined gutter beam, to intercept the rainwater running back towards the building and from the inner glazed area), you remove the need for the drawing's proposed 'fancy' ironwork brackets in the recessed area. These were only originally necessary, in order to support the front edge of the 'inner' glazed roof, so the larger canopy design being original, is why there is no evidence for any old bracket fixing holes or remnants of the stone corbels indicated on the drawing to provide additional support to them. Additionally, those main steel beams (now cut off) look clearly to have been built into the stonework as the building was being constructed, not a later insertion requiring location sockets to be 'punched' into pre-existing stonework and made good afterwards.
Finally, the whole main canopy design looks a little crude overall, possibly because the elements (cast columns, brackets, beams, etc.) were chosen from a supplier's catalogue, rather than designed from scratch for these buildings. In one of the poor black and white images, you can however make out that there was a conventional (wooden) valancing around the outer perimeter of the main canopy, which has clearly been long-removed in the later 'modern' photos, which would have gone some way to make the whole edifice more aesthetically pleasing.
Fantastic work Julian, loved this video. Cant wait to see you bring it all together,
Detective Julian puts out another great research video, I found it very interesting on how you determined where the canopy was and clearly by the photos you are not wrong.
Hi Julian, looking at the zoomed in photo it looks like the two holes in the brick wall by the door could be a sign that would be perpendicular to the wall possibly identifying what’s through the doorway.
Keep safe and well
Andy
Maybe the upper (ornate) sections of the pillars were difficult to cut from the I-Beams (and leave them usable), and it was just easier to shear through the column below them.
That was absolutely fantastic you really got involved in that and everything you said made sense it's a pity they can't put it back as it was there's a lot of work to do to that building but I think they're going to make a good job of it and I know you will make a good job of your building can't wait to see it
My first job post University many decades ago was converting old paper plans to CAD, in my experience a lot of old plans, especially ones to give overall looks have quickly sketched in details, in the Railway Stations Case often the company was building multiple stations at the same time, they would have one company supply all the doors, windows and other joinery to a standard design, the architect would just draw up the plans with the correct sized openings and then quickly sketch in the basic shape of the door with the right number of panels etc. For detailed views they will do greater detail as the builders will need to know which way the doors open, or if there are opening windows etc Also the overall frame sizing .
Often with Station Buildings built at the same time there will be a separate set of "Standard" drawings for all the bits that were used on all the stations, so a set for cast iron canopy parts, a set for windows and doors, possibly a set for fancy stone or brick details, then the architect will just reference those details on each individual station drawing.
Locally to me I have three almost Identical Stations built at the same time, they were built to the same basic design, but one is on the flat, one at the bottom of a cutting and one located where a cutting blends into an embankment so whilst each stations roofline is Identical, at ground level elevations wise they are all very slightly different, likewise each had a signal box the upper part of which is of identical wood construction but one was beyond the end of the platform whilst another was inset into the platform and a third sat part way in the platform and part off the back edge of the platform
P.S it could be worse one job I had involved the QE2, the plans for the ship were long and narrow and must have at some point been kept in a damp location, when we digitised them the plans were slightly banana shaped AND we found the distance from the centerline to one side of the hull was up to 2.5 feet wider than on the other side. We had to send someone out to the drydock at the start of the refit to take measurements of the as built sizes at various locations on the ship
Some nice forensic architecture Julian. I do think I concur with your findings. May I suggest that the two unattributed holes to the right of the doorway were anchor points for signage, 'Exit, Booking Hall, Next Train On Platform 1' etc?
Good morning Julian there may be evidence still on the platform where the surports were like where the holes have been filled. Stephen
Where them 2 fixings are . Could have been where the clock was . Under the canopy.
Hello from the UK
great work thanks for share on channel
What was the name of the old station and what line was it on
Brilliant deductions Watson !!!??
quick internet search, which may , or may not help
BARRY RAILWAY
Most of the woodwork and metalwork was painted brick red, with window frames in white (HMRS Journal April 1981).
Station running in boards and signs were enameled, with white lettering on a dark blue background. Thanks to Meic Batten for the information.
Fascinating...
As an ex draftsman I can tell you that had drawings were never perfect, the problem with the metric system and computers is that people assume you can build to 100% , you can’t I have seen drawings where people put on dimensions with 0.5mm which is impossible on a building site. However in think you are on the right track I wouldn’t worry too much about miniscule details as you are reducing by a factor of 76
Why Victorian buildings so high in internal ceilings. 2 reasons - 1) Coal fires can be quite hot , heat rises , to reach a fair equilbrium you have to make a room of a size that is not too small as the it will overheat. 2) Gentlemen wore Top Hats so you would need clearence for them
Paper is asumed to never change, but it wrinkles, it sags, it stretches when danmp and shrinks in the heat. I believe the drafsman probably did a really good job, and then the paper took over, giving you seme wonky bits.
look up Efil Isaf railway station. its a carbon copy of wenvoe. complete with canopy.
I wonder if most of that iron work was scavenged during either of WW1 or WW2. It was a common thing to do at that time as metals were desperately needed for the war effort.
The Metalwork would have been Iron, the columns would have been cast iron, the I beams almost certainly wrought Iron, no reason they could not create new cast iron brackets if they want them. The bottom of the gable ends probably had a lack of maintenance which resulted in rot which ended up being chopped out
Julian are building the station as originally built because sur3lythis won't match up to the era you 4un