Talk:GWR pagoda platform shelter

Trains: in UK Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Low-importance).

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

capitalisation[edit]

Should this article not be at Pagoda platform shelter as it is about a generic class of buildings rather than a specific building? Thryduulf (talk) 10:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. If we like "platform shelter", that is. Any thoughts? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the capitalization is not right. As there were more than just platform shelters, perhaps it should be something like Great Western Railway pagoda huts or Pagodas of the Great Western Railway? Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So far I'm favouring GWR pagoda platform shelter Andy Dingley (talk) 09:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to that --Redrose64 (talk) 09:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there are objections or better suggestions, I'm going to move this to GWR pagoda platform shelter. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Function?[edit]

What was the function of the pagodas? They were passenger shelters on small unstaffed halts. Were they used for anything more than this? As larger station buildings? For general storage? Kelmscott and Langford on the Fairford branch is one much-photographed example of a larger station. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, cycle shed, see below. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Design?[edit]

Was the design standard? Were these ordered as new buildings (as many GWR designs were) by asking Swindon "to send down a building", or were drawings produced per-site? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that there was a single design - certainly there were at least two sizes, and the one at Denham Golf Club has a gable-ended roof rather than the more usual hipped roof. But I do think that there was a limited number of different designs, as according to

Leigh, Chris (1995). A Railway Modeller's Picture Library. Book Club Associates. p. 205. ISBN 978-0-7110-2392-5. CN 3218.

the one at Speen was "produced in kit form by Joseph Ash & Sons of Birmingham". The same page indicates that Fairford had the main buildings built of stone, but there was also a "'pagoda' cycle shed", which according to the photo, had double doors. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably the biggest: http://www.fairfordbranch.co.uk/Kelmscott.htm Andy Dingley (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Technical design, and why a pagoda[edit]

The article fails to mention the most interesting aspect; why they were pagoda shaped.

This wasn't (despite many claims) because Brunel's broad-canopied stone buildings for broad-gauge stations had already something of a "pagoda" look to them and the GWR had adopted the fashionable chinoiserie style of the period as a house style. Instead it was rather more pragmatic: these were cheap building, made of corrugated iron. Corrugated iron is made in flat sheets, but it can also be rolled to smooth curves. In combination with the corrugations, such curved sheets are stiff in both directions and avoid the needs for timber supports beneath. The GWR used these curved sheets, convex side out, for the common lamp huts on most stations. Turned upside down and in pairs, they instead gave the concave pagoda roof. This was accentuated by the lack of guttering. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overdoing references[edit]

Do we really need sixteen references for the second paragraph? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They're not references, they're ELs to some images. If we keep these, they should at least be a separate list. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Andy Dingley, these would be better as a "Locations" section, with the ELs turned into proper references. Mjroots (talk) 12:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DavidAHull:. Mjroots (talk) 12:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]