ehah167-136

7/23/2019 ehah167-136

1/11

The restoration of TynemouthRailway Station canopyJames Miller MA,CEng, FICE,FIStructEConservation Accredited Engineer and Technical Director, Ramboll, London,UK

Tynemouth railway station was built in 1882 and characterises the zenith of the railway age in Britain. The elegant

cast and wrought iron roof is a Grade II* listed structure, an important regional example of its type. It fell into

disrepair in the 1960s through lack of maintenance and by 2008 the larger part of the eastern canopy was in an

appalling state with widespread corrosion. This paper describes the restoration. Basic calculations of capacity were

undertaken prior to survey, to inform observations and the measurements of residual thickness. A comprehensive

survey of defects was carried out and a document outlining the conservation philosophy was compiled, which formed

the basis of the listed building consent. Almost all iron columns were found to have cracked near the top of the

casting. Replacement of columns was considered to be too great a loss of historic fabric and unnecessary; the reasons

for this are discussed. The paper concludes with an appraisal of the projects successes.

1. Introduction

Tynemouth Railway Station is located on the north-east coast

of England, east of Newcastle. When first built in the late

nineteenth century it was a major destination for passengers

travelling to the fine beaches on the Northumberland coastline,

but 100 years later, in the 1980s, it had become a through-

station for short, two-coach trains on the local Tyne and Wear

Metro line, and had deteriorated into an appalling condition.

The station is owned jointly by the private development

company Millhouse Developments Limited and local authority

North Tyneside Council.

Although many schemes for restoration had been proposed, it

was not until 2008 that the funding was assembled. Monies

were contributed by the local authority, central government,

other public bodies and the developer. This paper describes the

history of the project and the details of restoration, inparticular outlining the steps taken to follow good conserva-

tion philosophy in the execution of repairs.

2. History

Tynemouth lies on the north side of the river about 8 km east of

Newcastle. The first railway along the Tyne was opened in 1839,

but did not directly serve Tynemouth itself. The architects and

civil engineers for this early line were father and son, John and

Benjamin Green. The building of the railway was no small task,

and his effort, including the design of an earlier timber-structured

Ouseburn viaduct, earned Benjamin Green the Institution of

Civil Engineers Telford Silver Medal (Leyton, undated).

Tynemouth itself experienced four phases of rail development

over a relatively short period of time, serving both industry and

local community (Wells, 1989). This began in 1847 with an

extension of the Newcastle and Berwick Railway. In 1871 the

countrys Bank Holidays Act was passed, bringing to life the

concept of holidays for all and, in part spurred on by new-

found leisure, there was a wave of excursion development: the

sea piers and airy seaside stations to welcome holiday-makers

to the coasts of England. The current station at Tynemouth

was built in 1882 to designs by regional architect William Bell

and it characterises the zenith of the railway age in Britain.

Tynemouth Station itself was conceived as the jewel in the

necklace, as the rails from the north were linked to the line

arriving east from along the river in the last of the four phases,

the station lying on the curve in the alignment that connected the

two (see Figure 1). The broad, elegant cast and wrought iron

station canopy was built to welcome people from the area

around Newcastle as they discovered the beautiful beaches belowTynemouth Castle and around Whitley Bay. The passenger

station had through-lines to take trains further up the coast, but

two platforms were built for trains that terminated, shuttling to

Newcastle and back.

The heyday of the station was from the time of opening until

the outbreak of the First World War. The line to Tynemouth

Station was one of the first in Britain to be electrified when, in

1904, American-style electric multiple units were purchased to

make the shuttle journey, powered by the new Carville A

superheated steam turbines on the Tyne, which were the

worlds largest at the time. The increase in car ownership afterthe Second World War saw use of the branch line decline;

Tynemouth survived the cull in the 1960s, but the sprawling

station canopy was by now deteriorating rapidly and large

Engineering History and Heritage

Volume 167 Issue EH3

The restoration of Tynemouth Railway

Station canopy

Miller

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers

Engineering History and Heritage 167 August 2014 Issue EH3

Pages 136146 http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/ehah.14.00002

Paper 1400002

Received 09/01/2014 Accepted 06/05/2014

Published online 30/06/2014

Keywords: rail & bus stations/rehabilitation, reclamation &

renovation

ice | proceedings ICE Publishing: All rights reserved

136

7/23/2019 ehah167-136

2/11

parts of the glazing were stripped and replaced with corrugated

asbestos-cement sheeting.

When a new metro system was proposed in the 1970s to link

the wider Newcastle conurbation and outlying towns, the line

through Tynemouth was a natural choice to include as part ofthe network. However, the new two-car trains were a fraction

of the length of the original platforms and, although repairs,

redecoration and re-glazing were carried out to the smaller

western canopy and the centre section of the eastern canopy,

the north and south ends were fenced off from public access

and left to decay, exposed to the coastal weather. Many people

know of the station for the popular flea market that started in

1981, with hundreds browsing on the weekend stalls, but the

revenue from this activity was minimal. A number of planning

applications were put forward through the 1990s to permit

restoration and development, at a time when commercial

enabling development was often put forward as a solution forailing heritage fabric, in effect selling off part of an estate as a

solution to create capital for restoration, but this concept was

met with strong reaction from community and public bodies

alike. None of the solutions met with sufficient local support toproceed, and the canopy decayed further, with dwindling hope

of rescue (North East Civic Trust, 2001).

The station is listed Grade II* because of its significance as an

outstanding example of a regional excursion station, which in

terms of significance puts it in around the top 5% of UK

heritage assets.

Questions over the structural integrity of the bolted connec-

tions to the cantilever sections of the roof, which hang towards

the live railway and 1500 V DC (direct current) overhead lines,

led to erection of unsightly temporary scaffolding supports.This was a clear visual reflection of the very poor state of the

fabric, and in 1988 the structure was put on the English

Heritage at Risk register, emphasising the urgent need to

develop new uses for the site to create sustainable revenue. In

2008 it appeared on the front cover of the Heritage at Risk

review and efforts were redoubled to find a permanent

solution.

A many-stranded funding route became available in 2009,

when the third wave of government Sea Change funding for

coastal settlements and fabric was linked to monies from the

Heritage Lottery Fund, English Heritage and both local

authority and developer to build sufficient reserves to attempt

the restoration of the severely decayed sections of canopy;

these are shown as grids 19 and 1424 in Figure 2. An

essential part of this was also the granting of planning

permission for modest, single-storey, additional retail and

community buildings within the existing station complex, to

enhance revenue. These were required to be of exemplar design

to fit the historic setting. Architect for the new-build

application was Hodder Associates. With provisional funding

now in place, a programme of works to isolate the cost of

works and undertake the project was commissioned.

3. DescriptionTynemouth is an attractive station. Dating from the late

Victorian period, a decade before the introduction of early

steels, the use of cast and wrought material is seen at its best, in

a modest, regional scale. The ironwork is constructed to a

repeating design pattern of cast columns, cast decorated filigree

brackets and wrought lattice valley beams and longitudinal

arch trusses, in plan measuring approximately 150 m625 m.

However, being located on the gentle curve as the railway turns

from east to north and with the canopy varying in width, the

geometry changes quite subtly, creating an elegance in the

overall structure. It is not vast like the magnificent Grade I

listed, cathedral-like station roofs at York or Newcastle,having a free height of columns of just 4 m to the underside of

lattices, a longitudinal span of around 7 m and a roof pitch of

30 . It has the feel of a huge covered market, earning it the

Figure 1. Historic Ordnance Survey plan (1894)



The restoration of Tynemouth

Railway Station canopy

Miller

137

7/23/2019 ehah167-136

3/11

nick-name of the Covent Garden of the North, an illusion to

Londons famous Victorian covered flower market, and indeed

the proportions of the space are not unlike the London landmark.

The restoration was confined to the eastern canopy roof, which

is significantly broader than the western, as it was built to

cover the terminating platforms from Newcastle and further up

the coast. The station has four column grids on roughly

concentric curves, offset evenly from the tracks, and 24 grids

that fan perpendicular to the tracks.

By the time the station was built, engineers and architects had

long since come to appreciate the relative structural value of

cast and wrought iron and the economy of fixings. By the

1880s structural bolting had appeared as normal practice butthe cost of bolt fixings would continue to make it unreasonable

for them to be used at works for connecting parts. At

Tynemouth individual components have therefore been riveted

together into structural assemblies, such as lattice beams andarch trusses, and these were bolted together on site in the final

assembly, with structural bolting at all element interfaces, such

as angle purlin to arch truss, arch to valley lattice and lattice to

cast column.

The valley gutters are non-structural, sitting on the lattice

beam, and these are formed as substantial segmental iron

castings, with one standard unit and several specials for

corners, down-pipes and infills. Rainwater was discharged

from these down the unlined, hollow cast columns on two of

the four longitudinal grids: the one nearest the tracks and the

third one back. It is shot sideways from the base by way of acast spigot into the simple vitrified-clay drainage system.

The canopy is built into a single-storey red-brick station

building to the east, currently occupied by small retail shops, a

restaurant, a cafe and a private health clinic. It is these that the

planned building development will augment, to create a site

with a greater, more sustainable foot-fall and revenue.

4. Survey

In 2009 the client appointed Gifford LLP, now Ramboll, to

undertake an initial survey of defects with recommendations

for repair (seeFigures 3and4). This was used as the basis of a

listed building consent, to inform the cost plan and to provide

a basis for tendering the works. Ramboll was also instructed to

oversee structural works during implementation. Heritage

architect for the work was Lathams of Derby.

A brief initial walkover was sufficient to reveal that parts of the

station canopy were in an appalling state. The platforms

beneath the fenced-off areas of the canopy were strewn with

rivet heads from failed fixings and the bays at the southern end

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

16

24

Figure 2. Aerial view of station canopies

Figure 3. South end of canopy before restoration





Miller

138

7/23/2019 ehah167-136

4/11

were in a particularly parlous condition; many of the diagonal

web flats in the lattice beams had been lost completely to

corrosion. The proximity of the railway and delicate condition

of the fabric meant that health and safety considerations were of

all the more concern. Following discussions with rail operator

Nexus, details of working methods and emergency procedures

were compiled into a report and this was distributed to all active

parties before any surveys were undertaken. A day-long on-site

review of the project was also undertaken prior to work, at

which all staff involved in the project were present, as well as a

director independent from the project team.

It was clear from initial site visits that detailed discussion

would need to be held during the survey with regard to the

extent of replacement of fabric, because of the extent of

corrosion. The conservation philosophy of minimum inter-

vention demands that the conservation engineer understands

what is and is not structurally acceptable: what is a necessary

intervention to restore structural performance and what isover-zealous and destructive to the listed fabric. In order to

establish this, prior to survey an assessment of the required

capacity of critical elements of the fabric was made, in

particular the wrought iron arches and the long-span lattice

trusses. This was done using hand calculation methods. It

provided a basis on which residual section thickness could be

measured for each element. For example, the critical section

thickness of back-to-back angles for end bays of arch trusses

was conservatively taken as a modest 4 mm, compared with

the J in (6.3 mm) original thickness. This meant that

elements with reasonable levels of section loss could be

accepted in certain locations.

The survey was undertaken over a continuous 2-week period

in April 2009. Two members of staff were engaged on site,

lodging locally, with two mobile access platforms and machineoperators at their disposal to provide fingertip access to all

areas. Site visits from the project director and the company

materials specialist helped to calibrate the findings of the work

by comparing the notes being made by each surveyor and

providing independent review.

5. DefectsThe station is located about 800 m from the North Sea and, as

the roof had failed in many places and the ironwork paint

system was almost non-existent in places through failure, it was

inevitable that very high levels of corrosion were found

throughout the structure. This was far more serious at theexposed northern and southern ends, where the ironwork was

unprotected by asbestos-cement sheeting or glazing. The

defects were categorised and listed in the final report using,

as an appendix, a photographic gazetteer. The following

subsections describe the most common types of defect (also

seeFigures 58).

5.1 Lattice trusses

& Heavy corrosion and reduced section of top and bottom

chords to lattice trusses. Corrosion in the bottom chord

with very serious delamination of the wrought plates was

common, because the double angles, facing upwards,

trapped the rain in pockets.

& Heavy corrosion and reduced section or failure of lattice

truss web members. Complete loss of section at the point at

which they met the bottom chord was common at the south

end of the canopy, the iron flat necking to failure.

& Dimensional expansion of lattice truss bottom chords,

sufficient to result in the splitting of plates from angles and

a consequent failure of rivets.

Figure 4. Survey inspection in April 2009

Figure 5. Typical column fracture





Miller

139

7/23/2019 ehah167-136

5/11

& Cracking through the section of the filigree cast-iron

brackets below the ends of the lattice trusses, both in

purely decorative parts and the thicker, structural angles,

circles and swags, generally as a result of expansion of

adjacent corroding components.

5.2 Arch trusses

& Heavy corrosion and reduced angle sections in the arch

trusses, in particular on the top chord.

& Delamination of the drilled cheese plate packer at the

connection to lattice trusses, which was drilled to sit over

the top of the rivet heads.

& Delamination of the various gussets and plates sandwiched

between the chord angles.

5.3 Columns

& Horizontal cracking through the columns immediately

above the level of the square impost (plinth or simple

capital) of the casting, in many cases completely splitting

the top from the bottom (see Figure 5). The extent of thiscracking was not immediately apparent from the early

ground-level walkover inspections, but it quickly became

clear from fingertip work that this defect extended to almost

all columns in the canopy. It was a very serious defect to

overcome in order to complete a structurally acceptable

solution in the restoration.

& Cracking through the root of the seating corbel to the arch

trusses, in which the corbels had been jacked away by

corrosion.

& Cracking at lower levels in the columns, for example a

circumferential crack, or one clearly due to impact, of which

there were only a few cases.

The diagnosis of the cause of the column cracking was almost

certainly the jacking of the very heavy corrosion deposits on

the underside of the arch trusses where they rested on the cast

corbel beside the impost, forcing the upper section away from

the lower through the bolted connections between assemblies.

This may well have been exacerbated towards the ends of

the canopy by longitudinal thermal movement, racking the

columns back and forth over successive seasons.

The cracks in the columns at impost level were widespread,

present in almost every column inspected. They posed a

considerable threat to the fabric, as total replacement wouldresult in huge trauma to the listed structure. They also

threatened the viability of the project itself, as the cost of total

replacement would have been prohibitive, as it was unfunded.

Figure 6. Trial works in progress

Figure 7. Disintegration of the cast-iron brackets

Figure 8. Delamination of the flanges of the lattice trusses





Miller

140

7/23/2019 ehah167-136

6/11

A risk-based approach was adopted for the inspection offixings. There are no conclusive, reliable methods for assessing

the integrity of bolts and rivets in a structure that exhibits such

extreme levels of corrosion. Therefore the function of each set

of fixings, their location and type were all taken into account in

examining the need for replacement.

Corrosion of bolt fixings was clearly very advanced in places.

Where these passed through the columns it was sometimes

possible to see the shank by looking down from above the

guttering; these had in many places wasted away to a fraction

of original thickness, or to nothing. It was therefore planned to

replace all key bolted connections into or through the columnsregardless of whether the elements would be dismantled or not.

The exception was the connection between arch and lattice

trusses, which having a six-bolt connection had a high

degree of redundancy and in general showed relatively little

sign of corrosion.

Rivets had been falling from the underside of the lattice trusses

over a large area of the canopy, and rivet-heads littered the

platform. As ironwork in the end bays of the station had to be

disassembled and reconstructed, these would be replaced in

entirety. Towards the centre, where rivets were found to have

greater integrity, it was necessary to find a philosophy that

respected the original fabric while ensuring structural capacity,

and one in every three was replaced using bolt equivalents.

The survey report and accompanying drawings (see Figures 9

and10) were accompanied by a report outlining the philosophy

of repair. Together, these documents were submitted for listed

building consent, and their approval was part of the deliberate

effort to achieve as great a body of approved works as possible

before starting works on site.

6. Conservation philosophy

6.1 Trial worksModern conservation philosophy in Britain goes back to the

origin of the UKs Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings

in 1877 and is based on an assumption of minimum intervention.

This is widely accepted across the world, as conservation thought

has developed through the Treaties of Athens and Venice and,

later in the twentieth century, the Burra Charter (ICOMOS,

1979). In an overseas setting this can still mean the environmental

threats such as seismic activity and extreme storms can demand

structural intervention to offset the risk to fabric. However, the

UK does not suffer from significant seismic activity and so this

threat does not impose an obligation on the conservation engineer

to intervene to enhance seismic resistance.

The temptation for the engineering professional in handling

corroded ironwork is to adopt high levels of replacement for

what are thought to be practical reasons, for example

substituting a complete angle section when only a relatively

small length is seriously corroded. This was indeed the

approach presumed in a document written just before the

project received funding, where it was said that the system (of

ironwork construction) does not favour selective repair as inmasonry or timber construction (North of England Civic

Trust, 2007); in other words, a more extensive reconstruction

would be necessary. However, at Tynemouth this approach

would have resulted in very significant loss of original fabric.

In many places, such as on the corners of arch trusses touching

the gutters, significant corrosion had occurred, but only to

quite limited lengths of each angle component. The suitability

of conducting local, limited repairs needed to be examined and

proved.

A trial project was undertaken at the same time as the survey

work, funded by English Heritage. This was undertaken on acorner bay on the south end and was intended to address the

philosophy of repair. It used a number of alternative solutions

and techniques, as follows.

Figure 9. Structural actions on columns





Miller

141

7/23/2019 ehah167-136

7/11

& The badly corroded web flats were cut back and repaired by

both fire-welding wrought iron flats and electric fusion-

welding mild steel flats.

& The rivets were replaced by both hot-riveted mild steel

equivalents and dome-headed, hexagonal, slotted bolts.

& Equivalent modern, metric, mild steel angle sections were

used to substitute for original nineteenth century imperial

wrought iron sizes.

& A repair of the cracked column section was trialled, using

an internal sleeve bonded in place with low-viscosity resin.

The works were inspected by the project team and English

Heritage on completion. The trial project was completed at

a cost of around 30 000. It was a very valuable exercise,

enabling techniques to be proposed, trialled and approved in

advance of the project, providing cost indicators, reducing cost

risk and assisting specification. The conclusions of the trial

works were taken forward in a report that proposed the forms

of repair (Jacques and Miller, 2009). This sought to adhere

closely to established UK conservation practice (BSI, 1998,

2014;English Heritage, 2008).

6.2 Philosophy of column repairs

The issue of column fracture was a great concern. Almost all

the columns exhibited this defect. In effect the tops which

connected to the lattice and arch trusses were separate from

the main shafts below. Regrettably, also, the column repair

that had been undertaken during the trial works could not be

used for columns that acted as rainwater down-pipes, as the

internal sleeve would block the flow of water. So even at the

end of the survey and trial works there was still no universal

solution for repair of the fractured columns.

Both the structural behaviour and the conservation philosophy

for repair of these elements were examined in detail.Engineering practice might have been to dictate total replace-

ment of all such highly fractured column components, where

the defect runs right through the stressed section. However,

there was a strong argument not to replace the columns: the

loss of original fabric would be considerable and dismantling

of the whole structure would cause considerable trauma to the

frame and risk of geometric misfit on reassembly.

The key to solving this conflict was a careful consideration of

the structural actions and load paths. The various actions on

the roof structure were examined and are shown diagrammi-

cally inFigure 9. The possibility of separation of the columnand the way in which tying action and integrity might be

maintained were considered. The problem was resolved by

careful consideration of the tying, ensuring also that the parts

Gridline A Gridline B

1in 3 rivets replaced in top chord

Gridline B-1

Gridline B-2

Gridline B-3

West elevation

West elevation

West elevation

West elevation

West elevation1211

10

10 10

10

1112

13 13

West elevation

Gridline 3 south elevation

Live railway

To be reconstructedA B C D

7 7

5

5

4

7

4

7 7

55

4

55

4

7 7

B-1 B-2 B-3

3 4

1500

1500

1211

10

10 10

10

1112

13 13

3 4

1500

1500

1211

10

10 10

10

1112

13 13

1500

12

10

10 10

12

13 13

3 4

150

0

12

10

10 10

12

13 13

3 4

12

10 10

12

13 13

3 4

Figure 10. Truss elevation showing extent of repairs





Miller

142

7/23/2019 ehah167-136

8/11

could be positively located; this placed a greater emphasis onthe integrity of the cast-iron filigree brackets, which provided a

load path for tying action, bolted to both the ironwork above

and the column shaft below.

The issues relating to the columns were considered such an

important matter that a separate report was issued to English

Heritage, outlining the concerns and solution.

6.3 Ironwork materials

The conservation philosophy discussed material choice.

Wrought iron is no longer manufactured in structural

quantities anywhere in the world, and the use of recycled

material would have been inappropriate for the project. The

precedent for mild steel replacement was examined and this

was specified for repairs, either in full replacement or, as in

many areas, where wrought iron was cut out locally and new

material fusion-welded in place.

It was clear that the cast-iron filigree brackets supporting the

lattice trusses had fractured in various tensile failures. This was

particularly important when considering their role in main-

taining continuity around the column fractures. A higher

tensile capacity was required in new elements and spheroidal

graphite iron (SGI) was chosen as a substitute for grey castiron.

After many years of abortive schemes, the project itself was

finally kick-started by the risks posed by bolt failure, which

would have caused catastrophic failure of ironwork over-

hanging the railway. The bolt specification was critical. There

was little debate over the proposed use of stainless steel

replacement bolts. Hard nylon electrical isolation inserts were

used to prevent bi-metallic corrosion. This meant that bolt

sizes were 2 mm smaller than original, to fit inside the inserts,

which was compensated for by use of a higher bolt grade. Rivet

replacements were dome-headed bolts, not hot-riveted mildsteel studs.

7. Specification

The standard materials and workmanship specification used

on building works in the UK is in the National Building

Specification (NBS). In the case of the ironwork restoration,

virtually no part of the NBS was relevant and a new

specification section was written for the ironworks.

Elevation drawings for the repairs on each grid line were

produced from the survey, on which competitive tenders were

based. The value of a good written specification is that it can beused to control both work that appears on the drawings and

other unforeseen repairs, and this is particularly important on

an historic restoration.

Key features of the works specification are

& the requirement for a photographic record prior to works

& a clause defining the experience of the ironwork subcon-

tractors on historic fabric

& a clause requiring the names and brief experience of all

operatives working on the project to be submitted

& details of how the careful dismantling of the canopy should

be undertaken

& requirements for a full dimensional survey of the structure

prior to dismantling

& a diagram defining which areas may be dismantled and

which may not, which had been previously agreed withEnglish Heritage through listed building consent

& requirements for marking and recording dismantled com-

ponents

& precise details of bolt substitutions and grades

& precise details of mild steel section sizes for substitution of

imperial with metric sizes, which, again, had previously

been agreed through listed building consent

& a clause defining which direction rivet substitutes should

face.

The areas that could or should be dismantled were carefully

defined, as the greater the area of canopy taken down, the

greater would be the trauma on the fabric and potential loss of

the original. A diagram binding the contractor to certain limits

and areas was included in documentation. The bills of

quantities required the contractor to establish rates for most

types of repair, including the re-casting of iron elements,

showing the mould and unit prices separately. In addition to

other contractual matters, there were clauses describing the

risk of working close to the live overhead lines of the railway

and the interface with rail authorities.

The corrosion protection comprised a zinc-rich epoxy primer

designed for use after wet blasting, zinc-rich epoxy undercoats

and an acrylic urethane top coat.

8. Site works

The project was advertised through the OJEU (Official Journal

of the European Union) process. Works started in March 2011

and were completed in April 2012 (see Figures 1114). The

final contract valuation was 3.9 million. Main contractor for

the works was Mansell Construction Services Limited from

Gateshead and their chosen ironwork repair subcontractor was

Eura Conservation Limited from Telford.

The dismantling proceeded well. Components were marked

with two tags, so that if one marker was lost, another wouldremain attached. The contractor opted to dismantle to the full

extent of permitted areas, and two additional grids were also

agreed in conjunction with English Heritage.





Miller

143

7/23/2019 ehah167-136

9/11

The cast-iron filigree brackets had been carefully inspected

twice to specify the number of replacements. However, as

disassembly proceeded, many others simply fell to pieces as

either the rapid change of stress caused fracture or the release

of load revealed pre-existing defects. This led to a higher level

of replacement, with 49 new brackets out of a total of 86 within

the works area.

The cleaning of paint from ironwork was achieved using a ultra-

high-pressure system, with water jetted at about 32 000 psi

(220.6 N/mm2

) through a spinning head. No blast mediumwas used. Water usage was relatively low, about 1015 l/min

depending on the nozzle size.

The contractor reported that one column visibly moved on

removal of the interconnecting ironwork as the foundation

settled sideways, and this led to a concern that the latticework

would no longer fit onto the columns on re-erection.

Thankfully this proved unfounded and reassembly proceeded

remarkably smoothly.

It had not been possible to inspect the cast-iron gutters in detail

during the survey phase. These were deep channels laid flatbetween the down-pipe columns, and a fall for rainwater

appeared to have been created by compacting burnt coal ash in

the bottom of the units. This sulfurous material had both

Figure 11. Reconstruction of lattice truss in works

Figure 12. Fettling of new SGI filigree brackets

Figure 13. Corrosion of the gutter resulting from sulfurous

deposits





Miller

144

7/23/2019 ehah167-136

10/11

caused and masked the extent of corrosion in the base

(Figure 13), and a significant number of sections had to be

either re-cast or repairs made when they were dismantled and

inspected in the workshop.

9. Conclusions

This was a successful project, delivered on time, to budget, with

good working arrangements between parties and above all

with appropriate levels of historic intervention.

Key to the success of the project were the following factors.

& The processes gave time for the effect of each causal activity

to be examined: for example, the detailed survey allowed a

suite of repairs to be proposed and critiqued, rather than

trying to work details out on site without prior approval.

& The trial works allowed experimentation in types of repairin advance of the works, agreement between parties and

better establishing of costs for the works.

& The survey was undertaken in sufficient detail to allow

every ironwork repair to be scheduled, even if some changes

were made during the site works.

& A clear conservation philosophy was put forward at the time

of the application under UK heritage protection legislation.

& A thorough engineering review was undertaken on site,

involving staff with the highest levels of historic and

materials experience, at an early stage in the project.

& A pro-active contractor was chosen for the project, and the

client and contractor were willing to talk openly about costconcerns and programme issues.

& The contractor chose an ironwork subcontractor with good

experience in historic repair; this was due in part to the

wording of the specification and emphasis on quality at

tender interview.

The result is a significant ironwork restoration project where

the repairs are distinct to the trained eye, while the canopy

retains a unity as a whole (Figure 15). Defects are still visible,

for example, some brackets remain cracked and many

wrought iron sections are thinned by corrosion. However,the overall level of intervention is commensurate with the

structural performance of the fabric: a balance has been

achieved.

Throughout the site phase, the team was mindful of the

preceding many decades of project failure, through lack of

community agreement and lack of funding. There was a very

strong will to conclude the work successfully. The result is an

ironwork restoration that follows contemporary conservation

philosophy and in which everyone involved has taken

considerable pride.

REFERENCES

BSI (1998) BS 7913:1998: Guide to the principles of the

conservation of historic buildings. BSI, London, UK.

BSI (2014) BS 7913:2013: Guide to the conservation of historic

buildings. BSI, London, UK.

English Heritage (2008) Conservation Principles, Policies and

Guidance. English Heritage, London, UK.

ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites) (1979)

The Burra Charter, 1979 edition and subsequent revisions.

ICOMOS, Burwood, Victoria, Australia.

Jacques S and Miller JD (2009) Tynemouth Station Newcastle,

Conservation Philosophy for Structural Repairs. Gifford,now Ramboll UK Ltd, London, UK.

Leyton A(undated)The Opening of the First Newcastle to North

Shields Railway. Archive of the Friends of Tynemouth

Figure 14. Reassembly in progress in September 2011

Figure 15. South end of the restored canopy





Miller

145

7/23/2019 ehah167-136

11/11

Station, by kind permission of Ylana First (unpublishedarticle).

North East Civic Trust (2001) Tynemouth Station Conservation

Strategy. North East Civic Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne,

UK.

North of England Civic Trust (2007) Tynemouth Station OptionsAppraisal, Final Report. North of England Civic Trust,

Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Wells JA (1989) The Blyth and Tyne Branch Volume II 1874

1989. Northumberland County Library, UK.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the

editor at [email protected]. Your contribution will be

forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered

appropriate by the editorial panel, will be published as

discussion in a future issue of the journal.

Proceedingsjournals rely entirely on contributions sent in

by civil engineering professionals, academics and stu-

dents. Papers should be 20005000 words long (briefing

papers should be 10002000 words long), with adequateillustrations and references. You can submit your paper

online via www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/journals,

where you will also find detailed author guidelines.





Miller

146

ehah167-136

Documents

Transcript of ehah167-136