REDWatch
appreciated the presentation by Peter Tonkin and Roy Wakelin-King to our April
monthly meeting. Peter Tonkin’s Draft Interpretation Plan & Implementation
Strategy was well received and there was recognition that the Plan and Strategy
had dealt well with a large and difficult site.
REDWatch
would also like to acknowledge the hard work of Juliet Suich in servicing the
Redfern Waterloo Heritage Taskforce and Eveleigh Steering Committee and in
helping bring together the RWA and many of the people with heritage concerns.
Submissions
have been made by some key REDWatch members who have a special interest in
heritage such as Guido Gouverneur and Bruce Lay and these submissions are
supported. It is not my intention to duplicate these submissions although some
issues raised in their submissions may be touched upon also in the course of
this submission.
Overall Site
Co-ordination
While the
Draft Interpretation Plan deals with that which can be done to better interpret
heritage across the entire site it does so primarily by way of what can be
achieved by way of developer contributions and by the various site operators as
part of their maintenance and other obligations. A Plan across the whole site
is a welcome advance in providing an underlying interpretation of the site, but
in my view it is only an initial step.
The
Plan does not address what mechanisms need to exist to ensure the Plan is
delivered and that there is ongoing management and development of the heritage
and tourism potential across the broad ERW site. My main concern is that unless
the Implementation Strategy addresses this central issue it is likely to fail
or at least not deliver the potential that could be achieved if there is an
implementing and co-ordinating body.
Some
discussion has been had at the RWHT and ESC about how to continue the existing
Task Force process and consideration of specific co-ordinating mechanisms used
in other places that may be directly applicable to the implementation of the
Plan and its ongoing work needs to take place.
There
are in my view a number of issues that need to be considered:
There needs to be ongoing oversight of the ERW
The
discussion about the future of the RWHT and ESC will hopefully deliver a
mechanism. There needs to be a group with a specific ERW focus but which has
some of the membership of the existing RWHT.
The RWA
resourced and facilitated the RWHT and ESC mechanisms. With the winding up of
the RWA there will no longer be an appropriate government body which has
responsibility across the entire ERW site. One option would be for the new
Heritage Office to take over the facilitation role from the RWA. Council could also
possibly take on this role. In the absence of either of these two options
another mechanism will need to be developed to service a co-ordinating
Taskforce and the ongoing administration of the ERW wide heritage functions.
The focus
of the current RWHT is broader than ERW and it also only involves two of the
site’s three current owner / managers. A future oversight body needs to include
all landowner / managers within the ERW – currently ATP, Railcorp and
CarriageWorks. Any mechanism needs to involve all parties responsible for
decisions about parts of the site. I am of the view that heritage operators on
the ERW site should also be represented on a future committee even though they
are not currently involved in the current wider RWHT. Representation from
relevant state bodies is also important.
There is an ERW wide delivery and development role
Some of
the elements indicated in the Strategy require a whole of site mechanism. In
particular:
- 5.4.14 Audio Guides
- 4.4.16 Flyer & Guidebook
- 5.4.17 Archive & Research Centre
Other
areas that would need to be site wide that are not mentioned include:
- Servicing Heritage Information Point(s) to ensure audio
guides are maintained and flyers are available - Running and administering an ERW Website, probably in
conjunction with the Archive & Research Centre - Co-ordinating ERW Heritage Festivals / activities that cover
the entire site - Providing interpretation advice
- Helping develop / encourage new heritage and tourism
initiatives at the ERW
This
whole of site mechanism is the missing element from the Plan as it currently
stands. As noted above the Plan makes reference to a number of site wide
aspects, but not to how they might be organised or delivered. This is probably
because they have resource and co-ordination issues which are not yet resolved.
The
original letter from Heritage Groups and REDWatch to Minister Keneally set out
a number of areas where “Organisations … would be prepared to work with an
inter-departmental committee to develop the heritage and heritage tourism
potential of the Eveleigh site.
The committee could deal with / advise
on a range of heritage issues including:
- the
development of a comprehensive Eveleigh Heritage Interpretation Strategy - the
development of a Heritage Tourism Strategy for Eveleigh - the
establishment and monitoring of conservation management plans where required - the
encouragement of active heritage uses where possible including heritage trade
training for volunteers and the creation of new heritage employment
opportunities. - the
establishment of business plans to enable heritage activities to operate in the
long term with minimum requirement for government funding. - Mechanisms
for the preservation of the labour and social history of those who have worked
on the site including the maintenance of a workers register and the creation of
a workers wall”.
The
Eveleigh Heritage Interpretation Strategy, the first item on the list in the
letter to the Minister, has now been delivered. The remainder of the list remains
outstanding.
There needs to be a way to pay for the ERW
If
there is to be a heritage function across the entire site then it has to be
paid for somehow. This could come from site managers being levied to cover the
cost of the ERW wide co-ordination, it could come from government support
through the Heritage Office or it could come from the co-ordination mechanism
having an income stream from merchandise, technical advice and/or the tourism
activity generated.
The
call to set up what became the RWHT also saw a need for the development of a
Heritage Tourism Strategy for Eveleigh and for the establishment of business
plans to enable heritage activities to operate in the long term with minimum
requirement for government funding. This
approach should be explored for the ERW coordinating mechanism.
This
aspect of the request to the Minister did not flow through into the RWHT Terms
of Reference but I remain of the view that the development of product to
attract people to the site to deliver a heritage experience is an important development
role for the new site-wide mechanism. This does not mean the co-ordinating body
should itself run tours or provide product, but rather that it has a role in
encouraging the development of heritage tourism on the site and needs to receive
some return from such activity to cover some of its costs in the long term.
Website & Virtual
Access
One
area missing from the Interpretation Strategy is the important role that the
internet can play in both the dissemination of information about the site and
also the internet as a mechanism for collecting ERW stories and information. An ERW online presence needs to part of an
ongoing cross site mechanism and should not be left solely to individual site
managers.
Accessing Information about ERW – The
following items could be included:
- Audio and video downloads – Some guides could be available
for download as mp3 files for use around the site on mobile phones, so avoiding
the costs of delivery equipment. - Flyers, Guidebooks, Information Sheets and merchandise –
Guides to the sites could be available on line which would make material
available to the public prior to visiting the site and for teachers’ pre-visit
planning. It would allow some of the story to be pre-told or refreshed around a
visit to the site and reduce the number of flyers required at Heritage
Information Points. An online store could also provide income. - Virtual tour of the site – Material displayed on site could
also be available virtually to enable remote access to video and audio about
the site. - Information about workers, the site and how to access
records – There will be a lot of interest from family historians about workers
and the kind of work their forebears undertook. Access to such records is best
supplied on the web. - Electronic versions of historical documents about the site –
Many important documents predate electronic records. Scans of documents, and
where possible with OCR overlays, can make this information much more readily
available than just having a copy in a research library. It will also cur down
on overheads. REDWatch has made some documents available in this way and has
received appreciative comments from interested parties.
Collecting ERW Information –
Opportunities for the public to provide information which would otherwise be unavailable
to the public could include:
- Worker and Family stories
and reminiscences about Eveleigh – Information is often collected in
family histories. - Scans of Documents held by
individuals or other institutions – Documents relevant to Eveleigh that
sit in private collections, family histories and institutions which are
not readily accessible could be submitted electronically. - Information about location
of items made or used at Eveleigh – With the dispersal of items from North Eveleigh it is likely that
some people know where some of the equipment or memorabilia is now
located. There was also a long tradition of ‘foreign orders’. The
locations of some of these items would also be useful for tracking and
possible exhibition and interpretative work.
- Other connections to Eveleigh – There are connections to
Eveleigh from all over the state. The website could help to register some of
these connections as people find them, e.g. I am told by Guido that on a recent
visit he located a place that said it supplied fuel to the ERW Gasworks.
REDWatch
encourages the RWA to continue to negotiate with Lucy Taksa to open up
community access to the information and memorabilia she has obtained through
earlier projects working on the site and her academic work. This includes the
database of workers and the virtual fly through of the ERW.
Targeting Schools on the web and for site visits
The
employment of an education consultant may be a worthwhile investment to advise
how visits to the site and material on the web could be used to teach aspects
of the NSW curriculum as it would likely generate repeat visits. They could
also develop site and subject specific material tailored to different age
groups, subjects and topics that could be available on the website and for site
visits.
The
proximity of the NCIE, which is promoting use of its residential facilities to
school groups, has possibilities for school visits from areas other than just
the metropolitan area.
The use
of a website also gives access to the material in remote schools that are
unable to visit the site.
ERW Wide Heritage
Events
The
proposal for an annual Heritage event at ATP in conjunction with a Railway Film
Festival is welcomed. This event should not just be an ATP event it should be an
ERW event, perhaps part of a Heritage week at the ERW. CarriageWorks should be
consulted about how it can also be involved. Is there a possibility for a
railway themed production / Open Day or similar that they can offer to their
patrons that might introduce them to a wider experience of the ERW site?
If
displays are to be set up for a day or weekend it may make sense that these be
set up in the week before and targeted also at ATP workers and the pedestrian
traffic through the site. Similarly during this time the exhibitions could be
used to encourage school visits with invitations provided not only locally, but
also to appropriate professional teaching bodies – such as Design and
Technology, history and geography.
For
such a heritage event it would be beneficial to also have tours of the Large,
Paintshop and Heritage Equipment in the Railcorp operating area as well as
blacksmithing demonstrations. Tours of these sites have previously run in
conjunction with North Eveleigh and South Eveleigh events and been very well
received.
It
would be also useful if a way could be found for Redfern Station to be linked
into such a heritage festival or Heritage week so commuters get a taste of what
is on offer. Maybe some of the Train to Treasure boards could be used at the
station.
Key
heritage calendar dates should also be explored as possibilities for heritage
activities. In particular Heritage Week in April and History Week in September
provide opportunities for events at Eveleigh to be promoted widely to people
with an interest in heritage places and activities. This approach would be
consistent with the Heritage Demonstrations and Events referred to in the
report. As mentioned earlier however an ongoing co-ordinating mechanism is
required to implement such events.
Need to Incorporate Bay
10 and Other Machinery
The ERW
Interpretation Strategy makes no reference to the collection in Bay 10 and this
collection is not on the proposed heritage site route. The ATP needs to give
thought to how this machinery collection can be included in the Heritage Trail
and how machinery situated around other bays can best be incorporated into the
Heritage Trail.
While I
appreciate that the equipment in these areas are already signed, many of these
items are of great importance and can tell stories about the site and its
processes that should be incorporated into the Heritage Trail. Some people may
visit just to see some of this equipment.
Key
machinery that can no longer be stored in Bays 1 & 2 North and some of that
stored in shipping containers could be added to the collection in Bay 10 unless
an alternative interpretive use can be found.
Where
possible, I would like to see some of the machinery that historically may have
been used in the general vicinity of a new building, exhibited in the foyer of the
new building. With the removal of the original buildings the placement within
the foyer of a new building of equipment, that needs to be retained, can help link
the new building to the site’s original function and remind people of the work
that used to be under taken on the part of the site they now occupy.
As an
example in close proximity to the Fan of Tracks I would like to see a carriage
displayed that was actually made at Eveleigh. The North Eveleigh Interpretation
states that carriages manufactured at Eveleigh are not suitable for outdoor
exhibition but an appropriate interpretation would be to include a carriage on
a line within a building, maybe as part of the interpretation of the fan of
tracks.
Heritage in Current
RailCorp Operating Area
Apart
from the ERW Access Tunnel and the Gasometer, other important heritage items on
RailCorp controlled sites have not been identified. As the Interpretation Plan
is to cover the next 20 years these items should be identified. This serves two
purposes. Firstly it potentially makes possible guided tours to some of these
important sites during heritage / open days. Secondly it identifies key
heritage assets which should be preserved should the South Eveleigh area cease
to be required for operational rail uses. Of particular note here is the
Turntable and the Air Compressor House but there are likely to be other items
of heritage value also within this area also.
The
Large has been under the stewardship of 3801 Ltd and has operated under
separate management to the Railcorp operational area. If this situation continues
then working with whoever has responsibility for admission into the LES will be
necessary to gain access to this important site.
Development
of a common safety protocol to allow access for tours to the LES and the
Railcorp area would assist open days and avoid the delays experienced on
previous tours.
One
area covered in the RWHT Terms of Reference that has not received attention is
heritage skills training. This hopefully will be possible when the future
management structure, occupancy and function of the LES is clarified.
Being
able to view into the LES is welcomed as making this area more publically
accessible. However in the long term having the LES engaged in active heritage
work, training in heritage skills and blending this with that the opportunity
for public access will give the best long term heritage results.
Using
3801 Ltd to run a shuttle between Central and Eveleigh would be a good adjunct
to an Eveleigh heritage event.
Redfern Station as a
separate Interpretive Zone
Redfern
Station and its key heritage items should be included as a separate zone in the
Plan and it should also have a signage cluster. There is more at Redfern
station of heritage interest than the ticket office recognised under BEP1
heritage map. The state’s oldest public convenience is one item that was
mentioned by the Minister when the RWA was established.
The
Station is important, not only because it is part of the ERW precinct, but also
because it could provide a bit of a sampler within the station of what lies
beyond in the broader ERW. It could help travellers pass the time and better
understand the station, its history and its environs.
The
station should be an important the starting point for the Heritage Trail. It
would be a good location for some artefact displays, heritage information
posters and building showcases. These could happen within the station possibly on
platform 1 and possibly on the inside walls of the ticket office near Lawson
Street.
Maybe
the state’s oldest public convenience could be seen through a Perspex
door. The role of station gardens,
information about the dives and the Eveleigh workers who passed through the
station could be highlighted; even a reference to how vibrations from the large
hammer in the Bay 1 could be felt on Redfern Station.
There
would need to be some work done with RailCorp to obtain approval for such
interpretive signage and exhibition boxes, but given the importance of the
station as the gateway to the site, both in the past and the present such
interpretation could help link the rail travelling public to the EWT and
encourage people to visit the surrounding area. The successful display of
heritage material at Museum and Central stations indicates that such an
initiative should be achievable.
The
station could be another good place for a map that shows an overlay of the
former rail yards and what currently exists.
Signage and Site access
points
While I
appreciate the concept of Interpretive Zones outlined in the report it seems to
me that they may be better defined in terms of the reports signage clusters.
The main change in this regard would be that the Large is incorporated into the
Locomotive Interpretive Zone rather than into a current use zone of Railway Corridor
Zone. As mentioned above Redfern Railway Station should be a discrete zone /
signage cluster.
One of
my concerns about the signage clusters is that they are not all at key entry
points to the site. It seems to me that there is also a need for signage at each
entrance which at least point to the heritage zones and signage clusters.
In the
absence of a walkway across the railway lines, the top of Cornwallis St (near
entrance to the station via Platform 10 and the entrance to the ATP), is
currently the best place to view the majority of the site. The bridge when it
is constructed will provide another vantage point for the whole site but I
doubt it will be suitable for a signage cluster.
A
signage cluster and information booth could be located at this entrance into
the ATP. This entrance to the ATP portion of the site is used not only by workers
and residents, but also by visitors to Media City. An overview would be much better placed here
where it is possible to see the majority of ERW on both sides of the line. Signage
at this entrance to the site needs to bring people to the Heritage Trail and
provide an overview / interpretation of what they see around them from this
vantage point.
The
only better vantage point for the entire site is likely to be from the top of
one of the new buildings on North Eveleigh and a viewing platform for this
purpose should be considered in future planning on this site.
There
should be some information available at other entrances such as at the
Henderson Road pedestrian entrance and possibly at the car park and not just at
Signage Clusters 1 & 2. These signs may be different from the signage
clusters but something is needed to alert people that they are entering a
heritage site and whet people’s appetite. As there is no heritage remaining on
the Henderson Road end there should be signage which explains to people what
used to exist there. What was the
building shown on the map along Henderson Road?
Consideration
could also be given to imbedded signs along the pathways that mark / remember
the Olivers, Tinsmiths and Pattern Shops which the path in part now passes over.
Some signage needs to direct interested people from the main access path
towards the LES end of the site and alert them that more information is
available at a signage cluster located near buildings at that end of the site. Consideration
should be given to at least part of Signage Cluster 1 being replicated near the
main walking path.
Heritage Concerns on North Eveleigh
The ERW
Strategy notes that there is conservation work that needs to be undertaken at
the Scientific Services Building and the Communications Equipment Workshop.
This work should be undertaken as soon as possible and not left until after the
site is sold.
I note
that the Transport NSW submission on BEP2 notes that the North Eveleigh site would
be needed until 2017 if the City Relief line was to proceed. This raises the
prospect that conservation work needed on heritage buildings at North Eveleigh
may be still a long way off if this is left to be handled by a new site owner.
Given this Government needs to look carefully at how the necessary heritage
work can be carried out before the sale of this site rather than left to be all
handled post sale.
Both
the Scientific Services Building and the Communications Equipment Workshop are
intended for community use under the Concept Plan so for these buildings the
issue seems one of cash flow and timing rather than what is going to happen to
the site.
The Interpretation
Plan proposes a room in the Scientific Services Building be left in situ. If this
is to happen it seems like this building could also be a suitable base for a potential
ERW Place Manager and the Archive and Research Centre. The balance area could
potentially also be made available for community uses in the near future rather
than left until the entire site is sold to be made available for community use.
A
different issue arises in relation to the Chief Mechanical Engineers Building.
Here there is concern about the extent of deterioration that will take place if
conservation work is not carried out for a further 6 – 10 years. There needs to
be an assessment of the impact of this delay on the CME building.
Before
the RWA winds up these heritage sites need to be reviewed to see if support for
work on these sites can be achieved independent of their being linked to the
sale of the wider site. If it is decided that such a move is desirable then the
RWA will need to propose a mechanism to government to undertake this work.
Given
the prominent position of the Chief Mechanical Engineers Building on Wilson
Street this building should be provided with interpretive signage as a matter
of priority. Other buildings around CarriageWorks and Eveleigh Markets should
also receive interpretive signage as early as possible rather than await sale
so these areas can be interpreted for current visitors.
Conclusion
The ERW
Draft Interpretation Plan & Implementation Strategy is generally welcomed
and supported by REDWatch. Much remains to be done to both deliver the Plan’s
implementation and to realise the tourism and educational potential that the
Eveleigh site can contribute.
The
Plan indicates some of the depth of the potential on the site. The challenge
for the site managers and the heritage community is to find ways of unlocking
the site’s stories and making them available, not only in the interpretation
outlined, but in the active heritage uses and the visitor experiences that
makes the site and its history come alive for a new generation of people.
REDWatch
looks forward to continuing to working with Government, Heritage and other
stakeholders to develop the site’s heritage and tourism potential.
Geoffrey Turnbull
REDWatch
Spokesperson
Member
Redfern Waterloo Heritage Taskforce
15
April 2011