Fire Engines Photos

Comment removed at request of Commentor

John, it is indeed a sad day. Value that land in that location and there is he true reason. There is a desire to make money from anything now, that is what motivates authorities. Years of throwing money at "projects" replace the realities, until too late, of needing a well balanced fire service in the right location. Another Minster fire would show that.
Andy is right of course also, the fire service is also partly to blame. Money wasted on fads and gadgets instead of long term investment in quality. The machine that would last thirty years replaced with lorries festooned in Christmas lights that give little true value long term.
People laugh at our generations comments, I now do not care. Time will prove us right.
So, goodbye history, correct location and a proper station. Hello developers and short term profit.

Added by John Stott on 11 October 2014.

Andy, I couldn't agree more with your thoughts. Privatisation is round the corner!!

Added by Matt Ireland on 11 October 2014.

I don't understand where all the anger is coming from. It would appear that somebody doesn't know that a brand-new state-of -the-art replacement station has opened up in Kent Street, a couple of hundred yards away from this old relic. This can only be positive news on all fronts. By all means, slag off the authorities for closing stations to save money, but surely we should be praising them when they replace dilapidated old stations like this.

Added by Yelp Bullhorn on 12 October 2014.

I also believe that this station was not purpose-built; before operating as a fire station it was a church hall, and something else before that (somebody correct me if I'm wrong). And just look at it! It looks shabby and ugly. This is not an old classic like Birmingham Central, a building that should be preserved for prosperity. This is an eyesore, an eyesore that does not, and never has, served the dedicated firefighters and good people of York like a purpose-built example will.

Sorry, but if you ask me, this dilapidated Clifford Street converted shed wants bulldozering.

Added by Yelp Bullhorn on 16 October 2014.

Originally this was Peckitt Street chapel.....the wall where the appliance bay doors are originally had a single storey side extension running the full length of the building...mirrored I believe on the opposite side...As the previous fire station was in Lower Friargate( the street to the right of this building) and the building to the right of this was the police station /courthouse and York was originally a Police/Fire Brigade I would guess the decision was taken to keep everything together in one block ?
It had a certain character and was not uncomfortable I'm led to believe ?

Added by Rick Loudon on 16 October 2014.

Yelp you know nothing the new station is no good and is as pointless as your comments here before you moan about the old place do your research otherwise don't comment on what you know NOTHING about because you know NOTHING


Added by John Johnstone on 17 October 2014.

Oh right, John. So you believe that lives will be lost because North Yorkshire have built a new station, do you? I think you need to analyse your ridiculous thoughts before you go insulting somebody whose comments are not only as valid as yours, but also make sense than yours. You shouldn't let your love of an old shed cloud your thoughts or trample over other people's right to speak.

Added by Yelp Bullhorn on 17 October 2014.

Everyone is entitled to a sound off, no problem whatsoever but in my humble opinion, misinformed political sound offs are unnecessary. Once again this excellent website and the subject matter of some of the great postings are falling victim to barrack room politics. As always it's only my opinion but personally I prefer to be able to come on here to read about these fantastic vehicles, equipment and buildings and not what 'Annoyed from Pilsbury' thinks about the Government of the day. Just saying - rant complete...

Added by Glenn Ramsden on 18 October 2014.

John,

I am guessing you know more than the rest of us can you explain why the new station is useless? It's an open forum and everyone has their opinion and I'd like to hear why you are so negative towards the new station and how far it really is from this one.

Added by Andy on 18 October 2014.

So by building a new station removing one of the pumps and alp and relocating them and only leaving the centre of York with one pump is a good idea s it? I doubt you'd be happy if they did that where you live.

Added by John Johnstone on 21 October 2014.

Ahhhhh now we're getting somewhere . . . The removal of a pump and the ALP, I agree, John, is definitely a bad move. But you never mentioned that, John, did you? All you did was go on about this old station closing and how it will cost lives. Sorry, but it totally baffled me. And so when I pointed out that North Yorks had built a new station a mere two hundred yards away, you went off on one and were rather rude to me. I found your comments rather surprising and somewhat hurtful. I'm not psychic - I had no idea about North Yorkshire's appliance cuts. (But I'm not surprised though; unfortunately it's the way all fire brigade's are going, such is the depth of this hideous recession that we all find ourselves in.)

I did not intend to offend you John, but PLEASE in the future can you put ALL the relevant facts in? Then that way we can avoid any unpleasantness.

All the best.

Added by Yelp Bullhorn on 21 October 2014.

Guys, please!! As I commented let's try to keep this fantastic website to it's subject matter which is sharing information about our great interest.

No one CFO (or whatever they're called now) can avoid cuts, that's a given so instead of flexing our sometimes weakly informed muscles lets share some positive stuff.

I'll say it, Mr Bullhorn...please just be bullhorn by name and not nature. There's no need to offend and antagonise.

Added by Glenn Ramsden on 23 October 2014.

Mr Ramsden, I couldn't agree more. You hit the nail on the head precisely. Sharing information on a particular subject matter is the cornerstone of this excellent website. Without such information it would become just a meaningless gallery of random photos and odd comments.

But when that information is incorrect or, dare I say it, unjustly provocative, then obviously trains of thought are inclined to go off in as many directions as the human mind will allow. But may I remind you that I am not the antagonist. Nor were my comments offensive, nor indeed, meant to be offensive. My previous post was merely A) an attempt to define the real issue here: the posting of inaccurate and unacceptably emotive 'information'; and B) an explanation as to why I became so confused by Mr Johnstone's inflammatory claims and subsequent rude replies. I also made a plea to him (and to everyone else for that matter) to please get all the salient facts right before commenting on a particular photo, so that in the future we can avoid exchanges becoming unpleasant - just as this exchange has unfortunately become. I also offered apologetic words even though I believe the onus was not on me to do so . . .

Offensive and antagonistic? Sorry, but I do not accept that claim, Mr Ramsden. It could be argued that your intervention was offensive and somewhat antagonistic. It was definitely unwarranted. After all, you didn't have to say anything. But you did . . . You pleaded for us to keep within the subject matter. And yet curiously neither of your posts contain any relevance to the subject matter, i.e., the Clifford Street fire station! But somehow you think that it is acceptable for you to go off-subject and to 'join in'. Not only could it be argued that your two-penneth-worth is offensive and antagonistic, but might it be somewhat hypocritical too?

I would be very interested to hear if anybody else agrees with me. Or have I got it completely wrong? Because at the moment it seems that I am being unfairly singled out as the villain here. Or perhaps it's acceptable to post wildly inaccurate and provocative claims, and then to be rude to anyone that challenges the accuracy or ethicacy of such posts and the nature of subsequent responses? Or anybody else's responses for that matter.




#NOTE TO THE EDITORS: Please publish the above response, as I feel I have a right to reply. And I believe that if my views are not published then the unchallenged comments of certain people above set an uncomfortable precedent, (ie., the condoning of trolls and trolling.)

I feel I have been unfairly treated. And I also promise that this is my final comment on this particular subject!

Added by Yelp Bullhorn on 24 October 2014.

In all the years I have known Mr Johnson I have found him to be unfailingly objective and polite. He is passionate about something he cares about. As are many of us that have posted here for a long time.
The subject is really about cutting Yorks fire cover under the guise of it being a progressive move. When in fact it is really about cutting cover and a possible lucrative development sight. I have read all of this, and yes Mr Bullhorn you were provocative toward Mr Johnson. He possesses the one thing many of us do not on this subject, local knowledge.
York is Englands most beautiful and historic city, The Minster was nearly lost once, saved because of good fire cover. Now? Well God forbid there is a serious fire anywhere, particularly The Shambles or suchlike.
Local knowledge, thats the red rag to the bull. So, afore you wave it, think.

Added by John Stott on 30 October 2014.

I would think the the real issue here is the history of the fire station and what has replaced it and is nothing at all to do with cuts which was brought into the conversation as a curveball. However now I find myself getting involved in 'off subject' ramblings which isn't good for the site. At no time did I intend to be rude, it is a public website which invites comment, I did find some of the previous comments or perhaps the way they were presented, hard to deal with and for me it made uncomfortable reading. As we used to say in Humberside, "Message ends, XT to standby.."

Added by Glenn Ramsden on 31 October 2014.

Please add your comments about this picture using the form below.

Comments

Your Name

Your email address - this will be shown on the page and will allow the system to notify you of further comments added to this picture.