Preservation vs. Modernisation

Tomnick · Post by **Tomnick** » Sat Nov 29, 2003 8:25 pm

Just been reading the lastest (Nov) issue of 'Steam Railway' (OK, it's not that up-to-date now!) and I saw the article down at the bottom of P.22 about Appleby / Elsham signalboxes. This dispute has been quite well reported in our local newspaper, and for once I disagree with the 'conservationalists'

The signalling has already been upgraded to colour-light signalling (though I believe the Appleby - Elsham and Elsham - Wrawby sections are still Absolute Block), and lifting barriers installed, all controlled from Portacabins next to the original 'box. This will continue, it seems, until NR can get permission to move the lever frame, crossing wheel etc. out of both boxes, and move the new panels in.

If the council insists that the 'boxes are left in their original condition, will they not be left to rot, like the listed mechanical signalbox at St. Albans a few years ago? If NR could go-ahead and install the new panels, then the 'boxes would be fully refurbished (and they need it...

) Even double glazed windows would be better than peeling paint and no windows! Nearby Barnetby East 'box - as well as several others - has already had the 'treatment' (though retaining lever frame etc.) and doesn't look that bad!

Am I the only one who thinks NR should be left to get on with the job?

nwallace · Post by **nwallace** » Sun Nov 30, 2003 12:41 pm

Would say:

Quality of Signalling is a safety issue.
Being able to run the railway with modern equipment is an absolute must.

If the conservationalists aren't going to allow the boxes to be upgraded then they are going to have to be abandoned

johndibben · Post by **johndibben** » Sun Nov 30, 2003 1:40 pm

Don't remember ever seeing this topic before.

Like the idea of preserving old things. If preservationists wish to, fine but an industry short of cash requires funding to do so.

A signalling centre can be located anywhere and so only money for the preservation of the old building need be found.

I would've thought a new signalling centre would've been cheaper than upgrading a very old building.

A Portakabin would suffice and has in the past ....

Tomnick · Post by **Tomnick** » Sun Nov 30, 2003 5:52 pm

There was nothing dangerously wrong with the signalling at these two boxes - just that the equipment was getting old and presumably expensive to maintain.

John - these two boxes are only small block posts, each controlling a level crossing. Without the cost of installing CCTV, the replacement box cannot be located 'anywhere' - it must be next to the crossing. I agree though that it would probably be more cost-effective (in the long term) to build new boxes than upgrade the old one.

Two examples of small mechanical boxes round here that have been replaced by a new box are Thorpe Culvert on the Skegness line, and the gatebox at Medge Hall on the CG between Scunthorpe and Doncaster - both of these are quite nice, and 'similar' to the original box but more modern.

Tomnick · Post by **Tomnick** » Sun Nov 30, 2003 5:53 pm

the gatebox at Medge Hall on the CG between Scunthorpe and Doncaster

For CG...read GC. CG is...someone else

chriscooper · Post by **chriscooper** » Sun Nov 30, 2003 8:00 pm

Personally I think modernisation and preservation can go together, mixing the best of the old with the best of the new. This sounds like one of those schemes, keep the old building that has stood for many years and will stand for many more but replace the out of date equipment inside. A few extra touches like double glazing are great if they make the job better for the signaller and fit in with the character of the building (which all the ones I've seen seem to do). If the ultra preservationists had their way we'd have no preserved trains or buses or old buildings left as all have had to be modified in some way to survive.

Tomnick · Post by **Tomnick** » Sun Nov 30, 2003 10:25 pm

That's what I meant by my earlier example of Barnetby East box - this GC box still retains its 72-lever frame and block instruments etc., as well as its original nameboards, but now has double glazing, false ceiling inside, and so on. It still fits in perfectly well with the extensive semaphore signalling all round.

The choices here seem to be: keeping the Portakabins at Appleby and Elsham and leaving the old boxes to rot; refurbishing the old boxes; or removing the old boxes and building new structures. The first is far from ideal, the last unlikely (there's nothing really special about these boxes), so the second seems to be the best - though not necessarily the easiest.

Tomnick · Post by **Tomnick** » Wed Feb 11, 2004 7:50 pm

A rather large *bump* if no-one minds - an update...

I believe the issue is now nearly resolved, after some fairly daft suggestions, and my opinion in italics. One suggestion (from North Lincs Council) was to move the lever frame and wheel down into the locking room below (in each 'box), and leave it there. Not entirely bad, but it's hardly 'preserving' it in its original condition - surely it would be better at a preserved railway?. Another idea was to build extensions to both 'boxes to house the new panels - which seems ultra-daft to me. It's just going to look silly like that, and isn't really that practical. Happily, common sense seems to have won, and permission for the frames to be removed, and the 'boxes to be upgraded, has been granted.

Goingnorth · Post by **Goingnorth** » Wed Feb 11, 2004 9:19 pm

It's better to move the panels into the boxes and remove the frames for preservation. If the boxes get left, they will get vandalised, no doubt about that. On secondary lines, there's nothing wrong with small panels in refurbished mechanical boxes. Seems like a good mix to me.

John's right though, signalling centres can be anywhere, including station buildings (such as Salisbury, Bournemouth) or even industrial estates, like Sandhills and LULs White city.