S&D signal boxes.

[TravisM]

I was just wondering what style the signal boxes were on the S&D?  Were they bespoke and a S&D design or because of the Midland influence, based on their designs?

[bike2steam]

https://signalbox.org/gallery/sdj.htm

[down the sdjr]

1 hour ago, jools1959 said:

I was just wondering what style the signal boxes were on the S&D?  Were they bespoke and a S&D design or because of the Midland influence, based on their designs?

My interest lies in the southern section of the S&D between Templecombe and Broadstone, some one off designs like Blandford that overhung the rails behind or simple all timber structures like Sturminster Newton (as in my avatar) and Shillingstone.

Edited October 21, 2019 by down the sdjr

[Blandford1969]

The boxes were mainly based on LSWR designs, with the exception of Blandford what used Midland window frames by the look of it. Will dig out my attempt at a drawing of Blandford - although I never finished it off or the window frames.

[RailWest]

You need to read the relevant section of  "The Signal Box" published by the Signalling Study Group - or wait until I get time to write it all up for my website :-)  I did once draft a small booklet  on the subject with modellers in mind, but sadly it never got published...but that's another story.....

 

Ignore any suggestions about Midland please. The only  'true' Midland one was Bath Single Line Junction. Otherwise, apart from the usual smattering of one-off specials and the Dutton ones built for the Bridgwater Railway, there were three basic styles - Types 1,2,3.  1 and 3 were based on contemporary L&SWR pratice, 2 was derived from a Stevens & Sons design and is probably what is generally regarded as the iconic S&DJR style. Blandford originally had a Type 1, replaced by a Type 2 and then rebuilt as a Type 3 after the fire.

[Compound2632]

The LSWR was responsible for civil engineering and signalling, so their practices and equipment prevailed. As I know nothing of LSWR signalling practice, I can't comment on whether S&DJR boxes are typically South-Western. The exception could be said to be the tablet exchange apparatus which came from the Locomotive side - i.e. Midland. Alfred Whitaker was a Derby man through and through, for all that he very ably adapted Midland practice to local conditions.

 

Ref. R. Atthill, The Somerset & Dorset Railway (David & Charles, 1967).

[TravisM]

Are there any OO scale kits available of a “typical” S&D signalbox or would a generic LSWR version be a close match?  I’m sure that would apply to the signalling as well?

[RailWest]

12 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

The LSWR was responsible for civil engineering and signalling, so their practices and equipment prevailed. As I know nothing of LSWR signalling practice, I can't comment on whether S&DJR boxes are typically South-Western. The exception could be said to be the tablet exchange apparatus which came from the Locomotive side - i.e. Midland. Alfred Whitaker was a Derby man through and through, for all that he very ably adapted Midland practice to local conditions.

 

Ref. R. Atthill, The Somerset & Dorset Railway (David & Charles, 1967).

The tablet exchangers were the responsibility of the Operating Dept, not the Signal Dept, hence the involvement of the loco department and the MR.

 

>>>The LSWR was responsible for civil engineering and signalling, so their practices and equipment prevailed...

Well, yes but..... don;t forget that the L&SWR only gained such responsibility after the line was leased as a 'Joint' line, so that did not apply to the initial signalling on the Bath Extension and elsewhere. Also the Bridgwater Rly was independent, albeit supported by the L&SWR, hence the involvement of Dutton & Co. Even in later years the S&DJR still had its own peculiarities, such as the 'ringed' subsidiary arms, their own version of rail-built signal posts and the prolonged use of many sets of Tyers No 1 tablet instruments, which set them aside from 'true' L&SWR practice.

 

>>>Are there any OO scale kits available of a “typical” S&D signalbox or would a generic LSWR version be a close match.....

Depends which type of 'typical' you want :-)

Not kits, but Bachmann do 4mm models of the boxes at Shillingstone and Midsomer Norton. (Note: both are based on the current recreations rather than the originals, but should be close enough the same.) The latter should be OK for most of the Type 2 boxes with the odd bit of tweeking. The former is alright for its prototype, but all the all-timber Type 1 boxes did vary a lot (different windows, arrangement of weather-boarding etc) and of course it would need much modification to represent any of those with brick bases (like Bailey Gate etc).

 

You're probably less lucky if you wanted to model a Type 3 box, which was based on the L&SWR Type 4. Bachmann do a model of Bude, but the windows seem to be wrong for the S&D Type 3 and the size/proportion of the box appears to be be too big for Highbridge 'A' and too small for Corfe Mullen Junction etc.

 

 

[Compound2632]

44 minutes ago, RailWest said:

 

>>>The LSWR was responsible for civil engineering and signalling, so their practices and equipment prevailed...

Well, yes but..... don;t forget that the L&SWR only gained such responsibility after the line was leased as a 'Joint' line, so that did not apply to the initial signalling on the Bath Extension and elsewhere.

 

 

Well, yes, but without any very specialist knowledge I would assume, based on my reading of Atthill's book and on a general understanding of the history of signalling, that any equipment from the 1870s, including signalboxes, would have been renewed by the early 20th century, on the main line at least (I am aware that some antique equipment lingered on for many years in some odd corners). The extensive work of doubling must have contributed to that. As for the signalling infrastructure on the Bath Extension, the Foxcote disaster proved the inadequacy of that so must have been high up on the LSWR's priority list? 

 

I'll be very happy to improve my knowledge and, @RailWest, look forward to your booklet finding a publisher or a on-line home!

 

I was pleased to discover that The Signal Box is still in print at a reasonable price. Being a Midland enthusiast, the signal boxes I'm really interested in are very thoroughly documented elsewhere but perhaps I ought to get round to buying a copy. I see the SRS has a stand at Warley...

[RailWest]

1 minute ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Well, yes, but without any very specialist knowledge I would assume, based on my reading of Atthill's book and on a general understanding of the history of signalling, that any equipment from the 1870s, including signalboxes, would have been renewed by the early 20th century, on the main line at least (I am aware that some antique equipment lingered on for many years in some odd corners). The extensive work of doubling must have contributed to that. As for the signalling infrastructure on the Bath Extension, the Foxcote disaster proved the inadequacy of that so must have been high up on the LSWR's priority list? 

 

I'll be very happy to improve my knowledge and, @RailWest, look forward to your booklet finding a publisher or a on-line home!

 

I was pleased to discover that The Signal Box is still in print at a reasonable price. Being a Midland enthusiast, the signal boxes I'm really interested in are very thoroughly documented elsewhere but perhaps I ought to get round to buying a copy. I see the SRS has a stand at Warley...

>>>.....I would assume, based on my reading of Atthill's book and on a general understanding of the history of signalling, that any equipment from the 1870s, including signalboxes, would have been renewed by the early 20th century, on the main line at least (I am aware that some antique equipment lingered on for many years in some odd corners). The extensive work of doubling must have contributed to that.

 

It is true that the doubling saw much new work by way of signal-boxes and signals, but elsewhere a lot of old stuff lingered for far longer.  For example, both Shillingstone and Sturminster Newton boxes dated from the late 1870s.

 

>>>>As for the signalling infrastructure on the Bath Extension, the Foxcote disaster proved the inadequacy of that so must have been high up on the LSWR's priority list? 

The Foxcote disaster was caused not by the inadequacy of the existing installation - which did the job required of it - but the incorrect operation of the Absolute Block working aggravated by the lack of any physical 'train staff'. Yet the S&DJR did not correct that until 10 years later.

 

>>>I'll be very happy to improve my knowledge and, @RailWest, look forward to your booklet finding a publisher or a on-line home!

Well, you may have a long wait for a book(let), but - certainly in the case of the signals - much of the information is already on the web at www.railwest.org.uk :-)

[down the sdjr]

22 hours ago, jools1959 said:

Are there any OO scale kits available of a “typical” S&D signalbox or would a generic LSWR version be a close match?  I’m sure that would apply to the signalling as well?

No one sells a SDJR signal box apart from the Bachmann resin cast ones but i think a few kits can be modified to be close, Ratio Midland style and Dapols chip as chips signal box can be made to look like a timber, like Stur / Shillingstone.

[RailWest]

Well, the Dapol may be cheap, but that's about as much as could be said for it if you tried to model Sturminster Newton and replaced virtually everything other than the steps! Shillingstone would be better, but you'd still need to tackle the vertical boarding and the windows and add a porch and fiddle with the roof profile perhaps.

[phil_sutters]

Far and away the book with the best collection of signal box photos is C.W.Judge and C.R.Potts' 'An Historical Survey of the Somerset and Dorset Railway, Track Layouts and Illustrations'. Unfortunately Dad was loco-centric and only a handful of his S&D photos have boxes in them and then usually in the distance. This one of Glastonbury is the best - but that doesn't help your Dorset quest for details.

[Compound2632]

11 hours ago, RailWest said:

certainly in the case of the signals - much of the information is already on the web at www.railwest.org.uk :-)

 

I've been poking around there - fascinating stuff!

 

I went to have a look at Spettisbury, since there are some good photos from around the time of the doubling, showing disc and crossbar signal that remained in use until the end of single-line working. I am curious about the positioning of the up line signals, in particular the up starter, which has to be passed by a train requiring to set back onto the down line via the crossover. What reason might there have been for not positioning it in advance* of the crossover?

 

*I hope I've got that right - if I'm looking in the direction of travel, a signal ahead of me would be in advance, a signal behind in rear? 

[RailWest]

The Up Starting protected the crossover from a train stood in the Up platform. Having an Up Advanced Starting also, to allow shunting  without entering the section ahead, would have been considered an unnecessary expense for a very limited requirement. Take a look at (say) Evercreech New for a similar situation.

 

On the L&SWR itself there were many such locations, some of which lasted until closure in BR days, even where a 'Line Clear' release was needed from the box ahead in order to work the crossover (eg Whimple).

[Compound2632]

That would tend to confirm the lack of Midland influence on S&DJR signalling practice!