Redundant Signal Boxes

With the electrification of the signalling system next year, i wonder if there will be some redundant signal boxes being removed, to provide heritage lines with much needed boxes, as there is quite a few who are extending lines or intend to when funds allow.
It would be a shame to lose so many,which could one day be re-used.

 

Good point. Even the 26 that are going to be listed won't be entirely safe if left on Network Rail. Look at what happened to Dawlish box.

 

Likewise dont assume English Heritage will have any money to maintain the listed boxes left in situ, they are very strapped for cash.

Another issue, which I am sure our heritage lines will be aware of, is the need to secure redundant mechanical signal and point equipment for their future needs. Scap value only when discarded by NR, but some items would be expensive to manufacture as new.

46118

 

Network Rail and the Heritage Railway Association have formal contacts with each other to let HRA members know of boxes and other items that become surplus to NR's needs so that heritage railways do have the opportunity to obtain redundant equipment.

 

I know from our old Shaw box in Manchester was not so lucky, as it contained asbestos and was unfortunately demolished due to the cost, as East lancs wanted it, due to it being a crossing box and ex L&Y.
But lets hope that these boxes are saved, but also its another cut in staff, which is putting more out of work.

 

It's good to save. But how many boxes are rotting on preserved railways already.

I would say a bunch of shipping containers to keep safe the levers, frames and also the signals themselves..
In a decade or so even colour light signals will become a rarity.

 

A few personal obervations on this, and not speaking for any organisation or group . . .

The more organised and resourceful railways never, historically, had a problem with officially getting hold of redundant equipment off of the big railway. It is becoming noticeably harder to do so now, partly down to it becoming ever more awkward to gain access to the infrastructure, but also I'm afraid to say due to well intentioned attempts by a few organisations (HRA, IRSE, &c.) to formalise the process and to address a perceived injustice on the part of those railways who could not sort things out for themselves.

Whereas a few years ago, Railway A would become aware of a local resignalling project, approach the local S&T staff, project managers, &c. and come to an understanding regarding any redundant equipment which was not required locally or nationally for strategic spares; now all preserved railways are invited to bid for items they might want, and the goods will be unilaterally allocated between all who respond. In practice this means that the equipment is then divided roughly between upto a dozen or more lines with more dreams than resources, and effectively nobody gets anything worthwhile - it's often not worth the hassle or expense of arranging for personnel and transport to attend site and wait around for hours in the middle of the night for the chance of a dozen lengths of channel rodding, one and half cranks and a plunger from the block shelf. Previously it might be agreed between a few of the interested railways that Railway B would take the lead in the recovery, and that Railway D and Railway H would get any bits they had need of off the back of it. For the next recover, the roles might be reversed. Not so now.

In addition, as many of these smaller operations usually can not put together a decent recovery gang, let alone one with the necessary qualifications, permitry and equipment to work on the site, it now appears that the main contractor is increasingly designated to recover the material and to deliver it to a "safe" location for collection by the new owners. You can imagine how much of a priority this is with the time-strapped contractor, and the risk is that the equipment will be removed in a less than careful fashion - if it is ever recovered at all. No one is going to blame the contractor for not carefully recovering all of those redundant 0BA fuse holders at the expense of not finishing the resignalling !

I can appreciate the well intentioned thought process behind these developments, but in practice it is now seemingly resulting in much more useful equipment going to scrap then ever happened before. At least when one major concern had exclusive rights you could normally guarantee that almost everything of use would be recovered . . . "Fairer" for all is not necessarily better for anyone.

All IMOO, of course.

 

I think that you have got the wrong end of the stick here. AIUI, the present situation has been brought about by Network Rail and it is they who have stopped the historical system whereby Area managers were left to dispose of equipment as they thought fit. It is certainly nothing to do with the HRA (and I doubt the wishes of the ISRE, either, but I have no knowledge of their aspirations). I have listened to senior NR managers explaining the new disposal systems on several occasions and been very dismayed by their present attitude and approach, the essence of which was that there was a national policy on disposals and Area managers should/could not deviate from this.

 

I'm more than happy to apologise to the HRA for that then. I have personally heard the IRSE Minor Railways section discussing the new arrangements with some enthusiasm though.

 

I think NR should try to help heritage railways out, by letting them have redundant stuff, as I know from experience when an old bus depot was being demolished and a 20x30 foot pile of old information from stops,blinds ect relating to tramways too all got thrown,and lost forever, so will the current semephores going out and gantries, plus signal box stuff too, then am sure railway societies would like as much as possible.
On the other note, I feel Blackpool Norths signalling should be kept in place, and preserved with the box too, as it would be a total shame to lose something that Holidaymakers have seen in years.