Signal Box

Post

Posted
Rating:
#217991 (In Topic #11891)
Full Member

Elevated

Hi everyone

Am modelling a signal box to sit at the throat of our main station. Imagine multiple tracks joining in a "Y" configuration and coming into the platforms with the box sited between the arms of the "Y".

The box itself is OK -taking too long to build of course but that relates more to the construction worker speed than anything else. The question I have actually relates to the ground that it sits on.

I want to raise the ground level where the signal box sits. Perhaps a scale metre.

The question.

Were signal boxes ever mounted on a mound or rise rather than at track level with a "tower" or plinth of brick or timber?

Does anyone have a photograph or image of such an arrangement that they could share?

My g$$gle searches have so far come up empty.

Thanks

Andrew
Online now: No Back to the top

Post

Posted
Rating:
#218001
Inactive Member
It's not something I've ever come across, the point rodding needs to be at track level.
 The boxes I've seen are either mounted at track level or on a platform with the point rodding coming out at track level.
Even when mounted on an embankment, the boxes were extended at the front down to track level for the point rodding

Now I've finally started a model railway…I've inherited another…
Online now: No Back to the top

Post

Posted
Rating:
#218007
Full Member
Some boxes were mounted over the track with the point rodding running vertically down to ground level.  The box at Clapham Junction, London, was a prime example.  I would have thought that in the location you speak of with rising ground, the railway company would have cut away some of the mound of earth and built retaining walls to allow the signal box to sit at ground level, protected from an earth slip by the retaining walls.  Plenty of examples of that scenario.

Terry
Online now: No Back to the top

Post

Posted
Rating:
#218010
Avatar
Full Member
Where a box was needed to be higher than usual for sighting purposes, they just built a higher base. Wimborne was a good example (image linked from Google, contrary to the pic it was not a copy of Pisa))



Cheers MIKE
I'm like my avatar - a local ruin!
Online now: No Back to the top

Post

Posted
Rating:
#218012
Avatar
Full Member
Hi Andrew,

Looked through a dozen books, all signal boxes were on wood, stone or brick plinths, even those build into hills or on a slope down. The space underneath was not wasted, lots of levers and rods and the interlocking mechanisms. Lots of thought went into the location (maximum length of rodding, site lines, etc….). The one at Kingham South was 3 stories high (higher than the adjacent road bridge which it had to see over) just to get good sight lines. Perfectly good slope to the side of the tracks but that would have meant a lot of complicated rodding crossing lines.

Worthwhile using a small digital camera where the cabin is going just to  make sure all the signals will be visible from the windows.

Nigel

©Nigel C. Phillips
Online now: No Back to the top

Post

Posted
Rating:
#218020
Full Member
Thanks everyone.
I thought leaving the rise would give a better visual look but it appears the prototype would instead opt for retaining walls on the three sides around the box.
Food for thought.
Thanks for the assist.
Andrew
Online now: No Back to the top

Post

Posted
Rating:
#218022
Avatar
Full Member
Just to confirm what the others have said: a signalbox required level ground for the levers and wires to work.  Any rise would have been levelled; any slight depression infilled.  Sighting was another matter and was a factor in the overall height of the box as the Wimborne example shows.

It is possible, though somewhat fussy, to have signal wires changing levels but to arrange point rodding likewise would be tricky indeed.  The easier option was always taken.

Rick
Layouts here and here
Online now: No Back to the top
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.