Changing a Signal Box Name

[Andy873]

There seems to be plenty of boxes that started off with one name but over time were given a new one or even a third one.

What would a railway company do regarding a name change?
Would a box carry both the old and new names for a period of time?
Would a box just appear one day with a new name?

Drivers who have route knowledge of an area might be surprised to see a box suddenly renamed, would that confuse them until they got used to the new name?

And if (as a railway company) you intend to change a box's name, when would you do it? in time for the next issue of the WTT?

 

[Ashley Hill]

A notice would be issued in advance to all concerned that from a set date Signal Box A will now be known as Signal Box B.

 

[Rescars]

There is also the reason for a change of name. It makes perfect sense if the box was at a station and the station's name was changed, though this wasn't always the case - the power box remained Manchester London Road long after the station became Piccadilly. If the layout was being changed or resignalling was happening, then new names might come along with new boxes, but otherwise why change something (with all the associated costs) just for the sake of it. I suspect lots of "...... Junction" boxes kept their names long after their junctions ceased to exist. Likewise, no need to change, for instance, the name of "..... East" box just because ".... West" box has been closed and demolished.

 

[John Webb]

...... but otherwise why change something (with all the associated costs) just for the sake of it. I suspect lots of "...... Junction" boxes kept their names long after their junctions ceased to exist. Likewise, no need to change, for instance, the name of "..... East" box just because ".... West" box has been closed and demolished.

Associated costs of changing a signal box name included revising all the relevant drawings and circuit diagrams and relabelling every single wire - an enterprise not to be undertaken unadvisedly or lightly!

 

[zwk500]

Associated costs of changing a signal box name included revising all the relevant drawings and circuit diagrams and relabelling every single wire - an enterprise not to be undertaken unadvisedly or lightly!

And ensuring everybody who'd received a copy of the old circular had received the information being updated.

Apparently it now costs a couple of million pounds to change station names nowadays because of all the data systems involved.

 

[Gloster]

Just renaming of the station was often not enough to require the renaming of the signal box: there were quite a few that weren’t renamed, although the only one that comes to mind is Tir y Dail, where I believe the box remained that until closure although the station was renamed twice. Renaming was generally only undertaken if there might be confusion between locations: clarity is important for railway operators.

 

[Ashley Hill]

Usually due to expansion or resignalling. Box A becomes Box A West etc. Probably more common in the early part of the 20th century.

 

[6Gman]

There is also the reason for a change of name. It makes perfect sense if the box was at a station and the station's name was changed, though this wasn't always the case - the power box remained Manchester London Road long after the station became Piccadilly. If the layout was being changed or resignalling was happening, then new names might come along with new boxes, but otherwise why change something (with all the associated costs) just for the sake of it. I suspect lots of "...... Junction" boxes kept their names long after their junctions ceased to exist. Likewise, no need to change, for instance, the name of "..... East" box just because ".... West" box has been closed and demolished.

Where boxes were numbered (I think the LNWR/LMS tended to do that) the boxes would not be renumbered if one closed.

So if Blanktown had Boxes No.1 to No.6 the closure of No.3 would not result in 4 to 6 being renumbered 3 to 5!

 

[MadMac]

Where boxes were numbered (I think the LNWR/LMS tended to do that) the boxes would not be renumbered if one closed.

So if Blanktown had Boxes No.1 to No.6 the closure of No.3 would not result in 4 to 6 being renumbered 3 to 5!

Stafford latterly only had 4 and 5, the others having closed at various times.

 

[bramling]

Just renaming of the station was often not enough to require the renaming of the signal box: there were quite a few that weren’t renamed, although the only one that comes to mind is Tir y Dail, where I believe the box remained that until closure although the station was renamed twice. Renaming was generally only undertaken if there might be confusion between locations: clarity is important for railway operators.

There’s a few other examples. Watlington station still has Magdalen Road signal box, and until its recent closure Blankney signal box was located at Metheringham station. There’s also some scope for debate about Downham Market, as the signal box diagram I believe still reads plain “Downham” (it certainly did until recently), whereas the station is “Downham Market”, though the board on the outside of the box bears the latter.

 

[Belperpete]

Associated costs of changing a signal box name included revising all the relevant drawings and circuit diagrams and relabelling every single wire - an enterprise not to be undertaken unadvisedly or lightly!

And not just in the renamed box. Adjacent boxes are likely to have circuits, box diagrams or panels, block instruments and bells, etc that refer to the renamed box that would need changing.

 

[Andy873]

Associated costs of changing a signal box name included revising all the relevant drawings and circuit diagrams and relabelling every single wire - an enterprise not to be undertaken unadvisedly or lightly!

And ensuring everybody who'd received a copy of the old circular had received the information being updated.

And not just in the renamed box. Adjacent boxes are likely to have circuits, box diagrams or panels, block instruments and bells, etc that refer to the renamed box that would need changing.

It never occurred to me that there could possibly be all that work and documentation associated with changing a box's name.

Any driver who had route knowledge of an area and drove those routes often wouldn't care too much about a box dropping the word (for example) "East" or adding the word "Great" to it, or would they?

One junction box I know started out as say X Junction, later Y Junction and finally Great Y Junction.

This box's first name was changed because the L&Y wanted to use that name at another junction box on the same line, and you can't have two boxes with the same name on the same line - surely not?

You would have though they would have got the names right the first time around?

One thing I have noted though, the OS maps seem to lag behind the junction name changes, sometimes for years.

 

[Rescars]

I wonder what happened at Gatehouse-of-Fleet (or Dromore). IIRC the station changed its name seven times. The box was on the platform and an enamel nameboard showing the current name of the station was fixed to the front of the box by the time the line closed. On a single line like the Port Road, changing the name of a box would also involve changing the names on all the signalling tablets, tokens, train staffs, etc.

 

[Gloster]

It never occurred to me that there could possibly be all that work and documentation associated with changing a box's name.

Any driver who had route knowledge of an area and drove those routes often wouldn't care too much about a box dropping the word (for example) "East" or adding the word "Great" to it, or would they?

One junction box I know started out as say X Junction, later Y Junction and finally Great Y Junction.

This box's first name was changed because the L&Y wanted to use that name at another junction box on the same line, and you can't have two boxes with the same name on the same line - surely not?

You would have though they would have got the names right the first time around?

One thing I have noted though, the OS maps seem to lag behind the junction name changes, sometimes for years.

As I said at the end of #6: clarity is important on the railway. It is vitally important that if a location name is given, everybody knows where it is and there should be no confusion due to some people giving the wrong name because they are using old paperwork, etc. There have been fatal accidents due to such mistakes being made, although mental aberration is more a more likely reason nowadays. A driver wouldn’t care what it was called and whether it had a new name, but he would use the correct one if he needed to report his position.

You can’t have two boxes with the same name anywhere near each other, at least on the same line, although grouping and nationalisation threw up problems as you lost the railway company suffixes.

OS maps are not produced by railwaymen or for railway purposes and are only updated when the OS thinks it is time to do so. Changes to station and signal box names, even if already known to the OS, are a minor factor in their calculations of when to resurvey.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Aug 2024 ==

I wonder what happened at Gatehouse-of-Fleet (or Dromore). IIRC the station changed its name seven times. The box was on the platform and an enamel nameboard showing the current name of the station was fixed to the front of the box by the time the line closed. On a single line like the Port Road, changing the name of a box would also involve changing the names on all the signalling tablets, tokens, train staffs, etc.

Although the station changed names, did the signal box? It was quite common to keep the old name if there wasn’t going to be confusion between locations. Railwaymen just knew that X signal box was at Y station.

 

[edwin_m]

You can’t have two boxes with the same name anywhere near each other, at least on the same line, although grouping and nationalisation threw up problems as you lost the railway company suffixes.

I would have thought if two different companies had unconnected lines in the same place, their signal boxes would have just had the same name and might have needed suffixes if they subsequently fell under the same company - or would they have just left them as they were due to not being on the same line? Probably practice differed according to the whim of whoever was deciding, as often happened on the railway.

Some company names and suffixes survived amalgamation/nationalisation - for example Claydon LNE Junction which presumably had a Claydon LMS junction at one time, and even OA&GB Junction box which survived into recent years commemorating the long-deceased name of the Oldham Ashton and Guide Bridge joint line.

 

[John Webb]

Regarding renaming of stations and signal boxes, we have prime examples at St Albans. There were the three stations, GNR, LNWR and MR, all known as 'St Albans'! (They were distinguished by reference to their railway companies.)
On Grouping, the now two LMS stations had 'Abbey' and 'City' added to their names to distinguish them from each other, the Abbey station signal box being renamed as 'St Albans Abbey' at least on the outside. But the two City station boxes, North and South, remained just as 'St Albans'.
It was only after nationalisation that the GNR station was renamed 'St Albans London Road' in 1950. But the signal box there had been closed in the 1920s so couldn't be renamed!
In 1970 the City station's North box, no longer needed with the closure of the goods yard several years before, was closed and the South Box's lever frame reconfigured to cover the whole station. But it was still referred to as 'St Albans South' and eventually closed in December 1979.

 

[Belperpete]

I am sure that I have seen places where there have been A and B boxes, and one of them closed, and the remaining box has some time later lost its suffix, but you can still see it in places on S&T drawings and the like. Presumably the operating have decided the drop the suffix, but never paid the S&T to amend everything.

 

[edwin_m]

I am sure that I have seen places where there have been A and B boxes, and one of them closed, and the remaining box has some time later lost its suffix, but you can still see it in places on S&T drawings and the like. Presumably the operating have decided the drop the suffix, but never paid the S&T to amend everything.

Some of the drawings would have had to change because if B was closed, the connections between A and B would now be going to the next box down the line instead. And indeed if that happened A would almost certainly have to have some changes to take over whatever B did previously.

 

[Gloster]

Some of the drawings would have had to change because if B was closed, the connections between A and B would now be going to the next box down the line instead. And indeed if that happened A would almost certainly have to have some changes to take over whatever B did previously.

And all this would multiply if you had junctions or boxes that could switch out. From one or two documents I have seen, although this is not a particular area of interest, there were occasions when the old name was crossed out and the new one merely written in alongside/above/below.

 

[Belperpete]

Some of the drawings would have had to change because if B was closed, the connections between A and B would now be going to the next box down the line instead. And indeed if that happened A would almost certainly have to have some changes to take over whatever B did previously.

Agreed. I was referring more to what happened later, when A was the only box left, and the A was quietly dropped.

And all this would multiply if you had junctions or boxes that could switch out. From one or two documents I have seen, although this is not a particular area of interest, there were occasions when the old name was crossed out and the new one merely written in alongside/above/below.

In my experience, things like the block circuits would generally only refer to the next box along the line, even if it could close out.

 

[Rescars]

In my experience, things like the block circuits would generally only refer to the next box along the line, even if it could close out.

Though a bit more complicated on single lines equipped for long-section working perhaps?

 

[Belperpete]

Though a bit more complicated on single lines equipped for long-section working perhaps?

In those cases, yes, because you couldn't just switch the block through. You would need independent token/staff instruments for the long section working.