When is a signal box not a signal box?

[kudu]

I recently bought "The Golden Age of London's Railways from Old Postcards", which I strongly recommend. In one of the surprisingly large number of trackside station photos (were there a lot of rail enthusiasts busy sending postcards to each other?) is one of Bethnal Green Junction, as the station was then called, looking east, taken in the early C20. The complexities of the junction itself occupies the foreground, while dominating the scene is the tall signalbox (Bethnal Green West Junction), positioned at the platform end. The platform to the right also has a slightly smaller elevated box, or so it appears. But the text informs us this is actually the timekeeper's cabin, explaining that the signalman would be too busy handling the traffic. (Proving the point, the photo has one train just passing the box as it leaves the station, another occupies the other up platform, both with bunker-first tanks, and a down train is imminent, judging by the crowd on the platform.)

I had never heard of such cabins before (this one was erected around 1891). This sets me wondering how common these separate cabins were. It doesn't seem to have been a very efficient system - apparently the guard would have to shout the train number as he passed. Certainly there can be few boxes that handled Bethnal Green's 128 trains an hour.

Kudu

[Mickey]

I presume that you are referring to the photograph below kudu?.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view ... ttps%3a%2f%

From memory I believe the same photograph appears in the book called The Great Eastern Album that I once owned back in the very early 1970s.

[kudu]

That's it, Mickey! Yours appears slightly cropped along the bottom.

Now I hope someone can answer my questions.

Kudu

[StevieG]

kudu, in the Bethnal Green power box of the 1940s resignalling (at the east end, in the fork of the Main and Fast lines' junction where they split towards Bow Jn./Hackney Downs, one of the timekeeper's duties therein was to keep note of every Up train, and thus, into the Train Describer (TD) to Liverpool Street box, as it passed, he had to insert the booked Liv.St. arrival platform number for every train into the TD system to accompany its Type / place/route from Description, to Liv.St. for the LS signalman to act on (and if the train went up the wrong platform because of a wrong plat.No. from BG, it was all the BG timekeeper's fault and the LS signalman was regarded as blameless.)
So just perhaps, the separate timekeeper's cabin in the old BG photo was so positioned to ensure as far as possible that some sort of predecessor equivalent of the same train checking and info. pass-on took place.

[65447]

More to the point, the frequency of the 'Jazz' suburban services alone would keep signalmen busy with bells and levers almost non-stop, with a greater operational risk and domino effect if there was any delay to that work. Separating the train recording function is a logical and practical solution.

[kudu]

But was it a unique solution? As I said, there can't be many places with such an intense service handled by a single box.

Kudu

[thesignalman]

In principle it is not unique, there were many boxes that were too busy to record trains but an assistant (usually a "junior") was normally provided in the box to do this. But placing them in a remote building prevents them from recording the bell signals which was how trains were normally recorded.

So Stevie G's suggestion sounds likely (assuming the author isn't spouting rubbish - not entirely unknown!) in that it is for reporting trains rather than recording them in the conventional sense. It is entirely possible there was another person located in the box for recording but he was deemed too busy to do the reporting aswell. I can think of others that had two in the box itself but the box we are talking of at Bethnal Green is not exactly large so three might have made a crowd.

John

[kudu]

The distinction between recording and reporting is a new one to me, so thanks for that contribution. The author, John Alsop, doesn't appear to be "spouting rubbish" in general, so far as I can see, and I would recommend the book for its captions as well as for the postcards themselves. His precise wording might help: "...Normally part of a signalman's duty was to record the time for each train but with as many as 128 trains in an hour passing Bethnal Geen Junction, he was relieved of this task and a second cabin was provided just for the timekeeper..."

Clearly this arrangement must only have been used where the box itself was too small for the staffing needed. The cabin was probably erected in 1891, according to the caption. So, was it unique?

Kudu

[thesignalman]

Ha ha, I've never dared say anything is "unique" becasue there are always things to learn.

On the LMR, train reporters (as opposed to recorders) were often shut in a little separate room in the signalbox to separate them from the signalmen. Western Junction and Northampton No4 (memory slightly weak on the latter) were examples. That's the nearest I have come across against your example.

Later, when they assumed the combined responsibility of recording and reporting at Western Junction, we used to threaten to shut them in there if they annoyed us.

John

[kudu]

Thanks, thesignalman. Clearly the separate cabin at Bethnal Green was nothing to do with lack of space in the box. What obviously happened was that the timekeeper there was REALLY annoying and the only solution was to provide separate accommodation where he was reduced to irritating the crews as they passed.

Kudu