Templecombe station

[whole diary]

[JayMac]

We managed to get the station and signal box at Maiden Newton listed some years ago. My role was to write the listing submission based on the reasoning for its listing. If you go down this road, please ket me know if I can be of any help.

An attempt at listing Templecombe box was made in 2011. I'm looking at collecting the info from that application.

[Lee]

Just had a chat with a FoTS member who was gardening as I returned to Templecombe.

Much of the old ephemera was from a personal collection, returned to family when that person passed on. Other stuff was removed at the behest of SWT^▸ (South West Trains)/Network Rail prior to the station remodelling. It was a couple of years after that before FoTS were again granted access to the up side buildings.

Even if it is true that FoTS had no control over what happened to some of the fittings, why on earth did they transport - or accept the decision to transport - the building into faux-heritage hell? Anything would have been better than what they subsequent did with the waiting room, which effectively transports an 80s building back into the steam age, like Dr Who gone wrong 

That's what really annoys me about it, this awful tendency for so much of the memory of the NSE^▸ (Network South East) era - my formative era - to be cast aside as "80s/90s tat" to be hidden or removed at every opportunity.

Or was that another case of "Not us guv, blame SWR^» (South Western Railway - about)/SWT/NR^» (Network Rail - home page)" ?

I'm sorry everyone, I know it sounds like I am ranting - even to my ears - but a lot of people my age's rail memories have suffered from this in the intervening years, and it really gets to me 

[broadgage]

I couldn't agree more. Railway history needs to be protected for future generations to experience.

I agree, and not just the older history as may be found on a heritage line, but the somewhat more recent history such as this.

[REVUpminster]

Bachman Branchline used to sell an art deco  model signalbox, so it will be preserved on someone's model railway.

[bradshaw]

I think this might be the report on a previous listing attempt

https://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/Gateway/Results_Single.aspx?uid=1541602&resourceID=19191

From Historic England Research Records
Monument Number 1541602
This quote is the significant part of the entry:

   As set out in the English Heritage Selection Guide (2007) for Transport Buildings to merit designation, signal boxes should either represent a relatively early phase of architectural design or technological development, or should demonstrate some significant later technological novelty and innovation, or new architectural design.

One of the operators to adopt the architecture of the Modern Movement was the Southern Railway. Many of its stations and signal boxes were built in this style; Surbiton being the earliest type 13 signal box, erected in 1936. These signal boxes were adopted widely by the Southern Railway (SR^‡(resolve)), but odd examples were also used on the Great Eastern and later by the London & North Eastern Railway, and the design continued to be employed into the 1950s, albeit with power rather than mechanical frames. Post-war examples of this design survive at Streatham, South Croydon, Balham and Purley. There are currently two type-13 signal boxes on the SR that are listed: Woking in Surrey (1937, Grade II), and Horsham, West Sussex (circa 1938, Grade II). English Heritage has undertaken a Thematic List Review of Railway Structures looking at a wide variety of structures in a national context. As part of this assessment, Woking was identified the best surviving example of a type-13 box. Horsham was also considered to be a good example which had additional interest for its historic association and group value with a listed railway station. The Railway Review does not recommend any further type-13 signal boxes for listing.

The signal box at Templecombe Railway Station is understood to be the most westerly example of this type of box and its architecture reflects the characteristic features of the International Modern style including the flat concrete roof, overhanging eaves, and moulded corners. However, it has crucially lost its operating room windows. Much of the architectural interest of signal boxes lies in their fenestration, and the loss of the original timber glazing detracts significantly from the interest of the box. That said the operating floor windows at both Horsham and Woking appear to have also been replaced, and it must be acknowledeged that changes such as this are reversible.

During the mid-20th century the interior of type 13 boxes was described as being spacious and modern. In 1983, when Templecombe Station was re-opened to passenger traffic, the signal box was sub-divided to provide a waiting area and a ticket office. Although a new waiting room has since been installed on the platform, the booking office arrangements continue. Intactness is a very important consideration when assessing signal boxes for listing, and the changes that have taken place at Templecombe have significantly compromised the layout of the operating floor. In addition the original lever-frame has been reduced in length from 60 to 16 (including four spare) levers. Most of the station structures at Templecombe have been demolished, only the signal box, former mainline platforms and the goods shed (which is now in commercial use) remain from the pre-1967 period, reducing the signal box¿s group value and claims to special interest.

In summary, Templecombe signal box is not recommended for listing. Whilst it is a striking example of a signal box in the International Modern style, it is not of sufficiently early date to be notable as a mechanical signal box, and does not represent an important phase in the development of signal boxes and signalling technology. Its internal layout has been altered and the signalling equipment has been much reduced and is not sufficiently rare or intact to qualify in its own right for designation.

[Lee]

I think this might be the report on a previous listing attempt

https://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/Gateway/Results_Single.aspx?uid=1541602&resourceID=19191

From Historic England Research Records
Monument Number 1541602
This quote is the significant part of the entry:

   As set out in the English Heritage Selection Guide (2007) for Transport Buildings to merit designation, signal boxes should either represent a relatively early phase of architectural design or technological development, or should demonstrate some significant later technological novelty and innovation, or new architectural design.

One of the operators to adopt the architecture of the Modern Movement was the Southern Railway. Many of its stations and signal boxes were built in this style; Surbiton being the earliest type 13 signal box, erected in 1936. These signal boxes were adopted widely by the Southern Railway (SR^‡(resolve)), but odd examples were also used on the Great Eastern and later by the London & North Eastern Railway, and the design continued to be employed into the 1950s, albeit with power rather than mechanical frames. Post-war examples of this design survive at Streatham, South Croydon, Balham and Purley. There are currently two type-13 signal boxes on the SR that are listed: Woking in Surrey (1937, Grade II), and Horsham, West Sussex (circa 1938, Grade II). English Heritage has undertaken a Thematic List Review of Railway Structures looking at a wide variety of structures in a national context. As part of this assessment, Woking was identified the best surviving example of a type-13 box. Horsham was also considered to be a good example which had additional interest for its historic association and group value with a listed railway station. The Railway Review does not recommend any further type-13 signal boxes for listing.

The signal box at Templecombe Railway Station is understood to be the most westerly example of this type of box and its architecture reflects the characteristic features of the International Modern style including the flat concrete roof, overhanging eaves, and moulded corners. However, it has crucially lost its operating room windows. Much of the architectural interest of signal boxes lies in their fenestration, and the loss of the original timber glazing detracts significantly from the interest of the box. That said the operating floor windows at both Horsham and Woking appear to have also been replaced, and it must be acknowledeged that changes such as this are reversible.

During the mid-20th century the interior of type 13 boxes was described as being spacious and modern. In 1983, when Templecombe Station was re-opened to passenger traffic, the signal box was sub-divided to provide a waiting area and a ticket office. Although a new waiting room has since been installed on the platform, the booking office arrangements continue. Intactness is a very important consideration when assessing signal boxes for listing, and the changes that have taken place at Templecombe have significantly compromised the layout of the operating floor. In addition the original lever-frame has been reduced in length from 60 to 16 (including four spare) levers. Most of the station structures at Templecombe have been demolished, only the signal box, former mainline platforms and the goods shed (which is now in commercial use) remain from the pre-1967 period, reducing the signal box¿s group value and claims to special interest.

In summary, Templecombe signal box is not recommended for listing. Whilst it is a striking example of a signal box in the International Modern style, it is not of sufficiently early date to be notable as a mechanical signal box, and does not represent an important phase in the development of signal boxes and signalling technology. Its internal layout has been altered and the signalling equipment has been much reduced and is not sufficiently rare or intact to qualify in its own right for designation.

I would argue that they got some of this the wrong way round. The 1983 subdivision of the signal box to provide a waiting area and ticket office was a critical part of a business case for one of the very first of the 1980s "new wave" of rail reopenings, and it could therefore be convincingly said that it does indeed represent an important phase in the development of signal boxes.

[rogerpatenall]

We used to use Templecombe frequently in the 50s and early 60s. Opposite the bottom of the stairs to the up platform was a well stocked bookstall. That man was a hero of mine - he could read anything absolutely fluently whilst it was upside down to him on the counter. An art that I have never really mastered, not that it would have made much difference to my life if I had. And whilst I am rambling, one of my early memories is of my Dad taking me to watch the last down Devon Belle race through. Still a vivid memory, for some reason.

[Bmblbzzz]

The replaced windows are what immediately struck me looking at the photo at the top of the thread. They really do alter the look of the building. And it's not just signal boxes, modern windows are one of the most obvious changes to art deco commercial properties; original windows perhaps survive more in houses. But it's not all bad; modern windows keep buildings warmer of course and it's possible that without modern double glazing, we'd have lost more old buildings as being unfit for purpose.

[CyclingSid]

On the way back from a cycling trip to London on Saturday, we discussed this style of Southern signal boxes. I presume they were all designed in the 1930's, but who was the designer? In the early days of the Southern Railway James Robb Scott was the chief architect, personally noted by me for Bishopstone station that had two pillboxes added to the roof during WWII^▸ (World War 2 - 1939 to 1945).

I have to admit if only one of these signal boxes were preserved it would be the one at Portsmouth Harbour station.

The conversation drifted to more ephemeral parts of the Southern. I have an ongoing fascination for the "mass produced" concrete components that were used on the Southern: platform backs, bridges, plate layers huts, lighting standards, etc. Not sure how you would preserve a representative collection, and where.

[Clan Line]

[Lee]

One assumes that if the box is turned into a community facility, then the local community will take over paying for its upkeep.

That being the case, one must also assume that the Network Rail spokesman who tries to justify their position on money being spent on preserving the box being better used on improving services didn't have his 3 Shredded Wheat this morning.

[Bmblbzzz]

Where signal boxes become redundant for their original purpose, as I should imagine most now are, there's almost bound to be a new opportunity for some of them as "community" objects, just as has happened with phone boxes. Could they not be sold to community groups for a symbolic sum, as was done with phone boxes, thus saving NR^» (Network Rail - home page)/GBR^▸ (Great British Railways)/whoever the cost of maintenance (or demolition) and preserving the structures? Cafes, community centres, village halls and whatever. The trouble would be they'd have to be moved, and although I'd imagine that's possible with many of the timber structures, it's not going to be easy or cheap (and requires land to move them to).

[grahame]

From ITV

In what could have caused “terrible injuries to people”, four hunting hounds have been killed by a train after running onto a railway line on New Year's Day in Somerset.

Network Rail said: “The driver of a train reported seeing a pack of dogs. Sadly, the train collided with four dogs near Templecombe, Somerset.

Article continues

[PhilWakely]

At the risk of provoking a for/against hunting debate, of which I have no intention!

IF the hunt was obeying the law and trail-hunting, then those who laid the trail must have been extremely irresponsible to lay it anywhere near the railway (or major road for that matter). I guess that the hounds picked up the scent of a live quarry and those in charge of the hunt either couldn't or didn't want to attempt to control the pack. In either case, extremely irresponsible!

Whilst I, in common with at least two members of this forum, am (or would like to think I am) a responsible dog owner and love the four-legged member of our family, I have absolutely no sympathy for those associated with the Blackmore and Sparkford Vale Hunt.

[froome]

At the risk of provoking a for/against hunting debate, of which I have no intention!

IF the hunt was obeying the law and trail-hunting, then those who laid the trail must have been extremely irresponsible to lay it anywhere near the railway (or major road for that matter). I guess that the hounds picked up the scent of a live quarry and those in charge of the hunt either couldn't or didn't want to attempt to control the pack. In either case, extremely irresponsible!

Whilst I, in common with at least two members of this forum, am (or would like to think I am) a responsible dog owner and love the four-legged member of our family, I have absolutely no sympathy for those associated with the Blackmore and Sparkford Vale Hunt.

Just as an aside to this, your comments made me wonder whether one of the reasons why railway embankments have become important havens for some wildlife over the decades is because they offered a place to escape hunting dogs. Obviously the habitat they offer, and its general lack of disturbance from humans especially, is the main reason.