Save our signal box wrote:The McKenzie & Holland information came from the Signal Box site, which listed them as the main contractor for the line, and from Wikipedia, but in addition the box is very similar in design to the boxes at Baschurch and Hartlebury, which were M&H - same arched windows in the ground floor, same finial at the apex of the barge boards. The station was opened in 1852 - I don't know whether the signal box was erected then, or whether it was added in 1888 - this might have followed the replacement of the original timber viaduct by the current blue-brick 6 arch viaduct in 1882 which carries two tracks (up and down?).
The boxes built by McKenzie & Holland on the line dated from the 1870s and early 1880s and this work would have been contracted to them because the GWR had insufficient resources of their own to cope with the massive expansion of signalling at that time. It is possible that the first box at Blakedown (full name Churchill & Blakedown) was of McKenzie & Holland origins but the one there now was an 1888 replacement and is indeed of the GWR's own design. Hagley was a similar renewal too.
In terms of rarity it is likely that this particular design in the history of GWR signal box design is a lot rarer than the McKenzie & Holland designs that survive so its historic significance should not be overlooked. I do not think many survive. I do not think any boxes of this type have achieved "listed" status with English Heritage but they can be very hard to convince - I think to them a signal box is a signal box and there is much duplication of some signal box designs with others totally overlooked.
Whether listing can be achieved or not, keeping the un-staffed building in good condition can be a challenge but it isn't impossible. Network Rail would undoubtedly like to demolish the box to avoid such a responsibility (and one can hardly blame them). To them, it isn't actually nonsense to demolish boxes immediately as they soon become vandalised eyesores, and it is convenient these days with the contracting arrangements for the signalling alterations to include demolition in the same contract so it is usually done almost immediately and sometimes almost before the poor signalman gets to the foot of the stairs!
From a technical viewpoint, the question of visibility refers to the CCTV cameras used by the remote signalman to establish the crossing is clear of obstructions before clearing the signals. The alterations there will have already been designed and it may (or may not) be that the arrangements are counting on the fact that the box won't be there. Therefore a dim view may be taken at the need to redesign.
Removal of signal boxes isn't an essential part of the process, however - only a few days ago I was looking at a box in Colchester in a similar circumstance. Although of no specific historical significance in EH terms (built in 1927!) it cannot be demolished as it is in the middle of a heritage area. It is worth noting, though, that essential to its survival in reasonable condition is the provision of unsightly grills over the windows to discourage vandalism. This is something you should not forget whilst trying to save a box as you see it now. It will not look as pretty:
Photo: John Hinson 21/2/12If you can find a valuable function for the building - museum, shop, whatever, I think the project might be considered more valuable and justified. The problem here would be safe access as the staircase is not at the level crossing end.
If you really value the building but it cannot remain where it is, another option would be to move it to another location in the village but this would be no small task as the box is largely brick-built. If you feel it should be saved but not necessarily locally, a steam railway may be pleased to take it on.
A lot of conflicting thoughts for you there but don't necessarily let them put you off. A tough road is ahead of you but I'm sure this forum will give you as much help as it can.
John