What do coasting boards look like, and are temporary and permanent ones the same? Would I have seen them going to and from school in 1952 Kingston to Raynes Park on the Southern Electric system?
Possibly, but I'm not sure of the distance between the two locations you mention is. As far as I know, the Southern was the first railway to introduce them, and it did so as the electric system got larger. In fact, this thread has got me thinking a lot about these and how they were first introduced and on what criteria they were based. (see below)
Most likely the case, I admit to not knowing the history or origin of it’s initial introduction. However since I’ve been a driver anyway, (last 5 years) they’ve been more or less irrelevant for their intended use. Even learning one of my routes my instructor said “During low adhesion if you haven’t put the brake in before this coasting board it’s 50/50 luck wether or not you stop at the next station”.
I totally accept your experience today, of course. And it's quite logical that as the technology of rail travel has developed, such things as coasting boards have become irrelvant, or at least needed changing to keep up with changes.
The first question it has raised in my mind is: why did the Southern introduce them (assuming they were the first)?
One reason, I suspect, is because with electric traction, there is no self-serving interest to drive efficiently: with steam, a driver had an incentive to keep to schedule while not wasting energy - a sensible driver wouldn't want to waste steam and his fireman's energy if he could close the regulator and still keep time.
With an electric unit, this self-regulating feedback didn't exist, and maybe management found some drivers pushed things to the limit, keeping power on until the last second, then winding back and immediately braking for the next stop. I don't know how expensive - relatively - electricity was back in the day either.
The Southern, being famous for its prudent spending, obviously thought it wise to advise drivers on this, but what were the criteria for the trade-off for energy saving versus additional running time involved?
If, say, you had 2.5 miles between station A and station B, even if you had a line speed of (say) 75 mph, I dare say it wouldn't pay to work the train up to above 65 mph - much more cost effective to take it there, say, within a mile and then ease back on the power before coasting 0.5 miles and then braking at a point about 1,000 yards before station B. (all depending on gradients, of course - and I'm just guessing the distances involved.)
I have looked up the Southern Electric Group website here
www.southernelectric.org.uk
but, somewhat surprisingly, I can't find a search function.