Jump to content

Silly signs


Dan1981

Featured Posts

20 hours ago, PeterScott said:

spacer.pngQuiz question: This Is  A Silly Sign Because:

 

(a) It's trying to be serious, but it's silly that said equipment is ever locked away

 

(b) It's trying to be silly, but who would want to be behind the bar when desperate parent-of-drowning-child rushes in from the lockside...

 

So out of academic interest, and not suggesting any current emergency, we asked the barstaff: they said that they thought there was a lifering in the beer-cellar somewhere.

 

More (b) than (a), then.

 

And the sign replaced a predecessor which was in place in 1985. So someone thought it silly enough to make its replacement:

spacer.png

 

 

Stone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Jerra said:

I was wondering why aa when most other series (all?) go a b c etc.

 

It's the location (in space and time!) of the bridge that dictates it.  I posted this explanation earlier:

 

45 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

The next one built, 78aa, is between 78 and 78a (not between 78a and 79 so can't be 78b).

 

I suppose if they had built the 78aa and 78aaa bridges the other way round they would have been 78aa and 78ab ...

 

Think 78, 78a, (78a)a, (78aa)a if it helps. :) 

 

Edited by TheBiscuits
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

It's the location (in space and time!) of the bridge that dictates it.  I posted this explanation earlier:

 

 

Yes you did but why call aa that rather than say a1.   aa seems, to me highly illogical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

spacer.png

That's not silly, even if it looks it at first glance. 

 

It's the M61 bridge at Botany Bay at Chorley on the L&L, between bridge 78 and bridge 78aa.

 

78, 78aa, 78a and 79 were already present when they built the bridge.  What number would you suggest they gave it?

 

 

35 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

It's a good try, and it's the normal convention but the bridges were built in the "wrong" order.

Bridges 78 and 79 were built first.

The one built next is between 78 and 79 and is numbered 78a.  Normal convention as you say.

The next one built, 78aa, is between 78 and 78a (not between 78a and 79 so can't be 78b).

Then they built this one between 78aa and 78 so following the same scheme it had to be 78aaa.

This is all good fun. On the general point, silliness is extra-silly when its authors are trying to be not-silly.

 

spacer.pngIn this case the extra-numberings were all done long after the extra bridges were built. As it's the L&L, it'll need @Pluto for a definitive answer: my best recollection is that we have the canal built with a set of bridges which at some stage acquire bridge numbers: maybe on the original plans?? Anyhow the railway bridge was later than the original scheme and given the number 78A.

 

No particular silliness thus far, but it's all before the motorway-constructors came along. They created their road and there is also a sliproad. It doesn't matter which order these were built in, as they were there for at least twenty years without any numbers before BW worried about them.

 

Then there was a BW 'Customer Service' initiative - the one that created all those nice wooden bollards. It was a new rule that all bridges had to have numbers and bridgeplaques, to help lost or injured customers. A Good Idea from Head Office, that was interpreted with the normal "they're at it again" resignation in the Regions. (compare with overhead-wire and no-fishing signs).

 

spacer.pngSo the problem here was to number TWO bridges between existing bridges 78 and 78A, and I would guess some wag in the office was thinking "Can We Get Away With This" as they wrote the order for 78aa and 78aaa.

 

There were other possible solutions: In Shipley, for example, Canalplan shows you can pass 207's C B E  in that order. In other regions towpath bridges over trivial streams have numbers, and at Alrewas, the long walkway near the weir has component-bridges up to (approx) index (i)

 

 

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 08/10/2020 at 11:07, Athy said:

There must be something there I've missed. But it does remind me of a sign I once saw at the base of a tube station escalator: "Dogs Must Be Carried". It was poorly enforced: I was not carrying a dog, but they still let me go up.

The tube signs on escalators annoy me. They "Please stand on the right" whereas what they really mean is "Please don't stand on the left", which is not the same thing at all. 

 

And also there is no standard convention when walking along corridors etc. Sometimes you keep right, sometimes keep left. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe crt allocate each department with a set amount of funding each year.It obviously gets spent by those departments whether it is needs to be spent or not!?

So this is our future "waterways heritage" under crt?!...1000's of tacky plastic signs!!?...They REALLY fit in with the rest of the painted/carved/embossed signs along the waterways,not to mention the stone mile markers.

HERITAGE MY ARSE!

 

If you NOTICE this NOTICE,

You will NOTICE,

This NOTICE

Is not worth NOTICING!...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, PeterScott said:

This is all good fun. On the general point, silliness is extra-silly when its authors are trying to be not-silly.

 

spacer.pngIn this case the extra-numberings were all done long after the extra bridges were built. As it's the L&L, it'll need @Pluto for a definitive answer: my best recollection is that we have the canal built with a set of bridges which at some stage acquire bridge numbers: maybe on the original plans?? Anyhow the railway bridge was later than the original scheme and given the number 78A.

 

No particular silliness thus far, but it's all before the motorway-constructors came along. They created their road and there is also a sliproad. It doesn't matter which order these were built in, as they were there for at least twenty years without any numbers before BW worried about them.

 

Then there was a BW 'Customer Service' initiative - the one that created all those nice wooden bollards. It was a new rule that all bridges had to have numbers and bridgeplaques, to help lost or injured customers. A Good Idea from Head Office, that was interpreted with the normal "they're at it again" resignation in the Regions. (compare with overhead-wire and no-fishing signs).



 

spacer.pngSo the problem here was to number TWO bridges between existing bridges 78 and 78A, and I would guess some wag in the office was thinking "Can We Get Away With This" as they wrote the order for 78aa and 78aaa.

 

There were other possible solutions: In Shipley, for example, Canalplan shows you can pass 207's C B E  in that order. In other regions towpath bridges over trivial streams have numbers, and at Alrewas, the long walkway near the weir has component-bridges up to (approx) index (i)

 

 

 

The L&LC Co never numbered its bridges, and this was done by British Waterways circa 1965 when there was a national programme to identify those bridges BW was responsible for. These were given a number, with those they were not responsible for were given the number of the previous BW bridge plus a letter. Thus, all railway bridges, motorway bridges, and those road bridges rebuilt to take larger loads by local authorities have a letter after the number, with those in Liverpool just having a letter as there is no previous BW/CRT responsibility bridge before Bootle. In places, where there are several non-CRT bridges, they have an A, B, C suffix, but the M61 motorway bridge came between 78 and 78A, so they must have thought 78AA more appropriate than 78B. The locks on the L&LC were numbered at around the same time as the bridges, but I suspect this was done by a different engineering department. Hence bridges are numbered from Liverpool to Leeds, while locks are numbered from Leeds to Liverpool.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Pluto said:

 Hence bridges are numbered from Liverpool to Leeds, while locks are numbered from Leeds to Liverpool.

Allegedly it was all done by one man.

A Mr Sidney Herbert Higgenbottom, who walked from Liverpool to Leeds numbering the bridges and then did the locks on his way back...

 

 

 

(Mine's the one with the zip up the back and the long sleeves )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Pluto said:

. The locks on the L&LC were numbered at around the same time as the bridges, but I suspect this was done by a different engineering department. Hence bridges are numbered from Liverpool to Leeds, while locks are numbered from Leeds to Liverpool.

 

The locks of the Wigan flight have carved numbers in the stonework which obviously predates BW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, StephenA said:

 

The locks of the Wigan flight have carved numbers in the stonework which obviously predates BW

 

Yes,but they are only the numbers for the flight, 1 is the top lock and 23 is the original bottom lock next to the dry dock.  21 is now considered the bottom lock on Wigan Flight since the Leigh Branch was built joining between 21 and 22.

 

I'm pretty sure the stonemason knew there were other locks in both directions when they built Wigan Flight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure the stonemason knew there were other locks in both directions when they built Wigan Flight.

....but, being a good Northerner, dismissed them as irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Pluto said:

Hence bridges are numbered from Liverpool to Leeds, while locks are numbered from Leeds to Liverpool.

Isn't It standard that Lock numbering starts at one end of a canal, and bridge numbering starts at the other - certainty like that on the K&A and seemed like that on GU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Col_T said:

Isn't It standard that Lock numbering starts at one end of a canal, and bridge numbering starts at the other?

Ooh, you're got a few people thinking now. My answer is, I don't think so. Certainly they aren't on the Oxford.

Cropredy lock bridge is 152, and the town bridge (below it) is 153, followed by Old Mill Bridge (154). The Claydon locks are 17 to 21, and Cropredy lock is 25. This suggests that both locks and bridges are numbered from the top end, going towards Oxford.

Edited by Athy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Col_T said:

Isn't It standard that Lock numbering starts at one end of a canal, and bridge numbering starts at the other - certainty like that on the K&A and seemed like that on GU.

Nope, lots of anomalies on the GU too.

The Northern GU starts at NaptonJunc with bridge 17 and lock 1 for Calcutt top, the Braunston -Napton section is numbered using the Oxford canal numbers, although even this is slightly skewed by removing the Wolfhamcote loop(the A45 bridge being no91 and no 92 seemingly lost(possibly the other A45 crossing where it used to continue out of the back of where the dry dock is now) as the turn becomes 93/4.

Lock numbers going South also start from Braunston, bridges from Butchers bridge that crosses from the marina.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

Yes,but they are only the numbers for the flight, 1 is the top lock and 23 is the original bottom lock next to the dry dock.  21 is now considered the bottom lock on Wigan Flight since the Leigh Branch was built joining between 21 and 22.

 

I'm pretty sure the stonemason knew there were other locks in both directions when they built Wigan Flight.

The locks built before 1790 usually have individual names apart from the riser locks, such as Bingley. Those locks built after 1790 are in flights, with each lock in a flight having consecutive numbers, such as Wigan locks 1-23. The only exception was at Barrowford, where the top four locks were Blakey 1-4, with Barrowford 1-3 below them. On the Leigh branch the two locks at Dover were known as Dover Top and Dover Low.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another related question, as bit remained unconnected, is was there separate numbering or naming for

(1) Leeds - westward

(2) Liverpool- eastward

(3) Douglas Navigation

(4) Lancaster Canal later absorbed into L & L

 

And my favourite conundrum, the lock at Leeds (under the station) and the section of navigation on the Aire above the weir.

Edited by Heartland
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.