Topics

Busways on OS Explorer maps — extending topic to Tramways

Tony Jervis
 

Mr Harrison's reference to Britain's frequent attitude of a "hostile environment" towards tramways prompts me to wonder what guidance, if any, the OS issued concerning the mapping of tramways.  Leaving aside their use of "tramway" as an apparent alternative to "mineral railway" (Alan Godrey issued two adjacent sheets recently where a standard-gauge colliery railway branch crossed from one sheet to the other and changed its nominated status as it did so), street tramways seem to have generally been ignored at the One-Inch scale, whether or not they shared the tarmac with other road vehicles or had their own reserved track either to one side or down the central reservation of a dual carriagway.  Occasionally where the tramway left a road and ran across fields, it is shown as an isolated piece of railway without explanation.  On my Liverpool One-Inch sheet "Elec Tramway" is marked alongside roads running out of the city towards Kirkby and Prescot but no track is shown.  At Weymouth the Tramway (its official title) from the main line via Commercial Road and Custom House Quay to the Quay station for Channel Island ferries was shown by the single-track railway symbol, presumably because it carried passenger trains as well as goods.  On the other hand the route taken by boat trains down from Percy Main to Tyne Commission Quay east of Newcastle was shown as a "siding".  What attempts at consistency were made by OS?

A possible confusing point is that legally a "tramway" is a line laid in a road or street; if laid elsewhere it is a "tramroad".  The Bill for a proposed tramway to Easterhouse near Glasgow, referrinbg in detail to it route, alternated between "tramway" and "tramroad" for sections intened to be laid on or off the highway.

Tony Jervis.




On 12/08/2019 17:27, Jeremy Harrison via Groups.Io wrote:
Whether converted from old railway lines, or newly built, my understanding is that - like motorways and pedestrian precincts - busways are 'special roads'; and as such have to be shown on the map somehow.

Runcorn - as a new/developing town in the late 1960s/1970s (I think) - had quite quite a large busway network planned to serve the new areas - I recall reading publicity about it at the time - don't know how much was built. or what its subsequent history was. (At another time or place, it might have been a tramway).

Jeremy

Virus-free. www.avg.com

Rob Wheeler
 

Tony Jervis's objection to "tramway" as an 'apparent alternative to
"mineral railway"' is a little unfair on the OS. Horse-drawn lines
connecting coal mines to canals were widely described as tramways in
the early C19. Indeed, one Leicestershire writer around 1900 declared
the term to be an abbreviation of Outram-way and that it ought only to
be used where there were flanges on the rails. He was wrong
etymologically, but serves to make the point that a 'tramway' at that
date was primarily a light mineral railway. In the 1840s and 1850s,
the OS annotated plenty of Tramways on the 6-inch maps.

The cause of the terminological problem was the use in the UK of
'tramway' for what ought properly to be called a 'street railway', and
which I suppose came about at a time when they were horse-worked. US
usage in this respect is far more accurate.

Rob

Richard Oliver
 

Thank you for this.

First, let me say that what started off this thread was finding an OS decision in October 1979 that 'busways' were to be shown on the 1:10,000, and by implication on the 1:25,000 2nd Series/Pathfinders, which was produced initially by photo-reducing the 1:10,000 drawings: but the only such then known to the OS were at Runcorn. to be mapped as 'minor roads' and annotated, and this is demonstrated on Explorer 275. I knew of the Cambridge-St Ives example, which is a converted railway, but was unsure what might be found elsewhere.

Turning to the depiction of 'tramways' on small-scale OS maps: the general rule until the 1990s was that where these either shared the carriageway or ran parallel with it, they were not mapped at smaller than 1:2500. They were only mapped when they ran 'off-road'. This is clearly illustrated by the treatment of the Blackpool system, where the only section always mapped by the OS was a section of half a mile or so south of Fleetwood (around SD 321456) that ran off-road, although the whole system runs on its own reservation. (But see later for earlier practice.) This treatment is confirmed by successive issues of OS instructions to field revisers and draughtsman: those of 1909 to revisers are representative: 'Electric tramways are to be shown by writing the name along the line of route where they follow the road, and by adding the symbol ... where they leave the road. The symbol is not to be shown along the roads.'  In 1936 this was amplified in instructions to draughtsmen: 'where they run along country roads the symbol is not shown, but the words 'Tramway' or 'Electric Tramway' are written'. From the point of view of trying to find the actual route and terminals of on-road systems this is, of course, utterly useless! The tramway through Hayes, Middlesex, that appears on successive 1-inch editions up to 1939 is a good example of this. (It does not appear on the post-war mapping using pre-war material as the road had become built-up.) Tramways are effectively treated as a form of land-use rather than of communication.

Unfortunately I don't have access here to OS 1:25,000 Pathfinders SD 32/33 or SD 34/34, so I don't know how the Blackpool system was treated on them in the 1970s and 80s.

There would seem to have been a definite change of policy in the early 1990s, in that whereas the earlier 1:50,000 Landranger sheet 102 treated the Blackpool system in continuity of one-inch practice, the 'B' edition, revised in 1990, adds it. It is possible that that this may have arisen from a query by the reviser of sheet 102: changes in OS practice can occasionally be traced to specific queries/problems encountered in the field. Perhaps the reviser thought it looked like a railway, but wasn't being treated like one! (The impending opening of the Manchester system may also have had something to do with it.) The Blackpool system duly appears on Explorers 286 and 296, prepared nearly a decade later.

Incidentally, the practice on the 1-inch in relation to the Blackpool system varied: on the Third Edition (published 1913), the whole section from the north end of the built-up area to Fleetwood is shown both by symbol and with 'Halts', and this is followed on the quarter-inch Third Edition, published 1921. The Popular Edition, published 1924, omitted the halts.

It is worth noting that the practice on the OS 1-inch from its start to the 1880s was to treat 'tramways' and 'rail roads' as, effectively, 'minor roads', so they are not easily picked out. (An early example for the surveyors to cope with was the Surrey Iron Railway, open by 1805.) A 'ladder' symbol was introduced in 1836-7 for 'main line', or 'heavy rail'. As Rob Wheeler points out in his posting, the use of language was not very precise. OS practice seems to reflect this!

We need a full-scale study of OS depiction of railways and tramways along the lines of that by Bill Bignell for windmills on OS maps! Given the overlap of transport and map interests, it ought to appeal, both as a project and as a publication...

Back to work on the OS 1:25,000 in the 1970s!

Richard Oliver


On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 23:06, Tony Jervis via Groups.Io <tony.jervis=talktalk.net@groups.io> wrote:

Mr Harrison's reference to Britain's frequent attitude of a "hostile environment" towards tramways prompts me to wonder what guidance, if any, the OS issued concerning the mapping of tramways.  Leaving aside their use of "tramway" as an apparent alternative to "mineral railway" (Alan Godrey issued two adjacent sheets recently where a standard-gauge colliery railway branch crossed from one sheet to the other and changed its nominated status as it did so), street tramways seem to have generally been ignored at the One-Inch scale, whether or not they shared the tarmac with other road vehicles or had their own reserved track either to one side or down the central reservation of a dual carriagway.  Occasionally where the tramway left a road and ran across fields, it is shown as an isolated piece of railway without explanation.  On my Liverpool One-Inch sheet "Elec Tramway" is marked alongside roads running out of the city towards Kirkby and Prescot but no track is shown.  At Weymouth the Tramway (its official title) from the main line via Commercial Road and Custom House Quay to the Quay station for Channel Island ferries was shown by the single-track railway symbol, presumably because it carried passenger trains as well as goods.  On the other hand the route taken by boat trains down from Percy Main to Tyne Commission Quay east of Newcastle was shown as a "siding".  What attempts at consistency were made by OS?

A possible confusing point is that legally a "tramway" is a line laid in a road or street; if laid elsewhere it is a "tramroad".  The Bill for a proposed tramway to Easterhouse near Glasgow, referrinbg in detail to it route, alternated between "tramway" and "tramroad" for sections intened to be laid on or off the highway.

Tony Jervis.




On 12/08/2019 17:27, Jeremy Harrison via Groups.Io wrote:
Whether converted from old railway lines, or newly built, my understanding is that - like motorways and pedestrian precincts - busways are 'special roads'; and as such have to be shown on the map somehow.

Runcorn - as a new/developing town in the late 1960s/1970s (I think) - had quite quite a large busway network planned to serve the new areas - I recall reading publicity about it at the time - don't know how much was built. or what its subsequent history was. (At another time or place, it might have been a tramway).

Jeremy

Virus-free. www.avg.com

James McKay
 

Dear Richard:

To which I add (but don’t overdo the desire of all subscribers to read) that the linguistic problem gets worse not better. While ‘tramway’, to me as a railway person, had two distinct meanings, (a) a minor railway which might or not have been of the same gauge as and connected to the main line network and (b) an urban route carrying passenger trams, the fundamental difference from a railway is that it has no signalling system.

But it is now almost ‘politically incorrect’ to call a passenger tram network a ‘tramway' (unless you’re the author of the Highway Code, which just has ’Tram’ signs). It’s a ‘Metro' (Birmingham) or a ‘Tramlink’ (Croydon), 'Express Transit' (Nottingham), ‘Supertram' (Shefffield) or ‘Metrolink' (Manchester); only Blackpool sticks to ’Tramway’; and the distinction is blurred with the light railways in Docklands and Tyneside (the latter is called ‘Metro’), which both have signalling systems – automatic train control in east London.

It’s not just the OS which is confused.

with best regards, 

James

On 13 Aug 2019, at 12:04, Richard Oliver <flookcarto@...> wrote:

Thank you for this.

First, let me say that what started off this thread was finding an OS decision in October 1979 that 'busways' were to be shown on the 1:10,000, and by implication on the 1:25,000 2nd Series/Pathfinders, which was produced initially by photo-reducing the 1:10,000 drawings: but the only such then known to the OS were at Runcorn. to be mapped as 'minor roads' and annotated, and this is demonstrated on Explorer 275. I knew of the Cambridge-St Ives example, which is a converted railway, but was unsure what might be found elsewhere.

Turning to the depiction of 'tramways' on small-scale OS maps: the general rule until the 1990s was that where these either shared the carriageway or ran parallel with it, they were not mapped at smaller than 1:2500. They were only mapped when they ran 'off-road'. This is clearly illustrated by the treatment of the Blackpool system, where the only section always mapped by the OS was a section of half a mile or so south of Fleetwood (around SD 321456) that ran off-road, although the whole system runs on its own reservation. (But see later for earlier practice.) This treatment is confirmed by successive issues of OS instructions to field revisers and draughtsman: those of 1909 to revisers are representative: 'Electric tramways are to be shown by writing the name along the line of route where they follow the road, and by adding the symbol ... where they leave the road. The symbol is not to be shown along the roads.'  In 1936 this was amplified in instructions to draughtsmen: 'where they run along country roads the symbol is not shown, but the words 'Tramway' or 'Electric Tramway' are written'. From the point of view of trying to find the actual route and terminals of on-road systems this is, of course, utterly useless! The tramway through Hayes, Middlesex, that appears on successive 1-inch editions up to 1939 is a good example of this. (It does not appear on the post-war mapping using pre-war material as the road had become built-up.) Tramways are effectively treated as a form of land-use rather than of communication.

Unfortunately I don't have access here to OS 1:25,000 Pathfinders SD 32/33 or SD 34/34, so I don't know how the Blackpool system was treated on them in the 1970s and 80s.

There would seem to have been a definite change of policy in the early 1990s, in that whereas the earlier 1:50,000 Landranger sheet 102 treated the Blackpool system in continuity of one-inch practice, the 'B' edition, revised in 1990, adds it. It is possible that that this may have arisen from a query by the reviser of sheet 102: changes in OS practice can occasionally be traced to specific queries/problems encountered in the field. Perhaps the reviser thought it looked like a railway, but wasn't being treated like one! (The impending opening of the Manchester system may also have had something to do with it.) The Blackpool system duly appears on Explorers 286 and 296, prepared nearly a decade later.

Incidentally, the practice on the 1-inch in relation to the Blackpool system varied: on the Third Edition (published 1913), the whole section from the north end of the built-up area to Fleetwood is shown both by symbol and with 'Halts', and this is followed on the quarter-inch Third Edition, published 1921. The Popular Edition, published 1924, omitted the halts.

It is worth noting that the practice on the OS 1-inch from its start to the 1880s was to treat 'tramways' and 'rail roads' as, effectively, 'minor roads', so they are not easily picked out. (An early example for the surveyors to cope with was the Surrey Iron Railway, open by 1805.) A 'ladder' symbol was introduced in 1836-7 for 'main line', or 'heavy rail'. As Rob Wheeler points out in his posting, the use of language was not very precise. OS practice seems to reflect this!

We need a full-scale study of OS depiction of railways and tramways along the lines of that by Bill Bignell for windmills on OS maps! Given the overlap of transport and map interests, it ought to appeal, both as a project and as a publication...

Back to work on the OS 1:25,000 in the 1970s!

Richard Oliver

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 23:06, Tony Jervis via Groups.Io <tony.jervis=talktalk.net@groups.io> wrote:

Mr Harrison's reference to Britain's frequent attitude of a "hostile environment" towards tramways prompts me to wonder what guidance, if any, the OS issued concerning the mapping of tramways.  Leaving aside their use of "tramway" as an apparent alternative to "mineral railway" (Alan Godrey issued two adjacent sheets recently where a standard-gauge colliery railway branch crossed from one sheet to the other and changed its nominated status as it did so), street tramways seem to have generally been ignored at the One-Inch scale, whether or not they shared the tarmac with other road vehicles or had their own reserved track either to one side or down the central reservation of a dual carriagway.  Occasionally where the tramway left a road and ran across fields, it is shown as an isolated piece of railway without explanation.  On my Liverpool One-Inch sheet "Elec Tramway" is marked alongside roads running out of the city towards Kirkby and Prescot but no track is shown.  At Weymouth the Tramway (its official title) from the main line via Commercial Road and Custom House Quay to the Quay station for Channel Island ferries was shown by the single-track railway symbol, presumably because it carried passenger trains as well as goods.  On the other hand the route taken by boat trains down from Percy Main to Tyne Commission Quay east of Newcastle was shown as a "siding".  What attempts at consistency were made by OS?

A possible confusing point is that legally a "tramway" is a line laid in a road or street; if laid elsewhere it is a "tramroad".  The Bill for a proposed tramway to Easterhouse near Glasgow, referrinbg in detail to it route, alternated between "tramway" and "tramroad" for sections intened to be laid on or off the highway.

Tony Jervis.




On 12/08/2019 17:27, Jeremy Harrison via Groups.Io wrote:
Whether converted from old railway lines, or newly built, my understanding is that - like motorways and pedestrian precincts - busways are 'special roads'; and as such have to be shown on the map somehow.

Runcorn - as a new/developing town in the late 1960s/1970s (I think) - had quite quite a large busway network planned to serve the new areas - I recall reading publicity about it at the time - don't know how much was built. or what its subsequent history was. (At another time or place, it might have been a tramway).

Jeremy

Virus-free. www.avg.com



Brian Styles
 

Dear all,

On 13/08/2019 13:34, James McKay via Groups.Io wrote:
the fundamental difference <of 'tramway'> from a railway is that it
has no signalling system.
Hmm, not so sure... I recall the excellent tram system in Kassel which
certainly does (or, anyway, did) have signals at intersections and
crossings. For instance, see:

https://www.railway-technology.com/projects/kasseltramtrains/attachment/kasseltramtrains3/

Incidentally, the St Ives - Cambridge 'busway' as it's called around
here does utilise much of the old track bed of the proper railway but a
goodly part of the route is over normal roads.

However, the plan, entailing rubber wheels, diesel engines and concrete
troughs has never appealed to those of us with an affinity for steel wheels, electric traction and metal rails!

All the best,


-Brian Styles (Cambridge)

B Anderson
 

Hi everyone

The trams in Munich use similar signals to those in the photograph of Kassel, at least they did when we were there in June. Similar signals are also in use on Metrolink in Manchester. A key difference may be that trams operate without the block signalling arrangements of heavy rail where stopping distances are much greater.

Bernard

On 13 Aug 2019, at 14:04, Brian Styles <@BrianStyles> wrote:

Dear all,

On 13/08/2019 13:34, James McKay via Groups.Io wrote:
the fundamental difference <of 'tramway'> from a railway is that it
has no signalling system.
Hmm, not so sure... I recall the excellent tram system in Kassel which
certainly does (or, anyway, did) have signals at intersections and
crossings. For instance, see:

https://www.railway-technology.com/projects/kasseltramtrains/attachment/kasseltramtrains3/

Incidentally, the St Ives - Cambridge 'busway' as it's called around
here does utilise much of the old track bed of the proper railway but a
goodly part of the route is over normal roads.

However, the plan, entailing rubber wheels, diesel engines and concrete
troughs has never appealed to those of us with an affinity for steel wheels, electric traction and metal rails!

All the best,


-Brian Styles (Cambridge)


John Davies
 

I guess you'd call them traffic lights rather than 'signals'.

John

On 13/08/2019 14:58, B Anderson via Groups.Io wrote:
Hi everyone

The trams in Munich use similar signals to those in the photograph of Kassel, at least they did when we were there in June. Similar signals are also in use on Metrolink in Manchester. A key difference may be that trams operate without the block signalling arrangements of heavy rail where stopping distances are much greater.

Bernard

On 13 Aug 2019, at 14:04, Brian Styles <@BrianStyles> wrote:

Dear all,

On 13/08/2019 13:34, James McKay via Groups.Io wrote:
the fundamental difference <of 'tramway'> from a railway is that it
has no signalling system.
Hmm, not so sure... I recall the excellent tram system in Kassel which
certainly does (or, anyway, did) have signals at intersections and
crossings. For instance, see:

https://www.railway-technology.com/projects/kasseltramtrains/attachment/kasseltramtrains3/

Incidentally, the St Ives - Cambridge 'busway' as it's called around
here does utilise much of the old track bed of the proper railway but a
goodly part of the route is over normal roads.

However, the plan, entailing rubber wheels, diesel engines and concrete
troughs has never appealed to those of us with an affinity for steel wheels, electric traction and metal rails!

All the best,


-Brian Styles (Cambridge)





---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

Richard Oliver
 

Dear James,

Thank you for this. I suspect that the desire to call a tramway anything but a 'tramway' may be to do with branding a particular transport system or route!

I am not sure that the presence or otherwise of a signalling system helps defining 'tramway' and 'railway', in that the Grimsby and Immingham tramway, for example, certainly had an electric signalling system, at any rate in its later years, even if this seems to have been mainly to protect junctions and level crossings rather than to segregate trams in a block system. Equally, terminal branch lines worked by 'one engine in steam' aren't signalled: there is an example close by to me here, in the form of the Exmouth branch south of Topsham! The actual distinction between 'light railway/tramway' and 'main line/heavy rail' seems to be a rather fine one, and perhaps a matter of 'the spirit of the thing' as of a 'box-ticking' approach of whether there are, e.g., signals, or whether freight can be carried. I see from the 1-inch 3rd Edn that the Portsdown-Horndean line was officially a 'Light Railway', and the 'off-road' section past Cosham is actually shown using the railway 'single track' symbol, although the photos I have seen indicate that in infrastructure it was a conventional electric tramway!

Best wishes,
Richard


On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 13:35, James McKay via Groups.Io <james.mackay=talktalk.net@groups.io> wrote:
Dear Richard:

To which I add (but don’t overdo the desire of all subscribers to read) that the linguistic problem gets worse not better. While ‘tramway’, to me as a railway person, had two distinct meanings, (a) a minor railway which might or not have been of the same gauge as and connected to the main line network and (b) an urban route carrying passenger trams, the fundamental difference from a railway is that it has no signalling system.

But it is now almost ‘politically incorrect’ to call a passenger tram network a ‘tramway' (unless you’re the author of the Highway Code, which just has ’Tram’ signs). It’s a ‘Metro' (Birmingham) or a ‘Tramlink’ (Croydon), 'Express Transit' (Nottingham), ‘Supertram' (Shefffield) or ‘Metrolink' (Manchester); only Blackpool sticks to ’Tramway’; and the distinction is blurred with the light railways in Docklands and Tyneside (the latter is called ‘Metro’), which both have signalling systems – automatic train control in east London.

It’s not just the OS which is confused.

with best regards, 

James

On 13 Aug 2019, at 12:04, Richard Oliver <flookcarto@...> wrote:

Thank you for this.

First, let me say that what started off this thread was finding an OS decision in October 1979 that 'busways' were to be shown on the 1:10,000, and by implication on the 1:25,000 2nd Series/Pathfinders, which was produced initially by photo-reducing the 1:10,000 drawings: but the only such then known to the OS were at Runcorn. to be mapped as 'minor roads' and annotated, and this is demonstrated on Explorer 275. I knew of the Cambridge-St Ives example, which is a converted railway, but was unsure what might be found elsewhere.

Turning to the depiction of 'tramways' on small-scale OS maps: the general rule until the 1990s was that where these either shared the carriageway or ran parallel with it, they were not mapped at smaller than 1:2500. They were only mapped when they ran 'off-road'. This is clearly illustrated by the treatment of the Blackpool system, where the only section always mapped by the OS was a section of half a mile or so south of Fleetwood (around SD 321456) that ran off-road, although the whole system runs on its own reservation. (But see later for earlier practice.) This treatment is confirmed by successive issues of OS instructions to field revisers and draughtsman: those of 1909 to revisers are representative: 'Electric tramways are to be shown by writing the name along the line of route where they follow the road, and by adding the symbol ... where they leave the road. The symbol is not to be shown along the roads.'  In 1936 this was amplified in instructions to draughtsmen: 'where they run along country roads the symbol is not shown, but the words 'Tramway' or 'Electric Tramway' are written'. From the point of view of trying to find the actual route and terminals of on-road systems this is, of course, utterly useless! The tramway through Hayes, Middlesex, that appears on successive 1-inch editions up to 1939 is a good example of this. (It does not appear on the post-war mapping using pre-war material as the road had become built-up.) Tramways are effectively treated as a form of land-use rather than of communication.

Unfortunately I don't have access here to OS 1:25,000 Pathfinders SD 32/33 or SD 34/34, so I don't know how the Blackpool system was treated on them in the 1970s and 80s.

There would seem to have been a definite change of policy in the early 1990s, in that whereas the earlier 1:50,000 Landranger sheet 102 treated the Blackpool system in continuity of one-inch practice, the 'B' edition, revised in 1990, adds it. It is possible that that this may have arisen from a query by the reviser of sheet 102: changes in OS practice can occasionally be traced to specific queries/problems encountered in the field. Perhaps the reviser thought it looked like a railway, but wasn't being treated like one! (The impending opening of the Manchester system may also have had something to do with it.) The Blackpool system duly appears on Explorers 286 and 296, prepared nearly a decade later.

Incidentally, the practice on the 1-inch in relation to the Blackpool system varied: on the Third Edition (published 1913), the whole section from the north end of the built-up area to Fleetwood is shown both by symbol and with 'Halts', and this is followed on the quarter-inch Third Edition, published 1921. The Popular Edition, published 1924, omitted the halts.

It is worth noting that the practice on the OS 1-inch from its start to the 1880s was to treat 'tramways' and 'rail roads' as, effectively, 'minor roads', so they are not easily picked out. (An early example for the surveyors to cope with was the Surrey Iron Railway, open by 1805.) A 'ladder' symbol was introduced in 1836-7 for 'main line', or 'heavy rail'. As Rob Wheeler points out in his posting, the use of language was not very precise. OS practice seems to reflect this!

We need a full-scale study of OS depiction of railways and tramways along the lines of that by Bill Bignell for windmills on OS maps! Given the overlap of transport and map interests, it ought to appeal, both as a project and as a publication...

Back to work on the OS 1:25,000 in the 1970s!

Richard Oliver

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 23:06, Tony Jervis via Groups.Io <tony.jervis=talktalk.net@groups.io> wrote:

Mr Harrison's reference to Britain's frequent attitude of a "hostile environment" towards tramways prompts me to wonder what guidance, if any, the OS issued concerning the mapping of tramways.  Leaving aside their use of "tramway" as an apparent alternative to "mineral railway" (Alan Godrey issued two adjacent sheets recently where a standard-gauge colliery railway branch crossed from one sheet to the other and changed its nominated status as it did so), street tramways seem to have generally been ignored at the One-Inch scale, whether or not they shared the tarmac with other road vehicles or had their own reserved track either to one side or down the central reservation of a dual carriagway.  Occasionally where the tramway left a road and ran across fields, it is shown as an isolated piece of railway without explanation.  On my Liverpool One-Inch sheet "Elec Tramway" is marked alongside roads running out of the city towards Kirkby and Prescot but no track is shown.  At Weymouth the Tramway (its official title) from the main line via Commercial Road and Custom House Quay to the Quay station for Channel Island ferries was shown by the single-track railway symbol, presumably because it carried passenger trains as well as goods.  On the other hand the route taken by boat trains down from Percy Main to Tyne Commission Quay east of Newcastle was shown as a "siding".  What attempts at consistency were made by OS?

A possible confusing point is that legally a "tramway" is a line laid in a road or street; if laid elsewhere it is a "tramroad".  The Bill for a proposed tramway to Easterhouse near Glasgow, referrinbg in detail to it route, alternated between "tramway" and "tramroad" for sections intened to be laid on or off the highway.

Tony Jervis.




On 12/08/2019 17:27, Jeremy Harrison via Groups.Io wrote:
Whether converted from old railway lines, or newly built, my understanding is that - like motorways and pedestrian precincts - busways are 'special roads'; and as such have to be shown on the map somehow.

Runcorn - as a new/developing town in the late 1960s/1970s (I think) - had quite quite a large busway network planned to serve the new areas - I recall reading publicity about it at the time - don't know how much was built. or what its subsequent history was. (At another time or place, it might have been a tramway).

Jeremy

Virus-free. www.avg.com



Gerry Nichols 1198
 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Railways_Act_1896 is a good summary of the way in which a railway could be built using a Light Railway Order rather than a private Act of Parliament or under the Tramways Act.

 

A key issue requiring Parliamentary approval is the acquisition of a right of way. Railway Acts provide for a measure of compulsion of a land owner to treat for the land on which a railway is built. Obviously if that land is an existing right of way, the Act or Order provides for the tramway or railway to open up the highway to lay rails and generally to be responsible for the maintenance of the road for a distance either side of the tracks.

 

Signalling on street tramways was generally associated with single line sections or interlaced tracks where the normal requirement to follow at a safe distance behind the car in front was not adequate. Modern two track  street tramways have signals at road intersections and pedestrian crossings. The Swansea and Mumbles line was on a private right of way (originally the Oystermouth Railway) but had signals to control passing loops on the single line section.

 

Gerry Nichols

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 


From: main@ordnancemaps.groups.io <main@ordnancemaps.groups.io> on behalf of Richard Oliver <flookcarto@...>
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 4:16:08 PM
To: main@ordnancemaps.groups.io <main@ordnancemaps.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [ordnancemaps] Busways on OS Explorer maps — extending topic to Tramways
 
Dear James,

Thank you for this. I suspect that the desire to call a tramway anything but a 'tramway' may be to do with branding a particular transport system or route!

I am not sure that the presence or otherwise of a signalling system helps defining 'tramway' and 'railway', in that the Grimsby and Immingham tramway, for example, certainly had an electric signalling system, at any rate in its later years, even if this seems to have been mainly to protect junctions and level crossings rather than to segregate trams in a block system. Equally, terminal branch lines worked by 'one engine in steam' aren't signalled: there is an example close by to me here, in the form of the Exmouth branch south of Topsham! The actual distinction between 'light railway/tramway' and 'main line/heavy rail' seems to be a rather fine one, and perhaps a matter of 'the spirit of the thing' as of a 'box-ticking' approach of whether there are, e.g., signals, or whether freight can be carried. I see from the 1-inch 3rd Edn that the Portsdown-Horndean line was officially a 'Light Railway', and the 'off-road' section past Cosham is actually shown using the railway 'single track' symbol, although the photos I have seen indicate that in infrastructure it was a conventional electric tramway!

Best wishes,
Richard

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 13:35, James McKay via Groups.Io <james.mackay=talktalk.net@groups.io> wrote:
Dear Richard:

To which I add (but don’t overdo the desire of all subscribers to read) that the linguistic problem gets worse not better. While ‘tramway’, to me as a railway person, had two distinct meanings, (a) a minor railway which might or not have been of the same gauge as and connected to the main line network and (b) an urban route carrying passenger trams, the fundamental difference from a railway is that it has no signalling system.

But it is now almost ‘politically incorrect’ to call a passenger tram network a ‘tramway' (unless you’re the author of the Highway Code, which just has ’Tram’ signs). It’s a ‘Metro' (Birmingham) or a ‘Tramlink’ (Croydon), 'Express Transit' (Nottingham), ‘Supertram' (Shefffield) or ‘Metrolink' (Manchester); only Blackpool sticks to ’Tramway’; and the distinction is blurred with the light railways in Docklands and Tyneside (the latter is called ‘Metro’), which both have signalling systems – automatic train control in east London.

It’s not just the OS which is confused.

with best regards, 

James

On 13 Aug 2019, at 12:04, Richard Oliver <flookcarto@...> wrote:

Thank you for this.

First, let me say that what started off this thread was finding an OS decision in October 1979 that 'busways' were to be shown on the 1:10,000, and by implication on the 1:25,000 2nd Series/Pathfinders, which was produced initially by photo-reducing the 1:10,000 drawings: but the only such then known to the OS were at Runcorn. to be mapped as 'minor roads' and annotated, and this is demonstrated on Explorer 275. I knew of the Cambridge-St Ives example, which is a converted railway, but was unsure what might be found elsewhere.

Turning to the depiction of 'tramways' on small-scale OS maps: the general rule until the 1990s was that where these either shared the carriageway or ran parallel with it, they were not mapped at smaller than 1:2500. They were only mapped when they ran 'off-road'. This is clearly illustrated by the treatment of the Blackpool system, where the only section always mapped by the OS was a section of half a mile or so south of Fleetwood (around SD 321456) that ran off-road, although the whole system runs on its own reservation. (But see later for earlier practice.) This treatment is confirmed by successive issues of OS instructions to field revisers and draughtsman: those of 1909 to revisers are representative: 'Electric tramways are to be shown by writing the name along the line of route where they follow the road, and by adding the symbol ... where they leave the road. The symbol is not to be shown along the roads.'  In 1936 this was amplified in instructions to draughtsmen: 'where they run along country roads the symbol is not shown, but the words 'Tramway' or 'Electric Tramway' are written'. From the point of view of trying to find the actual route and terminals of on-road systems this is, of course, utterly useless! The tramway through Hayes, Middlesex, that appears on successive 1-inch editions up to 1939 is a good example of this. (It does not appear on the post-war mapping using pre-war material as the road had become built-up.) Tramways are effectively treated as a form of land-use rather than of communication.

Unfortunately I don't have access here to OS 1:25,000 Pathfinders SD 32/33 or SD 34/34, so I don't know how the Blackpool system was treated on them in the 1970s and 80s.

There would seem to have been a definite change of policy in the early 1990s, in that whereas the earlier 1:50,000 Landranger sheet 102 treated the Blackpool system in continuity of one-inch practice, the 'B' edition, revised in 1990, adds it. It is possible that that this may have arisen from a query by the reviser of sheet 102: changes in OS practice can occasionally be traced to specific queries/problems encountered in the field. Perhaps the reviser thought it looked like a railway, but wasn't being treated like one! (The impending opening of the Manchester system may also have had something to do with it.) The Blackpool system duly appears on Explorers 286 and 296, prepared nearly a decade later.

Incidentally, the practice on the 1-inch in relation to the Blackpool system varied: on the Third Edition (published 1913), the whole section from the north end of the built-up area to Fleetwood is shown both by symbol and with 'Halts', and this is followed on the quarter-inch Third Edition, published 1921. The Popular Edition, published 1924, omitted the halts.

It is worth noting that the practice on the OS 1-inch from its start to the 1880s was to treat 'tramways' and 'rail roads' as, effectively, 'minor roads', so they are not easily picked out. (An early example for the surveyors to cope with was the Surrey Iron Railway, open by 1805.) A 'ladder' symbol was introduced in 1836-7 for 'main line', or 'heavy rail'. As Rob Wheeler points out in his posting, the use of language was not very precise. OS practice seems to reflect this!

We need a full-scale study of OS depiction of railways and tramways along the lines of that by Bill Bignell for windmills on OS maps! Given the overlap of transport and map interests, it ought to appeal, both as a project and as a publication...

Back to work on the OS 1:25,000 in the 1970s!

Richard Oliver

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 23:06, Tony Jervis via Groups.Io <tony.jervis=talktalk.net@groups.io> wrote:

Mr Harrison's reference to Britain's frequent attitude of a "hostile environment" towards tramways prompts me to wonder what guidance, if any, the OS issued concerning the mapping of tramways.  Leaving aside their use of "tramway" as an apparent alternative to "mineral railway" (Alan Godrey issued two adjacent sheets recently where a standard-gauge colliery railway branch crossed from one sheet to the other and changed its nominated status as it did so), street tramways seem to have generally been ignored at the One-Inch scale, whether or not they shared the tarmac with other road vehicles or had their own reserved track either to one side or down the central reservation of a dual carriagway.  Occasionally where the tramway left a road and ran across fields, it is shown as an isolated piece of railway without explanation.  On my Liverpool One-Inch sheet "Elec Tramway" is marked alongside roads running out of the city towards Kirkby and Prescot but no track is shown.  At Weymouth the Tramway (its official title) from the main line via Commercial Road and Custom House Quay to the Quay station for Channel Island ferries was shown by the single-track railway symbol, presumably because it carried passenger trains as well as goods.  On the other hand the route taken by boat trains down from Percy Main to Tyne Commission Quay east of Newcastle was shown as a "siding".  What attempts at consistency were made by OS?

A possible confusing point is that legally a "tramway" is a line laid in a road or street; if laid elsewhere it is a "tramroad".  The Bill for a proposed tramway to Easterhouse near Glasgow, referrinbg in detail to it route, alternated between "tramway" and "tramroad" for sections intened to be laid on or off the highway.

Tony Jervis.




On 12/08/2019 17:27, Jeremy Harrison via Groups.Io wrote:
Whether converted from old railway lines, or newly built, my understanding is that - like motorways and pedestrian precincts - busways are 'special roads'; and as such have to be shown on the map somehow.

Runcorn - as a new/developing town in the late 1960s/1970s (I think) - had quite quite a large busway network planned to serve the new areas - I recall reading publicity about it at the time - don't know how much was built. or what its subsequent history was. (At another time or place, it might have been a tramway).

Jeremy

Virus-free. www.avg.com



Richard Oliver
 

Thank you, again, for this!

On checking some maps here I find that the position with regards to the six-inch map is not straightforward!

Lancashire 6-inch sheets 50 NE and 50 SE show the Blackpool system as on the contemporary 1-inch, i.e. outside the built-up area and what the Alan Godfrey 1:2500ss show as the junction with Warbreck Hill Road. This is my understanding of the general policy for the 6-inch.

However, Lancs 50NE and SE in the revision of c.1931 show the tramway system continuing south of Warbreck Hill Road, along the front: this is a change of convention, rather than a drastic change on the ground, though the 1:2500s of 1910 do indicate that the routes to Fleetwood and along the front were separate, without a physical junction.

But very puzzling is the situation at Grimsby. Lincolnshire 22 NE revised in 1931 terminates the track at the east end of Cleveland Bridge, and does not show the continuation on to Corporation Bridge. 6-inch National Grid Provisional Edition sheet TA 20 NE, published 1956, follows 22 NE. TA 21 SE, to the north, also published in 1956, extends the track along Corporation Road to the sheet edge! There is thus an inconsistency between two adjoin sheets which were 'in work' at OS simultaneously. In practice the whole on-street section east of Cleveland Bridge was closed in mid-1956, and the rails removed soon after.

Richard Oliver


On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 16:53, Gerry Nichols 1198 <nicholsred@...> wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Railways_Act_1896 is a good summary of the way in which a railway could be built using a Light Railway Order rather than a private Act of Parliament or under the Tramways Act.

 

A key issue requiring Parliamentary approval is the acquisition of a right of way. Railway Acts provide for a measure of compulsion of a land owner to treat for the land on which a railway is built. Obviously if that land is an existing right of way, the Act or Order provides for the tramway or railway to open up the highway to lay rails and generally to be responsible for the maintenance of the road for a distance either side of the tracks.

 

Signalling on street tramways was generally associated with single line sections or interlaced tracks where the normal requirement to follow at a safe distance behind the car in front was not adequate. Modern two track  street tramways have signals at road intersections and pedestrian crossings. The Swansea and Mumbles line was on a private right of way (originally the Oystermouth Railway) but had signals to control passing loops on the single line section.

 

Gerry Nichols

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 


From: main@ordnancemaps.groups.io <main@ordnancemaps.groups.io> on behalf of Richard Oliver <flookcarto@...>
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 4:16:08 PM
To: main@ordnancemaps.groups.io <main@ordnancemaps.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [ordnancemaps] Busways on OS Explorer maps — extending topic to Tramways
 
Dear James,

Thank you for this. I suspect that the desire to call a tramway anything but a 'tramway' may be to do with branding a particular transport system or route!

I am not sure that the presence or otherwise of a signalling system helps defining 'tramway' and 'railway', in that the Grimsby and Immingham tramway, for example, certainly had an electric signalling system, at any rate in its later years, even if this seems to have been mainly to protect junctions and level crossings rather than to segregate trams in a block system. Equally, terminal branch lines worked by 'one engine in steam' aren't signalled: there is an example close by to me here, in the form of the Exmouth branch south of Topsham! The actual distinction between 'light railway/tramway' and 'main line/heavy rail' seems to be a rather fine one, and perhaps a matter of 'the spirit of the thing' as of a 'box-ticking' approach of whether there are, e.g., signals, or whether freight can be carried. I see from the 1-inch 3rd Edn that the Portsdown-Horndean line was officially a 'Light Railway', and the 'off-road' section past Cosham is actually shown using the railway 'single track' symbol, although the photos I have seen indicate that in infrastructure it was a conventional electric tramway!

Best wishes,
Richard

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 13:35, James McKay via Groups.Io <james.mackay=talktalk.net@groups.io> wrote:
Dear Richard:

To which I add (but don’t overdo the desire of all subscribers to read) that the linguistic problem gets worse not better. While ‘tramway’, to me as a railway person, had two distinct meanings, (a) a minor railway which might or not have been of the same gauge as and connected to the main line network and (b) an urban route carrying passenger trams, the fundamental difference from a railway is that it has no signalling system.

But it is now almost ‘politically incorrect’ to call a passenger tram network a ‘tramway' (unless you’re the author of the Highway Code, which just has ’Tram’ signs). It’s a ‘Metro' (Birmingham) or a ‘Tramlink’ (Croydon), 'Express Transit' (Nottingham), ‘Supertram' (Shefffield) or ‘Metrolink' (Manchester); only Blackpool sticks to ’Tramway’; and the distinction is blurred with the light railways in Docklands and Tyneside (the latter is called ‘Metro’), which both have signalling systems – automatic train control in east London.

It’s not just the OS which is confused.

with best regards, 

James

On 13 Aug 2019, at 12:04, Richard Oliver <flookcarto@...> wrote:

Thank you for this.

First, let me say that what started off this thread was finding an OS decision in October 1979 that 'busways' were to be shown on the 1:10,000, and by implication on the 1:25,000 2nd Series/Pathfinders, which was produced initially by photo-reducing the 1:10,000 drawings: but the only such then known to the OS were at Runcorn. to be mapped as 'minor roads' and annotated, and this is demonstrated on Explorer 275. I knew of the Cambridge-St Ives example, which is a converted railway, but was unsure what might be found elsewhere.

Turning to the depiction of 'tramways' on small-scale OS maps: the general rule until the 1990s was that where these either shared the carriageway or ran parallel with it, they were not mapped at smaller than 1:2500. They were only mapped when they ran 'off-road'. This is clearly illustrated by the treatment of the Blackpool system, where the only section always mapped by the OS was a section of half a mile or so south of Fleetwood (around SD 321456) that ran off-road, although the whole system runs on its own reservation. (But see later for earlier practice.) This treatment is confirmed by successive issues of OS instructions to field revisers and draughtsman: those of 1909 to revisers are representative: 'Electric tramways are to be shown by writing the name along the line of route where they follow the road, and by adding the symbol ... where they leave the road. The symbol is not to be shown along the roads.'  In 1936 this was amplified in instructions to draughtsmen: 'where they run along country roads the symbol is not shown, but the words 'Tramway' or 'Electric Tramway' are written'. From the point of view of trying to find the actual route and terminals of on-road systems this is, of course, utterly useless! The tramway through Hayes, Middlesex, that appears on successive 1-inch editions up to 1939 is a good example of this. (It does not appear on the post-war mapping using pre-war material as the road had become built-up.) Tramways are effectively treated as a form of land-use rather than of communication.

Unfortunately I don't have access here to OS 1:25,000 Pathfinders SD 32/33 or SD 34/34, so I don't know how the Blackpool system was treated on them in the 1970s and 80s.

There would seem to have been a definite change of policy in the early 1990s, in that whereas the earlier 1:50,000 Landranger sheet 102 treated the Blackpool system in continuity of one-inch practice, the 'B' edition, revised in 1990, adds it. It is possible that that this may have arisen from a query by the reviser of sheet 102: changes in OS practice can occasionally be traced to specific queries/problems encountered in the field. Perhaps the reviser thought it looked like a railway, but wasn't being treated like one! (The impending opening of the Manchester system may also have had something to do with it.) The Blackpool system duly appears on Explorers 286 and 296, prepared nearly a decade later.

Incidentally, the practice on the 1-inch in relation to the Blackpool system varied: on the Third Edition (published 1913), the whole section from the north end of the built-up area to Fleetwood is shown both by symbol and with 'Halts', and this is followed on the quarter-inch Third Edition, published 1921. The Popular Edition, published 1924, omitted the halts.

It is worth noting that the practice on the OS 1-inch from its start to the 1880s was to treat 'tramways' and 'rail roads' as, effectively, 'minor roads', so they are not easily picked out. (An early example for the surveyors to cope with was the Surrey Iron Railway, open by 1805.) A 'ladder' symbol was introduced in 1836-7 for 'main line', or 'heavy rail'. As Rob Wheeler points out in his posting, the use of language was not very precise. OS practice seems to reflect this!

We need a full-scale study of OS depiction of railways and tramways along the lines of that by Bill Bignell for windmills on OS maps! Given the overlap of transport and map interests, it ought to appeal, both as a project and as a publication...

Back to work on the OS 1:25,000 in the 1970s!

Richard Oliver

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 23:06, Tony Jervis via Groups.Io <tony.jervis=talktalk.net@groups.io> wrote:

Mr Harrison's reference to Britain's frequent attitude of a "hostile environment" towards tramways prompts me to wonder what guidance, if any, the OS issued concerning the mapping of tramways.  Leaving aside their use of "tramway" as an apparent alternative to "mineral railway" (Alan Godrey issued two adjacent sheets recently where a standard-gauge colliery railway branch crossed from one sheet to the other and changed its nominated status as it did so), street tramways seem to have generally been ignored at the One-Inch scale, whether or not they shared the tarmac with other road vehicles or had their own reserved track either to one side or down the central reservation of a dual carriagway.  Occasionally where the tramway left a road and ran across fields, it is shown as an isolated piece of railway without explanation.  On my Liverpool One-Inch sheet "Elec Tramway" is marked alongside roads running out of the city towards Kirkby and Prescot but no track is shown.  At Weymouth the Tramway (its official title) from the main line via Commercial Road and Custom House Quay to the Quay station for Channel Island ferries was shown by the single-track railway symbol, presumably because it carried passenger trains as well as goods.  On the other hand the route taken by boat trains down from Percy Main to Tyne Commission Quay east of Newcastle was shown as a "siding".  What attempts at consistency were made by OS?

A possible confusing point is that legally a "tramway" is a line laid in a road or street; if laid elsewhere it is a "tramroad".  The Bill for a proposed tramway to Easterhouse near Glasgow, referrinbg in detail to it route, alternated between "tramway" and "tramroad" for sections intened to be laid on or off the highway.

Tony Jervis.




On 12/08/2019 17:27, Jeremy Harrison via Groups.Io wrote:
Whether converted from old railway lines, or newly built, my understanding is that - like motorways and pedestrian precincts - busways are 'special roads'; and as such have to be shown on the map somehow.

Runcorn - as a new/developing town in the late 1960s/1970s (I think) - had quite quite a large busway network planned to serve the new areas - I recall reading publicity about it at the time - don't know how much was built. or what its subsequent history was. (At another time or place, it might have been a tramway).

Jeremy

Virus-free. www.avg.com



B Anderson
 

Hi Everyone

Office of Rail and Road define tramways - “... a railway on which streetcars ... run.  It is typically built at street level sharing roads with traffic but may use private rights of way ...”

To go back a bit, in the Forest of Dean around the coal mines there were tramroads, tramways and mineral  railways.  The first were plateways using edged rails and plain wheels..  These lasted until the mid 1940s serving a quarry near Cannop Ponds.  Tramways used rails and flanged wheels.  OS did not distinguish between tramroads and tramways.  See 6” sheets Gloucestershire LXXXI SW and SE which cover the area in question.

Bernard

On 13 Aug 2019, at 18:48, Richard Oliver <flookcarto@...> wrote:

Thank you, again, for this!

On checking some maps here I find that the position with regards to the six-inch map is not straightforward!

Lancashire 6-inch sheets 50 NE and 50 SE show the Blackpool system as on the contemporary 1-inch, i.e. outside the built-up area and what the Alan Godfrey 1:2500ss show as the junction with Warbreck Hill Road. This is my understanding of the general policy for the 6-inch.

However, Lancs 50NE and SE in the revision of c.1931 show the tramway system continuing south of Warbreck Hill Road, along the front: this is a change of convention, rather than a drastic change on the ground, though the 1:2500s of 1910 do indicate that the routes to Fleetwood and along the front were separate, without a physical junction.

But very puzzling is the situation at Grimsby. Lincolnshire 22 NE revised in 1931 terminates the track at the east end of Cleveland Bridge, and does not show the continuation on to Corporation Bridge. 6-inch National Grid Provisional Edition sheet TA 20 NE, published 1956, follows 22 NE. TA 21 SE, to the north, also published in 1956, extends the track along Corporation Road to the sheet edge! There is thus an inconsistency between two adjoin sheets which were 'in work' at OS simultaneously. In practice the whole on-street section east of Cleveland Bridge was closed in mid-1956, and the rails removed soon after.

Richard Oliver

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 16:53, Gerry Nichols 1198 <nicholsred@...> wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Railways_Act_1896 is a good summary of the way in which a railway could be built using a Light Railway Order rather than a private Act of Parliament or under the Tramways Act.

 

A key issue requiring Parliamentary approval is the acquisition of a right of way. Railway Acts provide for a measure of compulsion of a land owner to treat for the land on which a railway is built. Obviously if that land is an existing right of way, the Act or Order provides for the tramway or railway to open up the highway to lay rails and generally to be responsible for the maintenance of the road for a distance either side of the tracks.

 

Signalling on street tramways was generally associated with single line sections or interlaced tracks where the normal requirement to follow at a safe distance behind the car in front was not adequate. Modern two track  street tramways have signals at road intersections and pedestrian crossings. The Swansea and Mumbles line was on a private right of way (originally the Oystermouth Railway) but had signals to control passing loops on the single line section.

 

Gerry Nichols

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 


From: main@ordnancemaps.groups.io <main@ordnancemaps.groups.io> on behalf of Richard Oliver <flookcarto@...>
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 4:16:08 PM
To: main@ordnancemaps.groups.io <main@ordnancemaps.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [ordnancemaps] Busways on OS Explorer maps — extending topic to Tramways
 
Dear James,

Thank you for this. I suspect that the desire to call a tramway anything but a 'tramway' may be to do with branding a particular transport system or route!

I am not sure that the presence or otherwise of a signalling system helps defining 'tramway' and 'railway', in that the Grimsby and Immingham tramway, for example, certainly had an electric signalling system, at any rate in its later years, even if this seems to have been mainly to protect junctions and level crossings rather than to segregate trams in a block system. Equally, terminal branch lines worked by 'one engine in steam' aren't signalled: there is an example close by to me here, in the form of the Exmouth branch south of Topsham! The actual distinction between 'light railway/tramway' and 'main line/heavy rail' seems to be a rather fine one, and perhaps a matter of 'the spirit of the thing' as of a 'box-ticking' approach of whether there are, e.g., signals, or whether freight can be carried. I see from the 1-inch 3rd Edn that the Portsdown-Horndean line was officially a 'Light Railway', and the 'off-road' section past Cosham is actually shown using the railway 'single track' symbol, although the photos I have seen indicate that in infrastructure it was a conventional electric tramway!

Best wishes,
Richard

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 13:35, James McKay via Groups.Io <james.mackay=talktalk.net@groups.io> wrote:
Dear Richard:

To which I add (but don’t overdo the desire of all subscribers to read) that the linguistic problem gets worse not better. While ‘tramway’, to me as a railway person, had two distinct meanings, (a) a minor railway which might or not have been of the same gauge as and connected to the main line network and (b) an urban route carrying passenger trams, the fundamental difference from a railway is that it has no signalling system.

But it is now almost ‘politically incorrect’ to call a passenger tram network a ‘tramway' (unless you’re the author of the Highway Code, which just has ’Tram’ signs). It’s a ‘Metro' (Birmingham) or a ‘Tramlink’ (Croydon), 'Express Transit' (Nottingham), ‘Supertram' (Shefffield) or ‘Metrolink' (Manchester); only Blackpool sticks to ’Tramway’; and the distinction is blurred with the light railways in Docklands and Tyneside (the latter is called ‘Metro’), which both have signalling systems – automatic train control in east London.

It’s not just the OS which is confused.

with best regards, 

James

On 13 Aug 2019, at 12:04, Richard Oliver <flookcarto@...> wrote:

Thank you for this.

First, let me say that what started off this thread was finding an OS decision in October 1979 that 'busways' were to be shown on the 1:10,000, and by implication on the 1:25,000 2nd Series/Pathfinders, which was produced initially by photo-reducing the 1:10,000 drawings: but the only such then known to the OS were at Runcorn. to be mapped as 'minor roads' and annotated, and this is demonstrated on Explorer 275. I knew of the Cambridge-St Ives example, which is a converted railway, but was unsure what might be found elsewhere.

Turning to the depiction of 'tramways' on small-scale OS maps: the general rule until the 1990s was that where these either shared the carriageway or ran parallel with it, they were not mapped at smaller than 1:2500. They were only mapped when they ran 'off-road'. This is clearly illustrated by the treatment of the Blackpool system, where the only section always mapped by the OS was a section of half a mile or so south of Fleetwood (around SD 321456) that ran off-road, although the whole system runs on its own reservation. (But see later for earlier practice.) This treatment is confirmed by successive issues of OS instructions to field revisers and draughtsman: those of 1909 to revisers are representative: 'Electric tramways are to be shown by writing the name along the line of route where they follow the road, and by adding the symbol ... where they leave the road. The symbol is not to be shown along the roads.'  In 1936 this was amplified in instructions to draughtsmen: 'where they run along country roads the symbol is not shown, but the words 'Tramway' or 'Electric Tramway' are written'. From the point of view of trying to find the actual route and terminals of on-road systems this is, of course, utterly useless! The tramway through Hayes, Middlesex, that appears on successive 1-inch editions up to 1939 is a good example of this. (It does not appear on the post-war mapping using pre-war material as the road had become built-up.) Tramways are effectively treated as a form of land-use rather than of communication.

Unfortunately I don't have access here to OS 1:25,000 Pathfinders SD 32/33 or SD 34/34, so I don't know how the Blackpool system was treated on them in the 1970s and 80s.

There would seem to have been a definite change of policy in the early 1990s, in that whereas the earlier 1:50,000 Landranger sheet 102 treated the Blackpool system in continuity of one-inch practice, the 'B' edition, revised in 1990, adds it. It is possible that that this may have arisen from a query by the reviser of sheet 102: changes in OS practice can occasionally be traced to specific queries/problems encountered in the field. Perhaps the reviser thought it looked like a railway, but wasn't being treated like one! (The impending opening of the Manchester system may also have had something to do with it.) The Blackpool system duly appears on Explorers 286 and 296, prepared nearly a decade later.

Incidentally, the practice on the 1-inch in relation to the Blackpool system varied: on the Third Edition (published 1913), the whole section from the north end of the built-up area to Fleetwood is shown both by symbol and with 'Halts', and this is followed on the quarter-inch Third Edition, published 1921. The Popular Edition, published 1924, omitted the halts.

It is worth noting that the practice on the OS 1-inch from its start to the 1880s was to treat 'tramways' and 'rail roads' as, effectively, 'minor roads', so they are not easily picked out. (An early example for the surveyors to cope with was the Surrey Iron Railway, open by 1805.) A 'ladder' symbol was introduced in 1836-7 for 'main line', or 'heavy rail'. As Rob Wheeler points out in his posting, the use of language was not very precise. OS practice seems to reflect this!

We need a full-scale study of OS depiction of railways and tramways along the lines of that by Bill Bignell for windmills on OS maps! Given the overlap of transport and map interests, it ought to appeal, both as a project and as a publication...

Back to work on the OS 1:25,000 in the 1970s!

Richard Oliver

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 23:06, Tony Jervis via Groups.Io <tony.jervis=talktalk.net@groups.io> wrote:

Mr Harrison's reference to Britain's frequent attitude of a "hostile environment" towards tramways prompts me to wonder what guidance, if any, the OS issued concerning the mapping of tramways.  Leaving aside their use of "tramway" as an apparent alternative to "mineral railway" (Alan Godrey issued two adjacent sheets recently where a standard-gauge colliery railway branch crossed from one sheet to the other and changed its nominated status as it did so), street tramways seem to have generally been ignored at the One-Inch scale, whether or not they shared the tarmac with other road vehicles or had their own reserved track either to one side or down the central reservation of a dual carriagway.  Occasionally where the tramway left a road and ran across fields, it is shown as an isolated piece of railway without explanation.  On my Liverpool One-Inch sheet "Elec Tramway" is marked alongside roads running out of the city towards Kirkby and Prescot but no track is shown.  At Weymouth the Tramway (its official title) from the main line via Commercial Road and Custom House Quay to the Quay station for Channel Island ferries was shown by the single-track railway symbol, presumably because it carried passenger trains as well as goods.  On the other hand the route taken by boat trains down from Percy Main to Tyne Commission Quay east of Newcastle was shown as a "siding".  What attempts at consistency were made by OS?

A possible confusing point is that legally a "tramway" is a line laid in a road or street; if laid elsewhere it is a "tramroad".  The Bill for a proposed tramway to Easterhouse near Glasgow, referrinbg in detail to it route, alternated between "tramway" and "tramroad" for sections intened to be laid on or off the highway.

Tony Jervis.




On 12/08/2019 17:27, Jeremy Harrison via Groups.Io wrote:
Whether converted from old railway lines, or newly built, my understanding is that - like motorways and pedestrian precincts - busways are 'special roads'; and as such have to be shown on the map somehow.

Runcorn - as a new/developing town in the late 1960s/1970s (I think) - had quite quite a large busway network planned to serve the new areas - I recall reading publicity about it at the time - don't know how much was built. or what its subsequent history was. (At another time or place, it might have been a tramway).

Jeremy

Virus-free. www.avg.com



B Anderson
 

Hi everyone

The 6”sheets are XXXI not LXXXI

Bernard 

On 13 Aug 2019, at 20:20, B Anderson via Groups.Io <b.anderson135@...> wrote:

Hi Everyone

Office of Rail and Road define tramways - “... a railway on which streetcars ... run.  It is typically built at street level sharing roads with traffic but may use private rights of way ...”

To go back a bit, in the Forest of Dean around the coal mines there were tramroads, tramways and mineral  railways.  The first were plateways using edged rails and plain wheels..  These lasted until the mid 1940s serving a quarry near Cannop Ponds.  Tramways used rails and flanged wheels.  OS did not distinguish between tramroads and tramways.  See 6” sheets Gloucestershire LXXXI SW and SE which cover the area in question.

Bernard

On 13 Aug 2019, at 18:48, Richard Oliver <flookcarto@...> wrote:

Thank you, again, for this!

On checking some maps here I find that the position with regards to the six-inch map is not straightforward!

Lancashire 6-inch sheets 50 NE and 50 SE show the Blackpool system as on the contemporary 1-inch, i.e. outside the built-up area and what the Alan Godfrey 1:2500ss show as the junction with Warbreck Hill Road. This is my understanding of the general policy for the 6-inch.

However, Lancs 50NE and SE in the revision of c.1931 show the tramway system continuing south of Warbreck Hill Road, along the front: this is a change of convention, rather than a drastic change on the ground, though the 1:2500s of 1910 do indicate that the routes to Fleetwood and along the front were separate, without a physical junction.

But very puzzling is the situation at Grimsby. Lincolnshire 22 NE revised in 1931 terminates the track at the east end of Cleveland Bridge, and does not show the continuation on to Corporation Bridge. 6-inch National Grid Provisional Edition sheet TA 20 NE, published 1956, follows 22 NE. TA 21 SE, to the north, also published in 1956, extends the track along Corporation Road to the sheet edge! There is thus an inconsistency between two adjoin sheets which were 'in work' at OS simultaneously. In practice the whole on-street section east of Cleveland Bridge was closed in mid-1956, and the rails removed soon after.

Richard Oliver

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 16:53, Gerry Nichols 1198 <nicholsred@...> wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Railways_Act_1896 is a good summary of the way in which a railway could be built using a Light Railway Order rather than a private Act of Parliament or under the Tramways Act.

 

A key issue requiring Parliamentary approval is the acquisition of a right of way. Railway Acts provide for a measure of compulsion of a land owner to treat for the land on which a railway is built. Obviously if that land is an existing right of way, the Act or Order provides for the tramway or railway to open up the highway to lay rails and generally to be responsible for the maintenance of the road for a distance either side of the tracks.

 

Signalling on street tramways was generally associated with single line sections or interlaced tracks where the normal requirement to follow at a safe distance behind the car in front was not adequate. Modern two track  street tramways have signals at road intersections and pedestrian crossings. The Swansea and Mumbles line was on a private right of way (originally the Oystermouth Railway) but had signals to control passing loops on the single line section.

 

Gerry Nichols

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 


From: main@ordnancemaps.groups.io <main@ordnancemaps.groups.io> on behalf of Richard Oliver <flookcarto@...>
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 4:16:08 PM
To: main@ordnancemaps.groups.io <main@ordnancemaps.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [ordnancemaps] Busways on OS Explorer maps — extending topic to Tramways
 
Dear James,

Thank you for this. I suspect that the desire to call a tramway anything but a 'tramway' may be to do with branding a particular transport system or route!

I am not sure that the presence or otherwise of a signalling system helps defining 'tramway' and 'railway', in that the Grimsby and Immingham tramway, for example, certainly had an electric signalling system, at any rate in its later years, even if this seems to have been mainly to protect junctions and level crossings rather than to segregate trams in a block system. Equally, terminal branch lines worked by 'one engine in steam' aren't signalled: there is an example close by to me here, in the form of the Exmouth branch south of Topsham! The actual distinction between 'light railway/tramway' and 'main line/heavy rail' seems to be a rather fine one, and perhaps a matter of 'the spirit of the thing' as of a 'box-ticking' approach of whether there are, e.g., signals, or whether freight can be carried. I see from the 1-inch 3rd Edn that the Portsdown-Horndean line was officially a 'Light Railway', and the 'off-road' section past Cosham is actually shown using the railway 'single track' symbol, although the photos I have seen indicate that in infrastructure it was a conventional electric tramway!

Best wishes,
Richard

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 13:35, James McKay via Groups.Io <james.mackay=talktalk.net@groups.io> wrote:
Dear Richard:

To which I add (but don’t overdo the desire of all subscribers to read) that the linguistic problem gets worse not better. While ‘tramway’, to me as a railway person, had two distinct meanings, (a) a minor railway which might or not have been of the same gauge as and connected to the main line network and (b) an urban route carrying passenger trams, the fundamental difference from a railway is that it has no signalling system.

But it is now almost ‘politically incorrect’ to call a passenger tram network a ‘tramway' (unless you’re the author of the Highway Code, which just has ’Tram’ signs). It’s a ‘Metro' (Birmingham) or a ‘Tramlink’ (Croydon), 'Express Transit' (Nottingham), ‘Supertram' (Shefffield) or ‘Metrolink' (Manchester); only Blackpool sticks to ’Tramway’; and the distinction is blurred with the light railways in Docklands and Tyneside (the latter is called ‘Metro’), which both have signalling systems – automatic train control in east London.

It’s not just the OS which is confused.

with best regards, 

James

On 13 Aug 2019, at 12:04, Richard Oliver <flookcarto@...> wrote:

Thank you for this.

First, let me say that what started off this thread was finding an OS decision in October 1979 that 'busways' were to be shown on the 1:10,000, and by implication on the 1:25,000 2nd Series/Pathfinders, which was produced initially by photo-reducing the 1:10,000 drawings: but the only such then known to the OS were at Runcorn. to be mapped as 'minor roads' and annotated, and this is demonstrated on Explorer 275. I knew of the Cambridge-St Ives example, which is a converted railway, but was unsure what might be found elsewhere.

Turning to the depiction of 'tramways' on small-scale OS maps: the general rule until the 1990s was that where these either shared the carriageway or ran parallel with it, they were not mapped at smaller than 1:2500. They were only mapped when they ran 'off-road'. This is clearly illustrated by the treatment of the Blackpool system, where the only section always mapped by the OS was a section of half a mile or so south of Fleetwood (around SD 321456) that ran off-road, although the whole system runs on its own reservation. (But see later for earlier practice.) This treatment is confirmed by successive issues of OS instructions to field revisers and draughtsman: those of 1909 to revisers are representative: 'Electric tramways are to be shown by writing the name along the line of route where they follow the road, and by adding the symbol ... where they leave the road. The symbol is not to be shown along the roads.'  In 1936 this was amplified in instructions to draughtsmen: 'where they run along country roads the symbol is not shown, but the words 'Tramway' or 'Electric Tramway' are written'. From the point of view of trying to find the actual route and terminals of on-road systems this is, of course, utterly useless! The tramway through Hayes, Middlesex, that appears on successive 1-inch editions up to 1939 is a good example of this. (It does not appear on the post-war mapping using pre-war material as the road had become built-up.) Tramways are effectively treated as a form of land-use rather than of communication.

Unfortunately I don't have access here to OS 1:25,000 Pathfinders SD 32/33 or SD 34/34, so I don't know how the Blackpool system was treated on them in the 1970s and 80s.

There would seem to have been a definite change of policy in the early 1990s, in that whereas the earlier 1:50,000 Landranger sheet 102 treated the Blackpool system in continuity of one-inch practice, the 'B' edition, revised in 1990, adds it. It is possible that that this may have arisen from a query by the reviser of sheet 102: changes in OS practice can occasionally be traced to specific queries/problems encountered in the field. Perhaps the reviser thought it looked like a railway, but wasn't being treated like one! (The impending opening of the Manchester system may also have had something to do with it.) The Blackpool system duly appears on Explorers 286 and 296, prepared nearly a decade later.

Incidentally, the practice on the 1-inch in relation to the Blackpool system varied: on the Third Edition (published 1913), the whole section from the north end of the built-up area to Fleetwood is shown both by symbol and with 'Halts', and this is followed on the quarter-inch Third Edition, published 1921. The Popular Edition, published 1924, omitted the halts.

It is worth noting that the practice on the OS 1-inch from its start to the 1880s was to treat 'tramways' and 'rail roads' as, effectively, 'minor roads', so they are not easily picked out. (An early example for the surveyors to cope with was the Surrey Iron Railway, open by 1805.) A 'ladder' symbol was introduced in 1836-7 for 'main line', or 'heavy rail'. As Rob Wheeler points out in his posting, the use of language was not very precise. OS practice seems to reflect this!

We need a full-scale study of OS depiction of railways and tramways along the lines of that by Bill Bignell for windmills on OS maps! Given the overlap of transport and map interests, it ought to appeal, both as a project and as a publication...

Back to work on the OS 1:25,000 in the 1970s!

Richard Oliver

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 23:06, Tony Jervis via Groups.Io <tony.jervis=talktalk.net@groups.io> wrote:

Mr Harrison's reference to Britain's frequent attitude of a "hostile environment" towards tramways prompts me to wonder what guidance, if any, the OS issued concerning the mapping of tramways.  Leaving aside their use of "tramway" as an apparent alternative to "mineral railway" (Alan Godrey issued two adjacent sheets recently where a standard-gauge colliery railway branch crossed from one sheet to the other and changed its nominated status as it did so), street tramways seem to have generally been ignored at the One-Inch scale, whether or not they shared the tarmac with other road vehicles or had their own reserved track either to one side or down the central reservation of a dual carriagway.  Occasionally where the tramway left a road and ran across fields, it is shown as an isolated piece of railway without explanation.  On my Liverpool One-Inch sheet "Elec Tramway" is marked alongside roads running out of the city towards Kirkby and Prescot but no track is shown.  At Weymouth the Tramway (its official title) from the main line via Commercial Road and Custom House Quay to the Quay station for Channel Island ferries was shown by the single-track railway symbol, presumably because it carried passenger trains as well as goods.  On the other hand the route taken by boat trains down from Percy Main to Tyne Commission Quay east of Newcastle was shown as a "siding".  What attempts at consistency were made by OS?

A possible confusing point is that legally a "tramway" is a line laid in a road or street; if laid elsewhere it is a "tramroad".  The Bill for a proposed tramway to Easterhouse near Glasgow, referrinbg in detail to it route, alternated between "tramway" and "tramroad" for sections intened to be laid on or off the highway.

Tony Jervis.




On 12/08/2019 17:27, Jeremy Harrison via Groups.Io wrote:
Whether converted from old railway lines, or newly built, my understanding is that - like motorways and pedestrian precincts - busways are 'special roads'; and as such have to be shown on the map somehow.

Runcorn - as a new/developing town in the late 1960s/1970s (I think) - had quite quite a large busway network planned to serve the new areas - I recall reading publicity about it at the time - don't know how much was built. or what its subsequent history was. (At another time or place, it might have been a tramway).

Jeremy

Virus-free. www.avg.com



Michiel J.L. Rademakers
 

And what about the semaphore signals at the sharp, rising tramway curve at the top of Colson Street in the centre of Bristol ? That even had a little signal box on the parapet of Perry Road.

Regards, Michiel.

Gerry Nichols 1198
 

The point of those signals was that it was a tramway junction where the cars coming up Colston Street had no sight of any cars on the Perry Road to Maudlin Street route. The attendants box is shown but not the signal post. Unlike the railway surveys where signals were marked with S.P. and signal boxes with S.B. to the great benefit of railway historians!

 

Gerry Nichols (I live within a mile of the site)

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 


From: main@ordnancemaps.groups.io <main@ordnancemaps.groups.io> on behalf of Michiel J.L. Rademakers <mjl.rademakers@...>
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 3:36:35 PM
To: main@ordnancemaps.groups.io <main@ordnancemaps.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [ordnancemaps] Busways on OS Explorer maps — extending topic to Tramways
 

And what about the semaphore signals at the sharp, rising tramway curve at the top of Colson Street in the centre of Bristol ? That even had a little signal box on the parapet of Perry Road.

Regards, Michiel.

Richard Oliver
 

H'm, it seems that tramway signals were treated as were the supports for the overhead wires, as a species of street furniture that wasn't mapped.

R.O.


On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 17:45, Gerry Nichols 1198 <nicholsred@...> wrote:

The point of those signals was that it was a tramway junction where the cars coming up Colston Street had no sight of any cars on the Perry Road to Maudlin Street route. The attendants box is shown but not the signal post. Unlike the railway surveys where signals were marked with S.P. and signal boxes with S.B. to the great benefit of railway historians!

 

Gerry Nichols (I live within a mile of the site)

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 


From: main@ordnancemaps.groups.io <main@ordnancemaps.groups.io> on behalf of Michiel J.L. Rademakers <mjl.rademakers@...>
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 3:36:35 PM
To: main@ordnancemaps.groups.io <main@ordnancemaps.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [ordnancemaps] Busways on OS Explorer maps — extending topic to Tramways
 

And what about the semaphore signals at the sharp, rising tramway curve at the top of Colson Street in the centre of Bristol ? That even had a little signal box on the parapet of Perry Road.

Regards, Michiel.

James McKay
 

I write from a railway, rather than a cartographic, standpoint, and merely to clarify the use of the word ‘tramway’.

Street-running trams are of course controlled by traffic signals, but, as at that extraordinary tight, hilly corner in Bristol (with a decent secondhand bookshop just down the slope now), they are just used to control conflicting movements. Some give indications of which route the tram is to take at a junction, so that the driver knows that it has been correctly set. These are signals, but they are not what a railway person would call a signalling system.

They are only local, and do not control the headway from the tram in front, nor the movement of trams on open track. There, tram drivers drive by sight: they control their speed just as does the driver of a motor vehicle, prepared to stop short of any obstruction.

But railway signalling system divide the track into sections, ‘blocks’, into which a following train may not enter till the previous one has left, also preventing conflicting movements. They are to a greater or lesser degree centrally supervised, at least needing the co-operation of signallers at each end of a block, nowadays much more widely or ‘automatically'.

My own vivid learning was the first occasion on which I went with the driver on a train towards Moorgate, diesel in the 1970s, on the line which curves sharply in a tunnel beneath St Pancras station (now partly the Thameslink platforms). As the darkness closed claustrophobically around, my instinct was to slow down or stop; but the driver was happy to keep going, because the signal indication had told him that the line was clear to the next signal, towards Farringdon. He was not driving by what he could see, but by the permission that he had been given.

So the Docklands Light Railway and the Tyne & Wear Metro are not tramways, they are controlled by signalling systems throughout. Whereas all of the other, contemporary and older, British networks have no such systems, though maybe some local signals.

The origin of the term ’tramway’ was of course in freight-carrying lines, mostly connected with mineral extraction, constructed and operating long before railway signalling systems had even been thought of.

I hope that these paragraphs are not too diverse for the forum as a whole, I approach tenderly the risk of sending more than people want to read.

with best wishes,

James Mackay

CCS member 512.

On 14 Aug 2019, at 18:19, Richard Oliver <flookcarto@...> wrote:

H'm, it seems that tramway signals were treated as were the supports for the overhead wires, as a species of street furniture that wasn't mapped.

R.O.

On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 17:45, Gerry Nichols 1198 <nicholsred@...> wrote:

The point of those signals was that it was a tramway junction where the cars coming up Colston Street had no sight of any cars on the Perry Road to Maudlin Street route. The attendants box is shown but not the signal post. Unlike the railway surveys where signals were marked with S.P. and signal boxes with S.B. to the great benefit of railway historians!

 

Gerry Nichols (I live within a mile of the site)

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 


From: main@ordnancemaps.groups.io <main@ordnancemaps.groups.io> on behalf of Michiel J.L. Rademakers <mjl.rademakers@...>
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 3:36:35 PM
To: main@ordnancemaps.groups.io <main@ordnancemaps.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [ordnancemaps] Busways on OS Explorer maps — extending topic to Tramways
 

And what about the semaphore signals at the sharp, rising tramway curve at the top of Colson Street in the centre of Bristol ? That even had a little signal box on the parapet of Perry Road.

Regards, Michiel.




Tony Jervis
 

Perhaps it is time I thanked all those who have accepted this topic that I had extended and added their knowledge of the mapping or not of the infrastructure of railled transport.  Twice since I decided to join this group the topic of "Netiquette" has cropped up immediately following something I had posted, making me aware that I might be "pushing the boundaries" of "ordnancemaps".   (I think or at least hope this was just an unlucky coincidence.)  I had no desire to denigrate the Ordnance Survey -- after all, with true British jingoism I was taught to believe the OS was the best mapping authority in the world and for the last sixty-plus years I have enjoyed the fruits of their labours.  Increasing leisure time following retirement and perhaps even more so maps originally priced at several pounds per sheet now being available free  on-line have resulted in increasing study and therefore the noticing of potential inconsistencies in mapping and titling.  It has come as no surpise to me that the OS and its employees have no more been able to agree a precise definiton of the somewhat portmanteau word "tramway" than the man on the Clapham tramcar (horse-drawn or electric).

I am principally a railway enthusiast, but am regarded as odd by most people both within and outwith that fraternity/sorority (must remember to keep sexism out of it!) because my interest has been -- and can be traced back to early single age -- in the infrastructure, the track layout, stations, bridges, signalling etc.  I was the strange chap who went engine-spotting with friends from the local railway club but who appeared to wait until the train had departed before taking a photograph of the "empty" station.  The discovery of Ordnance Survey maps when I passed the 11-plus and went to Bournemouth School (no "Grammar" in the name of the boys' school but only in that of the equivalent girl's school — sexism ruled OK!) where the One-inch New Popular Sheet of Cardiff (two or even three railways up every valley!) was used as a basis for learning map-reading, together with simultaneously being able to stretch my pocket money to the purchase of the six timetable books that covered the whole of British Railways, widened my interest and I have never regretted it.  Even when I started gainful employment, I probably failed to obtain a higher chemistry qualification at Technical College because I spent too much time next door in  the town's main reference library looking at their large-scale map collection! 

Despite the risk of being banished from this group to an unmapped and unmappable empty wasteland (such as the Dockyards at Portsmouth, Devonport, Chatham and Rosyth -- all of which blank areas I have worked in), there are other potential questions I could ask about mapping conventions, e.g. level crossings — to cross or not to cross (as per "New Popular Editions").  But that is, moderator permitting, for the future.

Thanks again for being so accommodating,

Tony Jervis.



On 15/08/2019 11:39, James McKay via Groups.Io wrote:
I write from a railway, rather than a cartographic, standpoint, and merely to clarify the use of the word ‘tramway’.

Street-running trams are of course controlled by traffic signals, but, as at that extraordinary tight, hilly corner in Bristol (with a decent secondhand bookshop just down the slope now), they are just used to control conflicting movements. Some give indications of which route the tram is to take at a junction, so that the driver knows that it has been correctly set. These are signals, but they are not what a railway person would call a signalling system.

They are only local, and do not control the headway from the tram in front, nor the movement of trams on open track. There, tram drivers drive by sight: they control their speed just as does the driver of a motor vehicle, prepared to stop short of any obstruction.

But railway signalling system divide the track into sections, ‘blocks’, into which a following train may not enter till the previous one has left, also preventing conflicting movements. They are to a greater or lesser degree centrally supervised, at least needing the co-operation of signallers at each end of a block, nowadays much more widely or ‘automatically'.

My own vivid learning was the first occasion on which I went with the driver on a train towards Moorgate, diesel in the 1970s, on the line which curves sharply in a tunnel beneath St Pancras station (now partly the Thameslink platforms). As the darkness closed claustrophobically around, my instinct was to slow down or stop; but the driver was happy to keep going, because the signal indication had told him that the line was clear to the next signal, towards Farringdon. He was not driving by what he could see, but by the permission that he had been given.

So the Docklands Light Railway and the Tyne & Wear Metro are not tramways, they are controlled by signalling systems throughout. Whereas all of the other, contemporary and older, British networks have no such systems, though maybe some local signals.

The origin of the term ’tramway’ was of course in freight-carrying lines, mostly connected with mineral extraction, constructed and operating long before railway signalling systems had even been thought of.

I hope that these paragraphs are not too diverse for the forum as a whole, I approach tenderly the risk of sending more than people want to read.

with best wishes,

James Mackay

CCS member 512.

On 14 Aug 2019, at 18:19, Richard Oliver <flookcarto@...> wrote:

H'm, it seems that tramway signals were treated as were the supports for the overhead wires, as a species of street furniture that wasn't mapped.

R.O.

On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 17:45, Gerry Nichols 1198 <nicholsred@...> wrote:

The point of those signals was that it was a tramway junction where the cars coming up Colston Street had no sight of any cars on the Perry Road to Maudlin Street route. The attendants box is shown but not the signal post. Unlike the railway surveys where signals were marked with S.P. and signal boxes with S.B. to the great benefit of railway historians!

 

Gerry Nichols (I live within a mile of the site)

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 


From: main@ordnancemaps.groups.io <main@ordnancemaps.groups.io> on behalf of Michiel J.L. Rademakers <mjl.rademakers@...>
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 3:36:35 PM
To: main@ordnancemaps.groups.io <main@ordnancemaps.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [ordnancemaps] Busways on OS Explorer maps — extending topic to Tramways
 

And what about the semaphore signals at the sharp, rising tramway curve at the top of Colson Street in the centre of Bristol ? That even had a little signal box on the parapet of Perry Road.

Regards, Michiel.





Virus-free. www.avg.com

 


I don't think you've broken any "Netiquette" rules, on the contrary, you have prompted a very useful and informative discussion on a topic of OS mapping of which some of us were previously unaware.

David Andrews

Richard Oliver
 

Having 'started the trouble' with the original busways posting, I feel quite happy with how it has extended: it has prompted useful extra contributions!

And my father was far-sighted enough to give me my first and last ride on the Grimsby and Immingham tramway, albeit in its slightly truncated form, on its last day of service!

Richard Oliver


On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 at 15:22, Tony Jervis via Groups.Io <tony.jervis=talktalk.net@groups.io> wrote:

Perhaps it is time I thanked all those who have accepted this topic that I had extended and added their knowledge of the mapping or not of the infrastructure of railled transport.  Twice since I decided to join this group the topic of "Netiquette" has cropped up immediately following something I had posted, making me aware that I might be "pushing the boundaries" of "ordnancemaps".   (I think or at least hope this was just an unlucky coincidence.)  I had no desire to denigrate the Ordnance Survey -- after all, with true British jingoism I was taught to believe the OS was the best mapping authority in the world and for the last sixty-plus years I have enjoyed the fruits of their labours.  Increasing leisure time following retirement and perhaps even more so maps originally priced at several pounds per sheet now being available free  on-line have resulted in increasing study and therefore the noticing of potential inconsistencies in mapping and titling.  It has come as no surpise to me that the OS and its employees have no more been able to agree a precise definiton of the somewhat portmanteau word "tramway" than the man on the Clapham tramcar (horse-drawn or electric).

I am principally a railway enthusiast, but am regarded as odd by most people both within and outwith that fraternity/sorority (must remember to keep sexism out of it!) because my interest has been -- and can be traced back to early single age -- in the infrastructure, the track layout, stations, bridges, signalling etc.  I was the strange chap who went engine-spotting with friends from the local railway club but who appeared to wait until the train had departed before taking a photograph of the "empty" station.  The discovery of Ordnance Survey maps when I passed the 11-plus and went to Bournemouth School (no "Grammar" in the name of the boys' school but only in that of the equivalent girl's school — sexism ruled OK!) where the One-inch New Popular Sheet of Cardiff (two or even three railways up every valley!) was used as a basis for learning map-reading, together with simultaneously being able to stretch my pocket money to the purchase of the six timetable books that covered the whole of British Railways, widened my interest and I have never regretted it.  Even when I started gainful employment, I probably failed to obtain a higher chemistry qualification at Technical College because I spent too much time next door in  the town's main reference library looking at their large-scale map collection! 

Despite the risk of being banished from this group to an unmapped and unmappable empty wasteland (such as the Dockyards at Portsmouth, Devonport, Chatham and Rosyth -- all of which blank areas I have worked in), there are other potential questions I could ask about mapping conventions, e.g. level crossings — to cross or not to cross (as per "New Popular Editions").  But that is, moderator permitting, for the future.

Thanks again for being so accommodating,

Tony Jervis.



On 15/08/2019 11:39, James McKay via Groups.Io wrote:
I write from a railway, rather than a cartographic, standpoint, and merely to clarify the use of the word ‘tramway’.

Street-running trams are of course controlled by traffic signals, but, as at that extraordinary tight, hilly corner in Bristol (with a decent secondhand bookshop just down the slope now), they are just used to control conflicting movements. Some give indications of which route the tram is to take at a junction, so that the driver knows that it has been correctly set. These are signals, but they are not what a railway person would call a signalling system.

They are only local, and do not control the headway from the tram in front, nor the movement of trams on open track. There, tram drivers drive by sight: they control their speed just as does the driver of a motor vehicle, prepared to stop short of any obstruction.

But railway signalling system divide the track into sections, ‘blocks’, into which a following train may not enter till the previous one has left, also preventing conflicting movements. They are to a greater or lesser degree centrally supervised, at least needing the co-operation of signallers at each end of a block, nowadays much more widely or ‘automatically'.

My own vivid learning was the first occasion on which I went with the driver on a train towards Moorgate, diesel in the 1970s, on the line which curves sharply in a tunnel beneath St Pancras station (now partly the Thameslink platforms). As the darkness closed claustrophobically around, my instinct was to slow down or stop; but the driver was happy to keep going, because the signal indication had told him that the line was clear to the next signal, towards Farringdon. He was not driving by what he could see, but by the permission that he had been given.

So the Docklands Light Railway and the Tyne & Wear Metro are not tramways, they are controlled by signalling systems throughout. Whereas all of the other, contemporary and older, British networks have no such systems, though maybe some local signals.

The origin of the term ’tramway’ was of course in freight-carrying lines, mostly connected with mineral extraction, constructed and operating long before railway signalling systems had even been thought of.

I hope that these paragraphs are not too diverse for the forum as a whole, I approach tenderly the risk of sending more than people want to read.

with best wishes,

James Mackay

CCS member 512.

On 14 Aug 2019, at 18:19, Richard Oliver <flookcarto@...> wrote:

H'm, it seems that tramway signals were treated as were the supports for the overhead wires, as a species of street furniture that wasn't mapped.

R.O.

On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 17:45, Gerry Nichols 1198 <nicholsred@...> wrote:

The point of those signals was that it was a tramway junction where the cars coming up Colston Street had no sight of any cars on the Perry Road to Maudlin Street route. The attendants box is shown but not the signal post. Unlike the railway surveys where signals were marked with S.P. and signal boxes with S.B. to the great benefit of railway historians!

 

Gerry Nichols (I live within a mile of the site)

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 


From: main@ordnancemaps.groups.io <main@ordnancemaps.groups.io> on behalf of Michiel J.L. Rademakers <mjl.rademakers@...>
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 3:36:35 PM
To: main@ordnancemaps.groups.io <main@ordnancemaps.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [ordnancemaps] Busways on OS Explorer maps — extending topic to Tramways
 

And what about the semaphore signals at the sharp, rising tramway curve at the top of Colson Street in the centre of Bristol ? That even had a little signal box on the parapet of Perry Road.

Regards, Michiel.





Virus-free. www.avg.com

Bev MARKS (Mr)
 

On 2019-08-15 16:42, Richard Oliver wrote:
And my father was far-sighted enough to give me my first and last ride on the Grimsby and Immingham tramway, albeit in its slightly truncated form, on its last day of service!
Did something similar when my father took me, one Sunday morning, on the tram on its last service day through the Holborn Tunnel...

I have noted from the thread what it might well be useful to somewhere pull together in a 'Glossary' the "ways" types and their descriptions - anyone up for doing that?

Best

Bev

Bev MARKS
                              
My pic Battle Ramblers, Footpath Secretary

S
uss
ex Ramblers, Battle CP, Local Footpath Secretary
Susse
x Ramblers, Whatlington CP, Local Footpath Secretary
Sussex Ramblers, Area Council member
Sussex Ramblers, Rother DC, Planning Applications Monitor
Ramblers, Devolution, Organisational design and Location programme member

Register for free Walking Festival information at
<www.highwealdwalks.org>


September-14/22