Can you imagine all this government and local authority effort to preserve and restore historic road signs in miles - and then the government coming along (with UKMA poking a stick up their back) saying 'all road signs must now be metric because we've lost our E.U. deroagtion'?

No, neither can I.

Here's some material cut and pasted from: www.btinternet.com/~roads/signs/finger/

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fingerposts

These are the classic signs seen still at many rural road junctions, formed of a tall post with several arms pointing down each of the roads at the junction. In 1921 the MoT provided a model on which fingerposts should be based, but it was recommended that the name of the local highway authority be included as part of the design. This meant that each authority developed its own design, which makes the signs considerably more interesting. Many authorities displayed their name on a 'ring-top', or annulus, above the arms.

They were supposed to be replaced after the signing reforms during the 1960s, but thankfully many have remained. Now traditional designs are once again permitted, and there are a few companies that specialise in their manufacture (see links below).

Much more information can be found in Stuart Hands' little book Road Signs (Shire Publications 2002), including examples of fingerpost styles in various counties.

[Picture of sign in Cumberland]

This sign is in Lanercost in Cumberland, and is in pristine condition. I have just found out that this is because it is new! See Signpost Restoration Limited's website for details. Cumberland County Council was one of the authorities that didn't bother removing many of its fingerposts when required to in the 1960s. The name of the authority appears vertically down the post, in white lettering.

[More photos...]

This sign stands on the B6262 at Brougham, near Penrith, in Westmorland. Road numbers are not mentioned. This was a fairly common design in Westmorland; until 2002 there were several in the Orton area which have now been replaced by modern fingerpost signs. Thanks to Carl Ryding for the picture and information.

This sign stands at Uley in South Gloucestershire. The name of the authority ("Gloucester County") appears in a 'ring-top' above the arms. Thanks to Stuart Baker for this photo.

Another photo from Stuart Baker, with an example of what he calls the 2nd generation sign, with pipe and castellation. However, this one is rare as it is in the old black and white colours.

This sign stands on the road between Wells and Wookey Hole in Somerset. Somerset County Council is one of the highway authorities which didn't make much of an effort to replace all its fingerposts in the 1960s, and thus there are many left in the county. Note the distinctive tetrahedral finial, with S.C.C painted on. Another interesting feature about this post is the "Glencot" arm, which has been added later, presumably to replace an old one. The arm uses the "Transport" font - compare the "1/4" with the style of fractions on the other arms, and note the more generous inter-letter spacing.

A close-up of the same sign, showing the shape of the finial better, and "Somerset" written vertically down the post. Some of these fingerposts can also be seen in the parts of the former county of Avon which had been under Somerset's jurisdiction before 1974, but with the S.C.C on the finial whited out.

A very ornate fingerpost with 'real' fingers, which stands here in the village of Pelsall in Staffordshire. The B4155 is now the A4124, but the sign remains. It is referred to simply as 'The Fingerpost' for miles around, and even the new residential road next to it is called Fingerpost Drive! Thanks to Steven Jukes for this photo.

A 1777 fingerpost (in actual fact a replica of the original) which stands near the junction of the A5 and A452 in Brownhills, Staffs. Thanks again to Steven Jukes for this photo.

Harrow-on-the-Hill in Middlesex is stuck in a bit of a time-warp, so it was not much of a surprise to spot this fingerpost nearby. Quite a plain design, it has seen better days as only two of its four arms remain.

This old post is still evident at Golders Green crossroads, also in Middlesex. The arms point to Hampstead (down the A502), London (down the A598), and Finchley (up the A598). Unfortunately, the fourth arm, which said Hendon, has disappeared in the last year or so, and the fingerpost has been recently obscured from the road by a magazine kiosk (to the left of the post in the photo).

If you know of any fingerposts near you, please send them in - let's see if we can get one from every county!

Links of interest

Milestones Online - site about milestones, boundary markers and fingerposts. Includes a comprehensive photographic survey of Essex fingerposts.

Signpost Restoration Limited - organisation formed to restore traditional fingerposts. If you are interested in restoring one in your local area, this company can send you a document telling you how to go about it.

William Smith - manufacturers of the Stylos fingerposts, a partial throwback to traditional designs, and installed in various locations in Oxfordshire.

Bucks CC Chiltern Newsletter - the County Council has reinstated traditional fingerposts in several Chiltern villages, such as Cholesbury.

Countryways Signposts - this company makes beautiful traditional oak and cast iron fingerposts, and a selection in Sussex and Hampshire can be found on their website. They were also responsible for making a mock-up Trumpton and Camberwick
Green sign...

Old Fingerposts in Ayrshire - a photographic survey of all the remaining posts in the county

I wonder what the UKMA policy on these historic milestones is?

Place them in an E.U. crusher perhaps?

This from the Essex Milestones Society website:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Epping and Ongar Highway Trust's milestones (at least those surviving) are all of a common design. Probably all the stones were set square to the road but all were altered by by David Nash, stonemason of Epping, in 1822. Further corrections had to be made after the opening of the new road through Epping Forest in the 1830s. All are about 110cms in height above the undressed stone, with an rectangular (not square) section. However, many appear to be of different heights but this illusion depends on the amount of sinkage or build up of the surrounding surface soil. They all have a slight taper from bottom to top, "diamond" positioned to the road (except the North Weald stone at TL 4973 0337 which has been repositioned 45 degrees clockwise) with a concave upper front facet. With the exception of the granite example at Bovinger all are limestone. There are some subtle variations, notably the Bovinger stone, which has tapering chamfers on all four corners down to the undressed level, and the Loughton 'LONDON 11' which has parallel chamfers to the corners.. There is evidence that either rounding or chamfering was intended for the Chipping Ongar stone but abandoned before completion. It has has prominent, heavy, chiseling marks on the on the left and right corners.

[TO VIEW PICTURES ONLY USE THE MOUSE OVER MAP - The complete Essex map by Peter Nelson can be seen HERE]

A Brief History of the Epping and Ongar Highway Trust.

The Epping and Ongar Highway started life in 1701 after an Act (I Anne stat. 2, c. 10) limiting authority from Woodford to Harlow Bush Common. The Act was renewed in 1723 (Geo. I, c. 9), 1743 (16 Geo. II, c. 19) and 1768 (9 Geo. III, c. 63). It was the last Act that authorized that was the true beginning of the Trust. The first meeting of the Trustees was held in Epping on 2 May, 1769 for improvements and maintenance of the 'way' between Epping and Thornwood. Gates and tollhouses were erected at either end of the route by 1769. To prevent drovers avoiding payment by crossing Bell Common the gate at the western end of Epping, already having been moved once, was again moved in 1783. The Epping and Ongar Highway Trust was fully set up by the Act of 1786 and in 1794 another tollhouse and gate came into being at The Bald Faced Stage, Buckhurst Hill. It was proposed in 1786 to extend the Trust's route from Epping to Chelmsford via Chipping Ongar. However, due to objections by Writtle inhabitants and their reluctance to accept a compromise, the route ended at the Norton Heath/Writtle boundary.

In addition to maintaining the roads, the Trust also made several improvements, especially in the hillier parts between Buckhurst Hill and The Wakes Arms. Goldings Hill (near the Loughton LONDON 13) had a new cutting and the spoil to create an embankment in 1771-1775. Similar works were carried out at Buckhurst Hill where the road was straightened. The old road can still be traced curving around The Roebuck inn. Between 1824 and 1828 further major improvements to ease hills were carried out at Loughton and Latton Hill, Thornwood. The final and largest improvement was the construction of an entirely new road over 4 miles in length from Woodford to The Wakes Arms. This had the effect of shortening the routes north and east from Epping. The evidence is still there to be seen as the milestone near The Wakes Arms is marked LONDON 13 like that a mile away at Goldings Hill, Loughton, on the old road. An Act of 1836 allowed the Epping and Ongar to extend their rights into the Middlesex and Essex Trust south of Woodford although it was not gated until c.1860.

The arrival of the railways in the 1840s had serious repercussions on the long distance stage coaches and carriers. The amount of toll receipts fell rapidly and stage coaches to Norwich ceased to operate by about 1846. Under an Act of 1869 the affairs of the Trust were wound up in 1870. This resulted in the removal of the gates and the selling off of all property and materials.

Tollhouses at North Weald and Norton Heath survive as do most of the milestones. Of those missing, the LONDON 21 near Blake Hall was probably still in existence in the 1960s. The LONDON 23 near High Ongar might have been lost somewhat earlier during road works. None of the four along "The Epping New Road" (may have been cast iron) remain.

All images by Sue Adams (SA) and John V Nicholls (JVN)

I've put this up for Stimpy - recorded mile (milltir) stones in just one County of Wales - Gwynedd (formerly Caernarfon and Merionydd):

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Milestones in Gwynedd

Site Type Grid Ref

A458
Gweinion milestone SH882126
Braich Llwyd milestone SH908127
A487
Cefn y Clawdd milepost SH758139
Minffordd milepost SH734116
Bwlch Llyn Bach milepost SH745126
Esgairgeiliog milestone SH760057
Pantperthog milestone SH752046
A496
Bryn Bwach milepost SH620366
Glyn-cywarch milepost SH604341
Lasynys-fawr milepost SH600326
Llanbedr milestone SH586267
Taltreuddyn milestone SH585251
Dyffryn Ardudwy milepost SH588230
Tal-y-Bont footbridge milestone SH590217
Tal-y-Bont milepost SH591214
Egryn Abbey milepost SH596199
Bodfan milepost SH599185
A470
Cae Glas milepost SH695393
Trawsfynydd milepost SH711349
Bronaber milepost SH712317
Ochr y Bwich milepost SH807168
B5106
Gwdyr Uchat milestone SH792611
A545
Min y Twr milestone SH567733
Gazelle Hotel milestone SH581741
Marine milestone SH594750
A5 Watling St
Bathsedea 2 milestone SH626663
Bathsedea milestone SH615674
Bron Castell milestone SH587724
Upper Bangor milestone SH575719
Menai Bridge milestone SH555718
Llanfair Gate Toll SH532715
Tafarn Ty Gwyn milestone SH526716
Star milestone SH511719
Gaerwen milestone SH495719
Catwys St Mihangel milestone SH479720
Pentre Berw milestone SH466728
Creigli milestone SH451736
Rhostrehwfa milestone SH440744
Mona milestone SH426749
RAF Mona milestone SH411755
Bryngwran milestone SH350775
Bedd Manarch Bay milestone SH276803
Misc
Llandygli milestone SH598709

"These milestones are part of 'a very British mess'" - UKMA, 2005

More on the restoration of British fingerpost signs in miles - this from local village Theydon Bois, near Harlow. As can be seen, the Department for Transport is actively backing these schemes to make more and more miles signs visible on our roads, in harmony with ARM's campaigning:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


MONTHLY NEWS ON THE WEB - THEYDON BOIS - SEPTEMBER 2005

Fingerposts: We are pleased to have succeeded in erecting a new traditional traffic direction sign or “fingerpost” on the crossroads at the junction of Piercing Hill and Coppice Row, after encountering many obstacles from EFDC and Essex Highways.

It is similar in construction as to the one erected last November at the junction of Coopersale Lane and the Abridge Road and is made from a solid oak post, and built by Mathew Cable from Rye Hill who holds the “grandfather rights” from Highways to install these type of signs.. There had always been a fingerpost at this junction up until twenty years ago when after an accident it was removed and replaced with metal signs which for the past years were left in a dilapidated condition.

We are most pleased with the support given by the Corporation of London, the Church and the Rural Preservation Society. The fingerpost is now an “asset” of the Parish although it was paid for by kind donations from New World Builders of Cheshunt, Tesco and the Rural Preservation Society.

*****************************************************************************************

By coincidence the call to save fingerposts is contained in a new traffic advisory leaflet entitled Traditional Directional Signs, launched on the 2nd August 2005 by DfT in partnership with English Heritage, ,the countryside Agency and CPRE(the Campaign to protect Rural England).

It calls for fingerposts to be regularly maintained by local authorities Highway Departments and where appropriate, reintroduced as part of Village Design Statements,Parish Plans and the Quiet Lanes initiative.

******************************************************************************************

As Paul Hamblin, CPRE’s Head of Transport Policy aid: “Although individual road signs may appear unobtrusive on their own, the cumulative impact of inappropriately designed road signs on the character of the countryside can be immense. Locally distinctive signs, such as Fingerposts can play an important role in helping to reduce the number of signposts needed and preserving local character. Local authorities should do all they can to ensure these valued features are retained, restored and reintroduced where possible”.

Fingerpost and other historic signs should be divided into two categories - those that are historic in their own right and those that are retained so as not to spoil the countryside.

I have no problem with road signs that are historic in their own right beign maintained as they are. They are seldom, if ever found is situations where safety is paramount (otherwise they would already have been changed).

It should be noted that the TRSGD 2002 makes no provision for fingersigns. If the local authority wishes to retain the fingersigns and they have the appropriate authority to do so, there is no reason why they cannot be replaced by signs in kilometres when they reach the end of their useful lives. (Of course, if the relevant local authorities are canny, they will have a blitz on the existing finger-signs, replacing them with kilometer signs and then auctioning the old signs on e-Bay).

re (martin): "Of course, if the relevant local authorities are canny, they will have a blitz on the existing finger-signs, replacing them with kilometre [spelloing corrected - T.B.]signs and then auctioning the old signs on e-Bay"

REPLY: The thoughts of - and there is no other word for this - a metric zealot

So replacing an imperial sign with a metric one is the action of a zealot

but replacing a metric sign with an imperial one is not?

re (Andy): "So replacing an imperial sign with a metric one is the action of a zealot but So replacing an imperial sign with a metric one is the action of a zealot but replacing a metric sign with an imperial one is not?"


REPLY: The above statement of yours is what is known in the trade as a 'misrepresentation' - and a deliberate, not an innocent, misrepresentation at that.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

re: "replacing an imperial sign with a metric sign"

1. This is currently illegal

2. There are 1.5 million of such Imperial signs in the U.K.

3. It would cost around £1 billion to convert them all

4. The Department of Transport agrees that to place metric signs alongside Imperial signs causes confusion and does not recommend the practice

5. 11 out of 12 people who expressed an opinion in an independent survey (and most of them did) want to keep road and footpath signs Imperial

6. The latest U.K. survey showed that 98% of people understood Imperial distances and dimensions and only 29% understood metric

7. Anyone who proposes to waste £1 billion of taxpayers' money on a wholly unnecessary conversion exercise that virtualy no-one wants is a zealot


re: "replacing a metric sign with an imperial one..."

1. Metric signs are unlawful/unauthorised/illicit/forbidden/illegal/banned/not allowed/wrong

2. 91.5% of those who expressed a preference in an independent survey want Imperial signage to remain

3. 71% of people in an independent survey said they do not understand metric distances/dimensions - compared with 2% who said they did not understand Imperial distances/dimensions

4. Everyone who takes a U.K. driving test must understand Imperial signs on U.K. roads

4. Anyone who replaces a metric sign on a highway with an Imperial one is (a) carrying out the law (b) pleasing the vast majority of people and (c) making them more understandable to an overwhelming majority

5... and is therefore not a zealot

So where does all this gloating by the ring leader of ARM over the preservation of historic signs, which clearly do not conform to TSRGD, fit in with the claims about illegality and the crusade to defend the law?

re (Stan): "So where does all this gloating by the ring leader of ARM over the preservation of historic signs, which clearly do not conform to TSRGD, fit in with the claims about illegality and the crusade to defend the law?"

REPLY: Old signposts are part of the historic and cultural fabric of this country. Many historical buildings and other structures are Listed Buildings to aid their preservation. Unfortunately, we can't 'list' feet, yards, inches and gallons in the same way

--------------------------------------------------------------

P.S. re: "all this gloating...over the preservation of historic signs..."

Do you want to preserve these signs - or destroy them?

Honest answer, please, Stan

I do not particularly object to a few old signs being preserved for their ornate beauty or historic significance.

What I find objectionable is the likes of you going round interfering with signs on the pretense that they are illegal because they have metres on them for not complying with TSRGD, whilst at the same time turning a blind eye to the lack of compliance of these old signs just because they have imperial on them.

I am not impressed by your rhetoric claiming to be defending British culture. To me you are just a lying and cheating would-be politician trying to make a name for himself.

re (Stan): "lack of compliance of these old signs [with the TSRGD] just because they have imperial on them".

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REPLY: With the very greatest of respect, Stan, you are missing the point - and getting the law wrong.

The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions specify how *new* signs should be designed and erected.

They say nothing about whether or not historic signposts should stay or not.

The rest of your answer suggests that you positively approve of local authorities and their officials breaking the law by erecting metric distance signs and metric-only dimension signs.

Well, do you or don't you approve of this official law-breaking?

Tony, don't forget that you support breaking the law when you don't like the law

<<They say nothing about whether or not historic signposts should stay or not.>>

They don't say anything about finger posts either.

<< The rest of your answer suggests that you positively approve of local authorities and their officials breaking the law by erecting metric distance signs and metric-only dimension signs.

Well, do you or don't you approve of this official law-breaking? >>

I am not convinced it is law breaking. The actions of ARM are much more likely to be in breach of the law. That I disapprove of.

re (Stan): [Tony - Well, do you or don't you approve of this official law-breaking? >> Stan - I am not convinced it is law breaking].

REPLY: Even though you have given a highly obtuse answer, you have answered the question.

You actually approve of highways officials deliberately, or negligently, erecting distance signs in metric like '400m', or metric-only dimension signs like '4.3m' - even though you are 100% aware that the Traffic Signs Regulaltions and General Directions do not permit them, do not authorise them, do not allow them.

It's attitudes like that to breaking the rules which help to ensure that ARM supporters and 'spotters' in their dozens report breaches of the law to the Council of ARM and donate money to ARM to help get them changed into signs which their Parliament has decided to authorise from those which their Parliament has not authorised.

Your answer shows no respect for Parliamentary law

Tony wrote

<<
The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions specify how *new* signs should be designed and erected.

They say nothing about whether or not historic signposts should stay or not.
>>

Tony - If you look at clauses 2 & 3 of the TRSGD 2002 you will see a long list of how long various old signs my remain in place.

<<You actually approve of highways officials deliberately, or negligently, erecting distance signs in metric like '400m', or metric-only dimension signs like '4.3m' - even though you are 100% aware that the Traffic Signs Regulaltions and General Directions do not permit them, do not authorise them, do not allow them.>>

TSRGD does not "authorise" them. Show me where it actually bans them. Show me where in TSRGD it says that it is an offence to erect metric footpath signs.

<< It's attitudes like that to breaking the rules which help to ensure that ARM supporters and 'spotters' in their dozens report breaches of the law to the Council of ARM and donate money to ARM to help get them changed into signs which their Parliament has decided to authorise from those which their Parliament has not authorised.

Your answer shows no respect for Parliamentary law >>

All this coming from someone who openly supports traders breaking "parliamentary law" over the use of non-metric weighing equipment.

LOL