Old signs removed, please act to save last one

[Kingsbury David]

Transport for London have just removed two of the three pre-1963 blue direction signs on the A2214 crossing Lordship Lane. These are fast disappearing in Britain and despite working perfectly well where they were many councils across the country are doing their best to remove perfectly good solid signs because someone 45 years ago said they should.

I have written to the council asking them to put a preservation order on the last of the three on Grove Road on csc@southwark.gov.uk and anyone interested in national as well as local history should add their voice now in case you help save the last part of Southwark's sign history. These signs can be painted and kept for over 100 years if looked after unlike the new ones which have to be replaced when they wear out.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3185/3163803834_6a8c8a7ca7_m.jpg

I see these vanishing wherever I look having compiled photos of all within 20-30 miles of where I live in the last year. I see no point for change for the sake of it and that is what they are doing. Even if you don't care personally, it is never good to lose anything permanently, at least Ken Livingstone managed to keep two Routemaster buses after abandoning the others (after saying 'Only an idiot would get rid of the Routemasters'). He said it. There is no similar movement to keep these signs until people make their wishes known to those who make the decisions. This sign may be gone next week otherwise.

Edited- Southwark replied to say all the removed signs are not them but TfL (the ones who told me they want to preserve old signage that is).

Complaints to enquire@tfl.gov.uk if people care about preserving a little bit of history.

[cate]

I didn't realise that these signs dated that far back. They are charming. How bonkers to replace them.

[Huguenot]

Ah, it kind of depends whether you see road signs as street art, or as aids to driving.

Road signs get judged against various metrics: luminance, daytime visibility, contrast, night visibility, reflectivity, active illumination requirements amongst others.

Road signs are also obliged to deliver consistent messaging to help drivers interpret meaning quickly in strange environments. Hence we've established regulations in size, shape and colour that differentiate between for example Stop, Give Way, One Way and Direction signs.

These old signs just don't deliver in these areas.

Whilst unaware of the benefits of consistency and technology 50 years ago, planners could still identify the most important places for these signs - and these are the ones that need to be vacated and replaced with more effective signage to aid motorists.

If you're unaware of the obsession motorists have with effective signage, the please see threads passim about Rye Lane, and how everyone holds the council to blame for motoring miscalculation.

Personally, I'd prefer to see private vehicles restricted, and the street art remain - as many readers know!

[Kingsbury David]

That's a bit of an enigma- if the private vehicles were restricted there'd be no need for the signs at all!

I'd agree if we were talking in the late 1960s but as the remaining signs have directed traffic without causing enough complaints to be instantly removed for fears of legal action I can't agree with the relatively small difference old signs at narrow and slow junctions provide compared to the new ones. I'm not expecting them to be placed on the South Circular but a few local roads where the traffic is slowing down to meet a major road and the road opposite where you turn left or right is perfectly adequate as the traffic is slowing down or stationary when it passes them.

I've read all the DfT documents and they seem to have a more overall deference to Europe than wanting to improve visibility etc., and a final point is that if the fingerposts are still allowed across the country and used daily by millions of drivers the blue and yellow panels must be dramatically better.

And had private transport been restricted as Ken wanted I would have no photos of more than a few signs, in fact hardly any of anything. The complex journeys I make would stretch transport companies to their limits believe me!

[Kingsbury David]

Well I was really hoping to report good news by now, but as I mentioned it on LBC now may as well share the latest developments here now although none have actually taken place as I write. I had two press interviews as a result of my posts here, but after time has passed neither has produced an actual result, although clearly it's not a time dependent issue, excepting the fact Southwark whipped 2/3 of the signs on the A2212 within about a week and if the article/s do not get used fairly soon may be too late to generate any interest before the inevitable event otherwise. The major purpose of persuading the council enough people were interested in history, and if over 40 like me a link with their own childhood, and reconsider their decision to change these signs for new ones.

I've already posted a picture on the other thread I wrote what is possible, where LB Kingston restored two signs in Surbiton to new condition. It can and has be done, and Camden have done the same in Hampstead. With these precedents Southwark have no need or excuse to do what they are doing but realise the old signs are doing no harm, directing the traffic perfectly well, and if minded like other councils many are removed and never even replaced. So at no cost a sign can be left to direct traffic with a coat of paint every 20 years and provide something from our past to look at as well.

I am spreading my works far and wide, and have made an official appeal to have London's last red triangle warning sign (in a conservation area) replaced after being removed a few years ago in perfect condition and before I got round to taking it. Needless to say it was not replaced with a new one (a good thing as they are hideous), and I have said to ignore any costs as it would be worth every penny from my own savings. I know three places so far who keep them including one who sells them online and two museums. I'd say the museums would far rather get one back on the road where they belong than keep it there like a fish out of water.

Meanwhile my latest method of colouring in an A-Z map and covering all likely roads has found two on my first outing route so a clear success. I've also discovered each borough is responsible for their own signs with TfL taking the major routes, which is ironic as they are the only council to reply and say they are in favour of keeping them. Unfortunately on their creation in 2000 the first act they did was to remove every one they could find so is now an empty gesture as they have none left to save, but a good piece of supporting material to use for the other London councils who will otherwise wriggle and blame central government. The signs are still legal and there is no penalty for using them unlike pounds and ounces.

Basically if I end up with one sign guaranteed as far as it can be saved from a death sentence my job will be done. We currently have around 60 left in total in and around London, and about ten went in the last year so will not be long if something does not happen in time to stop the enforced exodus.

[louisiana]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> Ah, it kind of depends whether you see road signs

> as street art, or as aids to driving.

>

Or as an aid to pedestrians.

They are fine for pedestrians.

And pedestrians never see the big signs pointing at drivers.

[Kingsbury David]

A few updates as well as editing the first post to correspond with replies received.

Despite an email assurance that Transport for London were in favour of preserving historic signs, (presumably by Boris as Ken removed most of them when he arrived) it is they who not only took the ones out on the A2214 staggered junction but at least two more along Lordship Lane. This is a wholesale act of contempt for what were perfectly adequate signs for over 50 years and can all be painted to look like new.

There are now only two when I last visited a month ago, Grove Vale and Court Lane. It may already be too late to save them but anyone who cares about keeping the village atmosphere enhanced by these signs should write to enquire@tfl.gov.uk expressing your opinion.

The two arguments I received against keeping old style signs can be answered in two parts. Firstly as I well know myself, when you are lost all you care about are whether there is a sign, not the colour or font. Secondly many removed (I have a full list) were not replaced at all, just leaving people to guess. An old direction sign has to be better than none at all.

[Kingsbury David]

It just shows if enough people ask enough councils sooner or later one will get a result. Fingers crossed the pair of old signs in Sydenham will be repainted along with the one on Lambeth Bridge. Interestingly I was told it costs an arm and a leg to do so but having done so myself with one slung out by a council do wonder why.

Now recently I found possibly one of only two working old no entry signs in Britain my near to local library. It wasn't obvious as you can see as the paint had worn off the words but the shape pointed me to it.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3306/3494558038_d5a9b876ce_m.jpg

Being close to me and easy to fix I called both them and the much further Hackney council about a small speed limit on a now closed road. They ignored me but the library replied instantly and were only too pleased to have me paint it. I went there yesterday and this is how it looked after two hours.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2465/3578260659_52bee9ac62_m.jpg

There are tens of similar signs around London that can have the same treatment and they have the resources but is the exception to repaint, we are lucky they even keep them at all. But kudos to Camden and Kingston councils who have done a lovely job on theirs and hopefully Lambeth and Lewisham if all goes to plan there. It's our history and should never wipe out all traces of the past in the name of blind policy.

[louisiana]

David, their claim of it being costly to repaint is a bit rich, in some south London boroughs at least, given the huge amount of money that went into the daft street sign rebranding exercises - and reversal - just a few years ago.

[tasty_snacks]

well i think they're aesthetically lovely and give an area a sense of place. i don't think the residents of dulwich village would tollerate their old street signs being taken.

i fully agree that they represent a historical interest.

[Kingsbury David]

Thanks tasty_snacks. Dulwich Village only has two left (from five in 2008) and the one on Court Lane really needs a clean as covered in moss. I clean all the ones I can reach but not possible for the high ones. Unlike two hours for a no entry (the brushes cost me ?2 for the lot and paint was already in my garage) it takes ten minutes to wipe moss and mud off with a damp cloth.

And yes, they not only are far better made and designed than the new ones but give us over 40s a link with our childhood. The government's line that removing text actually makes them confusing is the biggest pile of doubletalk bs I've heard in a long while. As on direction signs you only want the places (many which were removed were not even replaced so people will guarantee to be confused) and information signs the symbols were mainly retained but lost the text. And adding that is confusing? A definite case of spin at the highest level. I only discovered recently the new designs in 1964 were mainly chosen to pave our entry into the then common market by bending to the homogenic mediocrity that covered the continent. Why have quality and style when you can be like everyone else?

[kford]

Maybe they could be taken down and kept, to be displayed in the grounds of the Horniman, or on Peckham Rye, for example.

[louisiana]

Kingsbury David Wrote:

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

> Thanks tasty_snacks. Dulwich Village only has two

> left (from five in 2008) and the one on Court Lane

> really needs a clean as covered in moss.

David, which end of Court Lane? (I can supply a long ladder and a pair of hands - am at junction of LL and CL)

[Kingsbury David]

Preservation is a last resort and many signs are already in museums, but that would be like putting a lion in a cage in a zoo. It's not where any belong. The Court Lane sign is the north end by the park where it splits in three at Calton Avenue.

[woofmarkthedog]

David we love your crusade....

And you've turned me into a "Sign spotter" now..

W**F

[Louisa]

I am still to make my mind up about these 'old signs'. Part of me has this feeling of nostalgia about them, maybe we should go out of our way to restore them in some way/preserve them. However, another part of me suggests that a museum is the best place for them, a place where they can be kept clean and stored for public view forever, and in the mean time we can get some nice new fresh clean signs up.

Louisa.

[Sue]

woofmarkthedog Wrote:

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

> David we love your crusade....

>

>

> xxxxxxxxxxx

Is that the royal We? Well, the canine version anyway :))

[skidmarks]

Those are pre-Worboy?s report sign plates and will date before 1964.

A little bit history here

http://www.cbrd.co.uk/histories/wartoworboys/

These guys on this site have a thread somewhere in their forum listing where all these old signs are.

http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/

[thebeard]

Another sign that there is too much of OUR MONEY burning a hole it Southwark Councils pockets.

B)

[Kingsbury David]

skidmarks Wrote:

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

>

> These guys on this site have a thread somewhere in

> their forum listing where all these old signs

> are.

>

> http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/

I know, I wrote it >:D<