Wording on Mile Stones Plus a Missing one?

[Andy873]

I've mentioned about miles stones before, zero points etc, but am I reading the following map details right?

Background: The junction for this loop line at the Burnley end was originally called Rosegrove Junction. By 1885 it was referred to as Padiham Junction in the L&Y WTT's and this junction was the zero point for the branch line.

Now looking at the very detailed maps from 1890 & 1891 I get the following:
Near Great Harwood station (1890) Rosegrove Junction MP 6.
Near Padiham station (1890-1891) Padiham Junction MP 2.
And outside Padiham (1890) MP 1 is completely missing? I find it hard to believe that such detailed maps showing even lamp posts and drains would miss a mile post? - they even show platelayers huts.

It looks like there was a time delay in the re-wording on the MPs?
Why would MP 1 be missing? Due you think this was the period of time that the mile stones were being changed to reflect the newer junction name? Didn't a railway company have the obligation to display them?

 

[pdeaves]

I don't know specifics. I do know that cartography was done by hand and it is possible that something (relatively) minor could be omitted in error.

 

[edwin_m]

OS maps sometimes omitted entire crossovers, so missing out the occasional milepost would not be surprising.

 

[Bevan Price]

Could be several possible reasons, e.g.
Milepost adjacent to some larger structure.
Surveyor forgot to include, or failed to see milepost. **
Milepost had fallen down
etc., etc.

** - I have seen several historic large scale maps that have gaps in the milepost sequences.

 

[Rescars]

It would appear that the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 required companies to install milestones or posts every quarter mile along each line.

 

[edwin_m]

Milepost adjacent to some larger structure.

The "milepost" could even be a plate attached to something else, in which case it probably wouldn't be separately identified on a map. Probably not in the Victorian era, but modern ones can be just a yellow patch with black numbers painted onto a structure.

 

[Andy873]

Thanks everyone with this one.

Could someone remind me please, if a junction has been renamed (on this line the MP's had the original junction name on them), would you simply replace the original MP's with new ones reflecting the new junction name?

And did intermediate MP's show a place name or just say for example 3 & 1/4?

 

[pdeaves]

Junction name changes were so rare that there was probably no process for dealing with them. A mile post would be planted and then forgotten about.

Not all mile posts told you from where they were measured. For those that did, only the whole numbers were so labelled, as I understand it.

 

[Rescars]

It seems an expensive exercise to replace mileposts just because the name of the junction changed. I'd guess the shareholders would have found this a frivolous waste of their capital unless there was a compelling reason for the change (such as insistence by the BoT). I wonder why the L&Y did this. A consequence of having so many junctions in relatively close proximity perhaps?

The style of quarter mile posts depended on the preference of the company. Some showed the mile and fraction (e.g. 28 3/4). Others just showed the fraction (e.g. 1/4) - this would have been a cheaper option.

 

[Andy873]

Junction name changes were so rare that there was probably no process for dealing with them. A mile post would be planted and then forgotten about.

It seems an expensive exercise to replace mileposts just because the name of the junction changed. I'd guess the shareholders would have found this a frivolous waste of their capital unless there was a compelling reason for the change (such as insistence by the BoT). I wonder why the L&Y did this. A consequence of having so many junctions in relatively close proximity perhaps?

Yes, it's hard to understand why the L&Y felt the need to rename the junctions. The one at the Burnley end had opened late 1872 and stayed as Rose Grove Junction for nearly 5 years until the full line opened to passengers in October 1877, it then became Padiham Junction.

All I can really say is the L&Y insisted on calling the line the Padiham branch.

Apart from the BOT, what other reasons would a railway company change junction names?

 

[Rescars]

Apart from the BOT, what other reasons would a railway company change junction names?

A couple of guesses. Possibly to avoid confusion with another location, especially if that was on another company's network or if there were issues relating to running powers or joint lines. Of course, if could have been due to a whim on the part of the chairman or one of the directors.

I wonder if the board minutes give any hints about why this change was made. There must have been a sound reason for doing so, as it's an expensive exercise to change the name of any location, allowing for nameplates, labelling of equipment, revising all relevant printed material and, in the case of stations, platform nameboards, ticket stocks, luggage labels, etc, etc. That's quite apart from training all staff to get everyone used to the change. IIRC when Manchester London Road station was renamed Piccadilly, some costs were saved by the power box keeping its London Road identity.

 

[Andy873]

I wonder if the board minutes give any hints about why this change was made. There must have been a sound reason for doing so, as it's an expensive exercise to change the name of any location, allowing for nameplates, labelling of equipment, revising all relevant printed material and, in the case of stations, platform nameboards, ticket stocks, luggage labels, etc, etc. That's quite apart from training all staff to get everyone used to the change.

Sadly, I don't have access to all of the L&Y minutes, so can't say on that one.

A couple of guesses. Possibly to avoid confusion with another location

After considering this for some time now, I think you're right with this reason...

If you name the junction Rose Grove Junction and you have a lot of traffic coming from west Yorkshire then that might tell you nothing as to which way your going. That is, it could mean both passing the junction and continuing on the East Lancs line and also coming off the EL line there for Padiham. If you rename the junction Padiham Junction and refer to the line as the Padiham branch you can word documentation such as in WTT's with a note via Padiham. Doing both of these should surely leave everyone in no doubt which route / line you were going to take. Less confusing than stating Padiham viaRose Grove Junction.

Coming from the west, you can't now have two Padiham junctions, so renaming the junction just outside Blackburn after the next town on the branch line (Great Harwood) also makes sense.

Renaming these two junctions must have been relatively quick, right idea for a junction name (at the Blackburn end), but simply the wrong location! They seemed to have been renamed sometime from 10 June 1876 to I suspect 1 June 1877 when the first goods trains ran the full length of the loop line, and were certainly renamed by 15 October 1877 when the first passenger trains also started to run the full length.

The October 1885 WTT clearly shows the junction names correct, and they used the words "via Padiham". One interesting note is that the WTT refers to the branch line 12 times as the North Lancashire Loop, and 11 times as the Padiham Branch. By 1905 it's only listed as the Padiham Branch. So over time, as far as the L&Y are concerned it's the Padiham branch.

If I can go back to those mile stones, as I've said, the zero point was at the Padiham junction, it just took several years to play catch up and change the wording on them.

We'll never really know the full reason for the name changes, but I do suspect it was to avoid confusion with nearby Rose Grove station and clearly marking the direction of traffic.

 

[Rescars]

We'll never really know the full reason for the name changes, but I do suspect it was to avoid confusion with nearby Rose Grove station and clearly marking the direction of traffic.

Your explanation does look like a probable reason for the change. Guess we'll never know if it was brought to the attention of the Board.