OS London Passenger Transport Maps

[Steven]

Those of you that regularly visit SABRE Maps might have noticed a little bit of shuffling around of things over the last couple of days.

One of the reasons for this is to get a really fascinating, but little-known map series online.

Following the London Passenger Transport Act 1933, the new London Passenger Transport Board needed to know where not only its area was, but also all the other relevant areas around London, and what roads and railway stations were available to it outside its juristiction.

So, the Ordnance Survey printed a map for them. Well, actually, 12 maps, all based on the Popular Edition sheets of the time, which depicted roads by physical width rather than classification. But these maps were specially printed, and included the Metropolitan Police district, the London Passenger Transport Area, the London Traffic Area, and the Metropolitan Traffic area - and so 12 Popular Edition sheets were needed to cover all of them.

Where these really come alive for us is that they included road numbers on them. Not just that, but the road numbers as they stood immediately before the 1935 road numbering revision. And as an added bonus, even small B-roads are numbered with little arrows showing where they are. In short, they're incredibly reminiscent of MoT maps.

Oh, and they even include a really early set of road numbers in The City - which weren't numbered in 1922.

They're therefore the earliest maps that I know of to include road numbers over a wide area at this sort of scale. Hence, completely and utterly brilliant.

Have fun!
https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/maps/ind ... -transport

[Ritchie333]

OMG This is great, now looking for an obscure 4 digit road number I haven't seen before!

[Truvelo]

Was the pace of urban growth around London so great at the time that new development is shown as solid grey because the latest OS maps at the time couldn't keep up with the growth of suburbia.

[SouthWest Philip]

Thank you for uploading this, Steven.

At least one of the 1935 changes shows up with the A3036 already having replaced the original A303. This must mean that the creation of the current A303 happened earlier than 1935?

Interesting to see the South Circular shown as the collection of barely unimproved B-roads it remains to date!

Another question that sings to mind... With the Eastern Avenue being the A106 rather than A12 at the time, why didn't the Southend Arterial become an extension of the A106 rather than having the A127 take over end-on from it?

[Steven]

At least one of the 1935 changes shows up with the A3036 already having replaced the original A303. This must mean that the creation of the current A303 happened earlier than 1935?

Yes, it happened in 1933 rather than 1935. You can see the change between the Ten Mile Road Maps of 1933 and 1934.

[Ritchie333]

At least one of the 1935 changes shows up with the A3036 already having replaced the original A303. This must mean that the creation of the current A303 happened earlier than 1935?

It was on 1 April 1933.

Renumbering:A30 1 April 1933

Another question that sings to mind... With the Eastern Avenue being the A106 rather than A12 at the time, why didn't the Southend Arterial become an extension of the A106 rather than having the A127 take over end-on from it?

The simplest answer is probably that they expected more traffic to turn off onto the A12 towards Brentwood than continue on the A127 to Southend, so it didn't warrant an individual number. I suppose a similar analogy would be comparing the footfall at Fenchurch Street to Liverpool Street. Eastern Avenue wasn't renumbered to the A12 until about 1946.

[Bryn666]

I am very glad we rapidly ditched the Italian approach of giving bypasses a separate number.

The weird thing is they anticipated the A4 being on a new build road and reserved the number for it - surely the 1930s relief roads in North London weren't a surprise?

[Ritchie333]

The weird thing is they anticipated the A4 being on a new build road and reserved the number for it - surely the 1930s relief roads in North London weren't a surprise?

It was a last minute thing - the draft list of road numbers c. 1922 lists the A406 as "Great West Road".

Bear in mind that road numbers were originally designed for internal classification, so the specific route it took wasn't intended to be of importance to anyone other than highway engineers and civil servants. It was only after the numbers started appearing on signs more prominently, that the MOT thought the system needed a re-jig to be more sensible. Hence the 1935 revision.

[Bryn666]

The weird thing is they anticipated the A4 being on a new build road and reserved the number for it - surely the 1930s relief roads in North London weren't a surprise?

It was a last minute thing - the draft list of road numbers c. 1922 lists the A406 as "Great West Road".

Bear in mind that road numbers were originally designed for internal classification, so the specific route it took wasn't intended to be of importance to anyone other than highway engineers and civil servants. It was only after the numbers started appearing on signs more prominently, that the MOT thought the system needed a re-jig to be more sensible. Hence the 1935 revision.

One would argue that their (incorrect) belief that autonomous vehicles will save the day warrants a massive overhaul of the entire numbering system now too...

[rileyrob]

I've had a quick look at the maps and checked against a handful of Wiki articles. Without being particularly familiar with the London area, it looks like some of the routes need amendments to their histories in the wiki, as we now either have better or new information from these maps. I couldn't find any previously unknown numbers though, not that I checked all of them.

Shame they didn't cover the whole country really. The Ten mile maps are ok, but there is a big gap between the MOT map revisions and numbers properly appearing on OS maps in the late 1930s.

[Chris5156]

These are brilliant! Thanks for getting them online, Steven - I'm still scrolling around and exploring.

Was the pace of urban growth around London so great at the time that new development is shown as solid grey because the latest OS maps at the time couldn't keep up with the growth of suburbia.

Yes, it certainly looks like it - presumably the grey shaded areas weren't on the original base map and were added for this edition so the LPTB had a better idea what was built up.

[KeithW]

These are brilliant! Thanks for getting them online, Steven - I'm still scrolling around and exploring.

Was the pace of urban growth around London so great at the time that new development is shown as solid grey because the latest OS maps at the time couldn't keep up with the growth of suburbia.

Yes, it certainly looks like it - presumably the grey shaded areas weren't on the original base map and were added for this edition so the LPTB had a better idea what was built up.

Indeed - if you want to see what Wembley was like in 1922 see this site.
https://heritagecalling.com/2023/04/26/ ... y-stadium/

[SteelCamel]

One thing on this map I've not seen before - the white circle indicating a railway station under construction, rather than a former station that has closed. South Kenton station station is marked with the symbol usually used for disused stations - but it's not disused, as it didn't open until July 1933.

[KeithW]

In 1984 I bought this house which was built on the old Stag Lane aerodrome which was owned by De Havilland it was one of the last having been built in 1933. I later found out from my dad that he was working on that estate when it was built as there was no work to be had in Stockton-on-Tees at the time.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.59660 ... ?entry=ttu

This is an old photo of the site
https://www.ukairfieldguide.net/airfields/Stag-Lane

A new tube station was built to serve it - Queensbury.

[Vierwielen]

I am very glad we rapidly ditched the Italian approach of giving bypasses a separate number.

The weird thing is they anticipated the A4 being on a new build road and reserved the number for it - surely the 1930s relief roads in North London weren't a surprise?

So what happens if a by-pass is built which threatens to duplicate the location marker posts that are "downstream" from the by-pass. I have noticed that the main carriageways are identified as the A and B carriageways with C and D reserved for adjacent parallel roads and J,K,L and M for on and off ramps. This selection of prefixes suggests to me that if such a by-pass is built, then its main carriageways will be the E and F carriageways with G and H reserved for adjacent parallel roads with N,P,Q and R reserved for any on and off-ramps attached to the new by-pass.

[Bryn666]

I am very glad we rapidly ditched the Italian approach of giving bypasses a separate number.

The weird thing is they anticipated the A4 being on a new build road and reserved the number for it - surely the 1930s relief roads in North London weren't a surprise?

So what happens if a by-pass is built which threatens to duplicate the location marker posts that are "downstream" from the by-pass. I have noticed that the main carriageways are identified as the A and B carriageways with C and D reserved for adjacent parallel roads and J,K,L and M for on and off ramps. This selection of prefixes suggests to me that if such a by-pass is built, then its main carriageways will be the E and F carriageways with G and H reserved for adjacent parallel roads with N,P,Q and R reserved for any on and off-ramps attached to the new by-pass.

The A14 is the example to look at. The junction numbers haven't been shuffled, but the distance markers have had some work done. In any case it's hardly a problem and if you're building a billion quid worth of road a few marker posts being replaced is not an issue. Given you're the only person in the UK who seems to care about distance markers (and I include trunk road authorities in this) I don't think Joe Pleb will be bothered if there's a gap in numbers or even a complete restart either, like happens on the A1.

[Vierwielen]

I am very glad we rapidly ditched the Italian approach of giving bypasses a separate number.

The weird thing is they anticipated the A4 being on a new build road and reserved the number for it - surely the 1930s relief roads in North London weren't a surprise?

So what happens if a by-pass is built which threatens to duplicate the location marker posts that are "downstream" from the by-pass. I have noticed that the main carriageways are identified as the A and B carriageways with C and D reserved for adjacent parallel roads and J,K,L and M for on and off ramps. This selection of prefixes suggests to me that if such a by-pass is built, then its main carriageways will be the E and F carriageways with G and H reserved for adjacent parallel roads with N,P,Q and R reserved for any on and off-ramps attached to the new by-pass.

The A14 is the example to look at. The junction numbers haven't been shuffled, but the distance markers have had some work done. In any case it's hardly a problem and if you're building a billion quid worth of road a few marker posts being replaced is not an issue. Given you're the only person in the UK who seems to care about distance markers (and I include trunk road authorities in this) I don't think Joe Pleb will be bothered if there's a gap in numbers or even a complete restart either, like happens on the A1.

Iam sure that I am not the only person in the UK who has noticed how junction numbers and distance markers are tied together in Spain, the United States, South Africa and posibly elsewhere. In addition, while in Italy I noticed that businesses advertise their premises using distance markers - for example, if the UK were to follow the Italian example, Jamaica Inn (of Daphne du Maurier fame) might be adverised as being off the "A30, km 102".

AS regards Joe Pleb - I recall that when postcodes were first introduced (about 40 years ago), they were derided. Now, when you give somebody your address, they are more concerned about your postcode than the street name.

[Isleworth1961]

AS regards Joe Pleb - I recall that when postcodes were first introduced (about 40 years ago), they were derided. Now, when you give somebody your address, they are more concerned about your postcode than the street name.

Postcodes were introduced in 1966, nearly 60 years ago, completed in 1974...

[Ruperts Trooper]

AS regards Joe Pleb - I recall that when postcodes were first introduced (about 40 years ago), they were derided. Now, when you give somebody your address, they are more concerned about your postcode than the street name.

Postcodes were introduced in 1966, nearly 60 years ago, completed in 1974...

Introduced in 1959 in Norwich and then rolled out nationally from 1967 to 1974