Mystery railway bridge signs

N_Cook wrote:
> Both gone up this week on "the Horseshoe Bridge" St denys , Southampton.
> Road bridge over main Waterloo bound railway, but neither viewable from the
> railway. Reflective bead oval signs with the wording
> BML1
> EI/209A
> 77m 20ch
>
> surely not 77 miles 20 chains from Waterloo in year 2008? certainly not 77
> metres above sea level or OS chart datum

BML1 is the "Engineers Line Reference" for the stretch of track in question.

BML stands for Bournemouth Main Line and that particular section runs
from Waterloo to Northam Short Mile, which runs from milepost 0 to 77
miles 69 chains.

Not sure what the EI/209A refers to, but the 77m 20ch does indeed refer
to the bridge in question being 77 miles 20 chains from Waterloo.

HTH,

Barry

Railsigns.co.uk wrote:

> Regardless of what the R.I. says, I believe that legislation still
> requires U.K. railways to be provided with mileposts (despite the CTRL
> not having any).

Indeed. Section 94 of the Railway Consolidation Clauses Act 1845 (c.20)
states:

The company shall cause the length of the railway to be measured, and
milestones, posts, or other conspicuous objects to be set up and
maintained along the whole line thereof, at the distance of one quarter
of a mile from each other, with numbers or marks inscribed thereon
denoting such distances.

Cheers,

Barry

On Sep 7, 8:46 pm, Pat Ricroft <pat.ricr...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> On High Speed One, as we must now learn to call the Channel Tunnel
> Rail Link [...]

Though do note that all the legislation as well as all the lineside
signage all refer to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link/ CTRL (as I strongly
suspect do all the plethora of associated paperwork and contracts).
HS1 is a brand, nothing more...

In article <17wapffqibbld.1tm7n2wdqtgfk$.dlg@40tude.net>,
Chris Tolley <cjt.7@supanet.com> wrote:

> chorleydnc@m wrote:
>
> > Without wishing to sound racist: American pints are 16 fluid ounces,
> > Imperial Pints are 20 fluid ounces, therefore since one fifth of 20 is
> > four, American pints are indeed one fifth smaller than Imperial Pints.
> > which raises the question; why do Americans refer to a 20fl oz bottle
> > as a "fifth"?
>
> because it contains the fifth quarter-pint? ;-)

Because they are (very) approximately a fifth of a US Gallon, which
would be 25.6 US fl oz.

Sam

chorleydnc@m wrote:
> On Sep 7, 2:45 pm, Roy Badami <r...@gnomon.org.uk> wrote:
>> chorley...@m wrote:
>>> Without wishing to sound racist: American pints are 16 fluid ounces,
>>> Imperial Pints are 20 fluid ounces, therefore since one fifth of 20
>>> is four, American pints are indeed one fifth smaller than Imperial
>>> Pints.
>>
>> You're obviously under the misapprehension that an American fluid
>> ounce is the same size an an Imperial fluid ounce. The former is,
>> in fact, slightly larger...
>
> by 1.16mL.....

16 x 29.57 = 473.1
20 x 28.41 = 568.2
473.1/568.2 = 0.83 = 5/6
--
John Briggs