Difference between revisions of "Plessey"
From HighwayWiki
(→Design Characteristics) |
(→Design Characteristics) |
||
Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
<div style="overflow: hidden"> | <div style="overflow: hidden"> | ||
Now referred to as Plesseys or Tin Lanterns, the iconic British Traffic Signal with its jaunty white cap and skirt wearing stripes of black across its face was widely adopted throughout Great Britain by the Ministry of Transport (MoT), local highway authorities, Police, and many other countries throughout Europe (though many of these countries chose alternate color schemes.) Many found their way to the U.S.A., however these are all believed to be souvenirs or war trophies as none have been seen in service to date. | Now referred to as Plesseys or Tin Lanterns, the iconic British Traffic Signal with its jaunty white cap and skirt wearing stripes of black across its face was widely adopted throughout Great Britain by the Ministry of Transport (MoT), local highway authorities, Police, and many other countries throughout Europe (though many of these countries chose alternate color schemes.) Many found their way to the U.S.A., however these are all believed to be souvenirs or war trophies as none have been seen in service to date. | ||
+ | |||
Construction of these signals was very basic when compared to the evolution of U.S.A. signals of these decades. The body itself was formed from two stamped sheets of bright metal giving rise to the term “tin lantern”. One with lenses-sided holes for the front face and bent flanges, a second larger flat sheet formed into a triangle to form the actual body, and both being riveted together to form a triangular tube. The top and bottom end caps were of medium finish quality cast aluminum silicon with inset nuts and studs. The doors were of much finer finish die cast aluminum silicon with heavy aluminum silicon sheet rolled visors attached. Door hinging was achieved by simple L-brackets forming the hinge and studs with plated wing nuts and more L-bracket stampings creating a door latch. Sealing was accomplished through the use of extra thick gasket material around the lenses, no sealing other than overlapping edges was provided at the top and bottom plates. These signals were designed to have a twenty year service life, although it appears many far outlived that in excellent condition. | Construction of these signals was very basic when compared to the evolution of U.S.A. signals of these decades. The body itself was formed from two stamped sheets of bright metal giving rise to the term “tin lantern”. One with lenses-sided holes for the front face and bent flanges, a second larger flat sheet formed into a triangle to form the actual body, and both being riveted together to form a triangular tube. The top and bottom end caps were of medium finish quality cast aluminum silicon with inset nuts and studs. The doors were of much finer finish die cast aluminum silicon with heavy aluminum silicon sheet rolled visors attached. Door hinging was achieved by simple L-brackets forming the hinge and studs with plated wing nuts and more L-bracket stampings creating a door latch. Sealing was accomplished through the use of extra thick gasket material around the lenses, no sealing other than overlapping edges was provided at the top and bottom plates. These signals were designed to have a twenty year service life, although it appears many far outlived that in excellent condition. | ||
+ | |||
There was little modularity offered in the design, at a time when most manufacturers were selling sectional signals. All standard visors were available, open type cowls (cap visors), tubular type cowls (tunnel visors), butted tubular type cowls (“full circle” visors), and side projection type cowls (a long tunnel visor with either the right or left side cut away in the style of a cap visor.) The signals were only available in three or one lens size. A special two lens pedestrian model was offered, in the same size as the three lens model, with the amber aspect not installed. | There was little modularity offered in the design, at a time when most manufacturers were selling sectional signals. All standard visors were available, open type cowls (cap visors), tubular type cowls (tunnel visors), butted tubular type cowls (“full circle” visors), and side projection type cowls (a long tunnel visor with either the right or left side cut away in the style of a cap visor.) The signals were only available in three or one lens size. A special two lens pedestrian model was offered, in the same size as the three lens model, with the amber aspect not installed. | ||
+ | |||
Mounting too, was a simple affair. Designed to be put on a four and a half inch, horizontally zebra striped post, spring steel plates mounted to a stud on the top and bottom plate of the signal which lined up with mounting collars on the post. This allowed a wide range of adjustments in position and direction of a signal – up to two could be mounted facing the same direction, and up to five on a single post. Tilt of a signal head could be accomplished by intermixing various lengths of the mounting plates. | Mounting too, was a simple affair. Designed to be put on a four and a half inch, horizontally zebra striped post, spring steel plates mounted to a stud on the top and bottom plate of the signal which lined up with mounting collars on the post. This allowed a wide range of adjustments in position and direction of a signal – up to two could be mounted facing the same direction, and up to five on a single post. Tilt of a signal head could be accomplished by intermixing various lengths of the mounting plates. | ||
Wiring would go from a common junction box inside this pole through armoured [corrugated] conduit directly to each socket of a lamp aspect inside the signal head. Access to the head was provided by an eave at the top-back of the upper cap plate with a small cord clamp holding the conduit tight. | Wiring would go from a common junction box inside this pole through armoured [corrugated] conduit directly to each socket of a lamp aspect inside the signal head. Access to the head was provided by an eave at the top-back of the upper cap plate with a small cord clamp holding the conduit tight. | ||
+ | |||
Recommended placement of these signals was to have two per direction per intersection, minimum. The first, a primary signal, located on the kerb of the traffic it controls. It shall have been placed three feet beyond the stop line for its lane(s) of traffic. A secondary signal should also have been used. The secondary would be placed diagonally and across the street from its lane of traffic. All known examples of these lights were side post mounted, no examples of post-top, spanwire, or overhead gantry mast mounting are known. Even today such mountings are much more rare in Europe mostly appearing in newer development regions. | Recommended placement of these signals was to have two per direction per intersection, minimum. The first, a primary signal, located on the kerb of the traffic it controls. It shall have been placed three feet beyond the stop line for its lane(s) of traffic. A secondary signal should also have been used. The secondary would be placed diagonally and across the street from its lane of traffic. All known examples of these lights were side post mounted, no examples of post-top, spanwire, or overhead gantry mast mounting are known. Even today such mountings are much more rare in Europe mostly appearing in newer development regions. | ||
− | |||
</div> | </div> | ||
Revision as of 18:30, 29 October 2015