Raising as new thread, from this one on timetables, quoting posts from there, as a separately interesting one
While the 'Up to London' (or the main centre for the railway) convention is generally understood, and widely quoted, there are I believe exceptions, and lines for which is it not obvious: so the actual rule for 'which way is up' is 'whichever way is so defined'.
And it raises questions - at least for me.
To what extent is it a rule (or expectation) that milepost mileages increase in the down direction?
What happened with those 'provincial' railways that built extensions to London (thinking of the Midland and Great Central)?
The GCR measured mileages from Manchester - all the way to Marylebone (with gaps for the Metropolitan Railway section). Presumably (originally, from the MAS, and then MSL) it was up to Manchester. But when the London extension opened (from Annesley), was it up or down to London? If up to London, where was the reversal? Was there a 'great reversal' for the MSL line across the Peninnes, so it was down all the way to Manchester? Was this in 1899 (when the extension opened), or earlier, or later?
And similarly, on the Midland, AIUI mileages were origianally measured from Derby, and so 'Up to Derby'? But later, current, mileages are from St Pancras (all the way to Carlisle). Was there a grand re-mileposting at some stage after the line opened from St Pancras? And a 'great reversal' south of Derby, to make it 'Down from London to Derby'? (And if so when?)
Since grouping, and more especially since 'Beeching' (and subsequent) rationalisation have there been changes of direction (reversals) for lines? (with or without re-mileposting)
Something that that surprises me a bit is that while Victorian railways seemed to be fairly willing to re milepost (apart from the Midland, the South Eastern did so, to measure from Charing Cross), over the last century and more, there seems to have been great reluctance (if indeed any significant sections have been done).
I know that - at about the same time as London Transport remeasured its lines metrically, and put up km posts - BR did have a plan to remeasure, in similar manner, in km, before giving it up as 'too complex'. Does anybody have any details?
The 1850 Bradshaw (reprint unfortunately) has Tables headed 'Down' heading away from London (or any other route) alongside tables headed 'UP' in standard railway convention but the columns of times alongside are in accordance with the heading as well, meaning you read train times down the column in the first instance, and up the column in the other. The same applies in much later European Bradshaws which squeeze in as many routes as possible on each page with just one block of stations shown for trains in both direction on many routes.
It raises the question whether the use of the now standard terms 'Down' and 'Up' result from the layout of the timetable. There's no other logical explanation why lines were designated that way, except possibly from London to the South Coast.
I thought down was always going from London, Stranraer would be down from Glasgow etc
Not sure about Liverpool & Manchester or Glasgow & Edinburgh
I have always understood that Up and Down was an early example of a standard system, being from each railway’s main centre, this being London in many cases. I think that the Midland Railway saw Down as being from Derby and some of the Welsh lines had Down as the same as downhill.
It was a long tradition that pre-dated the railways, to be Down going away from London, and Up towards it. Stagecoaches used the expression - the novel "Tom Brown's Schooldays", set at Rugby School in the 1820s, gives some marvellous extended descriptions of what stagecoach travel from London to Rugby was like (along what is now the A5 road), and refers to "Down Coaches" and "Up Coaches". It comes over in the book that schoolboys in the 1820s were as knowledgeable about the operation of stagecoaches at the time (including the book's author Thomas Hughes) as they much later were about railways during Ian Allan's heyday.
This is correct. The Lancashire & Yorkshire (using Manchester as its base) throws up some interesting examples. Same with mileposts - ponder some of them in the Merseyrail routes north of Liverpool.
While the 'Up to London' (or the main centre for the railway) convention is generally understood, and widely quoted, there are I believe exceptions, and lines for which is it not obvious: so the actual rule for 'which way is up' is 'whichever way is so defined'.
And it raises questions - at least for me.
To what extent is it a rule (or expectation) that milepost mileages increase in the down direction?
What happened with those 'provincial' railways that built extensions to London (thinking of the Midland and Great Central)?
The GCR measured mileages from Manchester - all the way to Marylebone (with gaps for the Metropolitan Railway section). Presumably (originally, from the MAS, and then MSL) it was up to Manchester. But when the London extension opened (from Annesley), was it up or down to London? If up to London, where was the reversal? Was there a 'great reversal' for the MSL line across the Peninnes, so it was down all the way to Manchester? Was this in 1899 (when the extension opened), or earlier, or later?
And similarly, on the Midland, AIUI mileages were origianally measured from Derby, and so 'Up to Derby'? But later, current, mileages are from St Pancras (all the way to Carlisle). Was there a grand re-mileposting at some stage after the line opened from St Pancras? And a 'great reversal' south of Derby, to make it 'Down from London to Derby'? (And if so when?)
Since grouping, and more especially since 'Beeching' (and subsequent) rationalisation have there been changes of direction (reversals) for lines? (with or without re-mileposting)
Something that that surprises me a bit is that while Victorian railways seemed to be fairly willing to re milepost (apart from the Midland, the South Eastern did so, to measure from Charing Cross), over the last century and more, there seems to have been great reluctance (if indeed any significant sections have been done).
I know that - at about the same time as London Transport remeasured its lines metrically, and put up km posts - BR did have a plan to remeasure, in similar manner, in km, before giving it up as 'too complex'. Does anybody have any details?