Bus, crane, crash, copper, subway!

[jim]

Ready to go Si.

[Si]

From Jim's copy of the book, "Leeds Trams 1871 to 1959." This c.1930s pic of Briggate clearly shows the entrance to the toilets from the north, as noticed in other photos on this thread. A similar pic in the same book taken c.1950 shows the same. (Click on red X to view.)However...    

[Si]

...this pic from the same book, taken c.1910 (Jim's guess) shows the entrance closer to Boar Lane, and with steps giving access from the south.The 8 bay and 3 bay buildings in the background, and the curve of the tracks suggest that the earlier entrance was filled in, and a new one constructed further north up Briggate at some point (as suggested by Jim earlier, and by the Leodis pic posted by Chrism.) Any ideas as to why?                

[Si]

In the 1930s pic, there is a grating of some sort where the earlier southern entrance used to be (arrowed.)

[Bruno]

Could it be a simple road safety issue? With the entrance in the original location, a gent in a hurry rushing to the loo from the West side of Briggate might easily fail to notice a tram approaching from behind his right shoulder, whereas with the entrance in its latter position, he would have a view of a straight stretch of tramline/road, offering a much safer crossing.

[jim]

Good thinking Bruno. Along the same train of thought, the later entry point would also be more accessible (and in more safety) from the tram shelters in the centre of the road.My thanks to Si for his computer picture skills and associated notes.    

[Bruno]

I don't know anything about trams etc, but I happened to find this photo on Leodis, the caption of which suggests that the trams coming round the corner from Boar Lane into Briggate were quieter than they would be elsewhere (lending weight to my road safety theory?).http://www.leodis.net/display.aspx?reso ... 3_36210269

[Si]

Bruno wrote: Could it be a simple road safety issue? With the entrance in the original location, a gent in a hurry rushing to the loo from the West side of Briggate might easily fail to notice a tram approaching from behind his right shoulder, whereas with the entrance in its latter position, he would have a view of a straight stretch of tramline/road, offering a much safer crossing. You're probably right Bruno, but I'm not 100% convinced. Earlier in the 20th century, H&S was not as keen as it is today, and the expense of creating a whole new entrance would seem unnecessary to their mind, in my opinion. But also, if you look at the other end of the "traffic island" after the toilet entrance was redug to the north, there is a cross-over tramline which comes just as close to the new entrance as the turning into Boar Lane did in the earlier picture.What do you think?    

[stutterdog]

Si wrote: In the 1930s pic, there is a grating of some sort where the earlier southern entrance used to be (arrowed.) I seem to remember from my childhood that the grating mentioned was a skylight made of glass blocks.Great pics by the way.Brought back a lot of memories.

[Bruno]

Si wrote: Earlier in the 20th century, H&S was not as keen as it is today, and the expense of creating a whole new entrance would seem unnecessary to their mind, in my opinion.     I quite agree that Health and Safety for its own sake was hardly considered in those days, but you may have touched on the nub when you mention expense; what would the cost of a new entrance to the toilets be, when balanced against the expense of scraping the remains of an inebriate off the front of a tram once or twice a week, and the loss of revenue from the subsequent tram delays/cancellations? Not to mention the cost of inquiries into the incidents.Is there a record anywhere of road accidents/fatalities from this era?