Or if you all look at a page I am going to re-write soon with the proper TSRGD diagrams instead of hand-drawn recreations:

OK, here's another sign I made, any problems with the design/layout of this one?
(and is it even within TSRGD guidelines?)

I am not a sign expert, but what immediately jumps out is:

1) untidy alignment (does your software not let you snap things to a grid?)
2) inconsistent sizes of the red circles (you probably used raster images instead of vector ones)
3) some very close spacing

I'd also add that the effect is quite overwhelming. If you've got a 7.5T weight limit and width restriction on there, you probably don't need the 18T, length, and bus restrictions. But at least you can cycle along there. Or drive a tank.

So basically, just cars, light vans and cyclists can use the tunnel ?

And motorbikes.

Well, yes. But, basically, the point is, have I done a sign warning of multiple restrictions ahead correctly?
If you were designing it (seeing as you work with this kind of design, as do several other members on here), how should it be designed?

Whitemoor is just a placeholder name; use of the name is coincidental.

Well... You just wouldn't do a sign like that, for example there is no need to have a 18t axle load if you have a 7.5t limit, same with the buses.... The no caravans isn't used much either.... Perhaps just a permissive "cars only" and "no explosives" sign would work best with a "except for authorised vehicles" and run a permit scheme for the tunnel.

You can't go wrong with a NO sign either?

I'm no expert but the arrow looks too close to 'no explosives' and everything seems to be alligned too far to the right.

Edited because i got mixed up between left and right

No offence but at anything above GCSE sort of level, that would be considered shoddy work. Just the general alignment and layout. Everything is too far to the right, the individual signs are not the same size. There is a white border around some but not others. Just no attention to detail.

I would also suggest the "No explosives" wouldn't have a panel underneath when being used in this context. Presumably also such a sign would only appear directly before the start of the tunnel (with a turn back bay) and not on a side turning as it appears here?

There are rather too many restrictions in force, anyway.

You would be able to get away with just using a width barrier at the entrance to the tunnel to keep HGVs out. Simples, one TRO vs about 12.

Secondly, you'd sign the tunnel as light vehicles only with only the width, 7.5t, and height limits signed. You wouldn't need the other restrictions with those in place - why, for example, are you banning caravans?

Lastly, what vintage is this tunnel? Nothing after 1950 would be built so craply in the first place as to require the bans.

Hree's a very quick, 5 minute sketch of what might be better;



I am aware that it's nowhere near perfect (e.g. the roundels are very rough, and the font sizes slightly differ), but as I say it's just a very quick 5 minute sketch to show how a wide range of restrictions could be shown. If the tunnel is so bad that it requires weight, height, length and width restrictions, then personally, I think it'd be easier to pretty much ban lorries and larger vehicles altogether - hence the lower 3 ton limit. The rest of it is a fairly standard NO sign, though I don't think that blue is a permitted colour variant? Depending on the status of the road the sign's on, it'd probably be green or white.

As an information sign, it could be blue?

Why do signs like that have diagrams saying no peds/cycles and then include them in text in the NO?

Bryn, RE: Axle Limit sign, I have DOT working drawing for the original axle limit sign if you want to create an accurate version from new in cad.

David Brown, thats impressive, and without sign software?

Autosign guy, full marks for effort, keep practicing and I'm sure your results will get better.

In answer to your question on how should it be designed, in my opinion the starting point would be as pointed out by Bryn and Haydn, first work out the absolute minimum number of restrictions required, "keep it simple" and you should end up with the most efficient sign thats easier to read and more likely to be obeyed.

Second, I'd start searching other tunnels and use google streetview to see what is done elsewhere to avoid the mistakes of others or "borrow" their good ideas.

Third, I don't think there is an existing TSRGD sign for this situation, the starting point would appear to be diagram 818.4 and then vary it beyond the permitted varients so I would contact DfT signs and make enquiry for any similar signs that they have given authorisation. If suitable one exists use as a starting point and amend for situation, if not design one based on the setting out details of the working drawing for 818.4.

Some do, others don't. It's all very mysterious...

Incidentally, I was going to wonder why autosignguy's tunnel banned horse drawn vehicles but not horse riders until I saw the Penmaenbach sign.

But there are buses that are less that 7.5 tonnes. These Dennis Darts are actually 7.4 tonnes!

Here's my take on it - based the idea on the numerous tunnel signs in East London.

As ever, a DfT authorisation would be required for this beast.

Here's another one I created today, hopefully the design is getting better now.
Not sure if it's quite within TSRGD guidelines, but I'm practising at least.

Bryn666, as for the above sign, wouldn't the 3 T mgw sign be required to have "WEAK BRIDGE" or "WEAK ROAD" and not be a separate sign? I'm not sure even if my signs are correct!

Well, at least you're at the stage where I've seen worse in real life. So, the errors from top to bottom;

Sale Moor - Seems OK, actually, though the text isn't quite vertically central.

Ashton Vale - completely inexplicable 'No Explosives' restriction. IIRC, the restriction roundels need to be to the right of the text. With only one roundel, Ashton Vale could be on one line, but if it was on two, the two lines need to be centralised rather than justified to the left. The '1' needs to be halfway up, not on the bottom row.

East Walford - you need to get the roundels the same size - the 18T looks rediculous. Same issues as before with aligning the text.

The 7`6 looks wrong, it seems quite tight against the roundel and it and the "No Kaboom" roundel appear to be different heights