Wow, by this two pictures, looks like the insignia on the main strut should be there, like it is on the 3d model posted by Oleg.
All this pictures are very confusing.

I'm sure if one of you native speakers would write the Tower Bridge historians a kind mail asking about the colour, condition and coats they would be happy to help out.

I don't know a date for this, but clothing looks later than the war. 50's or '60s.
Colours may be hand tinted too.

http://www.oldukphotos.com/graphics/...r%20Bridge.jpg

One for fun :-)

Date 1892:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...works_1892.jpg

Look at the links I provided regarding the restoration.

Paint analysis bridge

http://www.thetowerbridge.info/wp-co...f-the-helm.jpg

Paint analysis lights

http://www.thetowerbridge.info/wp-co...lamp-stand.jpg

As already mentioned the bridge was reddish brown and the lights geen

I see nothing wrong with the 1c teams modelling of the bridge for the time span its intended

I'm starting to feel all this bridge detail hunt a little exaggerated. What's next, a request for progressive weathering of the bridge paint ? Priorities ...

:grin:
No no... the colour of the pilot socks will be the next discussion :rolleyes:... nothing new on this forum about discussions

The bridge was painted 'Thames Blue' during the war so that it could not be spotted from above by enemy aircraft, but it was later changed back after far too many civilian vehicles drove straight into the river.

Don't be daft, they didn't wear socks.

Woman's underwear perhaps, but socks absolutely not.

:grin:
I doubt if the Thames has been blue since the Romans arrived. A muddy brown with the occasional dead dog would be closer...:-P

Now we are back to the whole detail thing again......