A57/A628 Mottram Tintwistle bypass

The study of British and Irish roads - their construction, numbering, history, mapping, past and future official roads proposals and general roads musings.

There is a separate forum for Street Furniture (traffic lights, street lights, road signs etc).

Registered users get access to other forums including discussions about other forms of transport, driving, fantasy roads and wishlists, and roads quizzes.

Moderator: Site Management Team

Post Reply
User avatar
the cheesecake man
Member
Posts: 2486
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 13:21
Location: Sheffield

Re: A57/A628 Mottram Tintwistle bypass

Post by the cheesecake man »

Hdeng16 wrote: Mon Nov 21, 2022 15:05 I've driven this route throughout my driving life - since 2001ish. I'm sure others even longer, but the queues are always the same - sometimes it seems they never go.
Yep, queues almost any time in both directions. Nowhere else has so reliably got queues even when other places are quiet eg at 8pm or 10am on Sunday.

Although I was under the impression woodhead was the dominant flow, apparently it's not,
You're right that far more traffic uses Woodhead Pass than Snake Pass (12k v 4k according to SABRE Maps), but Glossop is much bigger than Tintwistle (32,000 v 1,400). The proportion of traffic heading into Glossop that continues across the Pennines is quite small, I'd guess around 10% and AADT on SABRE maps shows 20k west of Glossop versus 4k east so that's about right. Hence why there is no proposal to bypass Glossop.
Finally, as others have mentioned this is the western half of the original bypass. There's nothing stopping a future extension east and although I accept it's unlikely, it's not impossible. Given the 20 years that have gone by I'm grateful for anything now, even if it is a bit meh.
Hopefully :pig: Building the whole lot in one go would be much better but that's far too much sense to be allowed in British transport policy.
User avatar
FleetlinePhil
Member
Posts: 2313
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 11:26
Location: Calder Valley

Re: A57/A628 Mottram Tintwistle bypass

Post by FleetlinePhil »

Bryn666 wrote: Thu Nov 17, 2022 11:49 It's still a not very subtle admission they are simply going to enable more car commuting from Glossop because it doesn't actually relieve the A628 at all, it's an A57 bypass that screams "get on the M67 and sit in traffic at Denton because you'll think it's quicker than catching the train from Padfield".
Hadfield rather than Padfield, but your point still stands.
Norfolktolancashire wrote: Sat Nov 19, 2022 21:48 ...As for public transport it is being ripped to pieces at the moment due to reduced passenger numbers during the Covid period.
Indeed, the Glossop/Hadfield line it is still running with only two of the three booked diagrams, leaving hour gaps in a nominally half-hourly service even at peak times - there is no departure from Manchester Piccadilly at 1633 or 1803! This compares with a twenty minute peak headway pre-Covid, and apparently it will not even improve with the December timetable change. Shocking!
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 8010
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: A57/A628 Mottram Tintwistle bypass

Post by jackal »

Hdeng16 wrote: Mon Nov 21, 2022 15:05 I'm going to attempt to defend it. But I'll start by saying it is pretty crap.

I've driven this route throughout my driving life - since 2001ish. I'm sure others even longer, but the queues are always the same - sometimes it seems they never go. The major problem and major bottleneck is, in my experience, the crossroad lights at Mottram. I've tried the obvious alternative - going west, turning right at the filter lights and then left to approach the lights from the north. Nothing works, it's just gridlock.

This scheme does, at least, remove that set of lights. It does, granted, produce another set of lights, but with more space, filter lanes. Although I was under the impression woodhead was the dominant flow, apparently it's not, and regardless by making the Glossop traffic more free flowing it could mean Woodhead traffic flows better too.

Finally, as others have mentioned this is the western half of the original bypass. There's nothing stopping a future extension east and although I accept it's unlikely, it's not impossible. Given the 20 years that have gone by I'm grateful for anything now, even if it is a bit meh.
I have mixed feelings. The scheme serves a very clear need as traffic from the A57, A628 and A6018 are bottlenecked on Mottram Moor. But one can't help but notice that a lot of the scheme is a bypass of the A57 Woolley Lane, serving commuting traffic with little strategic value.

Really there has been a failure of policy. Instead of a realistic long term policy to improve the A628 in stages (including a Mottram-Tintwistle bypass), we had the unrealistic long term trans-Pennine tunnel, and this realistic but short term scheme.
Hdeng16
Member
Posts: 566
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2016 20:47

Re: A57/A628 Mottram Tintwistle bypass

Post by Hdeng16 »

I wonder if the eastern half of the bypass (the but not yet being built) is almost now small enough to become a development-led scheme in future?
Peter Freeman
Member
Posts: 1617
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 07:52
Location: Exits 9 & 10, M1 East, Melbourne, Australia

Re: A57/A628 Mottram Tintwistle bypass

Post by Peter Freeman »

Hdeng16 wrote: Mon Nov 21, 2022 15:05 I'm going to attempt to defend it. But I'll start by saying it is pretty crap.
I'll defend it too, because it's better than nothing.

Yes, it's 'pretty crap' because it's so small: only half of an already-small project. Also because it uses a hamburger. But it's a stepping stone. The next piece is easy to free-flow splice on, and it can eventually (30 years?) make it over the hill as a surface route upgrade.

These incremental constructions, although inefficient, must continue to be the way forward in an austerity climate. And, let's face it, the tunnel's not going to happen. UK doesn't do tunnels under mountains (but yes, under open fields near to ancient monuments).

As for it pandering to car commuters - get over it.
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 36757
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: A57/A628 Mottram Tintwistle bypass

Post by Bryn666 »

Peter Freeman wrote: Tue Nov 22, 2022 21:46 As for it pandering to car commuters - get over it.
A dull and frankly unworthy response from someone with usually quite insightful views. Quite simply Greater Manchester cannot accommodate more driving from its closely attached suburbs, it is a compact metropolitan region best suited to metro systems and public transport. The M60 diameter itself is barely 10 miles and relatively flat.

There's a reason people living in Glossop take the train into the city centre and why the Woodhead Line was not completely removed here, because it's faster and more efficient than sitting on the M67 and Hyde Road every morning and evening peak.

As it stands this 'bypass' is merely competing with an already established and good rail connection. It does nothing for the strategic network and is against any sustainable design principles that road building should be aiming towards if we stand any chance of dealing with climate change and the social impacts of unrestricted car commuting whilst providing a modern, fit for purpose network.
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
BlueSky - https://bsky.app/profile/showmeasignbryn.bsky.social
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
User avatar
Helvellyn
Member
Posts: 25732
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 22:31
Location: High Peak

Re: A57/A628 Mottram Tintwistle bypass

Post by Helvellyn »

Bryn666 wrote: Wed Nov 23, 2022 12:18
Peter Freeman wrote: Tue Nov 22, 2022 21:46 As for it pandering to car commuters - get over it.
A dull and frankly unworthy response from someone with usually quite insightful views. Quite simply Greater Manchester cannot accommodate more driving from its closely attached suburbs, it is a compact metropolitan region best suited to metro systems and public transport. The M60 diameter itself is barely 10 miles and relatively flat.

There's a reason people living in Glossop take the train into the city centre and why the Woodhead Line was not completely removed here, because it's faster and more efficient than sitting on the M67 and Hyde Road every morning and evening peak.

As it stands this 'bypass' is merely competing with an already established and good rail connection. It does nothing for the strategic network and is against any sustainable design principles that road building should be aiming towards if we stand any chance of dealing with climate change and the social impacts of unrestricted car commuting whilst providing a modern, fit for purpose network.
I partially agree, and obviously me being me I'm going to grumble about building almost anything, but it is an almost uniquely terrible bit of the road network at present, enough that even I'm not getting too upset by the idea.
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 36757
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: A57/A628 Mottram Tintwistle bypass

Post by Bryn666 »

Helvellyn wrote: Wed Nov 23, 2022 13:30
Bryn666 wrote: Wed Nov 23, 2022 12:18
Peter Freeman wrote: Tue Nov 22, 2022 21:46 As for it pandering to car commuters - get over it.
A dull and frankly unworthy response from someone with usually quite insightful views. Quite simply Greater Manchester cannot accommodate more driving from its closely attached suburbs, it is a compact metropolitan region best suited to metro systems and public transport. The M60 diameter itself is barely 10 miles and relatively flat.

There's a reason people living in Glossop take the train into the city centre and why the Woodhead Line was not completely removed here, because it's faster and more efficient than sitting on the M67 and Hyde Road every morning and evening peak.

As it stands this 'bypass' is merely competing with an already established and good rail connection. It does nothing for the strategic network and is against any sustainable design principles that road building should be aiming towards if we stand any chance of dealing with climate change and the social impacts of unrestricted car commuting whilst providing a modern, fit for purpose network.
I partially agree, and obviously me being me I'm going to grumble about building almost anything, but it is an almost uniquely terrible bit of the road network at present, enough that even I'm not getting too upset by the idea.
Yes, I am not saying it shouldn't be built, I'm just pointing out that the approved design achieves none of the objectives its proponents say it will. It is designed almost entirely to make it easier to drive from and to Glossop whilst doing nothing for the A628.

The old A57 should be truncated at the M67 roundabout, keeping the old road open undermines the whole point of shifting traffic off the road here, it would also have reduced the need to introduce an awful hamburger as there'd be fewer entry conflicts onto the roundabout.
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
BlueSky - https://bsky.app/profile/showmeasignbryn.bsky.social
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
User avatar
Helvellyn
Member
Posts: 25732
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 22:31
Location: High Peak

Re: A57/A628 Mottram Tintwistle bypass

Post by Helvellyn »

Fair enough, point taken.
fras
Member
Posts: 3667
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 18:34

Re: A57/A628 Mottram Tintwistle bypass

Post by fras »

I've gone this way quite often, to get to the Oil Can Cafe, near Holmfirth. I can confirm that the traffic lights in Mottram are the main bottleneck. Once you get past these, it is slow but it does move. We normally come to these lights from the south as there is a Tesco on the A560 just off the roundabout where we normally buy the papers and have a "physical needs break", so we use the B6174 to get back on track. The new bypass will suit us just fine, I think, if it ever gets built !
User avatar
jgharston
Member
Posts: 2611
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2010 18:06
Location: Sheffield/Whitby

Re: A57/A628 Mottram Tintwistle bypass

Post by jgharston »

fras wrote: Wed Nov 23, 2022 14:35 IWe normally come to these lights from the south as there is a Tesco on the A560 just off the roundabout where we normally buy the papers and have a "physical needs break", so we use the B6174 to get back on track. The new bypass will suit us just fine, I think, if it ever gets built !
When I've had to do a Sheffield-Manchester run, I've gone via Glossop then turned off on the A626 to Charlesworth then down the C-road through Broadbottom and joining the B6174 westwards past that Tesco. I never timed it, but it keeps the engine running properly instead of straining on the pedals at less than walking pace. And that was in an automatic, I've never attempted it since getting an manual car, and I know I am really bad at stop/start crawling up hills in near-stationary traffic in it.
User avatar
Was92now625
Member
Posts: 862
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 00:29
Location: near A625

Re: A57/A628 Mottram Tintwistle bypass

Post by Was92now625 »

jgharston wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 18:47 When I've had to do a Sheffield-Manchester run, I've gone via Glossop then turned off on the A626 to Charlesworth then down the C-road through Broadbottom and joining the B6174 westwards past that Tesco. I never timed it, but it keeps the engine running properly instead of straining on the pedals at less than walking pace. And that was in an automatic, I've never attempted it since getting an manual car, and I know I am really bad at stop/start crawling up hills in near-stationary traffic in it.
I've tried something like this. But never been totally convinced. However, I'd also say that a longer route rather than being stuck in VERY slow traffic is also better for the driver.
Peter Freeman
Member
Posts: 1617
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 07:52
Location: Exits 9 & 10, M1 East, Melbourne, Australia

Re: A57/A628 Mottram Tintwistle bypass

Post by Peter Freeman »

Bryn666 wrote: Wed Nov 23, 2022 12:18
Peter Freeman wrote: Tue Nov 22, 2022 21:46 As for it pandering to car commuters - get over it.
There's a reason people living in Glossop take the train into the city centre and why the Woodhead Line was not completely removed here, because it's faster and more efficient than sitting on the M67 and Hyde Road every morning and evening peak.

As it stands this 'bypass' is merely competing with an already established and good rail connection. It does nothing for the strategic network and is against any sustainable design principles that road building should be aiming towards ...
So, a substantial proportion of commuters already do use the "good rail connection". That's appropriate. Nevertheless, there is severe congestion in Mottram. This presumably consists of (a) commuters who, for a genuine reason, cannot use the train, (b) other traffic unable to take the train - mainly freight, trades, deliveries and services, and (c) some lazy die-hards who just love being in their cars. These three traffic categories (a,b,c) will always exist, however much we improve public transport. They exist everywhere, and often predominate, even in cities with excellent PT.

The proposed Mottram-only bypass will probably not attract many commuters from their "good rail connection" because it still leaves the M67 city-end problems. It will -
(i) provide some relief for the deserving members of categories (a) and (b),
(ii) improve the environment for those living, working, walking, cycling or shopping alongside the current congestion,
(iii) provide at least a start for a Hollingworth and Tintwistle bypass, and
(iiii) provide hope for a tolerable route over Woodhead.

ps. 'get over it' was rude - my apologies.
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 36757
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: A57/A628 Mottram Tintwistle bypass

Post by Bryn666 »

Peter Freeman wrote: Fri Nov 25, 2022 03:59
Bryn666 wrote: Wed Nov 23, 2022 12:18
Peter Freeman wrote: Tue Nov 22, 2022 21:46 As for it pandering to car commuters - get over it.
There's a reason people living in Glossop take the train into the city centre and why the Woodhead Line was not completely removed here, because it's faster and more efficient than sitting on the M67 and Hyde Road every morning and evening peak.

As it stands this 'bypass' is merely competing with an already established and good rail connection. It does nothing for the strategic network and is against any sustainable design principles that road building should be aiming towards ...
So, a substantial proportion of commuters already do use the "good rail connection". That's appropriate. Nevertheless, there is severe congestion in Mottram. This presumably consists of (a) commuters who, for a genuine reason, cannot use the train, (b) other traffic unable to take the train - mainly freight, trades, deliveries and services, and (c) some lazy die-hards who just love being in their cars. These three traffic categories (a,b,c) will always exist, however much we improve public transport. They exist everywhere, and often predominate, even in cities with excellent PT.

The proposed Mottram-only bypass will probably not attract many commuters from their "good rail connection" because it still leaves the M67 city-end problems. It will -
(i) provide some relief for the deserving members of categories (a) and (b),
(ii) improve the environment for those living, working, walking, cycling or shopping alongside the current congestion,
(iii) provide at least a start for a Hollingworth and Tintwistle bypass, and
(iiii) provide hope for a tolerable route over Woodhead.

ps. 'get over it' was rude - my apologies.
Yes, as explained upthread there are some benefits to the new road but NH have previous form for scoring own goals and not achieving what they have sold to locals. I fear this is one of those examples.

There is a very real risk that removing the Mottram bottleneck whilst making lives immeasurably better for locals will just make Denton Island unbearable. It doesn't work now, and NH have tried nothing radical and are all out of ideas. Their last intervention, a free-flow left turn lane off the M60 anti-clockwise slammed traffic into a kerbed buildout and has achieved diddle squat. Something to help would be to utilise the missing flyover and provide some free-flow on/off the M60 - this helps strategic traffic whilst discouraging car commuting into the city centre.
Attachments
denton.png
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
BlueSky - https://bsky.app/profile/showmeasignbryn.bsky.social
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
User avatar
Truvelo
Member
Posts: 17706
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 21:10
Location: Staffordshire
Contact:

Re: A57/A628 Mottram Tintwistle bypass

Post by Truvelo »

That's a brilliant design which would help considerably. However, golf courses tend to be vocal in their opposition to their land being used for such developments unless this golf course isn't the la di da type.
How would you like your grade separations, Sir?
Big and complex.
Hdeng16
Member
Posts: 566
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2016 20:47

Re: A57/A628 Mottram Tintwistle bypass

Post by Hdeng16 »

Bryn666 wrote: Wed Nov 23, 2022 13:33whilst doing nothing for the A628.
I absolutely disagree with that comment specifically. It's minor, but it doesn't do 'nothing'. Effectively it's just a junction upgrade, but by 'moving' the Mottram traffic lights it's given them space to build a much larger junction with multiple phases rather than the current simple crossroads. This will help the A628, just not by much.
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 36757
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: A57/A628 Mottram Tintwistle bypass

Post by Bryn666 »

Hdeng16 wrote: Fri Nov 25, 2022 11:34
Bryn666 wrote: Wed Nov 23, 2022 13:33whilst doing nothing for the A628.
I absolutely disagree with that comment specifically. It's minor, but it doesn't do 'nothing'. Effectively it's just a junction upgrade, but by 'moving' the Mottram traffic lights it's given them space to build a much larger junction with multiple phases rather than the current simple crossroads. This will help the A628, just not by much.
I'm probably being over-pessimistic! I would like to, just once, see a strategic road scheme that actually isn't riddled with BS compromises and politicking. Maybe one day eh?
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
BlueSky - https://bsky.app/profile/showmeasignbryn.bsky.social
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
Hdeng16
Member
Posts: 566
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2016 20:47

Re: A57/A628 Mottram Tintwistle bypass

Post by Hdeng16 »

Bryn666 wrote: Fri Nov 25, 2022 11:43
Hdeng16 wrote: Fri Nov 25, 2022 11:34
Bryn666 wrote: Wed Nov 23, 2022 13:33whilst doing nothing for the A628.
I absolutely disagree with that comment specifically. It's minor, but it doesn't do 'nothing'. Effectively it's just a junction upgrade, but by 'moving' the Mottram traffic lights it's given them space to build a much larger junction with multiple phases rather than the current simple crossroads. This will help the A628, just not by much.
I'm probably being over-pessimistic! I would like to, just once, see a strategic road scheme that actually isn't riddled with BS compromises and politicking. Maybe one day eh?
That (and pretty much the rest of your post) I totally agree with! It is still a depressing scheme, but it's something. I long for the same day! I've thought (twice) we may have been getting it with the A66 but still nothing....
User avatar
the cheesecake man
Member
Posts: 2486
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 13:21
Location: Sheffield

Re: A57/A628 Mottram Tintwistle bypass

Post by the cheesecake man »

Peter Freeman wrote: Fri Nov 25, 2022 03:59 So, a substantial proportion of commuters already do use the "good rail connection". That's appropriate. Nevertheless, there is severe congestion in Mottram. This presumably consists of (a) commuters who, for a genuine reason, cannot use the train, (b) other traffic unable to take the train - mainly freight, trades, deliveries and services, and (c) some lazy die-hards who just love being in their cars. These three traffic categories (a,b,c) will always exist, however much we improve public transport. They exist everywhere, and often predominate, even in cities with excellent PT.

The proposed Mottram-only bypass will probably not attract many commuters from their "good rail connection" because it still leaves the M67 city-end problems. It will -
(i) provide some relief for the deserving members of categories (a) and (b),
(ii) improve the environment for those living, working, walking, cycling or shopping alongside the current congestion,
(iii) provide at least a start for a Hollingworth and Tintwistle bypass, and
(iiii) provide hope for a tolerable route over Woodhead.
In support of this, Glossop-Mottram is the only place I've ever noticed a significant increase in traffic during a train strike.
Back in 2002, I spent three months commuting from Sheffield to Ashton-under Lyne*. It consistently took 1hr10mins-1hr20mins, except for two days when there was a train strike in the north-west and it took 1hr45mins.

*if it had been possible to get there by train directly from Sheffield (as with Stockport or Marple) I'd have done so rather than be in category (c). To get to Ashton by going into Piccadilly and walking to Victoria or taking a slow circuitous (but scenic) route via Huddersfield was not realistic so I consider I was in category (a). You are course free to believe I was in (c), for example if you think I should have declined the job and stayed on the dole queue.
User avatar
JammyDodge
Member
Posts: 515
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2018 13:17

Re: A57/A628 Mottram Tintwistle bypass

Post by JammyDodge »

I made a light modification to Bryn's layout, to make to M67-M60 slip the main slip
denton2.png
Also, talking about commuting into the City Centre, why can't bus lanes be put in between Denton and Piccadilly? There are some here and there, but no continuous lanes to speed up busses in and out of the city and could be used to create express bus routes out towards Hyde. It would also facilitate slightly safer cycling routes. While it is not ideal to cycle in a bus lane, I find it generally safer than a general traffic lane
Designing Tomorrow, Around the Past
Post Reply