Renaming A1(M) North of Hook Moor as M1

[Was92now625]

Not necessarily, because the boundary between "4" and "6" south of Catthorpe would actually become undefined, and could theoretically be resolved by extending the M6 along the remainder of the M1 south of J19.

A lot of junction re-numbering. Adding 19 (or so) to about 45 of them.

[NICK 647063]

Trouble is it didnt do anything of the sort. The M1 was built as the London to Yorkshire motorway precisely because there was no good through road from London to the West Midlands and West Yorkshire. The M45/A45 were built as a spur to carry traffic towards Coventry and Birmingham. Prior to that the main routes from London to the North West were the A5 and A41. If anything the M1 replaced the A5, A426 and A61.

The A1 was and remains the London to Edinburgh trunk road and along the way serves the East Midlands, North Yorkshire, Tyneside and Northumbria with a spur to Teesside. There is a reason it was referred to as the Great North Road long before road numbers were issued. This is the same reason it has been upgraded to motorway along much of its length. Both the A1/A1(M) and M1 are major roads but they are not the same entity and one has not replaced the other.

As for the M1 to Hook Moor note that one of the major justifications HE are putting forwars for upgrading the A1 and A1(M) between Blyth and Darrington is to relieve traffic on that section of the M1 as it is becoming a major congestion point. Between J42 and J43 AADF is now 150k and rising with junctions being close together and high levels of commuter traffic. In fact I stopped using the Hook Moor route to reach the M1 when heading south simply because for all its faults the Doncaster bypass and M18 are usually quicker.

My point was that the M1 now takes a huge amount of traffic that would have used the A1 previously, for example if you were travelling from Newcastle to London you would either take the A1(M)A1/M18/M1 route or take the A1(M) /M1 route like signed at Hook Moor London, obviously it depends where in London your destination is but basically I would only use the A1 route south of the M18 if heading for east London or Kent and that would be via the A14/M11, for central London, west London, south London or beyond its the M1, the M1 is far more reliable these days and even the roadworks are running at 60, as much as I like the A1 it’s a pain during the day especially when you get 2 lorries side by side for ages, all sat navs for anywhere north of Leeds also take you onto the M1 for London apart from east London, so the M1 is bypassing the A1’s function between London and Hook Moor, yes some might take the A1 but the majority are using the M1.

[KeithW]

My point was that the M1 now takes a huge amount of traffic that would have used the A1 previously, for example if you were travelling from Newcastle to London you would either take the A1(M)A1/M18/M1 route or take the A1(M) /M1 route like signed at Hook Moor London, obviously it depends where in London your destination is but basically I would only use the A1 route south of the M18 if heading for east London or Kent and that would be via the A14/M11, for central London, west London, south London or beyond its the M1, the M1 is far more reliable these days and even the roadworks are running at 60, as much as I like the A1 it’s a pain during the day especially when you get 2 lorries side by side for ages, all sat navs for anywhere north of Leeds also take you onto the M1 for London apart from east London, so the M1 is bypassing the A1’s function between London and Hook Moor, yes some might take the A1 but the majority are using the M1.

In fact of course the A1/A1(M) carries far more traffic now than it ever did before the M1 opened and its rather telling that major towns along its length were being bypassed even as the M1 was being built. In the 10 years between 2008 and 2018 traffic on the A1 rose from an AADF of 60k to around 75k. I can assure you as someone who was born in the North East of England but has lived and worked in Kent, London and Cambridgeshire I have spent more of my life between 1980 and 2020 on the A1, M1 and alternative routes than I care to remember. I fact I am somewhat chagrined at the realisation that the farthest south I have got on the A1 this year was Wetherby

As for your statement that all Sat Navs take you via Leeds that is not my experience. Typically they suggest M1/M18/A1(M)

In fact as something of an experiment I just got Google maps to produce a route and it recommended the following between Edgware and Marton-In-Cleveland

3 h 41 min
via A1 and A1(M)/A19
233 miles

3 h 44 min
via M1/M18/A1(M)/A19
239 miles

4 h 1 min
via M1/A1(M)/A19
248 miles
3 h 57 min without traffic

Having been a regular user of this route since 1980 I could and probably should write a dissertation on the subject of the best routes at various times and by era. Suffice it to say that in the mid 1980's before the M1 had been widened, the A1 roundabouts removed and new bypasses on the A1 opened the best route north on a Friday afternoon from Wembley to the NE was a rather convoluted route that involved the M1 to J9, a back double around Whipsnade to pick up the A5 north of Dunstable, A5 to Rugby and then join the M1 at J20.

In that period the M1 used to be one seemingly interminable queue from Watford to the M6 at that time of day while Hatfield on the A1 was a nightmare. The M11/A1 route was little better, the on slip for the A1 at Alconbury was S1 and the result was that traffic would queue back on the A604 as far as Huntingdon. The A1 at the time was not the magnificent D4 it now is but a rather underwhelming 1960's D2 which is still largely intact as the LAR.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.46268 ... 6656?hl=en

The beauty of the A1 is that apart from the Stamford bypass there is always a reasonable alternate route.

If the Doncaster bypass is blocked the A60 through Tickhill will do nicely.

If the A1 north of Newark is blocked never fear the old Great North Road aka B1164 is still there to be found and a pleasant diversion it is too when everyone else is waiting for the road to be cleared.It is a rather nice drive with sweeping bends, wide lanes and little traffic.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.20223 ... 6656?hl=en
https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/ind ... itle=B1164

[Ruperts Trooper]

My sat navs always route me on A1(M) & M18 - although my latest will reroute in the case of traffic congestion or accidents but in normal conditions it's A1(M) & M18.

[Debaser]

Someone mentioned to me the other day that they'd briefly looked at renumbering the A1 from Leeds up to Newcastle and how many signs would be affected. I think 5000 was the number, taking into account all the remote signing on local roads as well as on the route itself.

Just a note on the volume of off-line signing which could require changing in some way if there was a renumbering. For the 20km length of Dishforth to Leeming, approximately 170 signs showing 'A1' in some format or other, were identified within a corridor 5km either side of the A1. This in a very rural area, where the number of east/west links which could interface with the A1 was significantly reduced due to the Wharf running roughly parallel.

I will let other do the maths for the effect on the off-line signing of renumbering either the A1 or M1.

[Osthagen]

While renumbering the A1(M) to M1 north of Leeds would be a helpful change, having used this section of road today, I think that destination signage is most in need of updating.

It would assist navigation considerably to have control-destinations of "Leeds" and "Newcastle" on directional signage throughout - both are at the heart of major conurbations, a considerable portion of traffic from one will probably be continuing their journeys to or beyond the other, and in the case of Leeds at least a considerable amount of traffic will be changing routes in this area. This has been rectified slightly by the inclusion of "Leeds" on the DS as J53 with the L2B upgrades, but Leeds is still absent from conformation signage in that area of which HE seemed to do a "like for like" replacement of the older signage.

At a bare minimum, once Darlington has been reached going south, it would be helpful to see something other than "Scotch Corner 4", because as important a turnoff as the A66 is, the A1(M) is still a long-distance route with noticeably more traffic carrying on to the south than leaving for the A66. Likewise, after J62, once Durham and Sunderland traffic has left the road, signage of a world beyond Newcastle would be helpful, following the chain of primary-destinations, Morpeth would be the obvious choice, plus Alnwick, Berwick and Edinburgh all would be suitable for signage in that area.

Even at an average cost of £2k per sign (possibly an underestimate IMHO), that's £10 million. My gut feeling is it would be nearer £15 million.

Surely merely patching over a sign couldn't cost nearly so much?

[gepree68]

Even at an average cost of £2k per sign (possibly an underestimate IMHO), that's £10 million. My gut feeling is it would be nearer £15 million.

Surely merely patching over a sign couldn't cost nearly so much?

That's what I was thinking. How much would it cost to simply patch signs that currently show "A1(M)" to show "M1" instead?

[Debaser]

Even at an average cost of £2k per sign (possibly an underestimate IMHO), that's £10 million. My gut feeling is it would be nearer £15 million.

Surely merely patching over a sign couldn't cost nearly so much?

That's what I was thinking. How much would it cost to simply patch signs that currently show "A1(M)" to show "M1" instead?

It depends. If you're amenable to having patches that may use smaller 'x' heights than the rest of the sign it would be relatively cheap. If that's a line in the sand you're not willing to cross then you may need to replace the whole sign - and at that point it's going to be better to replace the posts and foundations as well, as you can't be sure what condition they are in without taking the whole assembly apart.

[Conekicker]

While renumbering the A1(M) to M1 north of Leeds would be a helpful change, having used this section of road today, I think that destination signage is most in need of updating.

It would assist navigation considerably to have control-destinations of "Leeds" and "Newcastle" on directional signage throughout - both are at the heart of major conurbations, a considerable portion of traffic from one will probably be continuing their journeys to or beyond the other, and in the case of Leeds at least a considerable amount of traffic will be changing routes in this area. This has been rectified slightly by the inclusion of "Leeds" on the DS as J53 with the L2B upgrades, but Leeds is still absent from conformation signage in that area of which HE seemed to do a "like for like" replacement of the older signage.

At a bare minimum, once Darlington has been reached going south, it would be helpful to see something other than "Scotch Corner 4", because as important a turnoff as the A66 is, the A1(M) is still a long-distance route with noticeably more traffic carrying on to the south than leaving for the A66. Likewise, after J62, once Durham and Sunderland traffic has left the road, signage of a world beyond Newcastle would be helpful, following the chain of primary-destinations, Morpeth would be the obvious choice, plus Alnwick, Berwick and Edinburgh all would be suitable for signage in that area.

Even at an average cost of £2k per sign (possibly an underestimate IMHO), that's £10 million. My gut feeling is it would be nearer £15 million.

Surely badly bodging a sign and totally ignoring design rules whilst also ignoring the all too often likely poor condition of the existing sign couldn't cost nearly so much?

FTFY.

No it wouldn't cost nearly so much - it would also look chuffing awful but be the preferred option. When the M1 up in Leeds as renumbered as the M621 years ago, someone did a full redesign, replacing all the old signs. Have a wild stab in the dark guess as to how quickly that design was binned and bodged patches were put on most of the signs.

[Conekicker]

Surely merely patching over a sign couldn't cost nearly so much?

That's what I was thinking. How much would it cost to simply patch signs that currently show "A1(M)" to show "M1" instead?

It depends. If you're amenable to having patches that may use smaller 'x' heights than the rest of the sign it would be relatively cheap. If that's a line in the sand you're not willing to cross then you may need to replace the whole sign - and at that point it's going to be better to replace the posts and foundations as well, as you can't be sure what condition they are in without taking the whole assembly apart.

On the plus side, some replacement signs would be marginally narrower, as "M1" is not as wide as "A1(M)". If the posts were fairly new, you could possibly get away with just a new sign plate. The big problem if you're patching over "A1(M)" will be to get "M1" located correctly and the blue/green/white of the rest of the patch correctly aligned with the other text. To do that you need to take accurate dimensions of the existing plate or otherwise just accept the badly aligned bodge that WILL happen on site.

You also shouldn't expect a sign that you think will be, say, 250mm 'x' height to actually be that size. All too often I've measured signs which are not at a "normal" 'x' height, the manufacturer taking advantage of the tolerances in TSRGD to make a sign a bit smaller to suit their manufacturing process (and also to make a bit more profit of course). So specifying a patch as 250mm can never be anything more than a gamble, unless you go to the trouble of actually visiting each sign and putting a ruler on it - ££££££.

Remember that even a simple bodged patch will very likely need a lane closure, which will be in the region of £500, putting the £20-ish for the patch into insignificance.

Patching is often a false economy if you want the sign to last a good few years, as the old one can be decades old.

Edit: You also shouldn't expect HE to fund this and carry out all the work themselves, as other authorities signs will be involved. Nor should you expect the other authorities to fund these changes, they will expect HE to stump up the dosh for the work. Nor should you expect an authority to get this dosh from HE and also actually carry out the agreed work - I well remember when EDR symbols were being applied to local authority signs in one part of the country a certain LA, who shall remain nameless, pocketed the dosh and then didn't do the work they'd said they would. Bless 'em.

[Osthagen]

No it wouldn't cost nearly so much - it would also look chuffing awful but be the preferred option. When the M1 up in Leeds as renumbered as the M621 years ago, someone did a full redesign, replacing all the old signs. Have a wild stab in the dark guess as to how quickly that design was binned and bodged patches were put on most of the signs.

In this instance, I believe this post from the user "Stevie D" from January 2013 should answer questions in relation to the "chuffing awful" aesthetics of such signage:

"Patching a sign that currently says (A1) to (M1) can be done fairly easily, whereas trying to patch (A1) to (A1(M)) means you often won't have enough space for the longer number, leading to some microscopic text. Likewise patching a sign that currently says (A1(M)) to (M1) will always be possible, even if it might lead to some inelegant spacing. So actually setting the route to M1 all the way to Newcastle might enable all the signs within the surrounding area to be patched rather than needing a lot of them to be completely replaced, so might not be as expensive as you have suggested."

Patched numbers exist across the network, on much of the very, very odd-looking signage for the A74(M), for instance, as well as all-over the urban motorways in Tyne & Wear, both of which have previously been known as "A1(M)".

[Bryn666]

Patching a 40 year old sign is pointless though.

Let's not forget there are still many signs pointing to the old A1 from before even the 1995 motorway upgrade from Walshford to Dishforth. Patching these would be stupid as they need replacing.

Given we can't even fund basic road repairs properly the sheer scale of renumbering the A1(M) rules it out even though it should always have been factored into the overall strategy once the Stourton to Hook Moor section of the M1 entered planning.

There's a lack of competence across various interested parties to pull everything together that needs doing.

[Conekicker]

Patching a 40 year old sign is pointless though.

Let's not forget there are still many signs pointing to the old A1 from before even the 1995 motorway upgrade from Walshford to Dishforth. Patching these would be stupid as they need replacing.

Given we can't even fund basic road repairs properly the sheer scale of renumbering the A1(M) rules it out even though it should always have been factored into the overall strategy once the Stourton to Hook Moor section of the M1 entered planning.

There's a lack of competence across various interested parties to pull everything together that needs doing.

Hammer, nail, head and thus the bodge solution will always win. Unfortunately.

How often do you see even fairly new signs that have been patched and either colour or the reflectivity (or both) of the patch doesn't match the existing sign, let alone the alignment of the text on the patch.

[Bryn666]

Patching a 40 year old sign is pointless though.

Let's not forget there are still many signs pointing to the old A1 from before even the 1995 motorway upgrade from Walshford to Dishforth. Patching these would be stupid as they need replacing.

Given we can't even fund basic road repairs properly the sheer scale of renumbering the A1(M) rules it out even though it should always have been factored into the overall strategy once the Stourton to Hook Moor section of the M1 entered planning.

There's a lack of competence across various interested parties to pull everything together that needs doing.

Hammer, nail, head and thus the bodge solution will always win. Unfortunately.

How often do you see even fairly new signs that have been patched and either colour or the reflectivity (or both) of the patch doesn't match the existing sign, let alone the alignment of the text on the patch.

I have sent CAD files direct to sign makers, so they couldn't possibly mess up what I'd asked for... only to discover they redrew it anyway.

Why?!

Lost art? It's well beyond that now. It's actually a national embarrassment but sums up everything this country has become, cheapest, nastiest, no quality control, but approved by people paid beyond their competence.

[Vierwielen]

There's a lack of competence across various interested parties to pull everything together that needs doing.

I have removed most of Bryn666's posting, but I believe that what is left is still true.

[Alok147]

I think that it would make perfect sense to renumber the A1(M) to M1 north of Hook Moor, since M1 sounds like a more significant number (just like A361 sounds more significant than A4361 at Swindon).

I think that the A1(M) between the M25 and Hook Moor should keep that number until the whole of that section has been upgraded to motorway standard. That said, it is a lot to upgrade. The section of A1 from Alconbury to the Stevenage bypass has several at-grade roundabouts and isn't a great standard dual carriageway. But I'm sure they can upgrade that. The real challenge is Peterborough to Blyth (some 75 miles of A1). However, this is to a decent standard, and I'm sure it can get done (but I'd imagine it would take time). The other section to upgrade is the bit between the Doncaster bypass and the northernmost stretch of the A1(M), although I think there are plans to upgrade that.

Once these upgrades (M25 to Hook Moor) are finished, I would renumber the A1(M) to something much prettier - I think M10 sounds important enough (not to be confused with the St Albans bypass former M10).

As for going beyond Washington, I think the A1 should certainly be fully dualled to Berwick-upon-Tweed and into Scotland. They should try and make it grade separated, and to the high standard it had from London to Tyneside. As for an upgrade to motorway, I think that would help, as it would provide a strong link between the two capital cities - London and Edinburgh. Considering the link the M4 provides from London to Cardiff and beyond, I think there should be a strong motorway link from London to Edinburgh. I think that if the motorway continues into Scotland (which I think it should), it should be called M1, because that would maintain the significance in number I mentioned earlier - it would be difficult to get a more important sounding number than 'M1'.

For that matter, whilst slightly off topic, I think it would make sense for the A74(M) and M74 from Gretna to Glasgow to be renumbered as M6.

[KeithW]

I think that it would make perfect sense to renumber the A1(M) to M1 north of Hook Moor, since M1 sounds like a more significant number (just like A361 sounds more significant than A4361 at Swindon).

I think that the A1(M) between the M25 and Hook Moor should keep that number until the whole of that section has been upgraded to motorway standard. That said, it is a lot to upgrade. The section of A1 from Alconbury to the Stevenage bypass has several at-grade roundabouts and isn't a great standard dual carriageway. But I'm sure they can upgrade that. The real challenge is Peterborough to Blyth (some 75 miles of A1). However, this is to a decent standard, and I'm sure it can get done (but I'd imagine it would take time). The other section to upgrade is the bit between the Doncaster bypass and the northernmost stretch of the A1(M), although I think there are plans to upgrade that.

Once these upgrades (M25 to Hook Moor) are finished, I would renumber the A1(M) to something much prettier - I think M10 sounds important enough (not to be confused with the St Albans bypass former M10).

As for going beyond Washington, I think the A1 should certainly be fully dualled to Berwick-upon-Tweed and into Scotland. They should try and make it grade separated, and to the high standard it had from London to Tyneside. As for an upgrade to motorway, I think that would help, as it would provide a strong link between the two capital cities - London and Edinburgh. Considering the link the M4 provides from London to Cardiff and beyond, I think there should be a strong motorway link from London to Edinburgh. I think that if the motorway continues into Scotland (which I think it should), it should be called M1, because that would maintain the significance in number I mentioned earlier - it would be difficult to get a more important sounding number than 'M1'.

For that matter, whilst slightly off topic, I think it would make sense for the A74(M) and M74 from Gretna to Glasgow to be renumbered as M6.

Reality check the traffic levels between Alnwick and Berwick are around 13k, that is nothing like enough justify fully dualling it. North of Berwick it drops to 10k or so until you get into the Edinburgh commuter belt. That said there are some local sections I would like to see improved mostly on safety grounds. Haggerston Castle is one and the Holy Island road junction is another as is the B1341 junction that takes traffic to Bamburgh.

Some laybys or a wider verge on the S2 sections would help, as it is a broken down vehicle or minor shunt can cause very long tailbacks. A more modest upgrade to WS2+1 could be done online and it need not be continuous as long as there are safe overtaking sections people are much more likely to wait, frustration at being stuck behind a tractor causes a lot of risk taking in my experience

As for renumbering the A74(M)/M74 lots of luck getting the Scottish Government to agree to that.

[SBRoxMan]

For that matter, whilst slightly off topic, I think it would make sense for the A74(M) and M74 from Gretna to Glasgow to be renumbered as M6.

As much as I agree, at this point I think it'd be much more likely for the A1(M) to be renumbered as the M1 than the M74/A74(M) being renumbered M6

I think there should be a strong motorway link from London to Edinburgh. I think that if the motorway continues into Scotland (which I think it should), it should be called M1, because that would maintain the significance in number I mentioned earlier - it would be difficult to get a more important sounding number than 'M1'.

If we were to do a London-Edinburgh motorway, then converting the A702 to the M702 would be the better option in my opinion. Whilst there isn't really enough traffic to justify turning either the A1 in Scotland or the A702 into a motorway, the A702 is shorter and would likely be the preferred route for motorists (especially since it would benefit people from Northwest England too)

[Chris Bertram]

As for renumbering the A74(M)/M74 lots of luck getting the Scottish Government to agree to that.

I think most of us here would settle for it all being called M74. Renumbering to M6 is dead in the water, even a non-SNP led Scottish government is not going to go ahead with that.

[KeithW]

If we were to do a London-Edinburgh motorway, then converting the A702 to the M702 would be the better option in my opinion. Whilst there isn't really enough traffic to justify turning either the A1 in Scotland or the A702 into a motorway, the A702 is shorter and would likely be the preferred route for motorists (especially since it would benefit people from Northwest England too)

Have you driven along the A702 ?

Apart from the fact that it starts on the A74(M) it runs through some pretty challenging terrain. Dualling the A1 would be a cheap and easy job in comparison but if you have infinite funds let me suggest the A68(M)