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
jgharston
Member
Posts: 2437
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2010 18:06
Location: Sheffield/Whitby

Re: A57/A628 Mottram Tintwistle bypass

Post by jgharston »

Micro The Maniac wrote: Thu Nov 05, 2020 13:30 I know we don't live in an ideal world, but surely the long-term view would see the M67(*) extended through to Tintwhistle, with a junction serving the rerouted A57. Something like the attached.

M67-A57.png
Exactly! The proposals build a road to let you get more efficiently into the Glossop bottleneck, with no way of avoiding the Hollingworth bottleneck.
M56phil
Member
Posts: 606
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2004 18:41

Re: A57/A628 Mottram Tintwistle bypass

Post by M56phil »

When I first saw this scheme, frankly I was appalled.

Is this to ‘be part of’ of the entire transpennine tunnel/route plan from the M60 to the M1 or just merely be supplementary part of it? In other words a temporary solution for now?

If it is part of the ‘big plan’ it to me, it is yet again a less than sticking plaster solution for a strategically important long distance route.

As some mentioned before, very A27esque.

So far, I have no idea what the long distance project is here across the peninnes? Surely by now we would have even a projected route or basic path? Will it be D2? D2M?.......D3M? (No chance really here).

The idea of linking the M67 across the Pennines and onwards to the M180 to Grimsby and the east coast ports would (in my opinion) be the best most forward thinking option.

We just lack foresight and to be frank, the b*** to think big in this country now in terms of road infrastructure planning.

It’s just all talk and hot air when it comes to stuff like this from government. It’s basically annoying.
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19205
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: A57/A628 Mottram Tintwistle bypass

Post by KeithW »

Micro The Maniac wrote: Thu Nov 05, 2020 13:30 Agreed this shows a distinct lack of any strategic vision.

I know we don't live in an ideal world, but surely the long-term view would see the M67(*) extended through to Tintwhistle, with a junction serving the rerouted A57. Something like the attached.

M67-A57.png

* When I say "M67 extended" frankly, I'd reclassify the M67, as A57(M) as this is what it is, and be done with it... the new bit should be HQDC/Expressway though.
I doubt the people who live in Mottram , Hollingworth and Tintwistle would agree. Then there is the matter of driving a motorway over Woodhead, lord knows building the M62 was tough enough - this would be harder, more expensive and produce huge amounts of waste. Remember the moorland section produced 11,750,000 cubic metres of peat that had to be hauled away and disposed of.
User avatar
skiddaw05
Member
Posts: 2036
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 21:33
Location: Norwich

Re: A57/A628 Mottram Tintwistle bypass

Post by skiddaw05 »

I wouldn't have thought having a more 'trans-Pennine friendly' alignment of the proposed bypass would make any difference to the likelihood of a trans-Pennine route ever being built, and in the grand scheme of things the cost of amending the bypass route to hook into the TP route would be insignificant compared with the overall construction cost
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: A57/A628 Mottram Tintwistle bypass

Post by jackal »

skiddaw05 wrote: Wed Nov 11, 2020 12:34in the grand scheme of things the cost of amending the bypass route to hook into the TP route would be insignificant compared with the overall construction cost
The same way the A11 had every roundabout and substandard alignment removed when the next section along was improved? The long tunnel idea is long dead, and while further improvements in the corridor are possible, it's very likely WYSIWYG when it comes to 'improved' sections.
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19205
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: A57/A628 Mottram Tintwistle bypass

Post by KeithW »

M56phil wrote: Wed Nov 11, 2020 10:16 When I first saw this scheme, frankly I was appalled.

Is this to ‘be part of’ of the entire transpennine tunnel/route plan from the M60 to the M1 or just merely be supplementary part of it? In other words a temporary solution for now?

If it is part of the ‘big plan’ it to me, it is yet again a less than sticking plaster solution for a strategically important long distance route.

As some mentioned before, very A27esque.

So far, I have no idea what the long distance project is here across the peninnes? Surely by now we would have even a projected route or basic path? Will it be D2? D2M?.......D3M? (No chance really here).

The idea of linking the M67 across the Pennines and onwards to the M180 to Grimsby and the east coast ports would (in my opinion) be the best most forward thinking option.

We just lack foresight and to be frank, the b*** to think big in this country now in terms of road infrastructure planning.

It’s just all talk and hot air when it comes to stuff like this from government. It’s basically annoying.

Thinking big is all very well but raising taxes and/or cutting spending on other things like health mean attracting big opposition and that is not so good. The approach now seems to have been shifted to look at improved transpennine rail links in the short term. The reality is that with RIS2 already mapped out and RIS3 well on the way its going to be 10 years before anyone does much more than tinkering around the edges.

In the medium term the first real transpennine upgrade will be to finish dualling the A66 and it will be 2024 before shovels start moving on that. The estimated cost is £1 billion to dual the remaining S2 sections of the existing road, an easy job in comparison to your proposal.

In financial terms the likelihood is that such a new motorway as you desire would cost most of the budget for RIS4. The transpennine tunnel was cloud cuckoo land stuff to start with. You have to remember any new road would cross the part of England with the most rainfall, that is honeycombed by caves and much of the ground is none too stable. Both the A57 and A628 are subject to road closures in winter due to heavy snow and rain. Trying to run a new D3M road through the High Peak District is an excellent way to throw large amounts of money away with uncertain results - See Mam Tor
https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/ind ... title=A625
http://www.rural-roads.co.uk/winnats/winnats5.shtml

Before you can even select a route you will really have to do a lot of geophysical survey work and only then can you put together a realistic estimate of cost. Drawing lines with felt tip pens is not how its done. If that is your approach at least start with an OS map so you can see where the contours are. Your route takes you over or around Bareholme Moss which a max elevation of 1500 ft and with rainfall that could drown a trout is not a good place to build a motorway.
Image
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holme_Moss

From the SABRE Wiki: A625 :

The A625 provides a low-level route between Sheffield and Manchester avoiding the Snake Pass on the A57. It has, however, had problems of its own.

The A625 originally started at the junction of The Moor, Ecclesall Road, Cemetary Road and London Road. When Charter Road and Arundel Gate were built the route was moved to start at the Furnival Gate roundabout. Now that the City Centre

... Read More