Catthorpe re-modelling

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
EpicChef
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1865
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 11:47
Location: London, UK

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by EpicChef » Fri Jan 15, 2021 16:20

And the introduction of smart motorway technology because there’s no hard shoulder. Highways England will be massacred if they put up blue signs without that.
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!

lotrjw
Member
Posts: 3207
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 02:36

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by lotrjw » Fri Jan 15, 2021 20:51

EpicChef wrote:
Fri Jan 15, 2021 16:20
And the introduction of smart motorway technology because there’s no hard shoulder. Highways England will be massacred if they put up blue signs without that.
Yet its been done before, see M90!

KeithW
Member
Posts: 10326
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by KeithW » Fri Jan 15, 2021 23:44

Bryn666 wrote:
Fri Jan 15, 2021 15:37
Alderpoint wrote:
Fri Jan 15, 2021 15:01
Bryn666 wrote:
Fri Jan 15, 2021 13:22
It also would require several footpaths that cross it on the level to be diverted, and HE don't like doing that unless they absolutely have to. Or if they can get a poncey architect to come up with a completely OTT 'signature' footbridge in a rural setting when a simple bridge would achieve the same result, that is usually the fastest way to do it.
There are no footpaths (or bridleways) across the section of the A14 between the M1 and J1/A5199 - the few near the M1 junction were all removed/rerouted when Catthorpe was rebuilt.

Indeed I can't find any all the way to Rothwell.
Excellent, I thought they'd left those in. In that case there's really nothing preventing extending motorway regulations eastwards other than lack of political will and legislative knowledge to grasp how motorways are supposed to work.
A new Bridleway was built that goes under the A14 alongside the Avon here.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.39904 ... !1e3?hl=en

The lack of a suitable alternative route on what is an all purpose road is what prevents it becoming a motorway. The road between J2 and the A6 has been all purpose since the A14 was extended from Kettering to Catthorpe, the A14 east to the A1 was formerly the A604 and has always been All Purpose. The reality is that there are lot of farms along that section who's only access is via the A14, get the money to build an LAR and then you can look at introducing motorway regulations.

Note the nice flat junction here.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.38718 ... 6656?hl=en

User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 6075
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by jackal » Sat Jan 16, 2021 08:46

Pretty sure they were just talking about extending the motorway regs from Catthorpe to the A5199 junction. That section of A14 obviously does not serve any non-motorway traffic.

User avatar
Chris5156
Member
Posts: 14405
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by Chris5156 » Sat Jan 16, 2021 08:55

KeithW wrote:
Fri Jan 15, 2021 23:44
The lack of a suitable alternative route on what is an all purpose road is what prevents it becoming a motorway. The road between J2 and the A6 has been all purpose since the A14 was extended from Kettering to Catthorpe, the A14 east to the A1 was formerly the A604 and has always been All Purpose. The reality is that there are lot of farms along that section who's only access is via the A14, get the money to build an LAR and then you can look at introducing motorway regulations.
I don't think anyone is talking about motorway regulations extending any further east than the A5199.

Micro The Maniac
Member
Posts: 731
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 13:14
Location: B3272/A325/A331

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by Micro The Maniac » Sat Jan 16, 2021 08:57

EpicChef wrote:
Fri Jan 15, 2021 16:20
And the introduction of smart motorway technology because there’s no hard shoulder. Highways England will be massacred if they put up blue signs without that.
I don't see why... it is not as if they are *removing* the hard-shoulder?

User avatar
trickstat
Member
Posts: 5319
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 14:06
Location: Herts

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by trickstat » Sat Jan 16, 2021 09:20

Micro The Maniac wrote:
Sat Jan 16, 2021 08:57
EpicChef wrote:
Fri Jan 15, 2021 16:20
And the introduction of smart motorway technology because there’s no hard shoulder. Highways England will be massacred if they put up blue signs without that.
I don't see why... it is not as if they are *removing* the hard-shoulder?
But otherwise all they would have done to make it a motorway is closed or repurposed some laybys and changed signage.

KeithW
Member
Posts: 10326
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by KeithW » Sat Jan 16, 2021 15:44

jackal wrote:
Sat Jan 16, 2021 08:46
Pretty sure they were just talking about extending the motorway regs from Catthorpe to the A5199 junction. That section of A14 obviously does not serve any non-motorway traffic.
Westbound Non Motorway traffic is already instructed to leave the A14 at J1
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.39709 ... 312!8i6656

The westbound slip road off the A5199 shows M1/M6 and blue signs.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.39441 ... 312!8i6656
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.39699 ... 312!8i6656

SteelCamel
Member
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2020 15:46

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by SteelCamel » Sat Jan 16, 2021 19:20

This seems odd - I thought that non-motorway roads leading only to motorways weren't allowed, hence the existence of roads like the A6144(M) and A601(M). Yet here the A14 is clearly signed as a non-motorway with green signs - so non-motorway traffic is allowed - yet at the next junction there's a fork leading to chopsticks signs on both branches, leaving them nowhere to go.
The signs at the A5199 also seem wrong - they include chopsticks symbols, indicating that the motorway starts at this junction, which it doesn't. It seems that the signs are trying to claim that this road is a motorway even when it isn't one, presumably to avoid people ending up in the situation described. It would seem this road should really have a TRO with motorway-equivalent restrictions (and green "NO" signs), to avoid trapping non-motorway traffic at the M1/M6 fork, if it isn't to actually be a motorway.

An interesting question - if someone drove a motorway-prohibited vehicle down the A14 to the fork, then pulled over, what offence would they be committing if any? There's no restriction prohibiting them from being where they are, and as they can't legally proceed any further (or go back) then they can't be committing an offence by stopping.

User avatar
c2R
SABRE Wiki admin
Posts: 9566
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2002 11:01

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by c2R » Sat Jan 16, 2021 19:28

SteelCamel wrote:
Sat Jan 16, 2021 19:20
This seems odd - I thought that non-motorway roads leading only to motorways weren't allowed, hence the existence of roads like the A6144(M) and A601(M). Yet here the A14 is clearly signed as a non-motorway with green signs - so non-motorway traffic is allowed - yet at the next junction there's a fork leading to chopsticks signs on both branches, leaving them nowhere to go.
The signs at the A5199 also seem wrong - they include chopsticks symbols, indicating that the motorway starts at this junction, which it doesn't. It seems that the signs are trying to claim that this road is a motorway even when it isn't one, presumably to avoid people ending up in the situation described. It would seem this road should really have a TRO with motorway-equivalent restrictions (and green "NO" signs), to avoid trapping non-motorway traffic at the M1/M6 fork, if it isn't to actually be a motorway.

An interesting question - if someone drove a motorway-prohibited vehicle down the A14 to the fork, then pulled over, what offence would they be committing if any? There's no restriction prohibiting them from being where they are, and as they can't legally proceed any further (or go back) then they can't be committing an offence by stopping.
You end up leaving the road here: https://www.google.com/maps/@52.4067025 ... 312!8i6656
Is there a road improvement project going on near you? Help us to document it on the SABRE Wiki - help is available in the Digest forum.
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
SABRE elections are coming soon. Click here to check if you're registered to vote!

User avatar
JohnA14J50
Banned
Posts: 85
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2020 13:10
Location: Stowmarket

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by JohnA14J50 » Sat Jan 16, 2021 20:17

c2R wrote:
Sat Jan 16, 2021 19:28
You end up leaving the road here: https://www.google.com/maps/@52.4067025 ... 312!8i6656
Isn't that already well past the chopsticks signs?
The sun will shine on you again and the clouds will go away.
- Sir Captain Tom Moore. Hero of England.

lotrjw
Member
Posts: 3207
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 02:36

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by lotrjw » Sat Jan 16, 2021 20:19

c2R wrote:
Sat Jan 16, 2021 19:28
SteelCamel wrote:
Sat Jan 16, 2021 19:20
This seems odd - I thought that non-motorway roads leading only to motorways weren't allowed, hence the existence of roads like the A6144(M) and A601(M). Yet here the A14 is clearly signed as a non-motorway with green signs - so non-motorway traffic is allowed - yet at the next junction there's a fork leading to chopsticks signs on both branches, leaving them nowhere to go.
The signs at the A5199 also seem wrong - they include chopsticks symbols, indicating that the motorway starts at this junction, which it doesn't. It seems that the signs are trying to claim that this road is a motorway even when it isn't one, presumably to avoid people ending up in the situation described. It would seem this road should really have a TRO with motorway-equivalent restrictions (and green "NO" signs), to avoid trapping non-motorway traffic at the M1/M6 fork, if it isn't to actually be a motorway.

An interesting question - if someone drove a motorway-prohibited vehicle down the A14 to the fork, then pulled over, what offence would they be committing if any? There's no restriction prohibiting them from being where they are, and as they can't legally proceed any further (or go back) then they can't be committing an offence by stopping.
You end up leaving the road here: https://www.google.com/maps/@52.4067025 ... 312!8i6656
but wouldnt be allowed that far?

User avatar
c2R
SABRE Wiki admin
Posts: 9566
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2002 11:01

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by c2R » Sat Jan 16, 2021 21:55

It is past the chopsticks, yes. I'd presume if you had a tractor at the chopsticks, and phoned the police, they'd direct you to stay left and exit at the gate.
Is there a road improvement project going on near you? Help us to document it on the SABRE Wiki - help is available in the Digest forum.
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
SABRE elections are coming soon. Click here to check if you're registered to vote!

SteelCamel
Member
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2020 15:46

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by SteelCamel » Sun Jan 17, 2021 12:02

c2R wrote:
Sat Jan 16, 2021 21:55
It is past the chopsticks, yes. I'd presume if you had a tractor at the chopsticks, and phoned the police, they'd direct you to stay left and exit at the gate.
Yes, under police instruction I think that's allowed. Without it, you've broken both the motorway restrictions and the "no motor vehicles" at the gate. Still seems like a pretty major error to create a road that you can legally be on but have no legal way to leave without police assistance.

Actually looking at the Wiki it seems this has already been noted. Though I'd disagree that the signs make it clear that this road leads only to the motorway - from the A5199 it's a green sign, and how many people outside SABRE know that the chopsticks is supposed to indicate "motorway starts immediately" rather than "motorway this way". Especially given how many other places incorrectly have a chopsticks symbol on signs. It would be clearer if the sign was blue (still incorrect, but gets the message across). But the real answer surely is to put a TRO on it, which would allow "NO" signs at the A5199/A14 junction.

User avatar
Big L
Assistant Site Manager
Posts: 5067
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 20:36
Location: B5012

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by Big L » Sun Jan 17, 2021 13:04

SteelCamel wrote:
Sun Jan 17, 2021 12:02
....Actually looking at the Wiki it seems this has already been noted. Though I'd disagree that the signs make it clear that this road leads only to the motorway - from the A5199 it's a green sign, and how many people outside SABRE know that the chopsticks is supposed to indicate "motorway starts immediately" rather than "motorway this way". Especially given how many other places incorrectly have a chopsticks symbol on signs. It would be clearer if the sign was blue (still incorrect, but gets the message across). But the real answer surely is to put a TRO on it, which would allow "NO" signs at the A5199/A14 junction.
(My bold)
KeithW wrote:
Sat Jan 16, 2021 15:44
Westbound Non Motorway traffic is already instructed to leave the A14 at J1
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.39709 ... 312!8i6656

The westbound slip road off the A5199 shows M1/M6 and blue signs.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.39441 ... 312!8i6656
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.39699 ... 312!8i6656
Make poetry history.

Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!

User avatar
Bryn666
Member
Posts: 30131
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by Bryn666 » Sun Jan 17, 2021 13:44

Blue panels like that in a flag sign are non prescribed and they were never specially authorised by the DfT so I'd love to know what background processes and decision making took place.
Bryn
Traffic/Road Safety Dogsbody and General Grumpy Now-a-Thirtysomething Man
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/

User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 6075
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by jackal » Sun Jan 17, 2021 13:54

Big L wrote:
Sun Jan 17, 2021 13:04
SteelCamel wrote:
Sun Jan 17, 2021 12:02
....Actually looking at the Wiki it seems this has already been noted. Though I'd disagree that the signs make it clear that this road leads only to the motorway - from the A5199 it's a green sign, and how many people outside SABRE know that the chopsticks is supposed to indicate "motorway starts immediately" rather than "motorway this way". Especially given how many other places incorrectly have a chopsticks symbol on signs. It would be clearer if the sign was blue (still incorrect, but gets the message across). But the real answer surely is to put a TRO on it, which would allow "NO" signs at the A5199/A14 junction.
(My bold)
KeithW wrote:
Sat Jan 16, 2021 15:44
Westbound Non Motorway traffic is already instructed to leave the A14 at J1
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.39709 ... 312!8i6656

The westbound slip road off the A5199 shows M1/M6 and blue signs.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.39441 ... 312!8i6656
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.39699 ... 312!8i6656
It's still far less clear than it should be from the A5199. The ADS shows blue on white with M1 and M6 in brackets, indicating that the motorways are an option rather than forced. The flag signs are blue on green, confirming that you will be joining a primary route rather than a motorway. There is no mention of non-motorway traffic. There are no chopstick signs. You could pay attention to all the signage but still take your non-motorway vehicle down that sliproad as there has been zero warning that it leads ineluctably to a motorway.

User avatar
Chris5156
Member
Posts: 14405
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by Chris5156 » Sun Jan 17, 2021 15:42

Bryn666 wrote:
Sun Jan 17, 2021 13:44
Blue panels like that in a flag sign are non prescribed and they were never specially authorised by the DfT so I'd love to know what background processes and decision making took place.
I'd say a similar level of decision making, from people with a similar level of understanding, to the decision not to apply motorway regulations in the first place. It is a cock up, and the signs match it perfectly.

User avatar
Bryn666
Member
Posts: 30131
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by Bryn666 » Sun Jan 17, 2021 18:17

Chris5156 wrote:
Sun Jan 17, 2021 15:42
Bryn666 wrote:
Sun Jan 17, 2021 13:44
Blue panels like that in a flag sign are non prescribed and they were never specially authorised by the DfT so I'd love to know what background processes and decision making took place.
I'd say a similar level of decision making, from people with a similar level of understanding, to the decision not to apply motorway regulations in the first place. It is a cock up, and the signs match it perfectly.
Indeed, and it's not new is it. We should have seen this coming with Micklefield back in 1999.
Bryn
Traffic/Road Safety Dogsbody and General Grumpy Now-a-Thirtysomething Man
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/

User avatar
nowster
Treasurer
Posts: 14007
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 16:06
Location: Manchester

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by nowster » Sun Jan 17, 2021 20:45

Bryn666 wrote:
Sun Jan 17, 2021 18:17
Indeed, and it's not new is it. We should have seen this coming with Micklefield back in 1999.
And M56 Dunkirk about a decade later.

Post Reply