Sheriffhall Roundabout

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

User avatar
wrinkly
Member
Posts: 8989
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:17
Location: Leeds

Re: Sheriffhall Roundabout

Post by wrinkly »

Probably not the best choice of thread for it, but here's Audit Scotland's report on the five main current transport projects: Forth Crossing, M8 completion etc, AWPR etc, EGIP, Borders railway.

No mention of Edinburgh trams, maybe they aren't a national project. So no expletives.
Nwallace
Member
Posts: 4239
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 22:42
Location: Dundee

Re: Sheriffhall Roundabout

Post by Nwallace »

wrinkly wrote:Probably not the best choice of thread for it, but here's Audit Scotland's report on the five main current transport projects: Forth Crossing, M8 completion etc, AWPR etc, EGIP, Borders railway.

No mention of Edinburgh trams, maybe they aren't a national project. So no expletives.

Aye it's a City council project.
User avatar
wrinkly
Member
Posts: 8989
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:17
Location: Leeds

Re: Sheriffhall Roundabout

Post by wrinkly »

From a railway website, a picture of the temporary diversion of the A720 to build the bridge over the Borders railway, looking east from Sheriffhall roundabout:

http://www.railbrit.co.uk/imageenlarge/ ... p?id=44347

I assume that, as the caption says, that's the original A720 still in use on the right, and the embankment for the temporary diversion on the left? If so, the diversion is on the opposite side from that shown on the plans.
User avatar
Gav
Member
Posts: 1968
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 17:44

Re: Sheriffhall Roundabout

Post by Gav »

Yep diversion is on opposite side of what the orignal plan shows.

Now that there is going to be one road to the north of sheriff it would be an ideal opportunity to sort this junction out once and for all......

could it not have been hamburgered that would have provided through stacking and seperated the traffic flows enough to simplify the movements.

Its like the gyle - traffic flow is across the roundabout. provide a stacking path and ensure that the cross points are kept clear the roundabout would run a lot freer. The main issue is A720 to A8 east bound. And the east bound jams with the maybury. simplify those areas and you would get the traffic flow issues resolved.
User avatar
stu531
Member
Posts: 2332
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 23:10
Location: Harrogate

Re: Sheriffhall Roundabout

Post by stu531 »

Could the A720 ever get motorway status? I've not been on it for a long while but some of it has hard shoulders. If Sheriffhall was completed as a proper GSJ, couldn't the A720 get upgraded in name? (And I'm comparing it with the M90).

That would be ripe for using the M7 number given its original course isn't likely to happen? (Although I guess it wouldn't follow the Scottish motorway numbering system...)
User avatar
Halmyre
Member
Posts: 1997
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 07:47
Location: Fifeshire

Re: Sheriffhall Roundabout

Post by Halmyre »

stu531 wrote:Could the A720 ever get motorway status? I've not been on it for a long while but some of it has hard shoulders. If Sheriffhall was completed as a proper GSJ, couldn't the A720 get upgraded in name? (And I'm comparing it with the M90).

That would be ripe for using the M7 number given its original course isn't likely to happen? (Although I guess it wouldn't follow the Scottish motorway numbering system...)
I think we've already got enough Pathetic Motorways in Scotland...
Trebeck
Member
Posts: 2768
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 23:09

Re: Sheriffhall Roundabout

Post by Trebeck »

Maybe an independent Scotland would set it's own criteria for what constitutes a motorway....
User avatar
Hagbard
Member
Posts: 1546
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 22:34
Location: Galashiels

Re: Sheriffhall Roundabout

Post by Hagbard »

wrinkly wrote:From a railway website, a picture of the temporary diversion of the A720 to build the bridge over the Borders railway, looking east from Sheriffhall roundabout:

http://www.railbrit.co.uk/imageenlarge/ ... p?id=44347

I assume that, as the caption says, that's the original A720 still in use on the right, and the embankment for the temporary diversion on the left? If so, the diversion is on the opposite side from that shown on the plans.
To the north of the A720 the Borders railway is following a different route from the old Waverley line which involves forming a long cutting. The engineers are presumably using the excavated material from the cutting to build the temporary embankment for the A720, and if that was built on the south side of the A720 all the lorries transporting the material would have to go through the Sheriffhall roundabout. This change should have reduced the construction time, plus caused less congestion for everyone else.
User avatar
wrinkly
Member
Posts: 8989
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:17
Location: Leeds

Re: Sheriffhall Roundabout

Post by wrinkly »

Aerial photo of the diversion here. It's due to open by 20 Sep. The proposed and original routes of the railway are both visible.
User avatar
wrinkly
Member
Posts: 8989
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:17
Location: Leeds

Re: Sheriffhall Roundabout

Post by wrinkly »

The temporary diversion of the A720 is said to be now operational, after two consecutive weekend closures, the first of which took longer than planned.
Gypsy_Laird
Member
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 19:00

Re: Sheriffhall Roundabout

Post by Gypsy_Laird »

The thing about Sheriffhall is that although it has been a pain almost since it was built under the Scottish office back in the day, is that both the Lab/Lib coalition and the SNP have set priorities for road building on other areas such as the A9, M9 Spur, M80, M74 extension, New Forth Road Bridge, M8 completion and the Aberdeen bypass to name a few and every time Sheriffhall has been relegated down the list. There certainly are not many regions of ~5 million population elsewhere in the UK that has had the road building/infrastructure improvements that Scotland has seen in recent years and will see in the next few years.

I think the best way to deal with it is to stop up the roundabout and replace it with the A720 as the through route combined with moving the other joining roads to tie in with the two GSJs either side as others have suggested unless we discover a cost-effective technology to put a flyover for the A720 in. I would also like the sections which could run as D3 to be marked as such with potential widening for the rest of the road in the future as it is always vying for first place on the traffic reports with the Forth Road Bridge approaches in the East of Scotland. A free flow link from the M8 to A720 south would be nice as would free flow from the A720 to the A1 east but that may take a lot longer to achieve as there are many roads in Scotland which need to be upgraded. I'm sure most people on Sabre have a road in Scotland they would like to see upgraded but as a fairly regular user of the Royal infirmary in Edinburgh for the sleep clinic sorting Sheriffhall out is important to me.
ninja-lewis
Member
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 04:44
Location: Scotland

Re: Sheriffhall Roundabout

Post by ninja-lewis »

User avatar
Ian198
Member
Posts: 2884
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 18:15
Location: North Berwick
Contact:

Re: Sheriffhall Roundabout

Post by Ian198 »

The obvious question has been asked, why not just continue to use the northward diversion and not bother with the railway work on the original A720 line? The answer, apparently, is not that the bendiness of the new bit is excessive (it could have been built longer and straighter) but that there are "ownership issues" with the land, suggesting that it has just been borrowed. This is a quote by one of the site engineers to Radio Borders.
User avatar
A72
Member
Posts: 787
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 17:21
Location: Newtown St Boswells, Scottish Borders

Re: Sheriffhall Roundabout

Post by A72 »

Ian198 wrote:The obvious question has been asked, why not just continue to use the northward diversion and not bother with the railway work on the original A720 line? The answer, apparently, is not that the bendiness of the new bit is excessive (it could have been built longer and straighter) but that there are "ownership issues" with the land, suggesting that it has just been borrowed. This is a quote by one of the site engineers to Radio Borders.
Also, the temporary section is a solid embankment, so a bridge would still have to built somewhere. So it's a bit late, people asking that question now.
The 7-Zone Challenge
A roads: 71/71
B roads: 181/181
Total: 252/252

Completed: 04/11/20.
User avatar
wrinkly
Member
Posts: 8989
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:17
Location: Leeds

Re: Sheriffhall Roundabout

Post by wrinkly »

If the diversion had been designed to the same standards of alignment as the permanent road it would have had to be several times longer than it actually is, and correspondingly more expensive, and as A72 says would still have needed to include a bridge over the railway.

Also it would not have been in line with the existing A720 the other side of Sheriffhall Roundabout, and would have affected the possible options for future grade separation.
koppie
Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 18:37

Re: Sheriffhall Roundabout

Post by koppie »

wrinkly wrote:Aerial photo of the diversion here. It's due to open by 20 Sep. The proposed and original routes of the railway are both visible.
The same photo in 2.208px × 1.474px: link
User avatar
Hagbard
Member
Posts: 1546
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 22:34
Location: Galashiels

Re: Sheriffhall Roundabout

Post by Hagbard »

Plans for the railway 'tunnel' under the A720 can be found here.

Interestingly, the tunnel is longer than it needs to be to allow for the wider embankment that would be required if the road level was 5m higher. Presumably a little bit of future proofing.
darkcape
Member
Posts: 2094
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 14:54

Re: Sheriffhall Roundabout

Post by darkcape »

It does appear there is some future-proofing, see here, where we are told:

"Diversion of traffic onto a temporary dual carriageway in September enabled the original carriageway to be excavated down to track level for the new bridge construction which is being built with passive provision for a future grade separated road junction"
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
Chris5156
Deputy Treasurer
Posts: 16909
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: Sheriffhall Roundabout

Post by Chris5156 »

darkcape wrote:It does appear there is some future-proofing, see here, where we are told:

"Diversion of traffic onto a temporary dual carriageway in September enabled the original carriageway to be excavated down to track level for the new bridge construction which is being built with passive provision for a future grade separated road junction"
Surely passive provision just means that they aren't doing anything that would prevent it happening in future?
Phil
Member
Posts: 2271
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2002 18:03
Location: Burgess Hill,W Sussex, UK

Re: Sheriffhall Roundabout

Post by Phil »

Chris5156 wrote:
darkcape wrote:It does appear there is some future-proofing, see here, where we are told:

"Diversion of traffic onto a temporary dual carriageway in September enabled the original carriageway to be excavated down to track level for the new bridge construction which is being built with passive provision for a future grade separated road junction"
Surely passive provision just means that they aren't doing anything that would prevent it happening in future?
My understanding of the situation is that it is far easier to build the bridge wider than it needs to be at this stage when the railway is under construction, rather than have to retrospectively widen it after the railway opens because of all the extra issues working above a 'live' railway brings.

What they are not doing is anything roadwise to enable a later GSJ - e.g. widening or altering the alignment of the roadway - but that is not an issue as such, because providing the bridge deck is wide enough in the first place then making such modifications at a later date will be easy
Post Reply