A1(M) Leeming - Barton

[6637]

I've just noticed on Openstreetmap that they're building a new bridge for the A6136 over the A1(M), immediately north of J52. Why is that? Wouldn't it have been a lot cheaper to just plug the A6136 into the eastern roundabout of the J52 dumbbell, and not bother with the extra bridge?

They've started to widen the road from Barton junction to Barton village at the T-junction with Kneeton Lane (the LAR) about 400m east of J56. The vegetation was stripped about 18 months ago and I've been wondering whether they were going to do anything other than lay pipes in the verge.

I wonder if that section of the LAR is going to be numbered A6066, numbered A6108, numbered B6275, or left unclassified. Has anyone made a final decision about LAR numbering yet?

[wrinkly]

I've just noticed on Openstreetmap that they're building a new bridge for the A6136 over the A1(M), immediately north of J52. Why is that? Wouldn't it have been a lot cheaper to just plug the A6136 into the eastern roundabout of the J52 dumbbell, and not bother with the extra bridge?

That's the replacement Fort Bridge that has been discussed so much in this thread (mainly because of the delay in reopening it). It's a replacement for the old Fort Bridge which crossed the A1 in exactly the same place and was demolished earlier in the contract to allow the old Catterick bypass to be widened to create the motorway. The central pier of the old bridge survived to be used in the new bridge. The road to the west of Fort Bridge shown in pink and white dashes is the old road that has never gone away but is currently closed.

Without a replacement Fort Bridge, traffic from Catterick Garrison to Brompton-on-Swale or Catterick racecourse would need to go a long way round through Catterick village. I presume there's some good reason why there's no eastward link from J52, possibly to avoid further disturbance to the archaeology.

[6637]

I see, thanks! I'd just assumed that the Fort Bridge was somewhere else, as it's not marked on maps.

Without a replacement Fort Bridge, traffic from Catterick Garrison to Brompton-on-Swale or Catterick racecourse would need to go a long way round through Catterick village. I presume there's some good reason why there's no eastward link from J52, possibly to avoid further disturbance to the archaeology.

Where's the archaelogical site? OSM seems to indicate that there's an archaeological site between Catterick village and Catterick racecourse.

My proposal would have been to continue the A6055 LAR alongside the A1(M) heading north from J52, immediately east of the A1(M) and west of the racecourse, until it hits the A6136 next to the old Fort Bridge. This doesn't appear to be anywhere near the archaeological site.

[wrinkly]

Where's the archaelogical site? OSM seems to indicate that there's an archaeological site between Catterick village and Catterick racecourse.
My proposal would have been to continue the A6055 LAR alongside the A1(M) heading north from J52, immediately east of the A1(M) and west of the racecourse, until it hits the A6136 next to the old Fort Bridge. This doesn't appear to be anywhere near the archaeological site.

The archaeology is everywhere but especially where you want to put your LAR. If Catterick's first bypass were being designed today it would undoubtedly be forced to go elsewhere. Nor would the racecourse be allowed there today if it were being proposed for the first time.

If you look at OS 1:25k (e.g. on streetmap.co.uk) you'll see that there is no spare land between the A1(M) and the racecourse. Land was taken from the grounds of the racecourse for the original bypass. More may have been taken for the southbound widening but the scheme's CPO seems to be no longer online so I can't check. It might be possible to get an LAR through by taking yet more, but it would pass very close to the starting post and would go right through the Roman town.

Before you ask, the footbridge shown on OS 1:25k is the temporary foot and services bridge built for the demolition of Fort Bridge, and still in use pending reopening of the main bridge. If the road bridge there were not replaced, I imagine a permanent foot and services bridge would be required.

You can get a still better picture by looking at various dates on old-maps.co.uk (or probably the National Library of Scotland).

When I went for a walk in May, there was a trench dug across the eastern approach road to Fort Bridge with stone structures visible in it.

The name Fort Bridge is a clue to it being near the Roman remains. The adjacent river bridge is called Agricola Bridge.

[Repmobile]

The much delayed closure of the northern end of Kneeton Lane for reconstruction will now commence on the 8th of September:

https://melsonbyp10.files.wordpress.co ... losure.pdf

Good news that with night and weekend working it will now only be closed for two weeks instead of the previously announced 6 to 8 weeks.

[Glenn A]

Where's the archaelogical site? OSM seems to indicate that there's an archaeological site between Catterick village and Catterick racecourse.
My proposal would have been to continue the A6055 LAR alongside the A1(M) heading north from J52, immediately east of the A1(M) and west of the racecourse, until it hits the A6136 next to the old Fort Bridge. This doesn't appear to be anywhere near the archaeological site.

The archaeology is everywhere but especially where you want to put your LAR. If Catterick's first bypass were being designed today it would undoubtedly be forced to go elsewhere. Nor would the racecourse be allowed there today if it were being proposed for the first time.

If you look at OS 1:25k (e.g. on streetmap.co.uk) you'll see that there is no spare land between the A1(M) and the racecourse. Land was taken from the grounds of the racecourse for the original bypass. More may have been taken for the southbound widening but the scheme's CPO seems to be no longer online so I can't check. It might be possible to get an LAR through by taking yet more, but it would pass very close to the starting post and would go right through the Roman town.

Before you ask, the footbridge shown on OS 1:25k is the temporary foot and services bridge built for the demolition of Fort Bridge, and still in use pending reopening of the main bridge. If the road bridge there were not replaced, I imagine a permanent foot and services bridge would be required.

You can get a still better picture by looking at various dates on old-maps.co.uk (or probably the National Library of Scotland).

When I went for a walk in May, there was a trench dug across the eastern approach road to Fort Bridge with stone structures visible in it.

The name Fort Bridge is a clue to it being near the Roman remains. The adjacent river bridge is called Agricola Bridge.

Citadilla is another Roman name. Also with regard to the racecourse, part of it does run very close to the A1 and as it's a dual purpose course, needs more space. I'd imagine if Catterick by pass was built as D3M in the sixties, it's likely the course would have been reduced in size. However, closing what is the village's main tourist attraction would have been unthinkable.

[Roadmeister17]

Who are in charge of this scheme ? Laurel and Hardy ? I can confirm the pointless lane drop at J51on the northbound carriageway and the pickup after. Sheer lunacy. The Muppets have also got the Route Confirmation Mileage sign wrong on the southbound after J52...Leeds 47. Five miles further down , just south of J51, Leeds is only two miles closer. South of J50, Leeds is down to 34, yet just two miles further south after the A168 converge at J49, Leeds is eight miles nearer at 26. This latter mileage - on a 1995 vintage RCS - dates from when Leeds traffic was routed onto the A58 at Wetherby. That is no excuse however, these random mileages need correcting.Roadmeister 17.

[Mark Hewitt]

Who are in charge of this scheme ? Laurel and Hardy ? I can confirm the pointless lane drop at J51on the northbound carriageway and the pickup after. Sheer lunacy.

How many years of half hour queues to get through that junction before they fix it then?

[Hdeng16]

But it's not a lane drop southbound. I'm confused. Why one and not the other?

[6637]

But it's not a lane drop southbound. I'm confused. Why one and not the other?

When J51 was first constructed several years ago, it was designed such that the left-hand lane would exit at J51 northbound, and the second and third lanes continued. (because the road north of J51 had only two lanes).
Southbound, there was a lane gain on the left immediately after the J51 exit.

So now, when they're doing the construction of Leeming–Barton, it was easy to plug the southbound carriageway in without a lane drop. But northbound, to avoid having a lane drop they would have had to repaint the road markings through J51 and replace a few signs– which was obviously too much work for them.

[wrinkly]

The last time (of many) we discussed this, I think it was established that the northbound lane drop/gain will be changed when the road is next resurfaced. I think lane 1 is usually resurfaced about 10 years after a motorway is built.

[Burns]

The last time (of many) we discussed this, I think it was established that the northbound lane drop/gain will be changed when the road is next resurfaced. I think lane 1 is usually resurfaced about 10 years after a motorway is built.

"Oh, we messed up and made your new motorway too small. Don't worry, though, we'll paint it right in a decade".

[Berk]

The last time (of many) we discussed this, I think it was established that the northbound lane drop/gain will be changed when the road is next resurfaced. I think lane 1 is usually resurfaced about 10 years after a motorway is built.

"Oh, we messed up and made your new motorway too small. Don't worry, though, we'll paint it right in a decade".

This. Why prolong this nonsense for many months, and years??

Why not simply get it right now??

[A9NWIL]

The last time (of many) we discussed this, I think it was established that the northbound lane drop/gain will be changed when the road is next resurfaced. I think lane 1 is usually resurfaced about 10 years after a motorway is built.

"Oh, we messed up and made your new motorway too small. Don't worry, though, we'll paint it right in a decade".

This. Why prolong this nonsense for many months, and years??

Why not simply get it right now??

Perhaps a tanker with a chemical that would damage the road surface needs to drop a load under j51 on the northbound carriageway? That is right at the slip road off so that they have no choice but to resurface that bit!

[Sam]

The last time (of many) we discussed this, I think it was established that the northbound lane drop/gain will be changed when the road is next resurfaced. I think lane 1 is usually resurfaced about 10 years after a motorway is built.

Well they're already busy resurfacing J49-50 so maybe this will happen soon enough!

[Mark Hewitt]

Typical penny pinching, is that right that it's literally paint and signage and that's it? How much is being spent on Leeming-Barton and they can't spend 0.1% extra to do it properly?

After all the A66 past Stockton is being resurfaced for the 6th time in 6 years.

[wrinkly]

I think the post by Techne on page 34 of this thread is the best indication we have of their thinking.

I think it's more a matter of erasing lines than painting them. Erasing lines that were put in as permanent rarely works very well. I suspect a mass of erased lines is not considered acceptable on a new motorway.

When the A1(M) upgrade was extended south from Walshford, a series of "move in to the left" arrows had to be removed from the southbound lane 3, and each individual arrow was done by resurfacing a short length of the lane, presumably requiring a section of surface to be removed to allow each section of new surface to be inlaid?

I'm wondering whether the signage over the lane drop will continue to say A6055 (A684).

[Repmobile]

The ‘terminology’ used four months ago on the Highways scheme page (in the comments part) with regard to not removing the lane drop northbound at Leeming Bar (J51) was:

‘’We can confirm that in the permanent scheme, the A1(M) will continue to reduce to two lanes between the exit and entry slip roads at Junction 51 (Leeming). There will only be a three lane arrangement following the point at which the northbound entry slip road has joined the A1(M). A decision was taken when assessing the affordability and value for money of the scheme to remove the lane drop when that area of carriageway needed resurfacing in future years rather than disturbing long lengths of carriageway that still have a residual life’’.

Which I think is shorthand for let’s save a few quid and kick the work into the long grass.

Bearing in mind the scheme over run will be costing someone (us all no doubt) a fortune for such as continued plant hire, staff retention, traffic management to name a few, I suppose any slight saving they can make at this stage is being factored in.

It is also interesting that on the scheme comments of late regarding J51 to J52 not being opened fully yet, their response seems to be:

‘’We are currently undergoing preparations to complete the section between Leeming and Catterick. Once we have a confirmed date we will issue a press release and post the update on our webpage.’’

No doubt the press release will be all sweetness and light and ‘look how we have got this new section of road open’ whilst conveniently forgetting about the major scheme over run and the fact we are stuck with the lane drop at J51.

[Osthagen]

Why prolong this nonsense for many months, and years??

Why not simply get it right now??

Because this is Britain. Everything infrastructure-based takes a ridiculously long time.

[Repmobile]

An interesting 'update' in the comments section of the scheme website yesterday in response to yet another complaint about the slowness of this project, and particularly the 'non' opening of Leeming Bar to Catterick. The L2B team response is as follows:

Currently, we are unable to provide precise dates though we will announce the opening date for the section between Leeming and Catterick using a press release and also publishing dates on our scheme webpage. It is expected that we will be in a position to make this announcement over the coming weeks.

Our works at Fort Bridge are progressing well and we will make a further press announcement about the opening of the bridge in the autumn. Opening is currently being planned for late October / early November.

Our speed limits on the local access road between Leeming and Catterick are for the safety and protection of our workforce and also the public. It should be noted that this route is still part of the site, and we will only be in a position to remove the temporary speed limits following handover to the local highway authority.

With respect to the completion of the remaining sections of the scheme, our team are working towards completing these over the winter period.

Kind regards

A1 Leeming to Barton Team

So, it is still 'coming weeks' (whatever that means) before they will make an announcement and give a date when Leeming to Catterick will fully open. Personally, I was hoping the opening would be much more imminent, a matter of days rather than weeks. As for their previous responses about it opening in 'Late Summer' I suppose they didn't actually state which year's summer they meant!

Using their tardy timescales, I honestly doubt Fort Bridge will open in October/November.

As for the 30mph limit on the LAR remaining until they hand it over to North Yorkshire County Council, no doubt NYCC will inspect every inch with a magnifying glass before adopting the road, so it looks like the 30mph limit will be with us well into next year.

Rather like the person who posted the questions that raised the responses above, frustration amongst locals and others who regularly use the A1 is getting rather acute now as it really does seem the contractors are in no real rush to finish this upgrade.