New Lower Thames Crossing

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
jackal
Member
Posts: 6073
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by jackal » Thu Jan 14, 2021 18:19

The Queensferry Crossing is another one.

User avatar
EpicChef
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1848
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 11:47
Location: London, UK

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by EpicChef » Tue Jan 19, 2021 20:17

This thread has veered way off topic to discuss the A14 at Catthorpe - and various post reports have been filed to that end.

As a result, I have rehomed all these posts here, so the discussion on this thread can get back to the LTC.

Keep safe all, Manomay
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
Gav
Member
Posts: 1751
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 17:44

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by Gav » Mon Jan 25, 2021 21:50

Bryn666 wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 17:45
Gav wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 16:05
Bryn666 wrote:
Sat Jan 02, 2021 12:43
The last major motorway to be built as D2M was in 1997. This was the "missing link" of the M65.

It was designed to be widened later because they knew even in 1997 D2 would not be enough - the design year was 2010 and traffic volumes surpassed that several years before.

Despite being probably the easiest motorway in the UK to widen right now, it seems unlikely to ever happen because it's not seen as anything other than a local link.

The quality of the road does matter but the simple reality is blue lines on a map attract traffic in a way green ones do not.

If you want to properly bypass urban areas or bottlenecks, then you need to be building fully access controlled roads from the start and preventing tin sheds from popping up alongside them, not deliberately building half-cocked development generating spine roads with wishy-washy restrictions and no specified purpose so they become overloaded within a year of opening.

It's yet another reason why this country is a complete planning disaster.
M77 to kilmarnock D2M later than 1997... and still a major motorway is it not ?
I was referring to new alignments and not direct upgrades or adjacent replacements of existing roads, otherwise the M80 also counts.
The M80 was in three parts - the first section being the M876 M9 M80 triangle just south of Stirling that was off line mosty. The next section was the M80 from the M8, again that was off line. The last section does however contain 1/4 off line and 3/4 online upgrade.

User avatar
Bryn666
Member
Posts: 30121
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by Bryn666 » Mon Jan 25, 2021 22:37

Gav wrote:
Mon Jan 25, 2021 21:50
Bryn666 wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 17:45
Gav wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 16:05


M77 to kilmarnock D2M later than 1997... and still a major motorway is it not ?
I was referring to new alignments and not direct upgrades or adjacent replacements of existing roads, otherwise the M80 also counts.
The M80 was in three parts - the first section being the M876 M9 M80 triangle just south of Stirling that was off line mosty. The next section was the M80 from the M8, again that was off line. The last section does however contain 1/4 off line and 3/4 online upgrade.
The northern end of the M80 originally opened as A80 and was upgraded to M80 later. Likewise the first bit of the M876 there. The very epitome of online upgrade.
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
Gav
Member
Posts: 1751
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 17:44

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by Gav » Mon Jan 25, 2021 23:03

Bryn666 wrote:
Mon Jan 25, 2021 22:37
Gav wrote:
Mon Jan 25, 2021 21:50
Bryn666 wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 17:45


I was referring to new alignments and not direct upgrades or adjacent replacements of existing roads, otherwise the M80 also counts.
The M80 was in three parts - the first section being the M876 M9 M80 triangle just south of Stirling that was off line mosty. The next section was the M80 from the M8, again that was off line. The last section does however contain 1/4 off line and 3/4 online upgrade.
The northern end of the M80 originally opened as A80 and was upgraded to M80 later. Likewise the first bit of the M876 there. The very epitome of online upgrade.
Ah well I stand corrected - the A80 was indeed a dual carriageway A road initially when the denny bypass was built - Including the A876. And when they decided to extend the road to meet with the stirling bypass it was decided to upgrade the A80 and A876 to motorway starting from the haggs junction. heading north. Interestingly the A80 became motorway before the A876 bcame motorway according to the OS maps on sabre. We had an A road running inescapably to a motorway before the A14 debuncle...
ak.jpg
So you are indeed right about the A80 around denny - however the M80 north of denny was an offline D2M construction up to the M9 juction.

User avatar
wrinkly
Member
Posts: 8224
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:17
Location: Leeds

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by wrinkly » Mon Jan 25, 2021 23:40

Gav wrote:
Mon Jan 25, 2021 23:03
Interestingly the A80 became motorway before the A876 bcame motorway according to the OS maps on sabre.
I suspect that's the OS jumping the gun a little on the reclassification of the A80 as M80. I don't have access at this instant to my notes from investigating the Edinburgh Gazette, but if I remember correctly the reclassification of the A80 and A876 were simultaneous with each other and with the opening of the offline M80 from Ingliston (the temporary roundabout) to Stirling. At least according to the official Notices of Opening.

In the original construction of the AP D2 bypasses, the A80 came a couple of years before the A876 (c. 1964 versus c. 1966).

User avatar
A303Chris
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 3080
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 14:01
Location: Reading

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by A303Chris » Thu Feb 04, 2021 09:37

This is unbelievable, Highways England have awarded Jacobs a £162.5m Integration Partner contract. Jacobs will act as a catalyst for collaboration between Highways England and the Lower Thames Crossing’s three main works contracts.

Surely HE have the resources in house to do this.
Last edited by A303Chris on Thu Feb 04, 2021 09:50, edited 1 time in total.
The M25 - The road to nowhere

User avatar
Chris Bertram
Deputy Site Manager
Posts: 12665
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2001 12:30
Location: Birmingham, England

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by Chris Bertram » Thu Feb 04, 2021 09:42

A303Chris wrote:
Thu Feb 04, 2021 09:37
This is unbelievable, Highways England have awarded awarded Jacobs a £162.5m Integration Partner contract. Jacobs will act as a catalyst for collaboration between Highways England and the Lower Thames Crossing’s three main works contracts.

Surely HE have the resources in house to do this.
Do Jacobs have directors who are related to members of the government, or were at school with them? If so, there's your answer.
“The quality of any advice anybody has to offer has to be judged against the quality of life they actually lead.” - Douglas Adams.

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
RichardA35
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 4496
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 18:58
Location: Dorset

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by RichardA35 » Thu Feb 04, 2021 09:49

Chris Bertram wrote:
Thu Feb 04, 2021 09:42
A303Chris wrote:
Thu Feb 04, 2021 09:37
This is unbelievable, Highways England have awarded awarded Jacobs a £162.5m Integration Partner contract. Jacobs will act as a catalyst for collaboration between Highways England and the Lower Thames Crossing’s three main works contracts.

Surely HE have the resources in house to do this.
Do Jacobs have directors who are related to members of the government, or were at school with them? If so, there's your answer.
I guess you are completely unaware that Jacobs is a multinational engineering company headquartered in the US?

User avatar
RichardA35
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 4496
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 18:58
Location: Dorset

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by RichardA35 » Thu Feb 04, 2021 09:53

A303Chris wrote:
Thu Feb 04, 2021 09:37
This is unbelievable, Highways England have awarded awarded Jacobs a £162.5m Integration Partner contract. Jacobs will act as a catalyst for collaboration between Highways England and the Lower Thames Crossing’s three main works contracts.

Surely HE have the resources in house to do this.
They have never had the resource or expertise to carry the role that Jacobs have been appointed to and have always used consultancies for site supervision and project management.

User avatar
Bryn666
Member
Posts: 30121
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by Bryn666 » Thu Feb 04, 2021 09:57

RichardA35 wrote:
Thu Feb 04, 2021 09:53
A303Chris wrote:
Thu Feb 04, 2021 09:37
This is unbelievable, Highways England have awarded awarded Jacobs a £162.5m Integration Partner contract. Jacobs will act as a catalyst for collaboration between Highways England and the Lower Thames Crossing’s three main works contracts.

Surely HE have the resources in house to do this.
They have never had the resource or expertise to carry the role that Jacobs have been appointed to and have always used consultancies for site supervision and project management.
So what exactly is HE for then? Why bother with that extra bureaucracy and frankly crap oversight if they just tender/appoint others?

Isn't this exactly what the supposed quango bonfires were meant to sort out?
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
JammyDodge
Member
Posts: 101
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2018 13:17

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by JammyDodge » Thu Feb 04, 2021 10:02

Bryn666 wrote:
Thu Feb 04, 2021 09:57
RichardA35 wrote:
Thu Feb 04, 2021 09:53
A303Chris wrote:
Thu Feb 04, 2021 09:37
This is unbelievable, Highways England have awarded awarded Jacobs a £162.5m Integration Partner contract. Jacobs will act as a catalyst for collaboration between Highways England and the Lower Thames Crossing’s three main works contracts.

Surely HE have the resources in house to do this.
They have never had the resource or expertise to carry the role that Jacobs have been appointed to and have always used consultancies for site supervision and project management.
So what exactly is HE for then? Why bother with that extra bureaucracy and frankly crap oversight if they just tender/appoint others?

Isn't this exactly what the supposed quango bonfires were meant to sort out?
What is HE for:
"We're the government company which plans, designs, builds, operates and maintains England’s motorways and major A-roads, known as the strategic road network (SRN)"

Like all companies, they contract out much of the construction aspects of projects to those who know what they are doing, just as it was when the M1 was first constructed in the late 50s
Designing Tomorrow, Around the Past

User avatar
Chris Bertram
Deputy Site Manager
Posts: 12665
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2001 12:30
Location: Birmingham, England

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by Chris Bertram » Thu Feb 04, 2021 10:04

RichardA35 wrote:
Thu Feb 04, 2021 09:49
Chris Bertram wrote:
Thu Feb 04, 2021 09:42
A303Chris wrote:
Thu Feb 04, 2021 09:37
This is unbelievable, Highways England have awarded awarded Jacobs a £162.5m Integration Partner contract. Jacobs will act as a catalyst for collaboration between Highways England and the Lower Thames Crossing’s three main works contracts.

Surely HE have the resources in house to do this.
Do Jacobs have directors who are related to members of the government, or were at school with them? If so, there's your answer.
I guess you are completely unaware that Jacobs is a multinational engineering company headquartered in the US?
I'm not an industry insider, so no. But given the levels of cronyism currently operating within government procurement, I hope you'll concede that it's a reasonable question to ask.
“The quality of any advice anybody has to offer has to be judged against the quality of life they actually lead.” - Douglas Adams.

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: 30121
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by Bryn666 » Thu Feb 04, 2021 10:15

JammyDodge wrote:
Thu Feb 04, 2021 10:02
Bryn666 wrote:
Thu Feb 04, 2021 09:57
RichardA35 wrote:
Thu Feb 04, 2021 09:53
They have never had the resource or expertise to carry the role that Jacobs have been appointed to and have always used consultancies for site supervision and project management.
So what exactly is HE for then? Why bother with that extra bureaucracy and frankly crap oversight if they just tender/appoint others?

Isn't this exactly what the supposed quango bonfires were meant to sort out?
What is HE for:
"We're the government company which plans, designs, builds, operates and maintains England’s motorways and major A-roads, known as the strategic road network (SRN)"

Like all companies, they contract out much of the construction aspects of projects to those who know what they are doing, just as it was when the M1 was first constructed in the late 50s
I know how procurement and project management works. What I am asking is why an extra layer of cost by having middlemen by appointment between the Secretary of State and consultants is seemingly there and how does this provide better return for the public purse than the old RCU system did, because given the questionably quality of a number of trunk road schemes recently with signs being completely wrong, cut-and-paste design elements with scant regard to the surrounding visual amenity, etc, etc, there seems to be a major problem here.
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
RichardA35
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 4496
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 18:58
Location: Dorset

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by RichardA35 » Thu Feb 04, 2021 10:47

Chris Bertram wrote:
Thu Feb 04, 2021 10:04
RichardA35 wrote:
Thu Feb 04, 2021 09:49
Chris Bertram wrote:
Thu Feb 04, 2021 09:42
Do Jacobs have directors who are related to members of the government, or were at school with them? If so, there's your answer.
I guess you are completely unaware that Jacobs is a multinational engineering company headquartered in the US?
I'm not an industry insider, so no. But given the levels of cronyism currently operating within government procurement, I hope you'll concede that it's a reasonable question to ask.
It is, but HE is at arms length from ministerial interference and the procurement process is a world away from the panic buying of masks and "track and trace" services by central government.

Moore_O
Account deactivated at user request
Posts: 337
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 11:03
Location: Huntingdon once, now Kent

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by Moore_O » Thu Feb 04, 2021 11:31

RichardA35 wrote:
Thu Feb 04, 2021 10:47
Chris Bertram wrote:
Thu Feb 04, 2021 10:04
RichardA35 wrote:
Thu Feb 04, 2021 09:49
I guess you are completely unaware that Jacobs is a multinational engineering company headquartered in the US?
I'm not an industry insider, so no. But given the levels of cronyism currently operating within government procurement, I hope you'll concede that it's a reasonable question to ask.
It is, but HE is at arms length from ministerial interference and the procurement process is a world away from the panic buying of masks and "track and trace" services by central government.
'Arms length' isn't very reassuring. I, for instance, am fully aware of virtually everything to do with my own hands, in spite of them being literally at arms length from the rest of me.

User avatar
gepree68
Member
Posts: 762
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2002 13:12
Location: Bristol, UK

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by gepree68 » Thu Feb 04, 2021 14:15

Bryn666 wrote:
Thu Feb 04, 2021 10:15
[...] given the questionable quality of a number of trunk road schemes recently with signs being completely wrong [...] there seems to be a major problem here.
My favourite example of a plan for "signs being completely wrong" is M49 J1 where they had bizarrely decided to call the new junction M49 J18A.

The conversation would have gone something like this:
This new junction on M49: we are going to call it M49 J18A.
Err, why M49 J18A and not M49 J1?
Well, because M49 comes from M5 J18, so the M49 junction should be J18A.
No, M49 comes from M5 J18A, not M5 J18. So we already have an 18A.
Oh, two junctions both called J18A. Aha, we could call the new one J18B.
(Sigh) Please just call it M49 J1

User avatar
Bryn666
Member
Posts: 30121
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by Bryn666 » Thu Feb 04, 2021 14:32

gepree68 wrote:
Thu Feb 04, 2021 14:15
Bryn666 wrote:
Thu Feb 04, 2021 10:15
[...] given the questionable quality of a number of trunk road schemes recently with signs being completely wrong [...] there seems to be a major problem here.
My favourite example of a plan for "signs being completely wrong" is M49 J1 where they had bizarrely decided to call the new junction M49 J18A.

The conversation would have gone something like this:
This new junction on M49: we are going to call it M49 J18A.
Err, why M49 J18A and not M49 J1?
Well, because M49 comes from M5 J18, so the M49 junction should be J18A.
No, M49 comes from M5 J18A, not M5 J18. So we already have an 18A.
Oh, two junctions both called J18A. Aha, we could call the new one J18B.
(Sigh) Please just call it M49 J1
The signs were still covered in black sheeting when I last went that way, did they really sign it as J18A? FFS.
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/

Scratchwood
Member
Posts: 346
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 21:44
Location: London

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by Scratchwood » Thu Feb 04, 2021 14:42

A303Chris wrote:
Thu Feb 04, 2021 09:37
This is unbelievable, Highways England have awarded Jacobs a £162.5m Integration Partner contract. Jacobs will act as a catalyst for collaboration between Highways England and the Lower Thames Crossing’s three main works contracts.

Surely HE have the resources in house to do this.
Quite suspicious when Jacobs' main area of expertise is cream crackers and club biscuits :D

User avatar
gepree68
Member
Posts: 762
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2002 13:12
Location: Bristol, UK

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by gepree68 » Thu Feb 04, 2021 15:37

Bryn666 wrote:
Thu Feb 04, 2021 14:32
The signs were still covered in black sheeting when I last went that way, did they really sign it [M49 J1] as J18A? FFS.
No, don't worry. Apparently it will be called M49 J1.

All we need them to do now is to, err, connect the built M49 J1 roundabout to A403 :roll:

Post Reply