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.
Vierwielen wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 22:18The guidelines for building E-roads (and this development might well be part of the E15 (not signposted)
1) guidelines, not hard and fast rules. Even countries that take E roads seriously are not too bothered about following the qualitative specifications: Romania, for instance, actively ignores the requirement to take parallel motorways where such facilities exist, and Norway/Sweden/Finland don't adhere to those minimum widths...
2) It would need a decent link over the North Downs, or Canterbury-Dover improvements, to be signed as the main route between Dover and the North and/or considered such by the authorities (Sat Navs, etc are a different matter). I do not think that, even if the notion of the E15 was on the radar of the planners here, they'd consider this part of it.
... snip ...
You might recall that years ago, Rickmansworth got a very nice bypass as did Potters Bar while the M23 had an over-the-top interchange leading up to Reigate etc. Suddenly these bits of road were joined up and hey-presto, we had the M25! Possibly the planners have the same idea here to provide a more direct link with the A1 and the Channel Tunnel. The upgrades to the A229 will come later.
I presume you mean they will use the M25 north of the LTC motorway? As otherwise a new parallel motorway would be needed to at least link with the M11!
Also the M11 would need to be 3 lanes all the way from the M25 to the A14(M) with the A14(M) being 4 lanes! Currently thats only 3 lanes so I wonder if they should have thought about that one? Thats considering that the A14(M) would then be carrying traffic from two roads for a short stretch A14-A14 traffic along with M11 to A1(M) traffic! Not so bad at the moment but if the LTC to A1(M) becomes a thing then you can see that being an issue.
The A229 upgrade I can see happening though it would make sense, but they may as well change the M20 then so that its mainline flows into a motorway version of the A229.
I guess they could make the M2 wider still between the motorway'd A229 and the LTC motorway or use C/D lanes/carriageways eventually?
I guess that C/D lanes/carriageways could be used on the M25 between the LTC and M11 and on the A14(M) between the M11 and A1(M) as well! If they did that they could make that a whole new motorway in itself! M22 from the channel tunnel to the A1(M)! The M22 would follow the C/D lane/carriageways and just swallow up the M11 from, the M25 to the A14(M)!
lotrjw wrote: ↑Tue Oct 16, 2018 21:46So is it my imagination that the M3 runs parallel to the A3
If you think that makes them the same corridor, I truly hope so. The A48 and A55 are parallel too, but you would not want to use the wrong one just because they both head east along the Welsh coast!
The two systems run separately from each other, as the M5 follows the A38 and the M4 continues into South Wales to mostly follow the A48. It's just a happy accident that A2/M2, A3/M3, M20/A20 and A40/M40 broadly follow the similar direction. I'd say M1 and M6 were closer to the A5 than the A1 though, at least in part.
As for the LTC, it should have an M2* number, as it is expected to be controlled D3 motorway. Hard shoulders are just not needed despite the insistence of some members here, especially through a tunnel where you'll need as much live capacity as possible.
"Accuse the other side of that which you are guilty."
- some extreme-right nutcase
lotrjw wrote: ↑Tue Oct 16, 2018 21:46So is it my imagination that the M3 runs parallel to the A3
If you think that makes them the same corridor, I truly hope so. The A48 and A55 are parallel too, but you would not want to use the wrong one just because they both head east along the Welsh coast!
The two systems run separately from each other, as the M5 follows the A38 and the M4 continues into South Wales to mostly follow the A48. It's just a happy accident that A2/M2, A3/M3, M20/A20 and A40/M40 broadly follow the similar direction. I'd say M1 and M6 were closer to the A5 than the A1 though, at least in part.
As for the LTC, it should have an M2* number, as it is expected to be controlled D3 motorway. Hard shoulders are just not needed despite the insistence of some members here, especially through a tunnel where you'll need as much live capacity as possible.
I can see the LTC and eventually an extension down the A229 line to the M20 having the number M22 or as you say another M2x number, but M22 makes the most sense, or M21 but that would seem an odd number to use, I can see M24, M28 or M29 being used.
Johnathan404 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 13:59
You’re all in for a shock when it really is numbered A0(M).
I am still confused by all the M2x numbers, obviously save my entirely correct idea, when it should be numbered in the M1 zone as that is the clockwise zone it starts in.
Johnathan404 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 13:59
You’re all in for a shock when it really is numbered A0(M).
I am still confused by all the M2x numbers, obviously save my entirely correct idea, when it should be numbered in the M1 zone as that is the clockwise zone it starts in.
Let's just call it Bob and have done with it.
Bryn Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already. She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
“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!
Johnathan404 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 13:59
You’re all in for a shock when it really is numbered A0(M).
I am still confused by all the M2x numbers, obviously save my entirely correct idea, when it should be numbered in the M1 zone as that is the clockwise zone it starts in.
Does it start in the "2" Zone or end in the "2" Zone?
What numbers would the location marker posts (LMP) and driver location signs (DLS) carry? These numbers can either be stand-alone, starting at 0.0, they could be a continuation of the M25 numbers, starting at about 170.0 or, taking into account that the LMP associated with J1 of M2 is 43.3 and the LTC will be much less than 40 km in length, they could use the M2 location numbering system.
someone wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 14:22
I am still confused by all the M2x numbers, obviously save my entirely correct idea, when it should be numbered in the M1 zone as that is the clockwise zone it starts in.
Does it start in the "2" Zone or end in the "2" Zone?
Makes no difference. The furthest anticlockwise zone it enters, for both motorway and all-purpose road numbering, is 1, so its first digit should be a 1. If you follow the numbering rules there's no way it could be a 2-road.
On the other hand, there's nothing to say that HE will follow the numbering rules. I wouldn't be surprised if it got a number beginning with a 2.
someone wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 14:22
I am still confused by all the M2x numbers, obviously save my entirely correct idea, when it should be numbered in the M1 zone as that is the clockwise zone it starts in.
Does it start in the "2" Zone or end in the "2" Zone?
Makes no difference. The furthest anticlockwise zone it enters, for both motorway and all-purpose road numbering, is 1, so its first digit should be a 1. If you follow the numbering rules there's no way it could be a 2-road.
On the other hand, there's nothing to say that HE will follow the numbering rules. I wouldn't be surprised if it got a number beginning with a 2.
HE have a number precedents to go by in respect of roads going from the "1" zone to the "2" zone - the Tower Bridge, Ritherhide Tunnel and Blackwall Tunnel are the A100, A101 and A102 respectively while the Dartford Crossing is the A282.
Vierwielen wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 17:08
Does it start in the "2" Zone or end in the "2" Zone?
What numbers would the location marker posts (LMP) and driver location signs (DLS) carry? These numbers can either be stand-alone, starting at 0.0, they could be a continuation of the M25 numbers, starting at about 170.0 or, taking into account that the LMP associated with J1 of M2 is 43.3 and the LTC will be much less than 40 km in length, they could use the M2 location numbering system.
Book 3 engineering plans are your friend for this one.
Main carriageway chainage starts at M2 counting upwards in a northerly direction but that is no guarantee of marker posts following that numbering or that direction.
Johnathan404 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 13:59
You’re all in for a shock when it really is numbered A0(M).
I am still confused by all the M2x numbers, obviously save my entirely correct idea, when it should be numbered in the M1 zone as that is the clockwise zone it starts in.
It connects two motorways in the 2-series, so a 2-series number will appear more logical for the 99.9% of the population that have no idea about the peculiarities of the zoning rules.
And those 0.1% who do understand the zoning rules presumably also know that they are frequently broken where there are pragmatic reasons for doing so, as here.
Johnathan404 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 13:59
You’re all in for a shock when it really is numbered A0(M).
I am still confused by all the M2x numbers, obviously save my entirely correct idea, when it should be numbered in the M1 zone as that is the clockwise zone it starts in.
someone wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 14:22
I am still confused by all the M2x numbers, obviously save my entirely correct idea, when it should be numbered in the M1 zone as that is the clockwise zone it starts in.
Does it start in the "2" Zone or end in the "2" Zone?
Makes no difference. The furthest anticlockwise zone it enters, for both motorway and all-purpose road numbering, is 1, so its first digit should be a 1. If you follow the numbering rules there's no way it could be a 2-road.
On the other hand, there's nothing to say that HE will follow the numbering rules. I wouldn't be surprised if it got a number beginning with a 2.
M10 then?
"Accuse the other side of that which you are guilty."
- some extreme-right nutcase
Johnathan404 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 13:59
You’re all in for a shock when it really is numbered A0(M).
I am still confused by all the M2x numbers, obviously save my entirely correct idea, when it should be numbered in the M1 zone as that is the clockwise zone it starts in.
Brownfools wrote: ↑Fri Nov 02, 2018 20:01
My money is on either M251 or M250.
I think you might have a point. All the M2X numbers have a counterpoint A-road somewhere completely different which does a different job. The A1X numbers are also mostly nowhere near the LTC.
The HE cgi flythrough of the scheme shows A0(M) on the signs, which I realise is just a placeholder, but it makes me think the thinking is generally to give Ax(m) numbers to these new expressways, a la the A14(m). I know that wouldn’t make any logical sense, but when has logic ever got in the way of the British government.
In short M250 makes sense because the scheme is kind of a big M25 spur. Otherwise perhaps M128?
Brownfools wrote: ↑Fri Nov 02, 2018 20:01
My money is on either M251 or M250.
I think you might have a point. All the M2X numbers have a counterpoint A-road somewhere completely different which does a different job. The A1X numbers are also mostly nowhere near the LTC.
The HE cgi flythrough of the scheme shows A0(M) on the signs, which I realise is just a placeholder, but it makes me think the thinking is generally to give Ax(m) numbers to these new expressways, a la the A14(m). I know that wouldn’t make any logical sense, but when has logic ever got in the way of the British government.
In short M250 makes sense because the scheme is kind of a big M25 spur. Otherwise perhaps M128?
Wouldnt logic dictate that M125 would be better? 1 as it starts in the 1 zone and 25 as its a spur of the M25? Of course if they are making it a Ax(M) then A125(M) would still work.
Brownfools wrote: ↑Fri Nov 02, 2018 20:01
My money is on either M251 or M250.
I think you might have a point. All the M2X numbers have a counterpoint A-road somewhere completely different which does a different job. The A1X numbers are also mostly nowhere near the LTC.
The HE cgi flythrough of the scheme shows A0(M) on the signs, which I realise is just a placeholder, but it makes me think the thinking is generally to give Ax(m) numbers to these new expressways, a la the A14(m). I know that wouldn’t make any logical sense, but when has logic ever got in the way of the British government.
In short M250 makes sense because the scheme is kind of a big M25 spur. Otherwise perhaps M128?
Wouldnt logic dictate that M125 would be better? 1 as it starts in the 1 zone and 25 as its a spur of the M25? Of course if they are making it a Ax(M) then A125(M) would still work.
Yeah, that's not a bad shout. A125(M) is a bit of a mouthful though. I was just thinking M128 because the A128 follows an alignment which isn't far off the LTC, but it's not a great number, I'll admit.
