A417 Missing Link campaign!

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
SouthWest Philip
Member
Posts: 3478
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2002 19:35
Location: Evesham, Worcestershire

Re: A417 Missing Link campaign!

Post by SouthWest Philip »

jackal wrote: Sat Oct 17, 2020 21:42 There's no point in the movements between the southern arm and A417 east as they're much more direct via the big roundabout at J11a. A417 to Hucclecote can be done the same way. So instead of the roundabout it should just be a westbound merge, with the southbound carriageway no more than a farm access.
But there isn't even a farm!
Shame that a westbound on slip to the A417 at the jnc 11A roundabout couldn't be added as that's the only movement that can only be served by the old road.
User avatar
Truvelo
Member
Posts: 17467
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 21:10
Location: Staffordshire
Contact:

Re: A417 Missing Link campaign!

Post by Truvelo »

This was the full eventual plan. It's hard to make out where the original Hucclecote Bypass ties in but it appears to be just to the west of the GSJ.
Attachments
a417.jpg
How would you like your grade separations, Sir?
Big and complex.
User avatar
Chris5156
Deputy Treasurer
Posts: 16908
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: A417 Missing Link campaign!

Post by Chris5156 »

Truvelo wrote: Sat Oct 17, 2020 22:31 This was the full eventual plan. It's hard to make out where the original Hucclecote Bypass ties in but it appears to be just to the west of the GSJ.
Blimey... there's a lot going on there!
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: A417 Missing Link campaign!

Post by jackal »

Pretty crazy the lengths they would go to to get 'full value' from the old bypass - more than a whiff of the sunk costs fallacy. The A40 junction is also pretty bizarre with what looks like a half dumbbell serving only the B4063 as the A40 crashes into a roundabout.

Anyway, something simpler like this should be pretty effective:

A417 - Copy.jpg
ABB125
Member
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2020 19:58

Re: A417 Missing Link campaign!

Post by ABB125 »

jackal wrote: Sun Oct 18, 2020 12:17 Pretty crazy the lengths they would go to to get 'full value' from the old bypass - more than a whiff of the sunk costs fallacy. The A40 junction is also pretty bizarre with what looks like a half dumbbell serving only the B4063 as the A40 crashes into a roundabout.

Anyway, something simpler like this should be pretty effective:


A417 - Copy.jpg
Something like that would indeed be ideal. The only downside is that access to Hucclecote is made via the Jn 11a roundabout, and the business park roundabout, so journeys will be longer. I imagine some locals may protest!
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: A417 Missing Link campaign!

Post by jackal »

A fair point, though locals would benefit from reduced traffic on Hucclecote Rd, especially this section.
RichardEvans67
Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 10:26
Location: Surrey

Re: A417 Missing Link campaign!

Post by RichardEvans67 »

by jervi » Tue Oct 13, 2020 22:12

Surly chuck it in reverse, that will slow it down right?
Or destroy the gearbox lol
RichardEvans67
Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 10:26
Location: Surrey

Re: A417 Missing Link campaign!

Post by RichardEvans67 »

With regards brake fade and escape lanes.

I'm pretty sure all modern large vehicles have to have a retarder, which is a braking device that does not suffer from fading. As an ex bus driver, I remember that even at 30, the retarder could be pretty fierce. At faster speeds the retarder should be able to create even more breaking. So I would imagine a good retarder should have no problem keeping a vehicle below 70.

That said, there is always the possibility that a retarder might fail because it wasn't maintained properly. Also smaller vehicles don't have retarders, and perhaps if the numpty behind the wheel doesn't know to control the speed by using a lower gear, then there might be a problem.
User avatar
Stevie D
Member
Posts: 8000
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 17:19
Location: Yorkshire

Re: A417 Missing Link campaign!

Post by Stevie D »

RichardEvans67 wrote: Fri Oct 23, 2020 10:32I'm pretty sure all modern large vehicles have to have a retarder, which is a braking device that does not suffer from fading. As an ex bus driver, I remember that even at 30, the retarder could be pretty fierce. At faster speeds the retarder should be able to create even more breaking. So I would imagine a good retarder should have no problem keeping a vehicle below 70.

That said, there is always the possibility that a retarder might fail because it wasn't maintained properly. Also smaller vehicles don't have retarders, and perhaps if the numpty behind the wheel doesn't know to control the speed by using a lower gear, then there might be a problem.
Interestingly, I was just reading up about this, after driving home on a road that I vaguely remembered as having the worst ever road accident in the UK, with 33 killed and a further 13 injured. It was on the B6265 heading towards Grassington, where in 1975 a coach was going down the hill – which drops 120m over a distance of 1200m – when the driver missed a gear and then cooked the brakes because he had no engine braking (and there are questions about whether the brakes were properly maintained as well) and careered off the road and down the hillside when the driver failed to negotiate the tight right-angle bend at the bottom of the hill. Although there was already a campaign to fit retarders to buses, coaches and lorries, this incident made the case undeniable after engineers showed that retarders would have prevented the vehicle from running out of control and the law was quickly enacted.
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: A417 Missing Link campaign!

Post by Bryn666 »

Stevie D wrote: Sat Oct 24, 2020 16:46
RichardEvans67 wrote: Fri Oct 23, 2020 10:32I'm pretty sure all modern large vehicles have to have a retarder, which is a braking device that does not suffer from fading. As an ex bus driver, I remember that even at 30, the retarder could be pretty fierce. At faster speeds the retarder should be able to create even more breaking. So I would imagine a good retarder should have no problem keeping a vehicle below 70.

That said, there is always the possibility that a retarder might fail because it wasn't maintained properly. Also smaller vehicles don't have retarders, and perhaps if the numpty behind the wheel doesn't know to control the speed by using a lower gear, then there might be a problem.
Interestingly, I was just reading up about this, after driving home on a road that I vaguely remembered as having the worst ever road accident in the UK, with 33 killed and a further 13 injured. It was on the B6265 heading towards Grassington, where in 1975 a coach was going down the hill – which drops 120m over a distance of 1200m – when the driver missed a gear and then cooked the brakes because he had no engine braking (and there are questions about whether the brakes were properly maintained as well) and careered off the road and down the hillside when the driver failed to negotiate the tight right-angle bend at the bottom of the hill. Although there was already a campaign to fit retarders to buses, coaches and lorries, this incident made the case undeniable after engineers showed that retarders would have prevented the vehicle from running out of control and the law was quickly enacted.
https://goo.gl/maps/qfHzxVhFbocsnUrs9 is the exact location of the crash, the coach narrowly avoided going into the house. The high death toll was because the coach was full of pensioners and this was before mandatory seat belts, so they were all ejected in horrible ways into the mangled wreck upon impact.

The low traffic volumes on the B6265 have meant other measures like escape lanes here have never been considered.

For comparison, the B6478 dropping down into Waddington here https://goo.gl/maps/FNJ22uPMAfnPguB59 has escape lanes because of the presence of a quarry at the top and the high numbers of HGVs.
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
User avatar
roadtester
Member
Posts: 31476
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 18:05
Location: Cambridgeshire

Re: A417 Missing Link campaign!

Post by roadtester »

Bryn666 wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 10:26
roadtester wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 09:34 Eight per cent is still pretty steep for a modern HQDC.

Does anyone know what Rhuallt Hill on the A55 is?

Of course the A417/A419 corridor is no stranger to steep DCs in the form of the now bypassed section at Blunsdon, although the new bit has flattened the climb a bit.

In terms of escape lanes, I think this isn't just a question of the gradient in and off itself but the fact that it is sustained over quite a long distance, giving far more opportunity for any vehicle in trouble to run out of control.
There aren't any percentage signs at Rhuallt, nor escape lanes downhill, but it is definitely pushing the maximum of permissible design standards. I think it would be absolutely insane to propose an 8% gradient on a new strategic A road and not have an escape lane somewhere along the hill, but what do I know, this is the magic world of HE where vehicles behave exactly as a computer says and never fail.

For reference - the A8 in Germany, in particular the dangerous and deemed obsolete and replaced bit at Aichelberg in the late 80s, was 7%.
I was saying earlier in this thread that I thought modern cars should be able to tackle a 7-8 per cent climb on a modern HQDC with ease but this recent report from North Wales has three vehicles all failing at the same time while trying to climb the Rhuallt section of the A55, causing general chaos, so perhaps I was being too optimistic!

https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north- ... k-18888795
Electrophorus Electricus

Check out #davidsdailycar on Mastodon
User avatar
Truvelo
Member
Posts: 17467
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 21:10
Location: Staffordshire
Contact:

Re: A417 Missing Link campaign!

Post by Truvelo »

Before I clicked the link I was assuming the three vehicles would be little tiny city cars with woefully underpowered engines but one looks like a Nissan Cashcow. I can't see what the one towing the caravan is and the one nearest the camera doesn't look low on power.
How would you like your grade separations, Sir?
Big and complex.
DB617
Member
Posts: 1286
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2017 00:51
Location: Bristol

Re: A417 Missing Link campaign!

Post by DB617 »

Truvelo wrote: Mon Nov 23, 2020 20:18 Before I clicked the link I was assuming the three vehicles would be little tiny city cars with woefully underpowered engines but one looks like a Nissan Cashcow. I can't see what the one towing the caravan is and the one nearest the camera doesn't look low on power.
The Nissan looks a little big older than a Qashqai, I reckon the caravan towing vehicle is a Citroen DS or something to that effect (perhaps a little undersized for that towing load) and the front one is a 2018+ Fiesta I believe.

Some of it probably comes down to choice of gear. I wonder how much it would take for a driver lugging their engine in too high a gear to completely conk out the car. Honestly anything in a good state of repair and a modern late 2000s or after engine should be able to handle those sort of inclines in a middling or low gear. One solution would be to cut the speed limit so people don't feel compelled to hold 70mph, thereby reducing the drag load significantly on the climb.
RichardEvans67
Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 10:26
Location: Surrey

Re: A417 Missing Link campaign!

Post by RichardEvans67 »

Reminds me of climbing a steep hill on the A30. (Going to Cornwall for the 1999 eclipse). I was driving an aging XR2, and I wasn't expecting it to have any difficulty with high speed cruising. However a combination of the steep incline, and a heavy load of camping gear, and not wanting to push an old car too hard, and it didn't want to do that. Not a problem, I just kept it comfortable in a lower gear, and it happily climbed the hill at 60. Of course this seemed a bit slow for an HQDC, but just required a bit of patience for about 5 minutes.
A9NWIL
Member
Posts: 3319
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 02:36

Re: A417 Missing Link campaign!

Post by A9NWIL »

DB617 wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 11:05
Truvelo wrote: Mon Nov 23, 2020 20:18 Before I clicked the link I was assuming the three vehicles would be little tiny city cars with woefully underpowered engines but one looks like a Nissan Cashcow. I can't see what the one towing the caravan is and the one nearest the camera doesn't look low on power.
The Nissan looks a little big older than a Qashqai, I reckon the caravan towing vehicle is a Citroen DS or something to that effect (perhaps a little undersized for that towing load) and the front one is a 2018+ Fiesta I believe.

Some of it probably comes down to choice of gear. I wonder how much it would take for a driver lugging their engine in too high a gear to completely conk out the car. Honestly anything in a good state of repair and a modern late 2000s or after engine should be able to handle those sort of inclines in a middling or low gear. One solution would be to cut the speed limit so people don't feel compelled to hold 70mph, thereby reducing the drag load significantly on the climb.
Choice of gear is definitely something that can help. I have a small trailer that I use with a very small 1 litre hatchback and yes it struggles up hills, but in a lower gear it manages OK even if the speed is a little low sometimes.
Formerly known as 'lortjw'
A9NWIL
Member
Posts: 3319
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 02:36

Re: A417 Missing Link campaign!

Post by A9NWIL »

RichardEvans67 wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 13:09 Reminds me of climbing a steep hill on the A30. (Going to Cornwall for the 1999 eclipse). I was driving an aging XR2, and I wasn't expecting it to have any difficulty with high speed cruising. However a combination of the steep incline, and a heavy load of camping gear, and not wanting to push an old car too hard, and it didn't want to do that. Not a problem, I just kept it comfortable in a lower gear, and it happily climbed the hill at 60. Of course this seemed a bit slow for an HQDC, but just required a bit of patience for about 5 minutes.
I dont know if the law has changed since 1999, but the speed limit for a car with a trailer on motorways and dual carriageways is 60mph: https://www.gov.uk/speed-limits
Formerly known as 'lortjw'
User avatar
Stevie D
Member
Posts: 8000
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 17:19
Location: Yorkshire

Re: A417 Missing Link campaign!

Post by Stevie D »

RichardEvans67 wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 13:09 Reminds me of climbing a steep hill on the A30. (Going to Cornwall for the 1999 eclipse). I was driving an aging XR2, and I wasn't expecting it to have any difficulty with high speed cruising. However a combination of the steep incline, and a heavy load of camping gear, and not wanting to push an old car too hard, and it didn't want to do that. Not a problem, I just kept it comfortable in a lower gear, and it happily climbed the hill at 60. Of course this seemed a bit slow for an HQDC, but just required a bit of patience for about 5 minutes.
As someone who has driven very underpowered and fully laden minibuses up that hill on a couple of occasions, I can tell you that anyone who doesn't expect to find a vehicle going as "slowly" as 60mph on that hill is in for a bit of a shock!
RichardEvans67
Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 10:26
Location: Surrey

Re: A417 Missing Link campaign!

Post by RichardEvans67 »

by lotrjw » Tue Nov 24, 2020 22:09
I dont know if the law has changed since 1999, but the speed limit for a car with a trailer on motorways and dual carriageways is 60mph:
Just to clarify, I wasn't towing. (I actually thought the limit for towing was only 50.)

Although I was surprised at how heavy my car felt. I guess being only a Fiesta, a significant load makes a lot of difference. It was no problem for most of the journey, but made a lot of difference on a few steep hills.

PS. I deliberately did the journey in the early hours of the morning, so for most of the time I had the A30 to myself.
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: A417 Missing Link campaign!

Post by jackal »

The planning application was submitted on 1 June:

https://infrastructure.planninginspecto ... ction=docs
SteveA30
Member
Posts: 6017
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 12:52
Location: Dorset

Re: A417 Missing Link campaign!

Post by SteveA30 »

That will be a project worth visiting, almost on a par with A465 Clydach
Roads and holidays in the west, before motorways.
http://trektothewest.shutterfly.com
http://holidayroads.webs.com/
Post Reply