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.
This page is coy about what the improvement involves, but as is often the case the RIS (part 2, p. 32) was more forthcoming:
A1 Birtley to Coal House – online
widening of the A1 south of Gateshead
to three lanes. Alongside this
enhancement, a separate maintenance
scheme will replace and improve the
Allerdene Bridge. Linking with the existing
Coal House to Metro Centre scheme, this
will provide three lanes of capacity from
the Metro Centre to the A194(M)
interchange.
Replacing the entire bridge! Wasn't expecting that, and that's going to involve some significant challenges, mostly in terms of keeping the A1 and ECML going while they do it. Unless it's some sort of thing they do via a weekend full closure?
That's all well and good but the Coal House Roundabout bridge itself isn't exactly massive https://goo.gl/maps/efZAyaNRXkB2 how would they get three lanes through there unless they're going to replace that too?
PS. It's great to see things finally happening here, the CoalHouse to Metrocentre widening is coming along nicely and from travelling along it at the weekend looks almost complete in places.
The route is an important one just because there isn't many viable alternatives to it, no matter how slow the traffic is, it's still faster to use the A1 to get to e.g. the A69 than it is to go around.
Mark Hewitt wrote:Replacing the entire bridge! Wasn't expecting that, and that's going to involve some significant challenges, mostly in terms of keeping the A1 and ECML going while they do it. Unless it's some sort of thing they do via a weekend full closure?
It's been mentioned before, see my post on the previous page, here. I'd seen it mentioned in some DfT or HE (HA then) document.
That's all well and good but the Coal House Roundabout bridge itself isn't exactly massive https://goo.gl/maps/efZAyaNRXkB2 how would they get three lanes through there unless they're going to replace that too?
After the one they did at Dunston I'll believe anything's possible.
Actually looking at it, it is just about possible. Narrow the lanes, remove the footpath, you can just about squeeze three lanes in there. It's just a pity this wasn't all done at the same time as we've had years of disruption which are finally going to be coming to an end, then a couple of years gap before they start again.
Same with the bridge over the A167 roundabout at the Angel. There might be just enough to squeeze in three lanes but it would be very tight indeed. Would probably involve having to build out the embankment and putting a new bridge span across - would only have to be about 1 metre wide alongside the existing one but I can't imagine it would be an easy task.
Having three lanes from the A194(M) drop all the way through would be good. But there's the Bowes Incline to consider too, n/b currently there's the two lanes for the A1 and a lane on the left coming from the A1231 and leaving for the A167, would that be pushed out to four lanes across there to accomodate the merge? Can't see there's room for that, or would the gain from the A1231 just continue as lane 1 down the A1 and the A167 would become a normal slip instead of a drop?
It would be a shame if it was still only two lanes through J65 after the A194(M) drop when there is potential to have continuous 3 lanes from Chester-le-Street through to the Metro Centre.
Mark Hewitt wrote:Same with the bridge over the A167 roundabout at the Angel. There might be just enough to squeeze in three lanes but it would be very tight indeed. Would probably involve having to build out the embankment and putting a new bridge span across - would only have to be about 1 metre wide alongside the existing one but I can't imagine it would be an easy task.
Having three lanes from the A194(M) drop all the way through would be good. But there's the Bowes Incline to consider too, n/b currently there's the two lanes for the A1 and a lane on the left coming from the A1231 and leaving for the A167, would that be pushed out to four lanes across there to accomodate the merge? Can't see there's room for that, or would the gain from the A1231 just continue as lane 1 down the A1 and the A167 would become a normal slip instead of a drop? s/b is already 3 through lanes up the Bowes Incline as there is a lane gain from the A167 but this continues straight into the A1(M)
It would be a shame if it was still only two lanes through J65 after the A194(M) drop when there is potential to have continuous 3 lanes from Chester-le-Street through to the Metro Centre.
Just a few curiosities rather than a substantive comment on widening issues:
The Angel junction has three bridges, one over a slip road and two over the roundabout. The two bridges over the roundabout are of different ages - the more "northerly" (actually more like westerly) one being a replacement for an older bridge on a slightly different alignment, as the through route was originally to what is now the A167. As Google shows, none of the three bridges is straightforward D2: one has a third lane southbound, one has a hatched-off third lane southbound, and one has a little triangle of spare deck as a result of the realignment:
https://goo.gl/maps/kGYrN1E2Ug52 in the middle here there is also a tunnel which connects the Bowes railway path it goes under the northern part of the mainline and two slip roads.
I do have vague memories of long ago that the A1 then went on a bridge over the Angel,, sorry no Angel then, Eighton Lodge roundabout, and freeflowed onto what is now the A167, and the A69 (as it was) was a TOTSO. (Could be completely wrong!). I don't actually remember the road layout, but I do remember the big diggers and the earth works needed to put it in place (presumably more interesting at that age)
Last edited by Mark Hewitt on Wed May 04, 2016 11:44, edited 1 time in total.
Mark Hewitt wrote:I do have vague memories of long ago that the A1 then went on a bridge over the Angel,, sorry no Angel then, Eighton Lodge roundabout, and freeflowed onto what is now the A167, and the A69 (as it was) was a TOTSO. (Could be completely wrong!)
That's correct, the A1 (and later A6127) freeflow was into Low Fell/Gateshead. The A69 was accessed through the roundabout. As wrinkly says, the southernmost bridge dates from that arrangement, but the northern one was rebuilt from when the freeflow was diverted to the present route. I remember it quite well (I was about 10 when it changed over), in particular the long queues up the bank from the A69 to the Eighton Lodge roundabout!
Fascinating. I did wonder how the old alignment which is now deep inside woodland actually came about and its that bit at the bottom left for the old A69
If you look at google earth over the route of the A1 it could very well be expanded to dual fourlanes with intermittant refuges - why stick peacemeal ? do it right and expand the road to cope with the traffic levels that are on it just now as it is chock full through the day. Its a mix of long distance and local traffic. Providing four lanes each way would be relatively simple. By doing it in stages it could be done without much disruption - Northbound is expanded while traffic is still using the northbound carriageway. New carriageway added in then traffic is diverted onto the new alignment. The old northbound is then brought upto standard and the southbound switched over to give them a chance to sort out the southbound. Then open the road up when completed. Dual four lanes ample capacity and not much impact to the surrounding area while providing much needed capacity.
Really? It's a squash and a squeeze getting in three lanes as they are doing. Requiring a lot of cutting back banks and reinforcement with concrete and steel rods etc.
I can remember maybe 10 years or more ago, plans to build an entirely new motorway from the MetroCentre Junction to the A1(M) / A194(M) Junction at Washington.
A691(M) wrote:I can remember maybe 10 years or more ago, plans to build an entirely new motorway from the MetroCentre Junction to the A1(M) / A194(M) Junction at Washington.
More like 20 years ago. I believe it was supposed to be a D2 which would run over Lobley Hill and then rejoin the existing alignment around Blaydon. No idea how they would ever have built it, given the terrain.
Yes it may be a bit of work but it would be worth it as it would provide a much needed increase to the capacity of the route - adding in refuge laybys and bascially making it a smart motorway without the blue line. Its a pretty important route and needs attentions !
Widening to D3 can be done without replacing bridges for the best part. D4 would be a much bigger job and probably little cheaper than building an offline route.
Building off line just takes up more room and you need to link that off line alignment into the existing network or make it for through traffic only...
You have a good road alignment just now - you just need to get the capacity up.
There is loads of room south of the tyne to put in D4 - yes it would require cuttings and rerouting of some local roads etc but the over all effect would be a massive reduction in congestion - make the A194(M) A1(M) junction free flow and that will remove some of the surface flow around this junction. A bit of money invested and some logical thought would ensure that the junction operated and provided some reduction in traffic from the Metro being put off having to paff about with local roads to get onto the A194(M) towards the tunnel.
The only real challenge would be the short section after the A194 where it looks tight. Would it be so bad to compulsary purchase land here to expand the road to D4 ? The junctions Id have lane drops and run D3 through the junctions. I still do think that it could be made D4 on the majority of the alignment.
Get out of the spend as little as we can mindset and plan for the future incorporate significant capacity gains where it can be done, think outside the box. The A1 bridge over the tyne ? double deck ? add in another deck above the existing deck and you could in theory with some modifications have 5 lanes running across the river each way. 4 lanes and a shoulder to allow you to get broken down traffic out of the mainline ?
Skimp on the network and you only strangle it eventually. Its a good alignment improve it and increase capacity and ensure that it is built to cope with the next 30 years of growth.
Gav wrote:Building off line just takes up more room and you need to link that off line alignment into the existing network or make it for through traffic only...
You have a good road alignment just now - you just need to get the capacity up.
There is loads of room south of the tyne to put in D4 - yes it would require cuttings and rerouting of some local roads etc but the over all effect would be a massive reduction in congestion - make the A194(M) A1(M) junction free flow and that will remove some of the surface flow around this junction. A bit of money invested and some logical thought would ensure that the junction operated and provided some reduction in traffic from the Metro being put off having to paff about with local roads to get onto the A194(M) towards the tunnel.
The only real challenge would be the short section after the A194 where it looks tight. Would it be so bad to compulsary purchase land here to expand the road to D4 ? The junctions Id have lane drops and run D3 through the junctions. I still do think that it could be made D4 on the majority of the alignment.
Get out of the spend as little as we can mindset and plan for the future incorporate significant capacity gains where it can be done, think outside the box. The A1 bridge over the tyne ? double deck ? add in another deck above the existing deck and you could in theory with some modifications have 5 lanes running across the river each way. 4 lanes and a shoulder to allow you to get broken down traffic out of the mainline ?
Skimp on the network and you only strangle it eventually. Its a good alignment improve it and increase capacity and ensure that it is built to cope with the next 30 years of growth.
I'm not sure why you think widening is the gold standard here. Expanding a substandard alignment like this is very much the 'budget option' compared to a new alignment built to modern standards with fewer junctions. At D4 it would still have the inherent limitation of tightly spaced junctions, and the regular lane drops you suggest would make the weaving worse still.