A47 Corridor improvement programme
Moderator: Site Management Team
Re: A47 Corridor improvement programme
At a guess almost all of that freight is timber and needs driving out of town to be used. Kings Lynn isn’t too far away and much better connected. Sutton Bridge port has spare capacity too and boats have to sail past it (and through Cross Keys swing bridge) to get to Wisbech.
Re: A47 Corridor improvement programme
Searching vessel finder.com
Port of Wisbech is located in United Kingdom (UK) at 52.6704N, 0.1554E. No vessels have arrived within the past 24 hours and no ships are expected to arrive in the next 30 days.
So why any traffic could not just use Sutton Bridge or Kings Lynn is a mystery.
Port of Wisbech is located in United Kingdom (UK) at 52.6704N, 0.1554E. No vessels have arrived within the past 24 hours and no ships are expected to arrive in the next 30 days.
So why any traffic could not just use Sutton Bridge or Kings Lynn is a mystery.
Re: A47 Corridor improvement programme
Lockdown? Brexit?
I don't think not being very busy counts as a reason to remove navigation rights. I think it needs an act of parliament to do that, which would add enormously to the complexity. Why not just dual the existing bypass and cross the Nene between Wisbech and Guyhirn?
I don't think not being very busy counts as a reason to remove navigation rights. I think it needs an act of parliament to do that, which would add enormously to the complexity. Why not just dual the existing bypass and cross the Nene between Wisbech and Guyhirn?
Re: A47 Corridor improvement programme
I would agree with that. The current by-pass alignment is fine, though getting a D2 through Eleme Hall roundabout [A1101] would be a squeeze now there is some new houses on the south west corner. Bridging the Nene at the Redmoor Lane roundabout would be my choice. But the northern by-pass is always touted as relieving through town traffic that is heading along the A1101 and up to the A17 at Long Sutton.Herned wrote: ↑Sun Mar 07, 2021 08:50 Lockdown? Brexit?
I don't think not being very busy counts as a reason to remove navigation rights. I think it needs an act of parliament to do that, which would add enormously to the complexity. Why not just dual the existing bypass and cross the Nene between Wisbech and Guyhirn?
of course in a fantasy roads thread, the A47 from Walton Highway to Thorney would be new build, and the exisitng A47 from Guyhirn to Wisbech would return to being the A141.
Navigation rights, well there are plenty of pleasure craft moored up just north of Freedom Bridge, you would just be resticitng the larger commercial vessels.
Re: A47 Corridor improvement programme
The vessels that use Wisbech are not exactly huge and the Nene is not the Rhine. I would hazard a guess that the yachts which use the port require more overhead clearance than the small commercial vessels that use it, the river is under 80m wide, any competent bridge engineer could come up with a reasonably priced structure without breaking a sweat.doebag wrote: ↑Sun Mar 07, 2021 06:56 Searching vessel finder.com
Port of Wisbech is located in United Kingdom (UK) at 52.6704N, 0.1554E. No vessels have arrived within the past 24 hours and no ships are expected to arrive in the next 30 days.
So why any traffic could not just use Sutton Bridge or Kings Lynn is a mystery.
More photos at
https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/photos ... 1587/ports
The MV Lady Nora is a small vessel of 3000 tons displacement and is very similar in size to the vessels that carry timber in to Whitby and that town seems to manage just fine. This would have been regarded as a minor problem 100 years ago when this bridge across the much wider and busier River Tees was designed.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.57162 ... authuser=0
Sutton Bridge does not have the warehousing, wharves and cargo handling facilities required for a port. Why build a new facility when there is one already at Wisbech ?
Re: A47 Corridor improvement programme
"Just" in that sentence means an act of parliament. Not at all easy
- roadtester
- Member
- Posts: 31537
- Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 18:05
- Location: Cambridgeshire
Re: A47 Corridor improvement programme
Thinking about this again, I think it’s easier to go south, probably on the existing alignment, and deal with a revived railway line, than it is to go north and deal with the port/river.
I agree it would be difficult to GSJ the A47/A1101 roundabout (goodbye Elme Hotel car park), but this all seems to be to do with getting some sort of dualling done along the A47 rather than going all the way to HQDC/expressway (whatever that is) standard. After all, the Thorney bypass was built not so long ago with an at-grade roundabout junction in the middle, so a roundabout on the Wisbech bypass wouldn’t particularly stand out as a low-quality feature in the overall context of the A47 route corridor.
I agree it would be difficult to GSJ the A47/A1101 roundabout (goodbye Elme Hotel car park), but this all seems to be to do with getting some sort of dualling done along the A47 rather than going all the way to HQDC/expressway (whatever that is) standard. After all, the Thorney bypass was built not so long ago with an at-grade roundabout junction in the middle, so a roundabout on the Wisbech bypass wouldn’t particularly stand out as a low-quality feature in the overall context of the A47 route corridor.
Electrophorus Electricus
Check out #davidsdailycar on Mastodon
Check out #davidsdailycar on Mastodon
Re: A47 Corridor improvement programme
As mentioned above, fenland is not the easiest to build on. We could be talking massive piling for much of the route - will depend on geotechnicals for the various options. Land costs are low single digit % of costs for major schemes in rural areas.Truvelo wrote: ↑Sat Mar 06, 2021 17:45 £2bn seems a little high for what is perfectly flat terrain and I imagine land costs are lower than they would be in the vicinity of the A428 and A12. Even if it did cost this much it would be a better long term solution than tinkering about with the existing route around Guyhirn.
There's no two ways about it - it would be an absolutely vast scheme, bigger than anything in the programme except the LTC and Stonehenge. Thorney to Wisbech alone would be comparable to the A66 Northern Trans-Pennine or A428 Black Cat upgrades. I don't really see it as a national priority to the extent of such schemes, and certainly wouldn't want to see them dropped for it. I know on SABRE more roads, bigger roads is the solution to everything, but in the real world there are trade offs.
This is why I'm pretty sceptical about this latest development. It just seems like more money being wasted on studies with little prospect of anything of value coming out of them.
The Guyhirn scheme is a waste of time, I agree, but I would argue that this is the kind of scheme you get from the very study we're talking about - a sop rather than a serious attempt to upgrade a route with serious money behind it.
- Chris Bertram
- Member
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2001 12:30
- Location: Birmingham, England
Re: A47 Corridor improvement programme
Whitby, as you well know, has a swing bridge, with swings being quite common. It used to carry A171 until the new bridge was opened in the early 80's.KeithW wrote: ↑Sun Mar 07, 2021 10:23The vessels that use Wisbech are not exactly huge and the Nene is not the Rhine. I would hazard a guess that the yachts which use the port require more overhead clearance than the small commercial vessels that use it, the river is under 80m wide, any competent bridge engineer could come up with a reasonably priced structure without breaking a sweat.doebag wrote: ↑Sun Mar 07, 2021 06:56 Searching vessel finder.com
Port of Wisbech is located in United Kingdom (UK) at 52.6704N, 0.1554E. No vessels have arrived within the past 24 hours and no ships are expected to arrive in the next 30 days.
So why any traffic could not just use Sutton Bridge or Kings Lynn is a mystery.
More photos at
https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/photos ... 1587/ports
The MV Lady Nora is a small vessel of 3000 tons displacement and is very similar in size to the vessels that carry timber in to Whitby and that town seems to manage just fine. This would have been regarded as a minor problem 100 years ago when this bridge across the much wider and busier River Tees was designed.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.57162 ... authuser=0
Sutton Bridge does not have the warehousing, wharves and cargo handling facilities required for a port. Why build a new facility when there is one already at Wisbech ?
“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!
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!
Re: A47 Corridor improvement programme
Thorney and Wisbech are both ancient communities, built on islands in the ancient wet marshy Fens. I would guess that in both cases the bypasses are built on the more solid clay that gave us the islands. In between is ancient marshland with the horrible for building on peat that contains water and oxidises when dehydrated and exposed to air. I am not a road engineer, but would expect "proper foundations" to involve considerable excavation and soil replacement.Herned wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 13:09Isn't that because it only gets patched and fixed and the underlying issues not solved? A new road on a proper foundation should be doable - the Thorney bypass has seemed flat every time I have driven along it - does Wisbech bypass have issues?ais523 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 11:28 This is something that would make a lot of sense in traffic terms – the stretch of A47 in question is the only really viable route between the Midlands and Norfolk, so a lot of traffic is funneled that way – but might end up being rather hard to build. Even maintaining a single carriageway A47 between the A141 and A1101 requires continuous effort (it doesn't take long after it's been repaired for it to subside again), the basic issue being that the land between Peterborough and Wisbech tends to be very flat with poor drainage.
Ground level is often below sea level. Building an expensive new road below sea level is planning for either huge expense or flooding.
Re: A47 Corridor improvement programme
Chris Bertram wrote: ↑Sun Mar 07, 2021 11:35 Whitby, as you well know, has a swing bridge, with swings being quite common. It used to carry A171 until the new bridge was opened in the early 80's.
Indeed as has the A17 at Sutton Bridge
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.76691 ... authuser=0
Most of the openings at Whitby these days are for the yachts in the Marina. As to modern bridges the design for the new Bascule bridge at Great Yarmouth is rather striking.
https://www.bridgeweb.com/Go-ahead-give ... ridge/7377
- roadtester
- Member
- Posts: 31537
- Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 18:05
- Location: Cambridgeshire
Re: A47 Corridor improvement programme
Given that the will to do a really top upgrade of the entire A47 route probably just isn't there, I suspect the most pragmatic solution for the Thorney/Wisbech section is simply to roll out a second carriageway alongside the existing one without all the Rolls Royce engineering. Just accept that it's going to be a bit of an undulating mess with all sorts of at-grade hazardry, but at least get the extra capacity and eliminate the scope for nasty head-ons.B1040 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 07, 2021 11:56Thorney and Wisbech are both ancient communities, built on islands in the ancient wet marshy Fens. I would guess that in both cases the bypasses are built on the more solid clay that gave us the islands. In between is ancient marshland with the horrible for building on peat that contains water and oxidises when dehydrated and exposed to air. I am not a road engineer, but would expect "proper foundations" to involve considerable excavation and soil replacement.Herned wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 13:09Isn't that because it only gets patched and fixed and the underlying issues not solved? A new road on a proper foundation should be doable - the Thorney bypass has seemed flat every time I have driven along it - does Wisbech bypass have issues?ais523 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 11:28 This is something that would make a lot of sense in traffic terms – the stretch of A47 in question is the only really viable route between the Midlands and Norfolk, so a lot of traffic is funneled that way – but might end up being rather hard to build. Even maintaining a single carriageway A47 between the A141 and A1101 requires continuous effort (it doesn't take long after it's been repaired for it to subside again), the basic issue being that the land between Peterborough and Wisbech tends to be very flat with poor drainage.
Ground level is often below sea level. Building an expensive new road below sea level is planning for either huge expense or flooding.
Electrophorus Electricus
Check out #davidsdailycar on Mastodon
Check out #davidsdailycar on Mastodon
-
- Member
- Posts: 988
- Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2002 19:54
Re: A47 Corridor improvement programme
Do HE engage in that type of upgrade anymore. The A21 Tonbridge to Pembury improvement down near me although on line in reality follows only a small part of the actual original carriageway with the majority offline and NMU and access roads along the whole route. Decisions elsewhere on the A47 in Norfolk indicate a HE preference to go offline even when it means bypassing previous improvements which were themselves offline. I’m sure safety is a consideration.
Re: A47 Corridor improvement programme
Not much point in going online when the existing carriageway will have to be reconstructed anyway for a modern 70mph DC. You're just making a headache for yourself with disruption and traffic management, and an extra 6 months to a year construction time. They only really go online where offline is environmentally unacceptable.
Re: A47 Corridor improvement programme
I agree not doing online for those reasons, and as the investment will need housebuilding to justify it and the existing one can be used to support that.
Going south still leaves the Nene to be crossed and having to get round Guyhirn whilst ramps plus a bridge as a larger version of the Ely southern bypass would suffice for yachts and small coasters if you went north. North also opens more of Wisbeach up for development, that being a necessary reality.
I agree the costs would be large and with A14, A1/428 then it does feel like this region has had a chunk already.
Big issue is it does nothing for N-S links in the area. I’m coming round more to a new road N of the A14 west of Cambridge, but very challenging/expensive to feed that through the terrain to Chatteris/Wisbeach.
Btw, I was in error earlier talking about A134, I was confused - its the A142 I was thinking of (I used to frequently also use the northern part of A134 having used the backroads past Mildenhall etc to avoid A10 ir even A142 routes) - in which case the northern A10 may need upgrading as (in the scenario being discussed), a HQDC of A17/17/15 would offer a major cut-off to A14-A1 traffic (indeed this might help avoid needing further upgrades to those).
Going south still leaves the Nene to be crossed and having to get round Guyhirn whilst ramps plus a bridge as a larger version of the Ely southern bypass would suffice for yachts and small coasters if you went north. North also opens more of Wisbeach up for development, that being a necessary reality.
I agree the costs would be large and with A14, A1/428 then it does feel like this region has had a chunk already.
Big issue is it does nothing for N-S links in the area. I’m coming round more to a new road N of the A14 west of Cambridge, but very challenging/expensive to feed that through the terrain to Chatteris/Wisbeach.
Btw, I was in error earlier talking about A134, I was confused - its the A142 I was thinking of (I used to frequently also use the northern part of A134 having used the backroads past Mildenhall etc to avoid A10 ir even A142 routes) - in which case the northern A10 may need upgrading as (in the scenario being discussed), a HQDC of A17/17/15 would offer a major cut-off to A14-A1 traffic (indeed this might help avoid needing further upgrades to those).
Re: A47 Corridor improvement programme
You certainly wouldn't get this sort of thing any morejackal wrote: ↑Sun Mar 07, 2021 20:34 Not much point in going online when the existing carriageway will have to be reconstructed anyway for a modern 70mph DC. You're just making a headache for yourself with disruption and traffic management, and an extra 6 months to a year construction time. They only really go online where offline is environmentally unacceptable.
On the other hand some the A11 Thetford to Mildenhall was dualled online, first the northeast bound carriageway was constructed alongside the existing road (to the right as you head towards London), then all traffic used the new (single) carriageway allowing the existing road to be completely reconstructed to create the new southwest bound carriageway. You did have to put up with a temporary 40mph limit during construction but it wasn't noticeably disruptive as you would have often struggled to get above that speed on the original road
Re: A47 Corridor improvement programme
Indeed, but the result was a modern grade-separated expressway type road. What doesn't happen now is on-line dualling to create a rural 70mph dual carriageway with flat junctions and crossovers. I think the last one of those to be built was the A46 between Newark and Lincoln, which was an appallingly poor and outdated design when it opened ~15 years ago.skiddaw05 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 07, 2021 22:03On the other hand some the A11 Thetford to Mildenhall was dualled online, first the northeast bound carriageway was constructed alongside the existing road (to the right as you head towards London), then all traffic used the new (single) carriageway allowing the existing road to be completely reconstructed to create the new southwest bound carriageway. You did have to put up with a temporary 40mph limit during construction but it wasn't noticeably disruptive as you would have often struggled to get above that speed on the original road
Chris
Roads.org.uk
Roads.org.uk
Re: A47 Corridor improvement programme
Yes it beggars belief that it was ever considered acceptable to allow a right turn across a dual carriagewayChris5156 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 22:34Indeed, but the result was a modern grade-separated expressway type road. What doesn't happen now is on-line dualling to create a rural 70mph dual carriageway with flat junctions and crossovers. I think the last one of those to be built was the A46 between Newark and Lincoln, which was an appallingly poor and outdated design when it opened ~15 years ago.skiddaw05 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 07, 2021 22:03On the other hand some the A11 Thetford to Mildenhall was dualled online, first the northeast bound carriageway was constructed alongside the existing road (to the right as you head towards London), then all traffic used the new (single) carriageway allowing the existing road to be completely reconstructed to create the new southwest bound carriageway. You did have to put up with a temporary 40mph limit during construction but it wasn't noticeably disruptive as you would have often struggled to get above that speed on the original road
Re: A47 Corridor improvement programme
There's a couple of online dualled sections with flat junctions of the A66 west from Scotch Corner which are even more recent than the A46 from Newark to Lincoln.Chris5156 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 22:34Indeed, but the result was a modern grade-separated expressway type road. What doesn't happen now is on-line dualling to create a rural 70mph dual carriageway with flat junctions and crossovers. I think the last one of those to be built was the A46 between Newark and Lincoln, which was an appallingly poor and outdated design when it opened ~15 years ago.skiddaw05 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 07, 2021 22:03On the other hand some the A11 Thetford to Mildenhall was dualled online, first the northeast bound carriageway was constructed alongside the existing road (to the right as you head towards London), then all traffic used the new (single) carriageway allowing the existing road to be completely reconstructed to create the new southwest bound carriageway. You did have to put up with a temporary 40mph limit during construction but it wasn't noticeably disruptive as you would have often struggled to get above that speed on the original road
Owen
Re: A47 Corridor improvement programme
Thickthorn has been accepted for examination by PINS.
Website: https://infrastructure.planninginspecto ... -Junction/
Plan: https://infrastructure.planninginspecto ... 0Plans.pdf
Website: https://infrastructure.planninginspecto ... -Junction/
Plan: https://infrastructure.planninginspecto ... 0Plans.pdf