Ilminster Bypass Construction Photos (1980's)

[D.J]

http://www.seavingtonwebmuseum.org.uk/g ... ictures/59

Thought you folks might find this interesting.

[RichardA35]

http://www.seavingtonwebmuseum.org.uk/g ... ictures/59

Thought you folks might find this interesting.

Plenty of people who worked on that scheme still working today. I was talking to one of them yesterday.

[Richardf]

Interesting photos. Thanks for finding them.

[A320Driver]

http://www.seavingtonwebmuseum.org.uk/g ... ictures/59

Thought you folks might find this interesting.

Plenty of people who worked on that scheme still working today. I was talking to one of them yesterday.

Can you please give them a kick in the nads for designing it as S2+1 please?

[RichardA35]

http://www.seavingtonwebmuseum.org.uk/g ... ictures/59

Thought you folks might find this interesting.

Plenty of people who worked on that scheme still working today. I was talking to one of them yesterday.

Can you please give them a kick in the nads for designing it as S2+1 please?

It was designed and built as WS2......

[Richardf]

Don't blame the builders, or even maybe the designers. Its the coin counters and beaurocrats that insisted on the road being WS2 not D2 that are to blame. Compounded by the fact no attempt to dual it has been made since.

[A320Driver]

Plenty of people who worked on that scheme still working today. I was talking to one of them yesterday.

Can you please give them a kick in the nads for designing it as S2+1 please?

It was designed and built as WS2......

And that makes it better? Fair point, yes it was WS2 and yes my post was TIC, but the fact remains that it was an extremely poor decision to not even future-proof for D2.

I believe that the SW MMS recommended the dualling of the A303 SC sections between Amesbury and Honiton in the early/mid 2000s before the whole lot got canned in 2007/8.

[RichardA35]

Can you please give them a kick in the nads for designing it as S2+1 please?

It was designed and built as WS2......

And that makes it better? Fair point, yes it was WS2 and yes my post was TIC, but the fact remains that it was an extremely poor decision to not even future-proof for D2.

I believe that the SW MMS recommended the dualling of the A303 SC sections between Amesbury and Honiton in the early/mid 2000s before the whole lot got canned in 2007/8.

The even earlier South Wessex DBFO announced in1996 included A303 Ilminster Bypass Improvements as a scheme but fell when Salisbury Bypass was canned....

[Richardf]

Can anyone remind us why it was built this way? Was it just cost? Were there any plans for a D2 instead abd how close dI'd any of them get to being built? Was the current route the only one considered?

[Herned]

I can remember someone on local TV news, presumably a junior minister or even the transport minister, explaining that ALL new rural roads and bypasses would be built as WS2. This may have been after the first fatal accident or something. Not sure whether that was totally true at the time, but wasn't most WS2 built mid-80s-early 90s?

[Richardf]

I can remember someone on local TV news, presumably a junior minister or even the transport minister, explaining that ALL new rural roads and bypasses would be built as WS2. This may have been after the first fatal accident or something. Not sure whether that was totally true at the time, but wasn't most WS2 built mid-80s-early 90s?

The Dorchester bypass in Dorset was built around the same time as Ilminster but was plain S2. Wish it had been WS2 (if it couldn't be D2) then at least it could have become S2+1 later which I am sure would help at busy times (which is most of the time these days .

Yes we did go through a phase where new bypasses, that might have been D2 at another time, were built as S2 or WS2. Whether this was political, financial or just an easy way to keep people who wanted a bypass happy without the cost of a D2

[Truvelo]

WS2 is designed to allow opportunistic overtaking which it does well when there's moderate traffic levels. A5 Oswestry, A46 Alcester and A507 work well which would otherwise be long processions of slow traffic if they were normal S2. The problem starts when the traffic levels overwhelm the overtaking potential. Having multiple vehicles in both directions at the same time using the centre for overtaking doesn't work. When Ilminster was restriped as S2+1 it was a mixed blessing. While it reduces the likelyhood of head-ons it also means everyone apart from the lead vehicle moves into lane 2 at the start of the overtaking sections and depending on the length of the convoy those at the back won't make it past in time before the crawler lane ends.

[JonB2028]

Can anyone remind us why it was built this way? Was it just cost? Were there any plans for a D2 instead abd how close dI'd any of them get to being built? Was the current route the only one considered?

The story I heard from someone who had worked for the consultant (MRM Partnership), was that it had been envisaged as a dual carriageway but there was local opposition, a "Campaign for a smaller bypass" or something, so they went back and looked at it and came up with WS2 - which based on the design traffic volumes at the time, no doubt worked and saved a few bob (though not as much as you might think, I expect). The horizontal alignment of much of the route, some of the large radius sweeping bends, rather suggest to me an alignment for a dual carriageway. If you were designing for a single carriageway the recommended practise in TD9 is straights interspersed with relatively tight bends to give clear overtaking and non-overtaking section - look at the A358 Ashill bypass for a better expample of single carriageway horizontal alignment design. (Pity it's too busy to allow any overtaking!)

[JonB2028]

The other thing is that, were it ever to be widened I suspect the overbridges are post-tensioned with grouted tendons, that was the fashion at the time. (Well the one we had on Sparkford a year or two later was). An absolute pig to demolish I'd hazard, with all that energy in the tendons I'd guess?

[Herned]

Having multiple vehicles in both directions at the same time using the centre for overtaking doesn't work...

I'm not sure about elsewhere but Ilminster was the WS2 I was most familiar with... it was pretty standard for it to be treated as an S4 which could be a little hairy at times and best not have both directions overtaking HGVs at the same point. Unfortunately the reliance on people paying attention and knowing what others might do didn't work out, tragically a number of times and it was repainted to 2+1. Now the problem as stated by Truvelo is convoys in the 1 side followed by crazy overtaking when the two lanes start back

[D.J]

I remember the WS2 layout of this route well, but i can't seem to find any pics of it in that state, if anyone knows of any then it would be neat to see some.

[Berk]

How difficult would it be to adapt the bridges to permit D2 widening?? Would narrow lanes across the bridges work??

Or is that seen as unacceptable these days (cf A74)??

This being said, when the A358 contract progresses to construction, wouldn’t it be feasible to expand that to allow for widening the Ilminster section??

[Truvelo]

I remember the WS2 layout of this route well, but i can't seem to find any pics of it in that state, if anyone knows of any then it would be neat to see some.

I took a bunch of photos in 2002. I took some further photos in 2004 by which time it had changed to S2+1. I didn't realise it was so long ago now.

Anyway, here's a couple showing some overtaking.

[SteveA30]

Illustrates perfectly why there were so many head-on collisions. There still are but less often since the S2/1. Evesham and Oswestry must be much the same still.

[Richardf]

The Horton and Broadway section of the Ilminster bypass is still in its original configuration.

West of the A358.

Says it all really.