The M6 Toll is an abomination

[exiled]

Introduce signing of E routes now and lots of people would start screaming "BUT B WORD".

Which indicate their level of ignorance given the fact that the E Road is a UNECE initiative that predates the EU by decades.

Frankly introducing it would be no big deal , a few supplementary signs such as E5 or E15 would actually make sense and on route confirmation signs all that would be needed is a green sticker

It was permitted between 1959 and 1994 but no one, even at the height of us being keen Europeans, saw any benefit. No one travelling to the UK is bothered about following the E13, they'll just follow M1. Even Google Maps doesn't bother to list the E routes that cross the UK.

People will generally only follow what is there to be followed. France tends to sign the E routes half heartedly, the main number is the A one. The only way of making them meaningful would be the Belgian way where the E number replaces the A number, to the point that I would not be surprised if no one knows the E411 as the A4. At least I suppose renumbering the various UK bits as the E5 would finally solve the M74/A74(M) naming dispute.

[Bryn666]

Which indicate their level of ignorance given the fact that the E Road is a UNECE initiative that predates the EU by decades.

Frankly introducing it would be no big deal , a few supplementary signs such as E5 or E15 would actually make sense and on route confirmation signs all that would be needed is a green sticker

It was permitted between 1959 and 1994 but no one, even at the height of us being keen Europeans, saw any benefit. No one travelling to the UK is bothered about following the E13, they'll just follow M1. Even Google Maps doesn't bother to list the E routes that cross the UK.

People will generally only follow what is there to be followed. France tends to sign the E routes half heartedly, the main number is the A one. The only way of making them meaningful would be the Belgian way where the E number replaces the A number, to the point that I would not be surprised if no one knows the E411 as the A4. At least I suppose renumbering the various UK bits as the E5 would finally solve the M74/A74(M) naming dispute.

I've never quite understood the Belgian insistence on replacing national numbers with E ones - E411 sounds a lot less important a route than A4 does - given 3 digit E routes don't tend to leave individual countries anyway it's even more pointless. Like does anyone really care that the E402 runs down the west side of France?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... orways.png this is old now, from 2014, but it does show the real reason for the E network - filling those gaps.

[exiled]

It was permitted between 1959 and 1994 but no one, even at the height of us being keen Europeans, saw any benefit. No one travelling to the UK is bothered about following the E13, they'll just follow M1. Even Google Maps doesn't bother to list the E routes that cross the UK.

People will generally only follow what is there to be followed. France tends to sign the E routes half heartedly, the main number is the A one. The only way of making them meaningful would be the Belgian way where the E number replaces the A number, to the point that I would not be surprised if no one knows the E411 as the A4. At least I suppose renumbering the various UK bits as the E5 would finally solve the M74/A74(M) naming dispute.

I've never quite understood the Belgian insistence on replacing national numbers with E ones - E411 sounds a lot less important a route than A4 does - given 3 digit E routes don't tend to leave individual countries anyway it's even more pointless. Like does anyone really care that the E402 runs down the west side of France?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... orways.png this is old now, from 2014, but it does show the real reason for the E network - filling those gaps.

Belgian roads are of course a lawlessness all to themselves. There isn't consistency across the three Benelux nations, Luxembourg barely uses them if at all, the Netherlands they are secondary.

[Owain]

People will generally only follow what is there to be followed. France tends to sign the E routes half heartedly, the main number is the A one. The only way of making them meaningful would be the Belgian way where the E number replaces the A number, to the point that I would not be surprised if no one knows the E411 as the A4. At least I suppose renumbering the various UK bits as the E5 would finally solve the M74/A74(M) naming dispute.

I've never quite understood the Belgian insistence on replacing national numbers with E ones - E411 sounds a lot less important a route than A4 does - given 3 digit E routes don't tend to leave individual countries anyway it's even more pointless. Like does anyone really care that the E402 runs down the west side of France?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... orways.png this is old now, from 2014, but it does show the real reason for the E network - filling those gaps.

Belgian roads are of course a lawlessness all to themselves. There isn't consistency across the three Benelux nations, Luxembourg barely uses them if at all, the Netherlands they are secondary.

When I set out deliberately to drive the Belgian A4 in its entirety, I did it because it was the A4, not the E411. I've also driven the Belgian A17 and A18 in their entireties, although I have no idea what their E-numbers might be.

[exiled]

I've never quite understood the Belgian insistence on replacing national numbers with E ones - E411 sounds a lot less important a route than A4 does - given 3 digit E routes don't tend to leave individual countries anyway it's even more pointless. Like does anyone really care that the E402 runs down the west side of France?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... orways.png this is old now, from 2014, but it does show the real reason for the E network - filling those gaps.

Belgian roads are of course a lawlessness all to themselves. There isn't consistency across the three Benelux nations, Luxembourg barely uses them if at all, the Netherlands they are secondary.

When I set out deliberately to drive the Belgian A4 in its entirety, I did it because it was the A4, not the E411. I've also driven the Belgian A17 and A18 in their entireties, although I have no idea what their E-numbers might be.

E403 and E40. It appears Belgium moved to use E numbers when it renumbered in the 1980s in the last few years as a unitary state. It also shows that E numbers are not that useful for navigation across Europe as the signage is inconsistent. Belgium and the Scandinavian countries are probably the only places where they are usable as they are the only places where the E number is used a national number.

[Vierwielen]

Also the view they're not actually helpful on an island. We had provision to sign them in the original Anderson Report and TSRGDs 1975 and 1981.

Likewise I'm not sure why Ireland has them signposted either other than perhaps to say "thanks for the cash". There's no navigational benefit whatsoever to having the E1 and E201 signed in Ireland.

On the contrary. Our road numbering is London-oriented. The E-routes are useful for those people, particulary visitors from the Continent, who are seeking to by-pass London.

Erm, the M25 does that? Likewise the A10 and A104 around Berlin and Paris respectively don't need to have or sign their E numbers because funnily enough people can follow the national ones...

If you were travelling from Copenhagen to Prague, part of your route would be Rostock-Berlin-Dresden. According to ViaMichelin, you could follow the E-55 through Germany or follow the A19-A24-A10-A13-A4-A17. Both will take you along the same route.

Similarly, one can travel from Dover to Barcelona by following the E-15. Within France, that route will take you on the A16-A26-A1-A3-A6b-A6-A46-A346-A46 (again)-A7-A9.

Does this explain my reasoning?

[Bryn666]

"If" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there though.

We don't number routes on hypothetical lorry journeys that surely comprise less than 1% of trips, they are allocated on national importance between major centres of population and ports.

The E network is designed as an administrator's exercise to determine funding for general corridor improvements. It is not and has never been designed to aid navigation as barely any of the countries the network spans sign it apart from on route confirmation signs which are generally after decision points.

Having routes like E13 remain entirely in the UK and on one road (M1) is exactly why we don't bother signing them. Who exactly is that helping?

And your argument falls completely flat on the secondary routes like E402 and E403 which never leave France or Belgium respectively. One is relegated to cartouches on RCS panels and the other replaces a national number but neither facilitate international travel since they never leave their respective countries.

[FosseWay]

In Scandinavia we have replaced local numbers with E-numbers on those roads that have them. But because of the nature of the E-road network and its layout in Scandinavia, this only affects roads with numbers that are suitable in a national context for major motorways (E4, E6, E18, E45 etc. - no obscure ones).

But to be honest I question the usefulness of these numbers in an international context. If I want to go to Copenhagen or Oslo, the obvious route is the motorway numbered E6 (almost) all the way (it doesn't actually go to Copenhagen). But if I wanted to go to Kirkenes or Nordkapp, at the far end of the E6, using the quickest rather than most scenic route, I wouldn't use the E6 up the Norwegian coast but instead the E20 then E4 then E10 (I think?) and so on.

Similarly with the E45, at roughly the mid-point of which I live. Whether I want to go to the northern end (Karesuando) or southern (Sicily, IIRC), which are incidentally more or less the same distance from here, I wouldn't naturally follow the E45 as the quickest or most obvious route. This rather begs the question of what the point is of signing such long routes, either in places where there isn't just one obvious route from A to B, or in a system whose bureaucracy doesn't allow dynamic changes of route as different sections are upgraded. Basically the E-route system has the same issues as the UK system, where routes seen as sensible at Time A aren't necessarily still sensible after several decades of changes. That fact isn't really avoidable, but equally there's no point (partially) replacing one imperfect system with another. If someone comes up with a better system, then there might be some point, but the E-routes aren't a better system, especially not on an island or in a large country with limited border crossings like Sweden. In the heart of Benelux where you get multiple local classifications colliding, the assessment may be different.

[Alderpoint]

Does the abominal M6 Toll have an E-number?
(trying to bring the discussion back on subject.)

[Ruperts Trooper]

Does the abominal M6 Toll have an E-number?
(trying to bring the discussion back on subject.)

E-5 (Greenock - Algeciras) appears to use the M6 Toll https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=E05

[jnty]

The E5 feels like perhaps the most useful GB mainland E-route going - it feels like it describes a very useful continuous 'backbone' route which incorporates a lot of road numbers (the A/M74/M6 thing doesn't help with this).

[Bryn666]

The E5 feels like perhaps the most useful GB mainland E-route going - it feels like it describes a very useful continuous 'backbone' route which incorporates a lot of road numbers (the A/M74/M6 thing doesn't help with this).

It is, but once again how many journeys actually follow it from end to end so is it worth replacing the more locally important numbers in favour of it?

The only way E routes would ever appear on UK signs is on RCS as we once allowed but never actually did. It definitely won't happen whilst the political climate is Hermit Island.

[jnty]

The E5 feels like perhaps the most useful GB mainland E-route going - it feels like it describes a very useful continuous 'backbone' route which incorporates a lot of road numbers (the A/M74/M6 thing doesn't help with this).

It is, but once again how many journeys actually follow it from end to end so is it worth replacing the more locally important numbers in favour of it?

The only way E routes would ever appear on UK signs is on RCS as we once allowed but never actually did. It definitely won't happen whilst the political climate is Hermit Island.

I drive it fairly regularly from Abington right to the bottom of the M3 so perhaps I am biased

However, I don't think the utility relies on end-to-end driving but more the situations where the route incorporates 2 or more numbered roads. The M6-M40-A34-M3 route is an important one for N-S journeys avoiding London to the west, but its importance is far from obvious when viewed in the context of the UK numbering system and the signage is often very non-obvious.

Light-touch signage beefed up around E-route TOTSOs wouldn't be the worst thing in the world for this reason but is probably unnecessary . You'd be as well inventing an entirely new alternative UK-wide route numbering system to overlay over the existing, which nobody is suggesting, so picking an arbitrary and ill-fitting one which happens to already exist doesn't seem to make sense either.

[orudge]

A hyper-simplified navigation system which produced lists of directions like "follow A702 south for 50 miles then A74(M) south (Carlisle)" would be quite nice for long distance travel and much preferable to a big list of well-signed roundabouts/forks where your onward route is obvious.

Google Maps (online at least) does do something quite like that, which you can the expand for full details if required:

[exiled]

In the heart of Benelux where you get multiple local classifications colliding, the assessment may be different.

It is not consistent in the Benelux. Belgium uses the E on motorways where there there is an E number. The A10 from Brussels is the E40, however where the E40 veers off to France the A10 turns up again to finish the journey to Oostende. The Netherlands uses them in roughly the same way as France, as an add on, with Luxembourg not using them.

As Bryn points out they are an accounting device that has been adopted hit and miss in the wild, and their use is not great given the in consistency in how they are used.

[jnty]

A hyper-simplified navigation system which produced lists of directions like "follow A702 south for 50 miles then A74(M) south (Carlisle)" would be quite nice for long distance travel and much preferable to a big list of well-signed roundabouts/forks where your onward route is obvious.

Google Maps (online at least) does do something quite like that, which you can the expand for full details if required:

directions.png

Ooh I hadn't noticed that - it is actually quite clever and literate for non-fiddly journeys.

[solocle]

A hyper-simplified navigation system which produced lists of directions like "follow A702 south for 50 miles then A74(M) south (Carlisle)" would be quite nice for long distance travel and much preferable to a big list of well-signed roundabouts/forks where your onward route is obvious.

Google Maps (online at least) does do something quite like that, which you can the expand for full details if required:

directions.png

Ooh I hadn't noticed that - it is actually quite clever and literate for non-fiddly journeys.

Very neat.

Sadly it wasn't so simple to cycle!

[jnty]

Google Maps (online at least) does do something quite like that, which you can the expand for full details if required:

directions.png

Ooh I hadn't noticed that - it is actually quite clever and literate for non-fiddly journeys.

Very neat.
Capture.JPG
Sadly it wasn't so simple to cycle!

Very neat indeed. Maybe UK road numbering isn't so bad after all!

[KeithW]

Having routes like E13 remain entirely in the UK and on one road (M1) is exactly why we don't bother signing them. Who exactly is that helping?

And your argument falls completely flat on the secondary routes like E402 and E403 which never leave France or Belgium respectively. One is relegated to cartouches on RCS panels and the other replaces a national number but neither facilitate international travel since they never leave their respective countries.

Well the E13 is London to Doncaster via the M1/M18 and A1(M) while the E30 follows the A12 from London to Ipswich, and then the A14 from Ipswich to the port of Felixstowe. Having this route signed would have made a lot of sense when we decided to change the A45 to A14.

There are some however which many years ago may have made sense but not now, for example the E32 is the A12 between Colchester and Harwich.

They have become irrelevant because we made no attempt to sign them or show them on UK Road Atlases or make any real effort to weed out the sillier routes such as the E23 which runs from Holyhead to Ishim in Russia via the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden and Latvia.

[djw1981]

sorry but the A73 quote.... The M73 is a replacement - check the map.

Check the Scottish National Archives where the official documents discussing such things are held.

It gained the M73 number as a "least worst" fit, and in early Scottish Office documentation where all other motorways are shown with their equivalent A roads, the M73 is labelled with an asterisk. However, its nearest parallel A-road is actually the A752.

Compare against the other Scottish motorways where you would have previously used the A8 for the Edinburgh - Greenock for which you'd now use the M8; the A9 for an Edinburgh - Dunblane journey, the A90 for Edinburgh - Perth, the A80 for Glasgow - Stirling, and the A74 to the south. Absolutely no-one would have ever have used the A73 to go from Uddingston to Mollinsburn.

The A73 and M73 perform completely different jobs. One is a Glasgow eastern bypass, the other joins a number of central belt towns together. Unless you're suggesting that the M73 somehow serves, say, Airdrie?

It can certainly be argued that both serve North to South trans-Lanarkshire traffic rather than M73 being a Glasgow bypass; I guess a question is whether pre M73 traffic from Highlands to Englands went down A80 into Glasgow then back out down A74, or whether it left 74 at Abington and went via A73 to Auchenkilns in which case M73 could be argued to be a functional replacement? I know many Lanarkshire people see M73 as a lanarkshire bypass when constructed, though now it certainly works with M74 as a bypass of Glasgow City centre.