Possibly the offending gantries were installed before the rule was implemented.
The gantries (including signs) between M25 J11 and J12 were installed in 1989 when the section was widened to D4M, and they would have featured advisory matrix signs with arrows beneath them when installed. However, the MIDAS system was implemented in 1995 along with variable speed limits. Unfortunately the new electronic VSL signs were too big to fit in the old gantries without doing away with the arrows, so that is exactly what they did. To this day the gantry signs feature no arrows on them.
I think the guidance changed sometime in the early 2000s. The final section of the M60 seems to be the last motorway with the old gantry arrangement.
Skye wrote: ↑Sat Oct 27, 2018 15:35
I think the guidance changed sometime in the early 2000s. The final section of the M60 seems to be the last motorway with the old gantry arrangement.
But lots of gantries are like that. A few on the M1, the M4, M5, M6, M60, you name it, a busy stretch has an offending gantry and the arrows below the advisory matrixes will probably only move above them when the motorway is smartified or the gantries replaced (as they were with MS4s on the urban section of M1 south of the M25). Personally, I prefer below where there are advisory ones and above where there are VSL signals.
Though roads may not put a smile on everyone's face, there is one road that always will: the road to home.
Conekicker wrote:
Allowing that I haven't seen the sign in question, note also that TSRGD does not show what gantry signs should look like these days, so legally speaking the sign probably isn't unlawful, unless there's some other aspect of the design that makes it non-prescribed.
The TSRGD should make it clear where lane arrows should go. Below lane control signals or above them?
As I said, they aren't lane arrows. The signs are offset stack-type signs (as per diagram 2908) with the straight-ahead arrow and the inclined arrow both missing.
The TSRGD may not show gantry signing but Interim Advice Note 144/16 does. Any designer worth their salt would at least consult these first.
"Accuse the other side of that which you are guilty."
- some extreme-right nutcase
Conekicker wrote:
Allowing that I haven't seen the sign in question, note also that TSRGD does not show what gantry signs should look like these days, so legally speaking the sign probably isn't unlawful, unless there's some other aspect of the design that makes it non-prescribed.
The TSRGD should make it clear where lane arrows should go. Below lane control signals or above them?
As I said, they aren't lane arrows. The signs are offset stack-type signs (as per diagram 2908) with the straight-ahead arrow and the inclined arrow both missing.
OK that makes no sense at all then.... They need to fix that but I sincerely hope they don't bodge it with patches. Otherwise the arrow will probably point in any random direction...
Though roads may not put a smile on everyone's face, there is one road that always will: the road to home.
They've probably just mixed up which gantries are used with where the lane arrows need to be. The funniest thing will be seeing lane arrows below VSL signals, like on the M4 in Wales
You know, for all my time spent on the M4 near The Coldra I had never noticed the contraflow AMIs on the eastbound side of that gantry. That's some expensive and mostly completely useless provision for a crossover. I've never even seen a contraflow used on the Newport Bypass as widening works have never and will never be seen there. If there was a total closure the diversion would be via the A48 SDR through Newport. Anyone know what the point of those AMIs is?
Spin the view round 180 degrees and you’ll see they’re at the mouth of the Brynglas Tunnels, which frequently run in contraflow for routine maintenance. Being able to show a speed limit and a red X over the lane of oncoming traffic, and normalise those roadworks as part of the operation of the motorway, will have significant benefits. I bet they get a fair bit of use.
In practice they just conduct a full closure and divert traffic through Newport. That’s what has happened every single time I’ve tried to use it in the last two years!
Conekicker wrote:
Allowing that I haven't seen the sign in question, note also that TSRGD does not show what gantry signs should look like these days, so legally speaking the sign probably isn't unlawful, unless there's some other aspect of the design that makes it non-prescribed.
The TSRGD should make it clear where lane arrows should go. Below lane control signals or above them?
The preference these days is for the arrow to be included within the sign face, much like the old Diagram 2021.1. See IAN 144.
Also there's absolutely no warning that this exit has a low bridge (you'd hope the rail replacements would be briefed on it but it seems nobody reminds them not to hit the canopy at Temple Meads).
Noticed this today. I take back my prior compliments for Cardiff Council as this abomination is only five minutes or so's drive away from the 'tiny A423' signs at the Vale border.
...And, God forbid, the bridge might even be 1128 yards away.
Noticed this today. I take back my prior compliments for Cardiff Council as this abomination is only five minutes or so's drive away from the 'tiny A423' signs at the Vale border.
...And, God forbid, the bridge might even be 1128 yards away.
Noticed this today. I take back my prior compliments for Cardiff Council as this abomination is only five minutes or so's drive away from the 'tiny A423' signs at the Vale border.
...And, God forbid, the bridge might even be 1128 yards away.
Noticed this today. I take back my prior compliments for Cardiff Council as this abomination is only five minutes or so's drive away from the 'tiny A423' signs at the Vale border.
...And, God forbid, the bridge might even be 1128 yards away.
Noticed this today. I take back my prior compliments for Cardiff Council as this abomination is only five minutes or so's drive away from the 'tiny A423' signs at the Vale border.
...And, God forbid, the bridge might even be 1128 yards away.