M181

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.

Moderator: Site Management Team

Post Reply
User avatar
c2R
SABRE Wiki admin
Posts: 11512
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2002 11:01

Re: M181

Post by c2R »

I disagree - if you make the people building the new infrastructure put in proper off-road cycle and pedestrian facilities, it makes a great deal of sense to retain such prohibitions.

however, I think that downgrading will happen when the next roundabout is added to the south.
Is there a road improvement project going on near you? Help us to document it on the SABRE Wiki - help is available in the Digest forum.
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Get involved! - see our guide to scanning and stitching maps
XC70
Member
Posts: 633
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 23:22

Re: M181

Post by XC70 »

Going north the roundabout sign is so narrow that it won't be able to accommodate any destinations left or right.

So they have built a roundabout which they expect to go nowhere for long enough to not bother future proofing the sign........

Good old North Lincs Council.....
User avatar
A42_Sparks
Member
Posts: 958
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2003 23:20
Location: Ballymena, N Ireland

Re: M181

Post by A42_Sparks »

This is a surprise. Are there any other four-digit motorways? Not sure if the A1058(M) counts.
User avatar
c2R
SABRE Wiki admin
Posts: 11512
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2002 11:01

Re: M181

Post by c2R »

A42_Sparks wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 22:54 This is a surprise. Are there any other four-digit motorways? Not sure if the A1058(M) counts.
If only we had a community resource which categorised and listed such things! Category:Motorways
Is there a road improvement project going on near you? Help us to document it on the SABRE Wiki - help is available in the Digest forum.
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Get involved! - see our guide to scanning and stitching maps
User avatar
Chris5156
Deputy Treasurer
Posts: 17343
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: M181

Post by Chris5156 »

jervi wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 23:31At 0:35 there is still the old motorway ends in 1 mile, even though it ends in 200 yards.
This strongly suggests to me that it’s a temporary thing and the A1077(M) isn’t here to stay. The Clearway would run for a mile if the following length of road was all-purpose. I think the Clearway sign is permanent and the direction signs showing A1077(M) are temporary.

I’m not sure why North Lincolnshire Council think there’s any need to assign a temporary number to a road they’re going to downgrade. I’d put it down to inexperience with motorways - North Lincs don’t have any motorways, never have, so their staff (or contractors) are unlikely to have any experience with stuff like this.
User avatar
c2R
SABRE Wiki admin
Posts: 11512
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2002 11:01

Re: M181

Post by c2R »

Chris5156 wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 09:57
jervi wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 23:31At 0:35 there is still the old motorway ends in 1 mile, even though it ends in 200 yards.
This strongly suggests to me that it’s a temporary thing and the A1077(M) isn’t here to stay. The Clearway would run for a mile if the following length of road was all-purpose. I think the Clearway sign is permanent and the direction signs showing A1077(M) are temporary.

The clearway sign at the end of the M181 section is, however, still wrong in that case, as it indicates the Clearway to be one mile ahead, rather than For 1 mile.
Is there a road improvement project going on near you? Help us to document it on the SABRE Wiki - help is available in the Digest forum.
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Get involved! - see our guide to scanning and stitching maps
someone
Member
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2017 10:46
Location: London

Re: M181

Post by someone »

c2R wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 07:56 I disagree - if you make the people building the new infrastructure put in proper off-road cycle and pedestrian facilities, it makes a great deal of sense to retain such prohibitions.
Mixing up-to-125cc motorcycles with cyclists and pedestrians does not seem a well thought-out idea to me.

In December, Highways England published notice of its proposal to downgrade the M181 from the new Brumby Common Lane roundabout to the A18 roundabout. Detrunking of this section was to accompany the reclassification of the road, but no orders have yet been made for either of these.

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/3693578

Whilst the physical construction of the roundabout has been completed, it is not yet functioning as one, with traffic unable to circulate around it. So it would not make sense to change the status of this northern section of the road while it still leads unescapable onto a motorway which, after all, is the reason the M181 exists as a motorway,

With the signage now showing that the roundabout is not part of the motorway, presumably it was decided it would be better to not have two separate M181 motorways on either side of it. The temporary use of the A1077(M) number would also get road users used to the A1077 number in advance of it being reclassified.

Although as no orders have been made to change the road status, surely the new roundabout is still legally part of the motorway despite what the signs say?

For me the only issue to question is the erection of permanent signage using the new number, especially as blue signs cannot simply be patched but would need to be replaced with green ones once it becomes an all-purpose road.

Presumably that means the plan is now for the road to retain motorway status until the Lincolnshire Lakes area starts to see developments open to the public, changing the access requirements. And that may be seen as far enough in the future that temporary signs are considered inappropriate. Or maybe for some reason, the old signs needed to be replaced now and they could not wait.
User avatar
ForestChav
SABRE Developer
Posts: 11294
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2005 00:00
Location: Nottingham (Bronx of the Midlands)
Contact:

Re: M181

Post by ForestChav »

It does make you wonder what the whole point of it is.

By the looks of it, the unclassified road in the mix of all this, was originally on a bridge over the M181.

Wouldn't it have been cheaper, less disruptive, and overall a lot less silly, to make a simple crossroads with the M181 by linking 4 slip roads between the motorway and either side, doesn't even need to be a roundabout really, as opposed to making a new motorway and all the signage changes needed, disrupting both the main line of the M181 and the unclassified road to make a roundabout, and all the associated disruption? It'd probably also flow better considering prohibited traffic on the unclassified road can only carry straight ahead.
C, E flat and G go into a bar. The barman says "sorry, we don't serve minors". So E flat walks off, leaving C and G to share an open fifth between them.

Never argue with an idiot. They will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.
User avatar
c2R
SABRE Wiki admin
Posts: 11512
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2002 11:01

Re: M181

Post by c2R »

Well yes, converting the two bridges to dumbbell interchanges would have been cheaper, easier, and would have required far less disruption than the shambles that they've ended up creating.
Is there a road improvement project going on near you? Help us to document it on the SABRE Wiki - help is available in the Digest forum.
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Get involved! - see our guide to scanning and stitching maps
User avatar
orudge
Site Manager
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 12:23
Location: Banchory
Contact:

Re: M181

Post by orudge »

The only issue I can potentially imagine with the northern bridge at least is that it looks a tad narrow for full S2, though the southern bridge is nice and wide.
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 36757
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: M181

Post by Bryn666 »

c2R wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 13:06 Well yes, converting the two bridges to dumbbell interchanges would have been cheaper, easier, and would have required far less disruption than the shambles that they've ended up creating.
"But grade separation means more traffic!!!" apparently. The safety argument for properly designed GSJs is lost on developers and many councils.
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
BlueSky - https://bsky.app/profile/showmeasignbryn.bsky.social
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
User avatar
c2R
SABRE Wiki admin
Posts: 11512
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2002 11:01

Re: M181

Post by c2R »

Bryn666 wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 13:15
c2R wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 13:06 Well yes, converting the two bridges to dumbbell interchanges would have been cheaper, easier, and would have required far less disruption than the shambles that they've ended up creating.
"But grade separation means more traffic!!!" apparently. The safety argument for properly designed GSJs is lost on developers and many councils.
And not just the safety aspect, but the emissions of vehicles, particular HGVs from the industrial areas having to slow down for a roundabout and speed up again, causing pollution from heavy acceleration away from the roundabouts, brake dust from slowing down, and tyre particles from going round the roundabout itself. But what does all that matter when you can build some lovely low density residential and commercial areas with easy access to the motorway network...
Is there a road improvement project going on near you? Help us to document it on the SABRE Wiki - help is available in the Digest forum.
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Get involved! - see our guide to scanning and stitching maps
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 36757
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: M181

Post by Bryn666 »

c2R wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 13:34
Bryn666 wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 13:15
c2R wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 13:06 Well yes, converting the two bridges to dumbbell interchanges would have been cheaper, easier, and would have required far less disruption than the shambles that they've ended up creating.
"But grade separation means more traffic!!!" apparently. The safety argument for properly designed GSJs is lost on developers and many councils.
And not just the safety aspect, but the emissions of vehicles, particular HGVs from the industrial areas having to slow down for a roundabout and speed up again, causing pollution from heavy acceleration away from the roundabouts, brake dust from slowing down, and tyre particles from going round the roundabout itself. But what does all that matter when you can build some lovely low density residential and commercial areas with easy access to the motorway network...
Yes, lots of low density residential/commercial areas in that highly desirable area of the country known as Scunthorpe. Truly aspirational. It'll be shed boxes more than houses for sure.
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
BlueSky - https://bsky.app/profile/showmeasignbryn.bsky.social
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
User avatar
ForestChav
SABRE Developer
Posts: 11294
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2005 00:00
Location: Nottingham (Bronx of the Midlands)
Contact:

Re: M181

Post by ForestChav »

c2R wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 13:06 Well yes, converting the two bridges to dumbbell interchanges would have been cheaper, easier, and would have required far less disruption than the shambles that they've ended up creating.
I didn't even mean a dumbell, just put traffic lights up and sling 4 slips down, or if you're feeling tight something like the incredibly tight junction where the A1 crosses the A52. Just needs road running down the existing banks.
C, E flat and G go into a bar. The barman says "sorry, we don't serve minors". So E flat walks off, leaving C and G to share an open fifth between them.

Never argue with an idiot. They will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.
User avatar
c2R
SABRE Wiki admin
Posts: 11512
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2002 11:01

Re: M181

Post by c2R »

ForestChav wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 16:16
c2R wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 13:06 Well yes, converting the two bridges to dumbbell interchanges would have been cheaper, easier, and would have required far less disruption than the shambles that they've ended up creating.
I didn't even mean a dumbell, just put traffic lights up and sling 4 slips down, or if you're feeling tight something like the incredibly tight junction where the A1 crosses the A52. Just needs road running down the existing banks.
I think the sites for the new junctions are too close to the terminal junctions at each end, so you'd have to do like M1 J12 to create folded dumbbell arrangements to prevent weaving badness.
Is there a road improvement project going on near you? Help us to document it on the SABRE Wiki - help is available in the Digest forum.
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Get involved! - see our guide to scanning and stitching maps
User avatar
Chris5156
Deputy Treasurer
Posts: 17343
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: M181

Post by Chris5156 »

c2R wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 10:09
Chris5156 wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 09:57
jervi wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 23:31At 0:35 there is still the old motorway ends in 1 mile, even though it ends in 200 yards.
This strongly suggests to me that it’s a temporary thing and the A1077(M) isn’t here to stay. The Clearway would run for a mile if the following length of road was all-purpose. I think the Clearway sign is permanent and the direction signs showing A1077(M) are temporary.

The clearway sign at the end of the M181 section is, however, still wrong in that case, as it indicates the Clearway to be one mile ahead, rather than For 1 mile.
Yes, it's a mess. But it's one of several hints that the A1077(M) signs aren't permanent:
- The roundabout signs in both directions are very haphazardly mounted and have no space for destinations to be added on the east and west arms of the roundabout.
- The flag sign pointing down the southbound A1077(M) has no chopsticks symbol, which suggests it's a rush job, especially when the new sign pointing down the M181 at Brumby Common does have one.
- There's a new M181 start of restrictions sign at Brumby Common, but no start of restrictions sign northbound for the A1077(M), suggesting that motorway regulations will begin there one day.

I strongly suggest that what's on the ground right now is a jumble of signs intended to be permanent (or semi-permanent, until the next new roundabout is built and the M181 ceases to exist - presumably a year or two away) and other signs intended to be temporary, but expected to be in situ long enough to make it worthwhile to stick them on poles.
ais523
Member
Posts: 1140
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 19:52
Location: Birmingham

Re: M181

Post by ais523 »

ForestChav wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 13:02 It does make you wonder what the whole point of it is.

By the looks of it, the unclassified road in the mix of all this, was originally on a bridge over the M181.

Wouldn't it have been cheaper, less disruptive, and overall a lot less silly, to make a simple crossroads with the M181 by linking 4 slip roads between the motorway and either side, doesn't even need to be a roundabout really, as opposed to making a new motorway and all the signage changes needed, disrupting both the main line of the M181 and the unclassified road to make a roundabout, and all the associated disruption? It'd probably also flow better considering prohibited traffic on the unclassified road can only carry straight ahead.
Both the road, and the bridge, are S1 (or at least, were before the works started).

I guess it's possible to put an S1 through the middle of a diamond interchange, but I really wouldn't recommend it. I assume there would be a need to construct a new, wider bridge if you were creating any sort of GSJ at the location, and it was decided to be cheaper to use a flat roundabout instead.
delinquentwoody
Member
Posts: 59
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 07:32

Re: M181

Post by delinquentwoody »

There's more new signs for the A1077(M) appearing daily, this one on the western approach to Frodingham Grange roundabout has appeared this morning, placed on new poles.
20210512_071830.jpg
For comparison here's the previous sign from GSV. I wonder why the replacement has the destinations missed off.
Screenshot_20210512-122613_Street View.jpg
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 36757
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: M181

Post by Bryn666 »

Baffling.
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
BlueSky - https://bsky.app/profile/showmeasignbryn.bsky.social
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
User avatar
RichardA35
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 5990
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 18:58
Location: Dorset

Re: M181

Post by RichardA35 »

Bryn666 wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 13:10Baffling.
Follow the thread of the detrunking and the 1975 Special Road modifcations orders, noting when they can be implemented and it all makes reasonable procedural sense if not a tidy solution in terms of numbers on the ground. A few hundred pounds in signfaces or patching is very little in the overall scheme of things.
Post Reply