A57/A628 Mottram Tintwistle bypass

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
Phil
Member
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2002 18:03
Location: Burgess Hill,W Sussex, UK

Re: A57/A628 Mottram Tintwistle bypass

Post by Phil »

Bryn666 wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 17:28

It's fascinating because if a third party wants to do anything on a trunk road they suddenly become meticulous in their application of standards.

Unaccountable dinosaur organisation. The sooner it's abolished the better.
With what? A trunk road network managed by G4S or Mitie perhaps.....

Most of the flaws are entirely due to the removal of engineering talent within the organisation in favour of outsourcing it. Somehow I don't see a free market loving, outsourcing / privatising Conservative Government doing much to fix that inherent flaw....
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35754
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: A57/A628 Mottram Tintwistle bypass

Post by Bryn666 »

Correct.

Well we'll just have to wait for their incompetence to result in a mass fatality event then won't we. Smart motorways probably should be a wake up call for them there.
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
Phil
Member
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2002 18:03
Location: Burgess Hill,W Sussex, UK

Re: A57/A628 Mottram Tintwistle bypass

Post by Phil »

Bryn666 wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 17:43 Correct.

Well we'll just have to wait for their incompetence to result in a mass fatality event then won't we. Smart motorways probably should be a wake up call for them there.
Yeah right.....

How many people are still living in deathtraps 4 years after Grenfell because Leaseholders / developers are prioritising shareholders over tenants. How many times have G4S screwed up yet they still get given lucrative Government contracts on a regular basis....

You could have a mass fatality on a Smart Motorway and I bet nothing would fundamentally change.

Thats the beauty of outscoring / contracting out - there is always some other organisation to chuck the blame onto.
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7547
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: A57/A628 Mottram Tintwistle bypass

Post by jackal »

Hdeng16 wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 08:14 It’s one of the more acceptable hamburger junctions for sure. We were never going to get a GSJ and with that in mind the cut through is welcome given the size of the roundabout
Also it doesn't involve a bridge so is relatively cost-effective.

I am, however, concerned that the westbound approach is only two lanes, which is surely insufficient.
Hdeng16
Member
Posts: 539
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2016 20:47

Re: A57/A628 Mottram Tintwistle bypass

Post by Hdeng16 »

jackal wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 18:30
Hdeng16 wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 08:14 It’s one of the more acceptable hamburger junctions for sure. We were never going to get a GSJ and with that in mind the cut through is welcome given the size of the roundabout
Also it doesn't involve a bridge so is relatively cost-effective.

I am, however, concerned that the westbound approach is only two lanes, which is surely insufficient.
That's just odd - While it's a much smaller flow, plenty turn for Stockport. Not sure why Hyde Road to the east needs to keep it's overly-flowing turn off the roundabout either so there is plenty of room for a 3rd (inside) lane for circulating traffic. Keep the 2 lanes separate for the major flow across the cut through.
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35754
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: A57/A628 Mottram Tintwistle bypass

Post by Bryn666 »

Hdeng16 wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 10:47
jackal wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 18:30
Hdeng16 wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 08:14 It’s one of the more acceptable hamburger junctions for sure. We were never going to get a GSJ and with that in mind the cut through is welcome given the size of the roundabout
Also it doesn't involve a bridge so is relatively cost-effective.

I am, however, concerned that the westbound approach is only two lanes, which is surely insufficient.
That's just odd - While it's a much smaller flow, plenty turn for Stockport. Not sure why Hyde Road to the east needs to keep it's overly-flowing turn off the roundabout either so there is plenty of room for a 3rd (inside) lane for circulating traffic. Keep the 2 lanes separate for the major flow across the cut through.
Agreed, if the old A57 is supposed to be traffic calmed then the best option is to actually remove the motorised traffic connection from the roundabout entirely. Otherwise a not insignificant volume will still use the old road as they'll come up from Broadbottom Road and turn left through old habits dying hard rather than loop around the new bypass.

Interestingly at least the old abandoned T-junction is still planned to remain.
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
User avatar
jgharston
Member
Posts: 2437
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2010 18:06
Location: Sheffield/Whitby

Re: A57/A628 Mottram Tintwistle bypass

Post by jgharston »

Is the intention to eventually continue eastwards? The plans show the new road slamming to a halt side on to Woolley Bridge Road. The junction is laid out such that if you're travelling from the south the natural progression of travel is to continue straight across the junction onto the old/current A57. Surely if the "through" route from the south is to go west onto the new road, the road layout should be such to naturally direct you that way, as in my recommendation for the Middlewood Bypass in Sheffield: link, link
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7547
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: A57/A628 Mottram Tintwistle bypass

Post by jackal »

jgharston wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 15:13 Is the intention to eventually continue eastwards? The plans show the new road slamming to a halt side on to Woolley Bridge Road. The junction is laid out such that if you're travelling from the south the natural progression of travel is to continue straight across the junction onto the old/current A57. Surely if the "through" route from the south is to go west onto the new road, the road layout should be such to naturally direct you that way, as in my recommendation for the Middlewood Bypass in Sheffield: link, link
The A57 Woolley Lane is busier than the A628. So it is set up for the main flow (A57-A57) to carry straight on. The trunk designation along the A628 is misleading in this respect.

There are no specific plans to extend the bypass. But the current plan is basically the western third of the 00s plan for a full Mottram-Tintwistle bypass, plus the A57 link road (in orange):

Current plan:

Image

00s plan:

Image
Peter Freeman
Member
Posts: 1389
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 07:52
Location: Exits 9 & 10, M1 East, Melbourne, Australia

Re: A57/A628 Mottram Tintwistle bypass

Post by Peter Freeman »

Jackal, I think jgharston meant "get rid of the totso layout on sheet 6" ... ?
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7547
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: A57/A628 Mottram Tintwistle bypass

Post by jackal »

Ah yes, I misunderstood. Thanks for the clarification, and also to jgharston for a good point.
Peter Freeman
Member
Posts: 1389
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 07:52
Location: Exits 9 & 10, M1 East, Melbourne, Australia

Re: A57/A628 Mottram Tintwistle bypass

Post by Peter Freeman »

Yes, the westbound approach to the roundabout should be 3 lanes, and perhaps also the cut-through, though it comes from only a 2-lane cross-roads further back. The old Hyde Road may as well stay connected Bryn: only a few locals will go along there, which is reasonable. As suggested up-thread, the eastern end of the project should be re-shaped to eliminate the totso - not difficult I'd think.

The reason for the minor shortcomings is that it's a budget project, intended to buy time - which is mainly why I like it. Apart from adding the cut-through, and splicing in the new road, the current roundabout is hardly touched. I'm well disposed to such cost-effective incremental improvements, as long as they're not torn up three years later and don't close off future options.
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7547
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: A57/A628 Mottram Tintwistle bypass

Post by jackal »

The examination closed last month, and the ExA has until 16 Aug to submit their report to the SoS to determine.

A contract of £180.6 million, including 'all costs to deliver the Scheme from Options stages through to the opening for traffic', is already in place. Balfour Beatty Atkins is the contractor. If all goes to plan construction will start Spring 2023.
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7547
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: A57/A628 Mottram Tintwistle bypass

Post by jackal »

The examining authority issued their recommendation report today as scheduled. The SoS has three months to make a decision (or to extend the deadline).
User avatar
A303Chris
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 3587
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 14:01
Location: Reading

Re: A57/A628 Mottram Tintwistle bypass

Post by A303Chris »

This was also given Development Consent yesterday by the SoS.

Consented plans here

Still think this is a sticking plaster scheme.
The M25 - The road to nowhere
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35754
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: A57/A628 Mottram Tintwistle bypass

Post by Bryn666 »

It's still a not very subtle admission they are simply going to enable more car commuting from Glossop because it doesn't actually relieve the A628 at all, it's an A57 bypass that screams "get on the M67 and sit in traffic at Denton because you'll think it's quicker than catching the train from Padfield".

Still scoring own goals in NH's special ability, they get awfully upset when this gets pointed out.
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
User avatar
Chris5156
Deputy Treasurer
Posts: 16908
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: A57/A628 Mottram Tintwistle bypass

Post by Chris5156 »

A303Chris wrote: Thu Nov 17, 2022 09:28 This was also given Development Consent yesterday by the SoS.

Consented plans here

Still think this is a sticking plaster scheme.
It certainly is. Considering it was originally the Mottram and Tintwistle Bypass, as preserved in the title of this thread, it now only bypasses Mottram and does nothing for Hollingworth or Tintwistle. The best you can say is that it bypasses the length of road shared by both A57 and A628 traffic. But it's a very poor show for decades of development work, and doesn't even have the usual excuse that it has to tiptoe around local residents or environmental concerns. People here have been screaming for a bypass for longer than anyone can care to remember and the official response is now to build a bypass that won't help most of them.
User avatar
Norfolktolancashire
Member
Posts: 1185
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 22:34
Location: Cornwall

Re: A57/A628 Mottram Tintwistle bypass

Post by Norfolktolancashire »

Bryn666 wrote: Thu Nov 17, 2022 11:49 It's still a not very subtle admission they are simply going to enable more car commuting from Glossop because it doesn't actually relieve the A628 at all, it's an A57 bypass that screams "get on the M67 and sit in traffic at Denton because you'll think it's quicker than catching the train from Padfield".

Still scoring own goals in NH's special ability, they get awfully upset when this gets pointed out.
I have a suspicion that there will never be a bypass for Hollingworth and Tintwistle as it would encourage even more HGV traffic over the Woodhead Pass and its obvious unsuitability for that.

In a similar vein the A56 Colne bypass and subsequent bypasses up towards Skipton in North Yorkshire will never be built.

As for public transport it is being ripped to pieces at the moment due to reduced passenger numbers during the Covid period.
User avatar
wrinkly
Member
Posts: 8986
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:17
Location: Leeds

Re: A57/A628 Mottram Tintwistle bypass

Post by wrinkly »

Norfolktolancashire wrote: Sat Nov 19, 2022 21:48
I have a suspicion that there will never be a bypass for Hollingworth and Tintwistle as it would encourage even more HGV traffic over the Woodhead Pass and its obvious unsuitability for that.

In a similar vein the A56 Colne bypass and subsequent bypasses up towards Skipton in North Yorkshire will never be built.
However the A57-A628-A616 remains a trunk road (without which the Mottram scheme wouldn't be happening) while the A56-A59 isn't.
User avatar
the cheesecake man
Member
Posts: 2462
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 13:21
Location: Sheffield

Re: A57/A628 Mottram Tintwistle bypass

Post by the cheesecake man »

A303Chris wrote: Thu Nov 17, 2022 09:28 Still think this is a sticking plaster scheme.
:rant: It's pants. It's better than nothing, but is it even enough better than nothing to be worth it? Wouldn't doing it properly be better value? If I've read the plans correctly (which isn't guaranteed given how slowly they load):
Woodhead Pass - M67 or Hyde will bypass Mottram but still go through Tintwistle and Hollingworth
Woodhead Pass - Stalybridge will still have to go through all 3
Glossop - M67 or Hyde will bypass both Hollingworth and Mottram
Glossop - Stalybridge will bypass Hollingworth but not Mottram
So overall that's achieving just 4 bypassings out of the 10 we should have been aiming for.
Hdeng16
Member
Posts: 539
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2016 20:47

Re: A57/A628 Mottram Tintwistle bypass

Post by Hdeng16 »

I'm going to attempt to defend it. But I'll start by saying it is pretty crap.

I've driven this route throughout my driving life - since 2001ish. I'm sure others even longer, but the queues are always the same - sometimes it seems they never go. The major problem and major bottleneck is, in my experience, the crossroad lights at Mottram. I've tried the obvious alternative - going west, turning right at the filter lights and then left to approach the lights from the north. Nothing works, it's just gridlock.

This scheme does, at least, remove that set of lights. It does, granted, produce another set of lights, but with more space, filter lanes. Although I was under the impression woodhead was the dominant flow, apparently it's not, and regardless by making the Glossop traffic more free flowing it could mean Woodhead traffic flows better too.

Finally, as others have mentioned this is the western half of the original bypass. There's nothing stopping a future extension east and although I accept it's unlikely, it's not impossible. Given the 20 years that have gone by I'm grateful for anything now, even if it is a bit meh.
Post Reply