Should RCS have higher milages on them?

[Bryn666]

I think it's the same with Boroughbridge which historically got very good coverage on road confirmation signs on the old A1 but not so on the A1M although Wetherby retained its excellent RCS coverage.

That's probably true outside of the north east and Yorkshire but Scotch Corner only has coverage on the A1(M) between the M62 and Newcastle and on the A66 heading east.

Scotch Corner shouldn't be signed at all IMO. Again, you don't see 'Dishforth' or 'Aberford' signed on the A1(M), they're not even PDs, there's ZERO need to give SC special treatment. Most maps don't even mark it anymore. '(A66)' on the gantries until you get really near does the job. Signing it as the only control destination on RCS signage going south like the do around the Darlo bypass is utterly twerpish IMO. Get Harrogate, Leeds and Donny on the signs instead.

For an analogy, if I was driving west on the M62 at say Huddersfield, heading for Manchester, and I got an RCS that said:

M62
Simister Island 18

I'd be fuming.

When I lived in Gateshead and wanted the A66 (for the Lakes and the M6 South), I'd avoid SC and the A1(M) in general like a man on a mission, and you'd instead find me going A167-A688-A67-A66.

Counterpoint - we could benefit from using the European "interchange" symbol and route numbers with a distance, so for you example you'd instead have "[X] M62/M60/M66 18". We sort of do this already where RCS will list a route number (typically only another motorway though) but making it more obvious would be nice.

Scotch Corner has only survived due to its historical significance... as a coaching stop and turnpike junction. The fact in 2023 we still rely on this for navigation when we have supposed policy experts claiming London doesn't need to be signed just shows how little competence is applied to wayfinding in the UK.

[Osthagen]

Counterpoint - we could benefit from using the European "interchange" symbol and route numbers with a distance, so for you example you'd instead have "[X] M62/M60/M66 18". We sort of do this already where RCS will list a route number (typically only another motorway though) but making it more obvious would be nice.

Scotch Corner has only survived due to its historical significance... as a coaching stop and turnpike junction. The fact in 2023 we still rely on this for navigation when we have supposed policy experts claiming London doesn't need to be signed just shows how little competence is applied to wayfinding in the UK.

I agree with your general drift. What I'd do is have separate RCS-style signs listing major junctions only - locate them alongside the ones for primary destinations at locations where a significant amount of long-distance traffic is joining the road - with a symbol based on the type of junction, one for an interchange (X to represent) one for a fork (Y).

At J35 on the M6 South, you could have something like this:

M6 South
[Y] J32 - M55 - 29m
[Y] J30 - M61 - 36m
[Y] J26 - M58 - 51m
[X] J20A - M56 - 65m

[Rillington]

I think it's the same with Boroughbridge which historically got very good coverage on road confirmation signs on the old A1 but not so on the A1M although Wetherby retained its excellent RCS coverage.

That's probably true outside of the north east and Yorkshire but Scotch Corner only has coverage on the A1(M) between the M62 and Newcastle and on the A66 heading east.

Scotch Corner shouldn't be signed at all IMO. Again, you don't see 'Dishforth' or 'Aberford' signed on the A1(M), they're not even PDs, there's ZERO need to give SC special treatment. Most maps don't even mark it anymore. '(A66)' on the gantries until you get really near does the job. Signing it as the only control destination on RCS signage going south like the do around the Darlo bypass is utterly twerpish IMO. Get Harrogate, Leeds and Donny on the signs instead.

For an analogy, if I was driving west on the M62 at say Huddersfield, heading for Manchester, and I got an RCS that said:

M62
Simister Island 18

I'd be fuming.

When I lived in Gateshead and wanted the A66 (for the Lakes and the M6 South), I'd avoid SC and the A1(M) in general like a man on a mission, and you'd instead find me going A167-A688-A67-A66.

Counterpoint - we could benefit from using the European "interchange" symbol and route numbers with a distance, so for you example you'd instead have "[X] M62/M60/M66 18". We sort of do this already where RCS will list a route number (typically only another motorway though) but making it more obvious would be nice.

Scotch Corner has only survived due to its historical significance... as a coaching stop and turnpike junction. The fact in 2023 we still rely on this for navigation when we have supposed policy experts claiming London doesn't need to be signed just shows how little competence is applied to wayfinding in the UK.

I also think there's a recognition that most people have heard of Scotch Corner and it also serves as a good location for the Teesside area as it is on the actual road whereas Middlesbrough isn't.

[Rillington]

Personally I would like London, or maybe other terminal destinations, on RCS from much further. People would then just need a simple mental subtraction such a Letchworth is 35 miles before London therefore I'm X-35 miles from home.

How far do you think London should be included? It is included on the M5 heading northbound but isn't on the A1 or M1 heading southbound until the north Midlands. I think it should be included on all M1 junctions although it's maybe less clear cut for the A1/A1(M).

[JohnnyMo]

Personally I would like London, or maybe other terminal destinations, on RCS from much further. People would then just need a simple mental subtraction such a Letchworth is 35 miles before London therefore I'm X-35 miles from home.

How far do you think London should be included? It is included on the M5 heading northbound but isn't on the A1 or M1 heading southbound until the north Midlands. I think it should be included on all M1 junctions although it's maybe less clear cut for the A1/A1(M).

Ideally Edinburgh and Glasgow, I would accept Newcastle & Carlisle.

[Osthagen]

I also think there's a recognition that most people have heard of Scotch Corner and it also serves as a good location for the Teesside area as it is on the actual road whereas Middlesbrough isn't.

Most people north of Newcastle and south of Doncaster probably haven't heard of Scotch Corner. Unless they make regular journeys to the area ... or are Jethro Tull fans. And that isn't likely to be a very big portion of road users.

That kind of illustrates my point. Signs aren't - or at least, should not be - there for local traffic and/or traffic that already knows where they are going; they simply don't need it. Signage should be there for motorists who are unfamiliar with the area, Scotch Corner is meaningless to 99% of road users, because they don't know it (it isn't marked anymore on most maps); a not insignificant amount of traffic on the A66 is HGVs from Continental Europe, they're definitely not going to know SC, but they will likely know that they'll need to take the A66 to get to their destination, therefore '(A66)' does the job.

As for Middlesborough, a majority of traffic on the A1(M) North aiming for that wouldn't pass Scotch Corner. They'd leave the A1(M) at J49 Dishforth, for the A168 which leads to the A19 North.

Traffic heading for Teesside Airport specifically would pass SC, but they would not leave there. They'd leave at J57, which is at Darlington which is better known

I would personally get rid of SC on A1(M) signage for the reasons already stated.