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.
Can I ask exactly what sort of goods traffic goes via Woodhead at the moment? Obviously it's a key Manchester - Sheffield route, but I'm wondering if there's stuff that then goes further afield, such as Liverpool or anywhere in Lincolnshire? The M62 looks an awfully long way out of the way.
On the subject of re-opening the Woodhead line - can this realistically be done? Is there still a clear path across the entire line from Manchester to Sheffield or have bits at the end had housing estates popped on top of them? Is the tunnel high enough to accept container traffic? Who's going to do the loading and unloading onto road traffic at each end?
-- SABRE Maps - all the best maps in one place....
It's a crazy one isnt' it. If you look at a map of the north, there's clearly something to be said for building an alternative to the M62 route from Hull-Liverpool. In fact, as this forms part of the E22, there is something to be said for building a parallel route from Hull-Liverpool that would take the M180-A55 course.
That is, M180/M18/M1/'M67'/M60/M56/A55 as opposed to M62/M6/M56/A55 route.
stu531 wrote:It's a crazy one isnt' it. If you look at a map of the north, there's clearly something to be said for building an alternative to the M62 route from Hull-Liverpool. In fact, as this forms part of the E22, there is something to be said for building a parallel route from Hull-Liverpool that would take the M180-A55 course.
That is, M180/M18/M1/'M67'/M60/M56/A55 as opposed to M62/M6/M56/A55 route.
The E22 was originally proposed in 1974 as going via Sheffield (and the E13 went to Leeds, so it wasn't cross the Pennines and then go down the M1 and up the M18 to the M180). This suggests a plan for there to be a second cross-country route using the M67 (not just cross-Pennine).
One thing the A55-M56-'M67'-M180 corridor begs is the M1-M18 bit - could it have been a very long term aim to bypass Doncaster to the north and linking it to the M67? The roads are roughly the same latitude. That it's missing (and likewise the M63 Bredbury bypass not extending and meeting the M67) raises doubts about strategic planning with this route more than proposing an E road. Then again, we could be POLOing - taking actual plans and joining the dots to make . The roads for POLO were partially to make orbital arcs (A404), partially the Oxford-Haven Ports routes (A418, A505, A120) - the ABD added some links of their own as a proposed motorway and T2k got all worried about Government plans to built an outer orbital.
Our E road proposals in 1974 were mostly freight routes, as now - if it wasn't for the original via point of Sheffield, I'd have assumed the E22 in the UK was basically two spurs of the E20 to the ports of Holyhead and Immingham. In 1983, when the proposals came into being, the M67 was dying, if not dead, so the routing was changed to basically be two spurs of the E20/M62 route.
"“Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations" Thomas Jefferson
Ritchie333 wrote:On the subject of re-opening the Woodhead line - can this realistically be done? Is there still a clear path across the entire line from Manchester to Sheffield or have bits at the end had housing estates popped on top of them? Is the tunnel high enough to accept container traffic? Who's going to do the loading and unloading onto road traffic at each end?
The route on the west side is all still there, just as a cycle track that isn't even tarmac'd (some sort of ash stuff that makes a right mess when it's wet); on the east side it's a cycle path to where it joins the Penistone line. There is then part of the route still there with a freight service once or twice a week to Deepcar. The parts that need rebuilding are the curve from Deepcar/Stocksbridge to Penistone, and build a new curve on disused land so as to get direct access to Sheffield Midland station... the main issue is the Tunnel itself. Also, when the woodhead line was open, the tracks from guide bridge to manchester were 4-track (overhead equipment shows this, and guide bridge station has it's other platforms still there), but now the section is only 2-track so to get the best capacity this would have to be looked at.
The tunnel is high enough for normal height box wagons, as it was formerly a freight route and the tunnel was built to the same specs as most rail bridges are that are still in use. As for freight container depots for transferring goods onto the roads, I'm sure there's space at Ardwick for delivering goods into central manchester; and if a curve was built to avoid the crush through P13 and P14 at Piccadilly (so trains went through Vic instead) you could have a container depot on the west side of the city somewhere.
"God was probably very proud of Yorkshire when he had finished with it"
- Jeremy Clarkson
--
sabristo simon wrote:One thing the A55-M56-'M67'-M180 corridor begs is the M1-M18 bit - could it have been a very long term aim to bypass Doncaster to the north and linking it to the M67? The roads are roughly the same latitude. That it's missing (and likewise the M63 Bredbury bypass not extending and meeting the M67) raises doubts about strategic planning with this route more than proposing an E road.
There would be a great deal of sense in completing this corridor, particularly in times of recession - though as we know, public spending ain't happening at the minute for new projects. It would help revitalise the South Yorks economy, though. A double benefit of the creation of a Manc-Sheffield route, coupled with a faster M180-Holyhead route, keeping the E22 and E20 distinct. It would of course bring an alternative to the M62, particularly important in bad weather conditions - the usual reasons.
I wonder what the route could be - south of Barnsley but north of Doncaster? A628/A616/A6195/A635 type corridor?
PeterA5145 wrote:Yes, ridiculous speed limits and heavy-handed enforcement may have an effect on the number of people using a road for leisure journeys.
Just to move this down the road a bit, I don't think the timid pensioners who go for a Sunday drive on The Snake are put off by the speed limit; they daren't get anywhere near it.
stu531 wrote:Barking - absolutely barking - and this time it's not the NIMBYs to blame. In any other country, two cities with populations over 500,000 and only what - 40 miles apart - would have been linked long ago.
Just to pull you up on this old chestnut, they are linked: by the M1 and M62. It's just not very direct.
OK OK put those knives down.
On a more serious note...
mehere wrote:Would be quicker and easier and less damaging to re-open the woodhead line to sheffield and the route beyond make it as wide ass possible use it with a good high speed passenger service and plenty of freight with 'wagon trains' maybe subsidise it too.
Moreover, this wouldn't do anything to solve the problem at Mottram and Tintwistle since the tunnel does not bypass the town. The tunnel idea is to create an all-weather route for the primary A628 (it's a well-used freight route). Traffic for Sheffield would still want to take the A57 through Glossop.
True Yorkie wrote:As for freight container depots for transferring goods onto the roads, I'm sure there's space at Ardwick for delivering goods into central manchester; and if a curve was built to avoid the crush through P13 and P14 at Piccadilly (so trains went through Vic instead) you could have a container depot on the west side of the city somewhere.
Alternatively, you could just do something with Manchester Mayfield station. Again.
Steven
Motorway Historian
Founder Member, SABRE ex-Presidents' Corner
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
Aye. Though I have my own fantasy pie-in-the-sky ideas for Mayfield. the two platforms closest to Piccadilly be made to through-platforms, link by walkway to Piccadilly, and then build a parallel viaduct carrying these extra 2 lines all the way to Deansgate at least but preferrably to Salford Crescent/Bolton. Yes it's bold and extreme, but somebody important in the industry (I can't remember who) said a while back that it'd take 'something bold and extreme to overcome the capacity issues on the through-platforms at Piccadilly'.
My ideas don't mean the other platforms can't be used as a freight depot though... it'd be better than being a home to pigeons.
"God was probably very proud of Yorkshire when he had finished with it"
- Jeremy Clarkson
--
Although the concept of road vehicle transfer to rail works in the Alps, I don't see it working at Woodhead, two way traffic in a double bore train tunnel isn't going to be spacious either, not sure about a single bore. I did consider the aspect of running vehicles in convoy in single file, but again, I don't really see the alternative over the top route being much of a persuader.
The real problem on the woodhead is over the moors, the ground conditions will probably make running a second carriageway very difficult if not very costly, the valleys to the west are quite step an woud probably need costly earthworks to get a DMRB type alignment, the best I can see in my lifetime is a plain upgrade to some of the more severe bends, addition of a crawler lane and perhaps some improved rest areas - As much as I'd like to see an improvement, there is a much stronger case for adding an extra lame to the M62.
In total, more than 5,000 civil servants could be based on the Mayfield site by 2014, the government said.
Just what we need ... 5000 more bean counters trying to commute in...[/quote]
Great. Piccadilly's desperate for more space, and there's this railway station with several empty platforms literally across the road. So, let's demolish it and then worry about the lack of space later.
True Yorkie wrote:Aye. Though I have my own fantasy pie-in-the-sky ideas for Mayfield. the two platforms closest to Piccadilly be made to through-platforms, link by walkway to Piccadilly, and then build a parallel viaduct carrying these extra 2 lines all the way to Deansgate at least but preferrably to Salford Crescent/Bolton.
There's the UMIST Student Union and Wright Robinson Hall pretty much in the way, and widening the viaduct across the campus will be extremely difficult at best.
Steven
Motorway Historian
Founder Member, SABRE ex-Presidents' Corner
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
Great. Piccadilly's desperate for more space, and there's this railway station with several empty platforms literally across the road. So, let's demolish it and then worry about the lack of space later.
[/quote]
Yeah, but it's not going to happen, is it? 2014? You must be joking. That's potentially two elections away!
Well, don't be so sure. Conservatives don't really like public transport - and history testafies to that by their different methods of making it worse. Why not keep history the same and demolish a potential public transport hub to put up offices housing people that everybody hates trying to deal with...
Steven wrote:
True Yorkie wrote:Aye. Though I have my own fantasy pie-in-the-sky ideas for Mayfield. the two platforms closest to Piccadilly be made to through-platforms, link by walkway to Piccadilly, and then build a parallel viaduct carrying these extra 2 lines all the way to Deansgate at least but preferrably to Salford Crescent/Bolton.
There's the UMIST Student Union and Wright Robinson Hall pretty much in the way, and widening the viaduct across the campus will be extremely difficult at best.
Well, I didn't say it was a perfect plan! but... it's a lot better than anything else proposed to combat the issue, which has been ... erm... sweet FA.
"God was probably very proud of Yorkshire when he had finished with it"
- Jeremy Clarkson
--
I wouldn't be so sure TY. Today's Modern All Embracing Tories (which perhaps is being a bit too much Tory Blair) supposedly love public transport given all the hullaballoo about HS2...
Bryn Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already. She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
I came past here recently. All that's needed is a short link from the M67 roundabout northwards to the A6018 at Roe Cross, then another short link northeast to the A628 near the Arnfield Reservoir. Barely two miles total of new road.
The existing A57 can carry on as it is through Mottram, Wooley Bridge and Glossop (it isn't a primary route after all and therefore shouldn't be carrying long-distance traffic). Mottram could even become a more touristy village once the long-distance traffic has ceased to blight it ("Gateway To The Peaks" or something).
Even though the A628 will still involve the Woodhead and Tintwistle sections, by separating its traffic flow entirely from that of the A57, it should be much less congested as it approaches Hattersley from the east. And heading from the west, if there is freeflow access from the M67 onto the new road then delays should also be a thing of the past.
I don't understand why something so simple is so controversial. As long as the road constructions don't head any further east into the National Park, the only land to be lost is scrappy urban fringe. What's lost will be nothing in comparison to the benefits gained by Mottram and Hollingworth.
Also in the same neck of the woods, clearly the A555 should be (and I believe is now being) extended eastwards to the A523 at Norbury Moor, then the A6 just east of Hazel Grove. It should also swing north to meet the A627 at Torkington, also with eastbound access to Torkington Lane. West of its current terminus at Handforth, it should be extended to meet up with the M56. And of course the A556 should have a new route bypassing Mere and Bucklow Hill.
I'm basically in the green lobby where possible, but all of these roads between them will take no more than 10-20 miles of tarmac, and very few properties or highly valued areas of countryside will need to be lost. I would say that the economic advantages of building these roads, between them forming a good outer ring road for Stockport and those parts of urban Cheshire/Greater Manchester that are well outside of Manchester city itself, far outweigh the benefits of knocking half an hour off the train times between London and Birmingham. But what do I know?
a1adam wrote:I came past here recently. All that's needed is a short link from the M67 roundabout northwards to the A6018 at Roe Cross, then another short link northeast to the A628 near the Arnfield Reservoir. Barely two miles total of new road.
I don't understand why something so simple is so controversial.
Interesting route. A few of things might stand in the way, though, or at least add difficulty.
The steep climb up to Roe Cross from the Hattersley/Mottram roundabout (I estimate to be about 80m over 1km, ie 1:13 or 8%) - this might require a crawler lane uphill.
Bridge over A6018 or connection?
Where it would cross Hollingworth Brook is, I believe, the lower reaches of a nature reserve.
but... it's a lot better than anything else proposed to combat the issue, which has been ... erm... sweet FA.
