A601(M) Carnforth Link Road Downgrading

[KeithW]

Well one good thing for them is the Tarmac Carnforth concrete plant is handy

[wrinkly]

I've always wanted the A65 between J36 and Kendal to be renumbered A6070. I suppose it's too much to hope that that will happen too. Different county for one thing.

[Helvellyn]

I've always wanted the A65 between J36 and Kendal to be renumbered A6070. I suppose it's too much to hope that that will happen too. Different county for one thing.

In that neck of the woods the A591 stealing the A6 bothers me more

[solocle]

The order has been published. As far as I can tell, legally speaking, The A601(M) is no more.

[Bryn666]

The order has been published. As far as I can tell, legally speaking, The A601(M) is no more.

There were still some blue signs on the southern section recently so I would not be surprised if this remains a signage cluster-muck for ages yet.

[milly]

The A601(M)is no more. There is some temporary signage indicating the road is now the A6070 and saying formally A601(M). Approaching from the A6 its currently a patch up job on the signage and approaching from the M6 there is no signage change. Didn't notice any speed limits changes.

[Bryn666]

The A601(M)is no more. There is some temporary signage indicating the road is now the A6070 and saying formally A601(M). Approaching from the A6 its currently a patch up job on the signage and approaching from the M6 they is no signage change. Didn't notice any speed limits changes.

Sounds like I need a trip up there ASAP.

[Owain]

I've always wanted the A65 between J36 and Kendal to be renumbered A6070. I suppose it's too much to hope that that will happen too. Different county for one thing.

I wouldn't say that I've wanted it, but I have wondered why they never did it.

Come to that, the whole A6070-A65 would probably make more sense as A6 than the road through Milnthorpe.

In that neck of the woods the A591 stealing the A6 bothers me more

It's worse than that - the A590 swallows up the A6 after Milnthorpe, so the A591 is merely the accomplice!

The A601(M)is no more. There is some temporary signage indicating the road is now the A6070 and saying formally A601(M). Approaching from the A6 its currently a patch up job on the signage and approaching from the M6 they is no signage change. Didn't notice any speed limits changes.

Sounds like I need a trip up there ASAP.

Any idea why they didn't simply sign it "A6", or "(A6)"?

[Chris56000]

Any idea why they didn't simply sign it "A6", or "(A6)"?

Before the Over Kellet Link Road opened in 1987 it was originally signed as "Carnforth, Morecambe A6" from the Southbound and Northbound M6 in both directions, with "Carnforth A6" on the ADS for the single exit off the M6 Junction 35 roundabout, followed by a flag sign "Carnforth, Morecambe A6" pointing down the dual carriageway M6 spur.

When the Over Kellet Link Road opened the "A6" number on the flag sign was patched with a plain blue patch covering up the "A6".

At the Carnforth end of the spur, heading towards Junction 35A Roundabout, the ADS indicated "Carnforth A6" to the left and "Milnthorpe A6" to the right, with a pointer sign on the beginning of the spur (away from the Carnforth Roundabout) "Kendal, Preston, Lancaster, Blackpool M6" that never had chopsticks!

The latest available GSV is from April 2022 that shows one white lane sign approaching the end of the spur, with "Carnforth A6" with a left–turn arrow for the left hand lane and "Milnthorpe A6" with a ahead arrow for the right–hand lane, as per current roundabout practice!

So, unless the short length of A6 between what is now called "Keer Level Roundabout" is renumbered we will have a short ¾ mile A6/A6070 multiplex between the "Keer Level" and the "Twin Lakes" roundabout where the A6 and A6070 diverge!

Chris Williams

[GillsPeter]

Reading about the former A601(M), I noticed that somebody asked why the original link to the A6 wasn't configured to use the bridges that are now in place, rather than using one that has now been unused for many decades. Was there a plan to have a different type of junction here at one point, such as a fork?

[Phil]

Reading about the former A601(M), I noticed that somebody asked why the original link to the A6 wasn't configured to use the bridges that are now in place, rather than using one that has now been unused for many decades. Was there a plan to have a different type of junction here at one point, such as a fork?

Please remember that when initially built the current M6 simply flowed onto the current A601(M) without any form of junction at that point!

Although this might seem, strange its worth noting that the Lancaster by-pass was one of the very first bits of the M6 to be built and as such plans for its continuation northwards (including exactly where that northwards extension would start) were somewhat fluid and as such no provision was made for a junction - the M6 simply went and met the A6.

When the northward extension of the M6 occurred the alignment chosen meant the original bridge alignment was unsuited to the roundabout junction so the original got abandoned.

Hardly an unusual occurrence - a similar situation occurred when the M4 was extended west of Maidenhead and an original bridge was abandoned because it didn't suit the new roundabout junction.

[wrinkly]

To be exact I think it was only the original southbound bridge over the Lancaster Canal that was bypassed and abandoned. I think the original northbound bridge remains in use.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Car ... 0vMDJqZjN0

There was a sign saying "Temporary bend" at what later became the site of J35 - as also, I think, at the sites of J32 and 33.

Also the central reservation narrowed from the wide one to the south, designed to allow the 3-laning that later happened, to the standard one on what became the spur.

Previous discussions of the route selection between Carnforth and Penrith in this old thread:

viewtopic.php?p=859879

and page 2 of this one:

viewtopic.php?t=42194&start=20

[Steven]

Reading about the former A601(M), I noticed that somebody asked why the original link to the A6 wasn't configured to use the bridges that are now in place, rather than using one that has now been unused for many decades. Was there a plan to have a different type of junction here at one point, such as a fork?

As often the case, a lot of this information can be found on the SABRE Wiki, as all motorway junctions (and a large proportion of all-purpose ones with names) have pages. In this case, Carnforth Interchange, which uses relevant extracts from SABRE Maps to illustrate.

[Bryn666]

Reading about the former A601(M), I noticed that somebody asked why the original link to the A6 wasn't configured to use the bridges that are now in place, rather than using one that has now been unused for many decades. Was there a plan to have a different type of junction here at one point, such as a fork?

As often the case, a lot of this information can be found on the SABRE Wiki, as all motorway junctions (and a large proportion of all-purpose ones with names) have pages. In this case, Carnforth Interchange, which uses relevant extracts from SABRE Maps to illustrate.

The opening brochure for the Lancaster Bypass also has an excellent photo of the temporary bend. It was notably substandard and I dare say at the time almost as fearsome as the then temporary loop at Strensham opened a couple of years later.

[Helvellyn]

Can't believe I paid no attention to this when I drove past it a week ago, it had totally slipped my mind.

I see Google has it as the A6070 now.

[ForestChav]

I've always wanted the A65 between J36 and Kendal to be renumbered A6070. I suppose it's too much to hope that that will happen too. Different county for one thing.

I wouldn't say that I've wanted it, but I have wondered why they never did it.

Come to that, the whole A6070-A65 would probably make more sense as A6 than the road through Milnthorpe.

In that neck of the woods the A591 stealing the A6 bothers me more

It's worse than that - the A590 swallows up the A6 after Milnthorpe, so the A591 is merely the accomplice!

That whole area seems a bit of an unnecessary mess, but then, maybe it was deemed more necessary to have a single route number running from the M6 to Barrow, than to keep the A6 contiguous, or to have a single number from the M6 round Kendal to Bowness, Ambleside and whatever Keswick traffic didn't fancy the A66.

Logically one would have the A590 still starting on the A6 at Levens - which would be a TOTSO on the current alignment, but that junction was clearly improved that way - and then the A6 runs along to the Kendal bypass where it then heads off into Kendal as it already does, and north of that it becomes the A591. South of that it could be a spur of the A6 to the motorway, or tidier still the A6070 or even better the A65 which then ends on the A6 without going into Kendal.

More disruptive but your suggestion is tidier - the A6 then becomes the A6070 and A65 into Kendal, the A590 ends on the A591 at the Kendal bypass, and the A591 meets the M6, crosses over it and ends on the A6 with the other direction being the end of the A65. The road going to Milnthorpe could be the A6070 or even a B road.

It seems a bit of a faff downgrading the A601(M) to A6070 too, though they clearly couldn't use A601, it taking over the B road number from the other section to Over Kellett would be logical, though it might also be more sensible to have an A-road number again it's actually short enough to be effectively a spur of the A6.

[Chris56000]

Why didn't L.C.C. reuse "B6254" for the downgraded single–carriageway length, and downgrade the section from Carnforth lights to the T junction with the Over Kellet Link to unclassified, and retain the dual–carriageway length as A6?

Chris Williams

[ForestChav]

Why didn't L.C.C. reuse "B6254" for the downgraded single–carriageway length, and downgrade the section from Carnforth lights to the T junction with the Over Kellet Link to unclassified, and retain the dual–carriageway length as A6?

Chris Williams

not that it's committing a huge faux-pas, but whole B roads or unclassified ones (on the ground) interfacing with a motorway is still relatively rare.

Renumbering the whole thing to the A6 as B6254 would definitely be another option and reducing the section to Carnforth as unclassified would be another option of course.

If the suggestion of renumbering the D2 as A6 happened, I'm assuming this would be as a spur to the mainline?

[mbonwick]

I've always wanted the A65 between J36 and Kendal to be renumbered A6070. I suppose it's too much to hope that that will happen too. Different county for one thing.

I wouldn't say that I've wanted it, but I have wondered why they never did it.

Come to that, the whole A6070-A65 would probably make more sense as A6 than the road through Milnthorpe.

In that neck of the woods the A591 stealing the A6 bothers me more

It's worse than that - the A590 swallows up the A6 after Milnthorpe, so the A591 is merely the accomplice!

That whole area seems a bit of an unnecessary mess, but then, maybe it was deemed more necessary to have a single route number running from the M6 to Barrow, than to keep the A6 contiguous, or to have a single number from the M6 round Kendal to Bowness, Ambleside and whatever Keswick traffic didn't fancy the A66.

Logically one would have the A590 still starting on the A6 at Levens - which would be a TOTSO on the current alignment, but that junction was clearly improved that way - and then the A6 runs along to the Kendal bypass where it then heads off into Kendal as it already does, and north of that it becomes the A591. South of that it could be a spur of the A6 to the motorway, or tidier still the A6070 or even better the A65 which then ends on the A6 without going into Kendal.

More disruptive but your suggestion is tidier - the A6 then becomes the A6070 and A65 into Kendal, the A590 ends on the A591 at the Kendal bypass, and the A591 meets the M6, crosses over it and ends on the A6 with the other direction being the end of the A65. The road going to Milnthorpe could be the A6070 or even a B road.

It seems a bit of a faff downgrading the A601(M) to A6070 too, though they clearly couldn't use A601, it taking over the B road number from the other section to Over Kellett would be logical, though it might also be more sensible to have an A-road number again it's actually short enough to be effectively a spur of the A6.

The A6/A590/A591 is a bit of a mess, but it's easy to see how it was arrived at. Originally the A591 did run all the way to the motorway, it was only in the early 90s that the Bretttagh Holt - M6 section became the A590 (apparently for the sole reason that all the extra traffic heading for Barrow as a result of the Trident programme could be given the instructions "leave at M6 J36 and follow the A590 to the bitter end").
With that in mind, the multiplexing A6/A591 is understandable. The short A6/A590 multiplex is sort of forgivable given the geography of the area, and although it would have been nice for the A6 to keep its number, it just doesn't make sense to create another TOTSO for the sake of less than 500m of road.
It would of course look less of a mess if the A6/A590 junction(s) weren't such a bodge - but then every single junction on the A590 is substandard in some way, even for the standards of the time!

Anyway, slightly more back on topic - although it would give a nice, continuous route effectively swapping the A6070/A65 and A6 would be a terrible idea. The A6070 is very much a secondary A-road in it's construction with some pretty nasty pinch points, especially through Burton-in-Kendal, and the A65 although better also just isn't up to a standard worthy of a single digit. Let's also not forget that the A65 has always been a nice East-West link between Leeds and Kendal - why take that away to terminate on a roundabout short of the M6?

I'm not sure what number I would give the former A601(M); A6070 doesn't feel right, but equally given the development plans, nor does leaving it as a spur of the A6. One thing I would definitely do though is extend the classification over the M6 to the B6254 and do away with the pointless B6601 stub

[wrinkly]

I always assumed the reason the A590 number was extended to meet the M6 in place of the A591 was because the A590 is the trunk road, and because the 1980s A590 Levens Bridge diversion gave it more prominence and removed one TOTSO.

My reason for wanting to renumber the northernmost part of the A65 as A6070 is because it's untidy to have a TOTSO within sight of M6 J36. The main role of the A65 these last 50 years is as a link from West Yorkshire to M6 J36; the spur to Kendal merely adds confusion.

I think it's right that the A591 should predominate over the A6 on their multiplex because the A6 is no longer important there as a through route.