Why does the M6 turn into the M74 in Scotland?

[RichardA35]

It's not even slightly odd and is completely correct, no matter how many times people claim otherwise.

The M69 starts *south* of the M6, and therefore (should be) in Motorway Zone 4

It extends about 600m south of the M6 out of necessity, simply because motorway regulations start and end where the south-facing sliproads from the interchange meet it. I don't think you could say with a straight face that the M69 motorway continues its journey south of Ansty Interchange - the end of the route is at its junction with the M6, whatever the details of how the sliproads and carriageways interact!

By the same logic you could argue that the M18 should have a 6-zone number because the northbound carriageway runs west of the M1 for 500 metres at Thurcroft Interchange, or that the M61 ought to be in the 5-zone because its northbound side strays west of the M6 at its terminus.

Remembering also that for many years in the 1980's only the M69S-M6W loop existed south of the M6 with stubs where the Coventry Eastern Bypass would be later built and "plugged-in".

[Bryn666]

The M69 starts *south* of the M6, and therefore (should be) in Motorway Zone 4

It extends about 600m south of the M6 out of necessity, simply because motorway regulations start and end where the south-facing sliproads from the interchange meet it. I don't think you could say with a straight face that the M69 motorway continues its journey south of Ansty Interchange - the end of the route is at its junction with the M6, whatever the details of how the sliproads and carriageways interact!

By the same logic you could argue that the M18 should have a 6-zone number because the northbound carriageway runs west of the M1 for 500 metres at Thurcroft Interchange, or that the M61 ought to be in the 5-zone because its northbound side strays west of the M6 at its terminus.

Remembering also that for many years in the 1980's only the M69S-M6W loop existed south of the M6 with stubs where the Coventry Eastern Bypass would be later built and "plugged-in".

Yes, and there is little to zero evidence the Coventry Eastern Bypass was ever going to be anything but an A road.

Zonal purity is a silly hill to die on, when we have numbering abominations like the A6055 existing in two separate locations alongside the A1(M), or the fact several major trunk roads that are a single continuous route have several numbers - e.g. A417/A419.

No one has ever been navigationally hindered by the M69 being numbered M69, but they've had no end of hassle with nonsense like the A74(M)/M74/M6.

[Steven]

The M69 starts *south* of the M6, and therefore (should be) in Motorway Zone 4

Terminal junction complexes don't count or else nothing is ever in zone if it meets a zone boundary. That's how grade separation works.

Presumably there's no claim about to arrive that the M50 was incorrectly numbered when it was created as that "started" east of the M5, but that's been fixed since the terminal junction design was changed?

[Ruperts Trooper]

It extends about 600m south of the M6 out of necessity, simply because motorway regulations start and end where the south-facing sliproads from the interchange meet it. I don't think you could say with a straight face that the M69 motorway continues its journey south of Ansty Interchange - the end of the route is at its junction with the M6, whatever the details of how the sliproads and carriageways interact!

By the same logic you could argue that the M18 should have a 6-zone number because the northbound carriageway runs west of the M1 for 500 metres at Thurcroft Interchange, or that the M61 ought to be in the 5-zone because its northbound side strays west of the M6 at its terminus.

Remembering also that for many years in the 1980's only the M69S-M6W loop existed south of the M6 with stubs where the Coventry Eastern Bypass would be later built and "plugged-in".

Yes, and there is little to zero evidence the Coventry Eastern Bypass was ever going to be anything but an A road.

Zonal purity is a silly hill to die on, when we have numbering abominations like the A6055 existing in two separate locations alongside the A1(M), or the fact several major trunk roads that are a single continuous route have several numbers - e.g. A417/A419.

No one has ever been navigationally hindered by the M69 being numbered M69, but they've had no end of hassle with nonsense like the A74(M)/M74/M6.

Has anyone been "navigationally hindered" by the A74(M)/M74/M6 - whether navigating by satnav or road atlas, it's an obvious route to follow. Personally, I combine the M74 and A74(M) as they're both motorways, with numeric "74" and seamlessly switch from one to the other - apart from Sabre pedantry, who cares!

[Bryn666]

Remembering also that for many years in the 1980's only the M69S-M6W loop existed south of the M6 with stubs where the Coventry Eastern Bypass would be later built and "plugged-in".

Yes, and there is little to zero evidence the Coventry Eastern Bypass was ever going to be anything but an A road.

Zonal purity is a silly hill to die on, when we have numbering abominations like the A6055 existing in two separate locations alongside the A1(M), or the fact several major trunk roads that are a single continuous route have several numbers - e.g. A417/A419.

No one has ever been navigationally hindered by the M69 being numbered M69, but they've had no end of hassle with nonsense like the A74(M)/M74/M6.

Has anyone been "navigationally hindered" by the A74(M)/M74/M6 - whether navigating by satnav or road atlas, it's an obvious route to follow. Personally, I combine the M74 and A74(M) as they're both motorways, with numeric "74" and seamlessly switch from one to the other - apart from Sabre pedantry, who cares!

Giving directions to people it does, for example to take the A419/A417 example, if you get this mixed up and tell someone to look for the A419 to Swindon when leaving the M5, that's J11A missed. Not everyone uses junction numbers, not everyone uses sat navs, and businesses in particular like to be able to tell people landmarks to look for because that's how people typically find their way.

The reliance on robots to tell people where to drive is how we get people wedged under bridges and dangling off cliff edges. For me sat nav reliance should be the first thing we seek to banish.

[Ruperts Trooper]

Yes, and there is little to zero evidence the Coventry Eastern Bypass was ever going to be anything but an A road.

Zonal purity is a silly hill to die on, when we have numbering abominations like the A6055 existing in two separate locations alongside the A1(M), or the fact several major trunk roads that are a single continuous route have several numbers - e.g. A417/A419.

No one has ever been navigationally hindered by the M69 being numbered M69, but they've had no end of hassle with nonsense like the A74(M)/M74/M6.

Has anyone been "navigationally hindered" by the A74(M)/M74/M6 - whether navigating by satnav or road atlas, it's an obvious route to follow. Personally, I combine the M74 and A74(M) as they're both motorways, with numeric "74" and seamlessly switch from one to the other - apart from Sabre pedantry, who cares!

Giving directions to people it does, for example to take the A419/A417 example, if you get this mixed up and tell someone to look for the A419 to Swindon when leaving the M5, that's J11A missed. Not everyone uses junction numbers, not everyone uses sat navs, and businesses in particular like to be able to tell people landmarks to look for because that's how people typically find their way.

The reliance on robots to tell people where to drive is how we get people wedged under bridges and dangling off cliff edges. For me sat nav reliance should be the first thing we seek to banish.

I wasn't suggesting reliance on satnavs - like many on Sabre I've always been comfortable with maps and road atlases - for those who can't/won't cope with maps, like my wife, then turn-by-turn directions are needed using whatever landmarks are appropriate - but changes in road number are often needed depending on the start/end of a particular journey, sometimes between similar road numbers.

[Bryn666]

Yes, but the A419/A417 example is one of those which is illogical because the main route between the M5 and M4 should really be one number here.

There are of course examples where a number turns off a route, the A57 turning into the A630 leaving Sheffield for example, but these are a different case entirely to having a continuous motorway from Rugby to Glasgow that changes number twice for no reason whatsoever.

[KeithW]

Giving directions to people it does, for example to take the A419/A417 example, if you get this mixed up and tell someone to look for the A419 to Swindon when leaving the M5, that's J11A missed. Not everyone uses junction numbers, not everyone uses sat navs, and businesses in particular like to be able to tell people landmarks to look for because that's how people typically find their way.

The reliance on robots to tell people where to drive is how we get people wedged under bridges and dangling off cliff edges. For me sat nav reliance should be the first thing we seek to banish.

Satnavs are navigation tools just like a map and compass, common sense should always be employed with any of them. I have seen OS maps that show a road that is open to vehicles but I wouldnt use it in a normal car. People wedged trucks under bridges and got stuck on rough roads long before satnavs existed, it is also why they publish special road atlases for HGV's and caravanners.

This bridge was every bit as popular with inattentive truck and bus drivers in the 1960's as it is today, probably more so given that at the time the only alternative route was a level crossing that you had to phone the signalman from to get it opened.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.57888 ... authuser=0

The reality is that very few people are prepared to admit they simply got it wrong and will instead try to blame someone or something else.

[Chris Bertram]

Yes, but the A419/A417 example is one of those which is illogical because the main route between the M5 and M4 should really be one number here.

Swindon to Gloucester was indeed originally all one number (A419), and it's unclear why this was changed. Neither A419 nor A417 seem to be coherent routes in their own right today.

[Micro The Maniac]

The M69 starts *south* of the M6, and therefore (should be) in Motorway Zone 4

Terminal junction complexes don't count or else nothing is ever in zone if it meets a zone boundary. That's how grade separation works.

Presumably there's no claim about to arrive that the M50 was incorrectly numbered when it was created as that "started" east of the M5, but that's been fixed since the terminal junction design was changed?

I suggest there is a big difference between a *terminal* junction (whether roundabout [M50] or trumpet [M18, M54 etc]) and transition junctions (where a road changes designation). But when all is said and done, it is designated M69 and that is not going to change. So I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

[A9Craig]

Can anyone shed any light on The A6 London - Inverness Trunk Road?

[Steven]

Can anyone shed any light on The A6 London - Inverness Trunk Road?

Trunk Roads have names, which do not have a 1:1 relationship with the familiar road numbers. They also had their own T numbers, but that's another story.

The London - Inverness Trunk Road took in parts of the A6, A74 and A82 amongst others.

[A9Craig]

Can anyone shed any light on The A6 London - Inverness Trunk Road?

Trunk Roads have names, which do not have a 1:1 relationship with the familiar road numbers. They also had their own T numbers, but that's another story.

The London - Inverness Trunk Road took in parts of the A6, A74 and A82 amongst others.

Got it. Thanks for the reply.

[Sunil_of_Yoxley]

M74/A74(M)/M6/M6 (Toll)/M6/A14/M11

[KeithW]

Trunk Roads have names, which do not have a 1:1 relationship with the familiar road numbers. They also had their own T numbers, but that's another story.

The London - Inverness Trunk Road took in parts of the A6, A74 and A82 amongst others.

Specifically that section of the the A6 from Rothwell west of Kettering heading NW to Kibworth and Leicester. I believe the Rothwell and Desborough Bypass opened in the 1996 so it would presumably have been the junction of what is now the B576 and the A14 Kettering bypass (then A604).

[Cozza]

No bias here being half Scottish and half English but I've always found the signage at the border on the M6/A74(M) amusing. Many might be familiar with the giant Scottish flag and the much smaller England sign each side but might have missed the discrepancy in capitalisation highlighted in my picture. Any sensible explanations welcome!

[wrinkly]

Simply a matter of the date the signs were put up. One came before capitals were introduced for regional destinations, the other came after.

[Cozza]

Simply a matter of the date the signs were put up. One came before capitals were introduced for regional destinations, the other came after.

Thanks that makes perfect sense - I've noticed most countries adopt the lower case font apparently for ease of speed reading, but I've always found the full capitals better or at least as good i.e. France. That's probably another thread though.

[wrinkly]

Though there's also the fact that, going north, SCOTLAND is signed from each of Js 40-43 and 45, but going south, England is only signed at the last exit before the border.

[Cozza]

Though there's also the fact that, going north, SCOTLAND is signed from J40, but going south, England is only signed at the last exit before the border.

Perhaps that is also due to the age of the signage as THE LAKES are also marked in England but there is no sign of THE BORDERS on the way down. I've noticed that there is a trend not only towards the capitalised THE NORTH, THE WEST etc but to more long range destinations marked up on UK Motorways. In many countries you'd set off from London on the M1 for example and see destinations at the distance of Birmingham, Leeds or even Newcastle and Glasgow marked. I think its going that way slowly.