Should RCS have higher milages on them?
Moderator: Site Management Team
-
- Member
- Posts: 1994
- Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 19:10
- Location: Manchester
Should RCS have higher milages on them?
As we know, the highest milage seen on an extant RCS is for London on the M5 but I was wondering what people's view is on whether even higher distances, especially for London, should have been included on route confirmation signs.
When the East Leeds Motorway was built, London is marked on all of the southbound junctions, yet the distance to London is not included on any of the RCS and given that it was included on those signs I think it should have been, and if so would have given a milage for London at around 200. Instead, the first milage to London at the time was 117, now 121 which ironically is the identical highest milage on the A1.
When the East Leeds Motorway was built, London is marked on all of the southbound junctions, yet the distance to London is not included on any of the RCS and given that it was included on those signs I think it should have been, and if so would have given a milage for London at around 200. Instead, the first milage to London at the time was 117, now 121 which ironically is the identical highest milage on the A1.
Re: Should RCS have higher milages on them?
London is effectively being treated as a regional destination like THE SOUTH or THE NORTH on those signs on the M1, which is perhaps the correct approach given that the distance could be quite different depending on where in London you're heading to. I don't think it would be unhelpful to identify 'super-destination' cities - London, Glasgow, Birmingham, Cardiff, Manchester, Leeds, Edinburgh, and maybe due to their locations Newcastle, Inverness, Plymouth, Dover, Portsmouth and Aberdeen perhaps - that could be signed on flag signs and overhead gantries as if they were regional destinations.
But I personally don't see the need to have super-long distances signed on the motorway network - it seems a bit preposterous to me when driving through Normandy to see a sign telling me that it's 623km (388 miles) to Bordeaux. The distance to Tours or Poitiers would seem more relevant, and it feels a little more like the state is saying "look how extensive our network is" rather than providing useful information.
But I personally don't see the need to have super-long distances signed on the motorway network - it seems a bit preposterous to me when driving through Normandy to see a sign telling me that it's 623km (388 miles) to Bordeaux. The distance to Tours or Poitiers would seem more relevant, and it feels a little more like the state is saying "look how extensive our network is" rather than providing useful information.
- Chris Bertram
- Member
- Posts: 15987
- Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2001 12:30
- Location: Birmingham, England
Re: Should RCS have higher milages on them?
London mileage is usually to Charing Cross, isn't it?
“The quality of any advice anybody has to offer has to be judged against the quality of life they actually lead.” - Douglas Adams.
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
-
- Elected Committee Member
- Posts: 11617
- Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 21:58
- Location: Belfast N Ireland
- Contact:
Re: Should RCS have higher milages on them?
My view is based on the following joke…
The correct riposte was:A motorist stops somewhere in rural Ireland to ask a local for directions to Dublin. The answer: “Well, if I were going to Dublin, I wouldn’t start from here.”
General (regional) directions are grand until you need disambiguation to avoid going the wrong way at a junction.“Well, if you were going to Dublin, where would you start from?”
“Oh, such and such a town”
“Oh, could you tell me the directions to there please?”
“Oh, that’s easy, just go down this road to…
-
- Member
- Posts: 1994
- Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 19:10
- Location: Manchester
Re: Should RCS have higher milages on them?
That's actually a very good question. Where was the location used to provide milages to London on route confirmation signs?
-
- Member
- Posts: 1994
- Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 19:10
- Location: Manchester
Re: Should RCS have higher milages on them?
And they also have huge distances in America.Rob590 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 11:25 London is effectively being treated as a regional destination like THE SOUTH or THE NORTH on those signs on the M1, which is perhaps the correct approach given that the distance could be quite different depending on where in London you're heading to. I don't think it would be unhelpful to identify 'super-destination' cities - London, Glasgow, Birmingham, Cardiff, Manchester, Leeds, Edinburgh, and maybe due to their locations Newcastle, Inverness, Plymouth, Dover, Portsmouth and Aberdeen perhaps - that could be signed on flag signs and overhead gantries as if they were regional destinations.
But I personally don't see the need to have super-long distances signed on the motorway network - it seems a bit preposterous to me when driving through Normandy to see a sign telling me that it's 623km (388 miles) to Bordeaux. The distance to Tours or Poitiers would seem more relevant, and it feels a little more like the state is saying "look how extensive our network is" rather than providing useful information.
I think there is a good shout for distances to places like those you refer to when that road goes to/past those locations. This would have given Leeds 200 on the M1 at London. However, if this had been adpoted, the total for Edinburgh on the A1 in London would have been huge!
Re: Should RCS have higher milages on them?
Since 1951, Charing Cross, or more specifically the brass plaque set into the pavement next to the statue of Charles I on the south side of Trafalgar Square.Rillington wrote: ↑Sat Sep 23, 2023 09:51That's actually a very good question. Where was the location used to provide milages to London on route confirmation signs?
Chris
Roads.org.uk
Roads.org.uk
- Vierwielen
- Member
- Posts: 5999
- Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 21:21
- Location: Hampshire
Re: Should RCS have higher milages on them?
The Germans don't seem to have any problems with bigger distances. See here.Rillington wrote: ↑Sat Sep 23, 2023 09:53And they also have huge distances in America.Rob590 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 11:25 London is effectively being treated as a regional destination like THE SOUTH or THE NORTH on those signs on the M1, which is perhaps the correct approach given that the distance could be quite different depending on where in London you're heading to. I don't think it would be unhelpful to identify 'super-destination' cities - London, Glasgow, Birmingham, Cardiff, Manchester, Leeds, Edinburgh, and maybe due to their locations Newcastle, Inverness, Plymouth, Dover, Portsmouth and Aberdeen perhaps - that could be signed on flag signs and overhead gantries as if they were regional destinations.
But I personally don't see the need to have super-long distances signed on the motorway network - it seems a bit preposterous to me when driving through Normandy to see a sign telling me that it's 623km (388 miles) to Bordeaux. The distance to Tours or Poitiers would seem more relevant, and it feels a little more like the state is saying "look how extensive our network is" rather than providing useful information.
I think there is a good shout for distances to places like those you refer to when that road goes to/past those locations. This would have given Leeds 200 on the M1 at London. However, if this had been adpoted, the total for Edinburgh on the A1 in London would have been huge!
Re: Should RCS have higher milages on them?
Personal opinion, as a general rule of thumb, yes. Leeds should be signed on the A1(M) South from Newcastle, and vice versa. Defo sign Brum and Bristol from one another on the M5 as well.Rillington wrote: ↑Sun Sep 17, 2023 22:03 As we know, the highest milage seen on an extant RCS is for London on the M5 but I was wondering what people's view is on whether even higher distances, especially for London, should have been included on route confirmation signs.
When the East Leeds Motorway was built, London is marked on all of the southbound junctions, yet the distance to London is not included on any of the RCS and given that it was included on those signs I think it should have been, and if so would have given a milage for London at around 200. Instead, the first milage to London at the time was 117, now 121 which ironically is the identical highest milage on the A1.
UK primary-destination signage is absolute nonsense overall. All in all, I'd go with the following:
Have a list of super-control cities, distribute them about 100 miles from one another and at least one would always appear on signage on a motorway or long-distance A-road. On the M6, working south you'd have:
Glasgow
Carlisle
Preston
Birmingham
London (via M1)
Once your super-control city is reached, it would be replaced by the next one.
Alongside these, you'd have your control cities, ideally spaced out by 25-ish miles. Again, on the M6 I'd have:
Penrith
Kendal
Lancaster
Wigan
Warrington
Stoke on Trent
Stafford
Wolverhampton
Coventry
Rugby (for M1/A14 traffic)
The next one of these would appear on DS signage alongside your super-control city.
Your RCS in general would be signed to the nearest 1 super-control city, and the nearest 2-3 control cities. If one of your controls happens to be a super-control, so be it.
On your RCS, you would be allowed a max of 1 control city not within the corridor of your route. So, on the M6 through Staffordshire there'd be provisions for the current situation where you have Manchester signed alongside Stafford, Stoke, etc.
In some cases but not always, if I am at A1(M) Southbound at J43 (for the M1) and want Ludlow in Shropshire, I'm going to go M1-M62-M6-M56-M53-A55-A483-A5-A49, yet if I want Norwich, I'm not going near the M1 and will instead stay on the A1 until I hit the A17, and ride that until I see the A47 which will take me to Norwich. Point is, both of these destinations would be very much to 'the South' of me at that location, yet the A1 is the route signed to 'The SOUTH'. Ludlow is south of Norwich even.
Make no mistake, such regional headings can be useful, but control cities, are far superior. The current signage at J43 going South on the A1(M) is this:
A1(M), The SOUTH; Hull (M62)
M1, London, Leeds; Manchester (M62)
Which is OK, but I'd prefer the following
A1(M), The SOUTH EAST, Doncaster, Newark; Hull (M62)
M1, Leeds, Sheffield; The WEST, Manchester (M62)
As you'll probably know, Newark is the biggest settlement on the A1 south of Doncaster before you hit Peterborough, AND is where most traffic for EAST ANGLIA would leave the road for the A17. Meanwhile, I'd include 'The WEST' on there which I guess would kind of do a bit of what you are saying, it would cover counties like Shropshire, Staffordshire and Cheshire, and follow that until its time to put cities like Liverpool, Chester, Stoke on Trent, Shrewsbury, and the Welsh ones like Bangor, etc on the signs.
I think its not about signing cities from miles out vs. signing regional destinations, but striking a balance between the two.
"I see the face of a child. He lives in a great city. He is black. Or he is white. He is Mexican, Italian, Polish. None of that matters. What matters, he's an American child"
- Richard Nixon
- Richard Nixon
-
- Elected Committee Member
- Posts: 11617
- Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 21:58
- Location: Belfast N Ireland
- Contact:
Re: Should RCS have higher milages on them?
Simple problem with your version: too much information. That’s why you go general (ie regional) until you need disambiguation.
I would have to suggest that signposting to Shropshire from the north east is something they could not plan for on signs. Ludlow may be south of Newark, but who looking at a map (or Google Maps) would think that it would be in “The SOUTH”? Proper route planning will identify that Shropshire would be dealt with by following signs to “The MIDLANDS”.
So as I say: the system isn’t broken. Regional destinations plus primary destinations once disambiguation is required or you are in the region and important non-primary destinations when you get more local.
I would have to suggest that signposting to Shropshire from the north east is something they could not plan for on signs. Ludlow may be south of Newark, but who looking at a map (or Google Maps) would think that it would be in “The SOUTH”? Proper route planning will identify that Shropshire would be dealt with by following signs to “The MIDLANDS”.
So as I say: the system isn’t broken. Regional destinations plus primary destinations once disambiguation is required or you are in the region and important non-primary destinations when you get more local.
Re: Should RCS have higher milages on them?
That's not TMI, and there is such a thing as too little information as well.AndyB wrote: ↑Mon Sep 25, 2023 11:25 Simple problem with your version: too much information. That’s why you go general (ie regional) until you need disambiguation.
I would have to suggest that signposting to Shropshire from the north east is something they could not plan for on signs. Ludlow may be south of Newark, but who looking at a map (or Google Maps) would think that it would be in “The SOUTH”? Proper route planning will identify that Shropshire would be dealt with by following signs to “The MIDLANDS”.
So as I say: the system isn’t broken. Regional destinations plus primary destinations once disambiguation is required or you are in the region and important non-primary destinations when you get more local.
What I wrote is more or less the same as your average overhead gantry, see this at the Bolton turnoff for the M61 on the M60 anticlockwise.
The real atrocity is where signs give you only an uber-local primary destination alongside the regional like:
"A1(M) The NORTH, Scotch Corner"
"M5 The SOUTH WEST, Stroud"
What's better is to have the following:
- one 'regional' destination (so The NORTH, SCOTLAND, The LAKES, etc)
- a super-control destination; a big place in the direction of your regional destination, people will know where it is roughly in relation to the rest of the country, so places like Edinburgh, Glasgow, Newcastle, Birmingham, London, etc.
- plus the nearest other primary destination of note
Works not perfectly but very well on the M6 Southbound currently, where starting at Carlisle you get
'The SOUTH, Penrith, Preston'
'The SOUTH, Kendal, Preston'
'The SOUTH, Lancaster, Preston'
Then once you're at Preston, you get a similar pattern with Birmingham.
"I see the face of a child. He lives in a great city. He is black. Or he is white. He is Mexican, Italian, Polish. None of that matters. What matters, he's an American child"
- Richard Nixon
- Richard Nixon
Re: Should RCS have higher milages on them?
Rillington wrote: ↑Sat Sep 23, 2023 09:53And they also have huge distances in America.Rob590 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 11:25 London is effectively being treated as a regional destination like THE SOUTH or THE NORTH on those signs on the M1, which is perhaps the correct approach given that the distance could be quite different depending on where in London you're heading to. I don't think it would be unhelpful to identify 'super-destination' cities - London, Glasgow, Birmingham, Cardiff, Manchester, Leeds, Edinburgh, and maybe due to their locations Newcastle, Inverness, Plymouth, Dover, Portsmouth and Aberdeen perhaps - that could be signed on flag signs and overhead gantries as if they were regional destinations.
But I personally don't see the need to have super-long distances signed on the motorway network - it seems a bit preposterous to me when driving through Normandy to see a sign telling me that it's 623km (388 miles) to Bordeaux. The distance to Tours or Poitiers would seem more relevant, and it feels a little more like the state is saying "look how extensive our network is" rather than providing useful information.
I think there is a good shout for distances to places like those you refer to when that road goes to/past those locations. This would have given Leeds 200 on the M1 at London. However, if this had been adpoted, the total for Edinburgh on the A1 in London would have been huge!
Re: Should RCS have higher milages on them?
Not so much actually, on your average Interstate highway, destinations outside of the state you are in rarely appear on RCS. As I remember, on the I-95 South, I had to wait until I was halfway through Connecticut until I saw an RCS mileage to New York City (about 80 miles, maybe), though it was sporadically on the gantries from about the Boston areaRillington wrote: ↑Sat Sep 23, 2023 09:53 And they also have huge distances in America.
I think there is a good shout for distances to places like those you refer to when that road goes to/past those locations. This would have given Leeds 200 on the M1 at London. However, if this had been adpoted, the total for Edinburgh on the A1 in London would have been huge!
"I see the face of a child. He lives in a great city. He is black. Or he is white. He is Mexican, Italian, Polish. None of that matters. What matters, he's an American child"
- Richard Nixon
- Richard Nixon
- freebrickproductions
- Member
- Posts: 335
- Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2023 00:11
- Location: Huntsville, AL
- Contact:
Re: Should RCS have higher milages on them?
I think it also depends on on the population density as well. When I drove cross-country to Seattle last year, Sioux Falls and Rapid City were the two control cities for I-90 in South Dakota, given that those were literally the only two places with relatively large populations along the route. As a result, Rapid City is signed all the way from Sioux Falls, which leads to some large distances on the mileage signs.Osthagen wrote: ↑Mon Sep 25, 2023 13:19Not so much actually, on your average Interstate highway, destinations outside of the state you are in rarely appear on RCS. As I remember, on the I-95 South, I had to wait until I was halfway through Connecticut until I saw an RCS mileage to New York City (about 80 miles, maybe), though it was sporadically on the gantries from about the Boston areaRillington wrote: ↑Sat Sep 23, 2023 09:53 And they also have huge distances in America.
I think there is a good shout for distances to places like those you refer to when that road goes to/past those locations. This would have given Leeds 200 on the M1 at London. However, if this had been adpoted, the total for Edinburgh on the A1 in London would have been huge!
Sign at the I-29/I-90 interchange in Sioux Falls, showing Rapid City as the control city:
First mileagle sign I saw west of Sioux Falls on I-90:
It seems states will try to post suitable control cities within the state, but, if nonsuch exist, they'll use an out of state control city, which is generally gonna be towards the borders of the state. I know I-65 in Nashville, TN, uses the control cities of Huntsville (Alabama) for southbound and Louisville (Kentucky) for northbound. Similarly, ALDOT signs Nashville as the control city for I-65 northbound once you get to the interchange with I-565, though I want to say it starts appearing on mileage signs before then.
I-10 in Mobile, AL, also has the control cities of Pascagoula (Mississippi) for westbound and Pensacola (Florida) for eastbound. It appears that originally these were just the states of Mississippi and Florida. I-20 eastbound in Birmingham, AL, also uses Atlanta, GA, as the control city, and I-22 westbound has Memphis, TN, signed as the control city but once you get to Jasper, AL, it changes to Tupelo, MS. I-59 northbound starts using Chattanooga, TN, once you get to the Gadsden, AL, area. I-95 northbound in Savannah, GA, also uses Florence, SC, as the signed control city.
Amusingly, none of the control cities posted at the I-24/I-59 interchange are within the state of Georgia, as I-24 uses the control cities of Nashville and Chattanooga, while I-59 uses Birmingham as its control city.
Probably busy documenting grade crossings in the southeastern United States.
(They/Them)
(They/Them)
Re: Should RCS have higher milages on them?
I have to admit that one of the biggest thrills of my visit to Arizona earlier in the year was seeing signage in Phoenix for the I-10 West pointing to Los Angeles, California! I somehow doubt LA reciprocates by putting Phoenix on the signs for the road eastbound.freebrickproductions wrote: ↑Mon Sep 25, 2023 20:27I think it also depends on on the population density as well. When I drove cross-country to Seattle last year, Sioux Falls and Rapid City were the two control cities for I-90 in South Dakota, given that those were literally the only two places with relatively large populations along the route. As a result, Rapid City is signed all the way from Sioux Falls, which leads to some large distances on the mileage signs.Osthagen wrote: ↑Mon Sep 25, 2023 13:19Not so much actually, on your average Interstate highway, destinations outside of the state you are in rarely appear on RCS. As I remember, on the I-95 South, I had to wait until I was halfway through Connecticut until I saw an RCS mileage to New York City (about 80 miles, maybe), though it was sporadically on the gantries from about the Boston areaRillington wrote: ↑Sat Sep 23, 2023 09:53 And they also have huge distances in America.
I think there is a good shout for distances to places like those you refer to when that road goes to/past those locations. This would have given Leeds 200 on the M1 at London. However, if this had been adpoted, the total for Edinburgh on the A1 in London would have been huge!
Sign at the I-29/I-90 interchange in Sioux Falls, showing Rapid City as the control city:
First mileagle sign I saw west of Sioux Falls on I-90:
It seems states will try to post suitable control cities within the state, but, if nonsuch exist, they'll use an out of state control city, which is generally gonna be towards the borders of the state. I know I-65 in Nashville, TN, uses the control cities of Huntsville (Alabama) for southbound and Louisville (Kentucky) for northbound. Similarly, ALDOT signs Nashville as the control city for I-65 northbound once you get to the interchange with I-565, though I want to say it starts appearing on mileage signs before then.
I-10 in Mobile, AL, also has the control cities of Pascagoula (Mississippi) for westbound and Pensacola (Florida) for eastbound. It appears that originally these were just the states of Mississippi and Florida. I-20 eastbound in Birmingham, AL, also uses Atlanta, GA, as the control city, and I-22 westbound has Memphis, TN, signed as the control city but once you get to Jasper, AL, it changes to Tupelo, MS. I-59 northbound starts using Chattanooga, TN, once you get to the Gadsden, AL, area. I-95 northbound in Savannah, GA, also uses Florence, SC, as the signed control city.
Amusingly, none of the control cities posted at the I-24/I-59 interchange are within the state of Georgia, as I-24 uses the control cities of Nashville and Chattanooga, while I-59 uses Birmingham as its control city.
I remember driving the I-95 through my home state of Georgia and the Carolinas about 7 years ago, and noticing that nearly all of the RCSs were signed to local-ish places that I'd never even heard of before. It would have been handy to have had some bigger distances to really well known cities which would have helped me gauge where I was in relation to the rest of the route.
"I see the face of a child. He lives in a great city. He is black. Or he is white. He is Mexican, Italian, Polish. None of that matters. What matters, he's an American child"
- Richard Nixon
- Richard Nixon
-
- Member
- Posts: 1994
- Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 19:10
- Location: Manchester
Re: Should RCS have higher milages on them?
What you suggest makes a lot of sense.Osthagen wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 22:42Personal opinion, as a general rule of thumb, yes. Leeds should be signed on the A1(M) South from Newcastle, and vice versa. Defo sign Brum and Bristol from one another on the M5 as well.Rillington wrote: ↑Sun Sep 17, 2023 22:03 As we know, the highest milage seen on an extant RCS is for London on the M5 but I was wondering what people's view is on whether even higher distances, especially for London, should have been included on route confirmation signs.
When the East Leeds Motorway was built, London is marked on all of the southbound junctions, yet the distance to London is not included on any of the RCS and given that it was included on those signs I think it should have been, and if so would have given a milage for London at around 200. Instead, the first milage to London at the time was 117, now 121 which ironically is the identical highest milage on the A1.
UK primary-destination signage is absolute nonsense overall. All in all, I'd go with the following:
Have a list of super-control cities, distribute them about 100 miles from one another and at least one would always appear on signage on a motorway or long-distance A-road. On the M6, working south you'd have:
Glasgow
Carlisle
Preston
Birmingham
London (via M1)
Once your super-control city is reached, it would be replaced by the next one.
Alongside these, you'd have your control cities, ideally spaced out by 25-ish miles. Again, on the M6 I'd have:
Penrith
Kendal
Lancaster
Wigan
Warrington
Stoke on Trent
Stafford
Wolverhampton
Coventry
Rugby (for M1/A14 traffic)
The next one of these would appear on DS signage alongside your super-control city.
Your RCS in general would be signed to the nearest 1 super-control city, and the nearest 2-3 control cities. If one of your controls happens to be a super-control, so be it.
On your RCS, you would be allowed a max of 1 control city not within the corridor of your route. So, on the M6 through Staffordshire there'd be provisions for the current situation where you have Manchester signed alongside Stafford, Stoke, etc.
And on the A1 the places would probably be Edinburgh
Newcastle
Doncaster (possibly Leeds as well although Leeds is 10 miles from the A1M)
Peterborough
London
The control places would be
Scotch Corner
Wetherby
Newark
Stevenage
Re: Should RCS have higher milages on them?
Yes, add Leeds into the mix too.Rillington wrote: ↑Wed Sep 27, 2023 13:02 What you suggest makes a lot of sense.
And on the A1 the places would probably be Edinburgh
Newcastle
Doncaster (possibly Leeds as well although Leeds is 10 miles from the A1M)
Peterborough
London
The control places would be
Scotch Corner
Wetherby
Newark
Stevenage
Newark definitely, but I think it's time we stopped giving so much prominence to Wetherby and Scotch Corner. Wetherby is no longer really a big junction on the A1, it used to be where traffic for Manchester and Liverpool left the road, not anymore. As for SC, most people north of the Tyne and south of the Humber have never heard of it, making it pretty much a duffer as far as long-distance traffic is concerned, simply signing '(A66)' would be better because people are more likely to know that. I mean, we don't sign Dishforth (the turnoff for the A168/A19), so there's no reason to give SC any special treatment.
Harrogate and Darlington would be better IMO, they're a little further from the mainline of the A1, but they are both big places, traffic unfamiliar to their respective regions are at least likely to have heard of them.
Going North from about the M25, the following Direction Signage would be good
J1: The NORTH, Peterborough, Stevenage
J7: The NORTH, Peterborough, Huntingdon
J14: The NORTH, Peterborough, Stamford
J17: The NORTH, Doncaster, Stamford
SFD: The NORTH, Doncaster, Grantham / Lincoln A46
GRT: The NORTH, Doncaster, Newark / Lincoln A46
NWK: The NORTH, Doncaster, Leeds / Sheffield A57
MKM:The NORTH, Doncaster, Leeds / Hull M18
J35: The NORTH, Leeds, Harrogate / Manchester M62
J41: The NORTH, Newcastle, Harrogate / York A64
J44; The NORTH, Newcastle, Harrogate / Teesside A19
J47: The NORTH, Newcastle, Darlington / Teesside A19
J49: The NORTH, Newcastle, Darlington / Penrith A66
J53: The NORTH, Newcastle, Darlington
J57: The NORTH, Newcastle, Durham
J69: The NORTH, Edinburgh, Morpeth / Carlisle A69
J75: The NORTH, Edinburgh, Morpeth
MPH: The NORTH, Edinburgh, Alnwick
AWK: SCOTLAND, Edinburgh, Berwick
BWK: SCOTLAND, Edinburgh / Glasgow M8
"I see the face of a child. He lives in a great city. He is black. Or he is white. He is Mexican, Italian, Polish. None of that matters. What matters, he's an American child"
- Richard Nixon
- Richard Nixon
-
- Member
- Posts: 1994
- Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 19:10
- Location: Manchester
Re: Should RCS have higher milages on them?
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.
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.
Re: Should RCS have higher milages on them?
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.Rillington wrote: ↑Thu Sep 28, 2023 16:10 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.
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.
"I see the face of a child. He lives in a great city. He is black. Or he is white. He is Mexican, Italian, Polish. None of that matters. What matters, he's an American child"
- Richard Nixon
- Richard Nixon
Re: Should RCS have higher milages on them?
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.
“The simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the lie" - Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
Johnny Mo
Johnny Mo