Should M62 be M1x (for example M19)?

[6637]

but then what are you going to do with the current M1, given its nearest all-purpose equivalent keeps changing as you travel along it.

M65 would work fine but a one-digit number is preferable so might be tempting to downgrade one of the irrelevant one-digit A-roads like the A6 to a longer number.

It's the same with the M6 - it might spend its time in Westmorland and Cumberland as an A6 replacement, but as soon as you get south of Preston it's completely different, part sort-of A49, part sort-of A50, part sort-of A34, part sort-of A449, and so on.

M74 or M7 or M14

[KeithW]

The fundamental problem is that given motorways came later, and preferred routes changed over time, that idea falls apart in England and Wales quite quickly. A1(M) -> M1 works, but then what are you going to do with the current M1, given its nearest all-purpose equivalent keeps changing as you travel along it. It's the same with the M6 - it might spend its time in Westmorland and Cumberland as an A6 replacement, but as soon as you get south of Preston it's completely different, part sort-of A49, part sort-of A50, part sort-of A34, part sort-of A449, and so on.

The M1 was essentially a new route which was initially referred to as the London to Yorkshire motorway. The reason it was the first one built was quite simply the A1 was nothing like as good a road as it now is following a significantly different route as north of Tuxford it took a more easterly route through Retford, Bawtry, central Doncaster to Aberford. One politician at the time described it as the busiest and most dangerous country lane in England.

Here are a number of places that used to be on the A1
Byram Park
https://www.google.com/maps/@53.7296565 ... &entry=ttu

Stamford
https://www.google.com/maps/@52.6518175 ... &entry=ttu

Grantham
https://www.google.com/maps/@52.9126747 ... &entry=ttu


Along what is now the A167 through the centre of Northallerton
https://www.google.com/maps/@54.3360617 ... &entry=ttu

Through Croft
https://www.google.com/maps/@54.4826574 ... &entry=ttu

Darlington
https://www.google.com/maps/@54.5214776 ... &entry=ttu

At the time the better route from the North East to Doncaster was the A19 , at that time the route buses from Teesside to London went via York and Tadcaster only joining the A1 at Tadcaster as the queues at Wetherby roundabout were legendary.

Numbering the new motorway the number M19 would have been bizarre, at the time the A19 was a simple D2 road of local importance only and south of Thirsk it has barely changed.

A19 Doncaster
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.53653 ... ?entry=ttu

[Owain]

Yes, but it was an unusual number to choose.

I don't see why it was so unusual from a motorway numbering perspective, although I can see why it might be considered unintuitive purely from the point of view of looking at a map and seeing the A46 at either end (at least roughly). No doubt Steven will be along in a moment to further clarify or correct, but as I understand it the M69 is in the motorway 6 zone and 69 was a suitable number to use, especially as all of M60-M68 had already been previously used in some way or another for other motorways, albeit not all of them got as far as being built. That is what I have gleaned from a quick recap from Pathetic Motorways at any rate .

It's not even slightly unusual, and is a perfectly sensible choice for the reasons Owen gives.

If we think of it as being effectively a link road between two much more important motorways, it could be argued that there is a certain numerical consistency between the M69 and M49 (although I'm not suggesting this was done by intent).

---
Anybody wishing to make a case for the M46 number could point to the fact that the M69 splits off from the A46 a short distance south of the M6, and therefore in the 4-zone.

[jnty]

I don't see why it was so unusual from a motorway numbering perspective, although I can see why it might be considered unintuitive purely from the point of view of looking at a map and seeing the A46 at either end (at least roughly). No doubt Steven will be along in a moment to further clarify or correct, but as I understand it the M69 is in the motorway 6 zone and 69 was a suitable number to use, especially as all of M60-M68 had already been previously used in some way or another for other motorways, albeit not all of them got as far as being built. That is what I have gleaned from a quick recap from Pathetic Motorways at any rate .

It's not even slightly unusual, and is a perfectly sensible choice for the reasons Owen gives.

If we think of it as being effectively a link road between two much more important motorways, it could be argued that there is a certain numerical consistency between the M69 and M49 (although I'm not suggesting this was done by intent).

---
Anybody wishing to make a case for the M46 number could point to the fact that the M69 splits off from the A46 a short distance south of the M6, and therefore in the 4-zone.

Maybe, by the logic of the new Cross Tay Link Road, it should be the M621!

[jgharston]

The M69 has always been an unusual one: it's 200 miles from the A69 and replaced the A46, but since motorways don't have to follow zonal numbering systems, someone decided to choose 69 for this motorway. One piece of logic could be the M69 branched off from the M6, so the Coventry- Leicester motorway was given a number starting with 6.
Scotland, of course, has only ever used 7, 8 and 9 for its motorways and most of these use a number that replaces a primary route, eg, the M8 replacing the A8.

This is unfortunately complete rubbish.

As has been stated hundreds if not thousands of times on SABRE and its Member Sites, motorways have their own zonal system in England and Wales and are nothing to do with the all-purpose zones.

It runs clockwise from the M6 so it should be an M6x number, but it is near the origin of the M6 so should be a low number, M61, M62 or something. It should be something like:

Code: Select all

M6-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
        M61     M62     M63     M64     etc.
        M611+   M621+   M631+   M641+   etc.

The M1 works: M1, M11, M18 (M180, M181)

[Owain]

The M69 has always been an unusual one: it's 200 miles from the A69 and replaced the A46, but since motorways don't have to follow zonal numbering systems, someone decided to choose 69 for this motorway. One piece of logic could be the M69 branched off from the M6, so the Coventry- Leicester motorway was given a number starting with 6.
Scotland, of course, has only ever used 7, 8 and 9 for its motorways and most of these use a number that replaces a primary route, eg, the M8 replacing the A8.

This is unfortunately complete rubbish.

As has been stated hundreds if not thousands of times on SABRE and its Member Sites, motorways have their own zonal system in England and Wales and are nothing to do with the all-purpose zones.

It runs clockwise from the M6 so it should be an M6x number, but it is near the origin of the M6 so should be a low number, M61, M62 or something. It should be something like:

Code: Select all

M6-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
        M61     M62     M63     M64     etc.
        M611+   M621+   M631+   M641+   etc.

Tohe M1 works: M1, M11, M18 (M180, M181)

It doesn't work like that though.

If it did, the M32 would've been given a higher M3x number, and the M55 would've been given a higher M5x number. The M53 and M54 would also have to swap!

The only rule of which I'm aware is that the first digit should be correct for the zone.

-----
Imagine if the M42 started at the split from the M6 Toll, and went all the way to Nottingham. There'd be no reason why it couldn't or shouldn't be numbered M68; and if it were, the M69 wouldn't look at all out of place.

FWIW, I prefer the concept of clusters, as used in France.

[Steven]

It runs clockwise from the M6 so it should be an M6x number, but it is near the origin of the M6 so should be a low number, M61, M62 or something.

No, it shouldn't. There's no such rule within motorway zones.

And to be fair, there's been no such rule within the all-purpose zones since 1935 either!

[Glenn A]

OK, so there is some clarity about the M69 number.
On a different note, this is a good motorway that provides a rapid link from Coventry to Leicester and the M1.

[Chris Bertram]

It runs clockwise from the M6 so it should be an M6x number, but it is near the origin of the M6 so should be a low number, M61, M62 or something.

No, it shouldn't. There's no such rule within motorway zones.

And to be fair, there's been no such rule within the all-purpose zones since 1935 either!

Rule, perhaps not, but taking the 4 zone into consideration, A40 and A41 start in central London, the original A42 started in Reading, A43 branched off A42 north of Oxford, A44 branched off the same road near Chipping Norton, A45 started in Birmingham and headed for Felixstowe, A46 started in Bath and headed for Cleethorpes, A47 started in Birmingham and headed for Great Yarmouth, A48 diverged from A40 to serve the main south Wales urban area, and A49 connects Ross-on-Wye with Preston, always being a very long way from London. So there's a general rule that higher road numbers indicate greater distance from London, or from Edinburgh in Scotland, without it being an iron rule.

[Steven]

It runs clockwise from the M6 so it should be an M6x number, but it is near the origin of the M6 so should be a low number, M61, M62 or something.

No, it shouldn't. There's no such rule within motorway zones.

And to be fair, there's been no such rule within the all-purpose zones since 1935 either!

Rule, perhaps not, but taking the 4 zone into consideration, A40 and A41 start in central London, the original A42 started in Reading, A43 branched off A42 north of Oxford, A44 branched off the same road near Chipping Norton, A45 started in Birmingham and headed for Felixstowe, A46 started in Bath and headed for Cleethorpes, A47 started in Birmingham and headed for Great Yarmouth, A48 diverged from A40 to serve the main south Wales urban area, and A49 connects Ross-on-Wye with Preston, always being a very long way from London. So there's a general rule that higher road numbers indicate greater distance from London, or from Edinburgh in Scotland, without it being an iron rule.

Yes, and all of those were allocated in 1922 when it was a rule.

So as I said, not since 1935 for the all-purpose zones, and never for the motorway zones.

[Micro The Maniac]

Anybody wishing to make a case for the M46 number could point to the fact that the M69 splits off from the A46 a short distance south of the M6, and therefore in the 4-zone.

Taking a diversion.. I have (perhaps wrong?) memories that the M69 southbound didn't originally run into the A46, but indirectly into M6/J2 (*) - the continuation then followed along the northern-bit of the Eastern by-pass which included a couple of additional roundabouts around the Ansty Business Park (then GPT?), before joining the A46?

Roads.org.uk suggests that there was an 1980s extension (*), but offers no further elaboration, so maybe I'm not imagining things? But does anyone have any info regarding the pre-extension layout?

(*) This, by the way could counter the M69 starting south of the M6 argument...

[Bryn666]

The M69 originally just fed into the M6 using the loop, the extension southwards to join the new A46 came later.

There were stumps and there is still an existing ADS with a peeled off No Entry roundel approaching the junction.

[Steven]

The M69 originally just fed into the M6 using the loop, the extension southwards to join the new A46 came later.

There were stumps and there is still an existing ADS with a peeled off No Entry roundel approaching the junction.

The Coventry Eastern Bypass didn't open until 1989, so when the M69 opened the A46 ran through the city centre.

There weren't any additional roundabouts until then - there was the connection to A46 just north of J2, the direct slip from the M6 eastbound, and the loop to the M6 westbound.

[Owain]

Rule, perhaps not, but taking the 4 zone into consideration, A40 and A41 start in central London, the original A42 started in Reading, A43 branched off A42 north of Oxford, A44 branched off the same road near Chipping Norton, A45 started in Birmingham and headed for Felixstowe, A46 started in Bath and headed for Cleethorpes, A47 started in Birmingham and headed for Great Yarmouth, A48 diverged from A40 to serve the main south Wales urban area, and A49 connects Ross-on-Wye with Preston, always being a very long way from London. So there's a general rule that higher road numbers indicate greater distance from London, or from Edinburgh in Scotland, without it being an iron rule.

Prior to 1935, the A48 started on the A44 just west of the Severn in Worcester, but the point stands.

Yes, and all of those were allocated in 1922 when it was a rule.

So as I said, not since 1935 for the all-purpose zones, and never for the motorway zones.

Unless it was specifically mandated - and you'll know better than me! - it might be better to call it a 'convention' rather than a 'rule'.

I've always had the impression that those with the power simply looked at a map, and issued the numbers by starting in London and Edinburgh, and working their way out.

Of course, if it was written down that they had to do it this way, then it was certainly a rule.

[Steven]

Yes, and all of those were allocated in 1922 when it was a rule.

So as I said, not since 1935 for the all-purpose zones, and never for the motorway zones.

Unless it was specifically mandated - and you'll know better than me! - it might be better to call it a 'convention' rather than a 'rule'.

I've always had the impression that those with the power simply looked at a map, and issued the numbers by starting in London and Edinburgh, and working their way out.

Of course, if it was written down that they had to do it this way, then it was certainly a rule.

It was mandated in the 1920s - that's how we know there was likely to be a very short-lived A4126 either somewhere either in central London or in mid- or west Wales west of Abergavenny, even though we've never found any evidence of its existence.

And yes, that is pretty much how the original numbers were allocated in 1922 - starting at the hub and working their way outwards.

However, in the early 1930s it became more of a guideline as "memorable" numbers were often used in preference - the most obvious example is to look at the two most famous early inter-city highways - the earlier A4123 being given the "next number off the list" in the 1920s, but the later A580 having the "better" number recycled and allocated to it in the 1930s away from the original allocation elsewhere in Lancashire of A580 (Boars Head - Duxbury Hall).

After the 1935 road numbering revision, the "nearest to the hub" numbering was stopped. Hence by the time the motorway zones were created in 1959, there was not even a hint of a guideline about any "nearest to the hub" ideas. Besides, it clearly wouldn't have worked anyway in the suggested manner unless every motorway number was already allocated in 1959, which clearly wasn't the case.

[Owain]

Yes, and all of those were allocated in 1922 when it was a rule.

So as I said, not since 1935 for the all-purpose zones, and never for the motorway zones.

Unless it was specifically mandated - and you'll know better than me! - it might be better to call it a 'convention' rather than a 'rule'.

I've always had the impression that those with the power simply looked at a map, and issued the numbers by starting in London and Edinburgh, and working their way out.

Of course, if it was written down that they had to do it this way, then it was certainly a rule.

It was mandated in the 1920s - that's how we know there was likely to be a very short-lived A4126 either somewhere either in central London or in mid- or west Wales west of Abergavenny, even though we've never found any evidence of its existence.

And yes, that is pretty much how the original numbers were allocated in 1922 - starting at the hub and working their way outwards.

However, in the early 1930s it became more of a guideline as "memorable" numbers were often used in preference - the most obvious example is to look at the two most famous early inter-city highways - the earlier A4123 being given the "next number off the list" in the 1920s, but the later A580 having the "better" number recycled and allocated to it in the 1930s away from the original allocation elsewhere in Lancashire of A580 (Boars Head - Duxbury Hall).

After the 1935 road numbering revision, the "nearest to the hub" numbering was stopped. Hence by the time the motorway zones were created in 1959, there was not even a hint of a guideline about any "nearest to the hub" ideas. Besides, it clearly wouldn't have worked anyway in the suggested manner unless every motorway number was already allocated in 1959, which clearly wasn't the case.

Thanks for the clarification. It was a rule, then - I had probably read that in my early days on SABRE, and then forgotten.

I'd kind of like it to be brought back, as far as all-purpose roads are concerned! On a trivial note, it would mean that there would be no more strange-looking outliers like the A135, A139, A176, or A437; on a more important note, it would also mean that we wouldn't have mistakes like the A479(E) and the A594(S).

There's also a case to make that high-quality routes like the A4123 and A4146 shouldn't get Axxxx numbers, when there is a nearby Axxx road that they are effectively replacing. And of the examples mentioned above, the A135, A139 and A176 hardly merit three-digit numbers, irrespective of what other roads are in close proximity.

[jabbaboy]

If I were designing the numbering system from scratch I would say that each number has to refer to a unique route, and that the first letter can change depending on the quality of that route. In other words, A1 becomes M1 for its motorway sections (ditch the Ax(M) format as very few laypeople understand it)- the whole lot would just be a "route 1" with varying quality for its length. And the same thing can happen with B-roads (e.g. the B5702 could be the B5012, forming a unified route with the A5012).

But changing it to such a system would be far too costly.

See personally, I think we should be looking at getting shot of the Ax(M) roads, there's not that many of the them, and the vast majority of them you could renumber tomorrow without issue.

A74(M)/M74 -> M6
A194(M) -> M194
etc.

The only two really headaches ones are the A1(M) and A3(M). The A3(M) I'd scrap (M) altogether and turn it into a special road like the A14, it's so short it's pointless as a Motorway and the city centre ones should be downgraded.

The A1(M) is the tricky one but personally imo it should be something like:
M1/A1: A1/A1(M) - Edinburgh to Doncaster, M18, M1 South
M10: The rest of the M1
M19/A19: The rest of the A1 South of Doncaster

I know someone will say, the M10 is out of zone but who cares really. It's a link road to the M1 to the North and the M1 to the South so is worth breaking the rules. Obviously you'd need to do Darrington to Redhouse first though.

The A1 South of Doncaster isn't worth an Ax number. It's poor most of it and we should be pushing people away from it.

[Glenn A]

The M69 originally just fed into the M6 using the loop, the extension southwards to join the new A46 came later.

There were stumps and there is still an existing ADS with a peeled off No Entry roundel approaching the junction.

The Coventry Eastern Bypass didn't open until 1989, so when the M69 opened the A46 ran through the city centre.

There weren't any additional roundabouts until then - there was the connection to A46 just north of J2, the direct slip from the M6 eastbound, and the loop to the M6 westbound.

I should know, I moved to Coventry in 1989 and some of the old A46 signs had not been removed as late as 1991. Also completed just before I moved back north was the A444 Foleshill by pass which replaced the congested Foleshill Rd and provided a faster D2 link to the northbound M6 from the city centre.

[KeithW]

The A1(M) is the tricky one but personally imo it should be something like:
M1/A1: A1/A1(M) - Edinburgh to Doncaster, M18, M1 South
M10: The rest of the M1
M19/A19: The rest of the A1 South of Doncaster

I know someone will say, the M10 is out of zone but who cares really. It's a link road to the M1 to the North and the M1 to the South so is worth breaking the rules. Obviously you'd need to do Darrington to Redhouse first though.

The A1 South of Doncaster isn't worth an Ax number. It's poor most of it and we should be pushing people away from it.

The M10 ceased to exist in 2009, its now the A414 , it was built at the same time as the first section of the M1 and was simply a distributor road to get traffic off the M1 and connect to the North Orbital Road.

As for A1(M) versus M1 it depends on your final destination. If I am heading for East London I will take the A1(M)/A14/M11 and then either take the M25 to the Dartford Crossing/ or head along the A127/A13 to Essex. The one part of the A1 that really needs bypassing is Sandy but at least they are finally replacing the Black Cat with a GSJ.