Motorways and HS2

[tbtc]

On the one hand you're complaining that ...

the A1, the Great North Road is still mostly an A-road with single-carriageway sections north of Newcastle!

... but when the large amount of upgrades on the A1 north of Doncaster (long sections of motorway standard, roundabouts like Scotch Corner removed etc) are mentioned you say that these can't be counted as the M1 isn't paralleling the A1 on that section...

I'm not entirely sure whether anything that isn't parallelled by the M1 really counts in this debate

.... if that's the case then why do the single carriageway sections from Morpeth to Dunbar count (as the M1 obviously doesn't parallel this)?

 

[Class172]

Well perhaps the most recent A1(M) upgrades have occured where it is not paralleled by the M1 (Ferrybridge-Newcastle), but not much north of Newcastle as traffic flows are less.

 

[Haydn1971]

And what about the recent Darrington to Hook Moor improvement of the A1 to motorway standard, a link paralleled by the M1. There is also the at grade junction removals over the last couple of years between Peterbough and Doncaster.

Essentially, although the A1 between Peterbough and the M62 would be nice upgraded to D3M standard, the core motorway network (M1, M4, M5, M6, M25 & M62 is in greater need of improvement by the addition of more lanes either by widening or active traffic management. The A1 will have its day, hopefully the Redhouse-Darrington section first, maybe a much needed widened Doncaster bypass too...

 

[Class172]

Indeed, as the roundabouts at Grantham and other locations have now been replace with GSJs meaning nearly all of the remaining roundabouts (eg A1/A428 Black Cat) are in a less widespread area. At least the road doesn't suffer from chronic traffic issues which happen on the other major motorways.

 

[LE Greys]

On the one hand you're complaining that ...



... but when the large amount of upgrades on the A1 north of Doncaster (long sections of motorway standard, roundabouts like Scotch Corner removed etc) are mentioned you say that these can't be counted as the M1 isn't paralleling the A1 on that section...



.... if that's the case then why do the single carriageway sections from Morpeth to Dunbar count (as the M1 obviously doesn't parallel this)?

Fair enough, I'll drop those. One could argue that this is parallelled by the M6, but I'll leave that as a moot point. It's not relevant to the southern 'rump' anyway, the section that I'm most concerned about.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

well perhaps the most recent a1(m) upgrades have occured where it is not paralleled by the m1 (ferrybridge-newcastle), but not much north of newcastle as traffic flows are less.

Quod erat demonstrandum!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Indeed, as the roundabouts at Grantham and other locations have now been replace with GSJs meaning nearly all of the remaining roundabouts (eg A1/A428 Black Cat) are in a less widespread area. At least the road doesn't suffer from chronic traffic issues which happen on the other major motorways.

This actually might be a bit of a problem. Some of the flyovers and diveunders are just wide enough for a two-lane dual carriageway (certainly the ones at Wansford, North Muskham and so on are). That can fit one motorway carriageway, but not two. In other words, they will need to be rebuilt again if it happens.

BTW, the Black Cat suffers from chronic traffic issues all the time, as does the two-lane bit from Stevenage to Welwyn.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You need to join Sabre with thoughts like that

www.sabre-roads.org.uk

The idea came from the rather-immodestly titled Great North Road Project that I ran at school as a spinoff from the High Speed Rail Project - North East. Much of the Peterborough-Doncaster of HSNE section would run alongside the current A1, so I thought it might be an opportunity to upgrade the road as well. The result is buried in an old file somewhere, filling about three A4 notebooks (it dates back to the time I wanted to be an engineer).

The Newark bypass, for instance, would involve building one new carriageway plus the railway trackbed while the old road was still in place, but would have to cut the corner in some locations. Traffic would divert onto the new carriageway when it was finshed (3 lanes plus hard shoulder is wide enough), while work would be under way to get track down and wires up on the railway. The second new carriageway would obliterate the old road as it went down. Where this meets the ECML at North Muskham, two connecting lines would swing away to allow HS-NE trains to access Newark station. The railway would open at the same time as the second carriageway. On sections where the original single carriageway still exists, that would be retained for local access while the newer one would be obliterated. However, HS-NE would run alongside the ECML instead for most of the straight sections between towns.

It was only ever a school project, but it looked professional enough when presented.

 

[Class172]

Quod erat demonstrandum!

Quod erat faciendum

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Quod erat faciendum

Dificile est tenare quae acceparis nisi exerceas. Diligentia maximum etiam medeocris ingeni subsidium.

 

[jimm]

Yes, and I'm a whinging git who should accept that where I live does not matter in comparison with those other places that have had loads of money spent on them and seen the benefits from it! (Am I being sarcastic?)

P.S. Thanks for moving this to a separate thread.

Whingeing, yes, absolutely.

What I was referring to was not areas where the A1 has become the A1(M), it was the places in this country that have extremely busy roads but not a dual carriageway in sight, and places where the unemployment rate is a hell of a lot higher than Hertfordshire's (which is consistently below the national average, hardly suggesting its economy is suffering as badly as many places have in recent years).

You say it is unfair that other areas have seen money spent on the A1, yet you have not provided any convincing reason or evidence as to why the sections in Hertfordshire need such work, nor the section northwards to Doncaster, nor why there is a need for a dual carriageway on the section across the border from Morpeth to Edinburgh. Just because you assert that they should does not make a case for the substantial investment that is required.

The Highways Agency does not go out and spend its money willy-nilly, it spends it where traffic volumes justify extra capacity. I used to live in Yorkshire and often used the A1 to the North East or to get to Scotland. It was a scary place to be much of the time when it was a dual carriageway, with a line of lorries filling the left-hand lane for miles on end and everyone else trying to get past in the other lane, that's why the money was directed to those areas.

The point is that the A1 was once the most important road in the country

Maybe to the people living along it. It wasn't to people living elsewhere, was it?

 

[swj99]

........The point is that the A1 was once the most important road in the country. It isn't any more (I'd say it was barely in the top 20), and that has negative effects on the people who live along it. ........

There are always going to be winners and losers with any change or progress that happens.

Whilst not motorway, I can think of examples of a similar thing along a couple of sections of road which used to be part of the A27, east of Chichester in West Sussex, until the A27 was upgraded and diverted away from them.

People who were sick of heavy traffic going past their houses, year after year, probably felt like winners, especially if their house value increased as a result. But people in the same towns or villages whose businesses subsequently failed or did less business due to lower customer volumes probably didn’t.

I suppose you could say that progress presents options, in that now people have other choices, in addition to what was there originally. What I've noticed from practical experience, is that the ‘old’ routes tend to get forgotten.
Also, less and less people become aware of what was along the old or original route. For example, back in the mid 1980s, on the A27 from Chichester towards Arundel, one business along that road, now designated as the A285 and called Stane Street, is Everymans Garage at Maudlin. It’s still there today, (Rolls Royce factory is just behind it), but I guess that less people drive past it now because it’s not visible from what is now the A27 dual carriageway. The road is still there, as it was in the 80s, and the option to use the old route is still there, if you know where to find it.

Another example is again the A27 at Fontwell. The old A27 went right through the middle of the village itself. These days, if you were driving from Chichester to Brighton, the A27 takes traffic past the village rather than through it. One business I remember which used to be there was a Renault main dealer. The building itself is still there, but looking at streetview, it appears to be occupied by a garage who have a contract to remove broken down and abandoned cars from the road. As the location is now ‘off the beaten track’, I’m sure this will have reduced the passing trade of any businesses along the route.

 

[Class172]

Dificile est tenare quae acceparis nisi exerceas. Diligentia maximum etiam medeocris ingeni subsidium.

Ah... Pliny the Younger
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Maybe to the people living along it. It wasn't to people living elsewhere, was it?

I could easily say the most important road is the one in which I live in, though I suspect 62* million others in this country will have something to say about that.

*I'm losing count now what our population is.

 

[radamfi]

The north west of England is covered by a dense network of motorways yet it is has some of the most deprived areas in the country. On the other hand, places like Suffolk and Norfolk, areas that are relatively inaccessible, are relatively well off. So you can't really say that transport access is a prerequisite for economic well being.

 

[LE Greys]

Whingeing, yes, absolutely.

What I was referring to was not areas where the A1 has become the A1(M), it was the places in this country that have extremely busy roads but not a dual carriageway in sight, and places where the unemployment rate is a hell of a lot higher than Hertfordshire's (which is consistently below the national average, hardly suggesting its economy is suffering as badly as many places have in recent years).

You say it is unfair that other areas have seen money spent on the A1, yet you have not provided any convincing reason or evidence as to why the sections in Hertfordshire need such work, nor the section northwards to Doncaster, nor why there is a need for a dual carriageway on the section across the border from Morpeth to Edinburgh. Just because you assert that they should does not make a case for the substantial investment that is required.

The Highways Agency does not go out and spend its money willy-nilly, it spends it where traffic volumes justify extra capacity. I used to live in Yorkshire and often used the A1 to the North East or to get to Scotland. It was a scary place to be much of the time when it was a dual carriageway, with a line of lorries filling the left-hand lane for miles on end and everyone else trying to get past in the other lane, that's why the money was directed to those areas.

Unemployment figures in Hertfordshire tend to be a bit skewed towards the southern side of the county. They are also greatly affected by London. The relevant areas in this case are North Herts and East Beds, which according to NHDC's own report is 2.5%, with a blackspot in Stevenage of 4.4% (Table 4.1, Page 4). North East Bedfordshire is higher at 2.9%. I haven't had the chance to look at Lincolnshire yet.

Firstly, I can't really make a case without knowing the figures backwards, but let me explain what it is like to live in a forgotten area. Imagine you're a child living in a cul-de-sac, on one side of the road (the ECML). Now, the kids on the other side (the WCML) have just had a whole load of money spend on getting them new toys (Pendolinos) whereas your toys are a bit old and past it (225s). Now, imagine that Father Christmas (the government) has just told the kids on the other side that they will get more, better and newer toys (HS2 and their new trains). Immediately, the kids down the end of the road (Scotland and Yorkshire) say they don't want to play with you any more, just with them, and by the way they are going to throw away the toys that you all used to play with but Santa tells you you might get some cheap ones (whatever replaces the 225s) if you're lucky and keep to yourself, and you're not very important anyway. Put yourself in that position for a moment and think how fair that sounds. A lot of people on my side of the country don't like being treated as if they don't matter.

Maybe to the people living along it. It wasn't to people living elsewhere, was it?

I'm talking about the pre-Victorian Great North Road, right up to when it got its number. It's A1 for a reason!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
To stop me from sounding like I've completely lost my rag, let's look at it like this. My primary concern is to protect the ECML as a through route from Scotland, Tyneside and Yorkshire. The A1 is an example of what can go wrong if that through route is lost. I very much doubt it is possible to justify extra spending on it to restore it as a through route (although that won't stop me trying). If that happens to the ECML as well, then Peterborough, Grantham, Newark, Retford and especially Doncaster are in trouble. Stevenage will probably do OK, it's close enough to grow on the back of London (although it has enough intrinsic problems already). I doubt it's possible to justify more than a semi-fast service for the 'rump' ECML without through traffic, so my concern is protecting that through traffic at all costs.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The north west of England is covered by a dense network of motorways yet it is has some of the most deprived areas in the country. On the other hand, places like Suffolk and Norfolk, areas that are relatively inaccessible, are relatively well off. So you can't really say that transport access is a prerequisite for economic well being.

Looking back in recent historical time and the growth of the Lancashire cotton trade and the associated very poor housing and employment standards at that time in the North-West with "dark satanic mills", one could have said the same with regard to the 1840 to 1860 period by substituting the word railways for motorways

 

[tbtc]

My primary concern is to protect the ECML as a through route from Scotland, Tyneside and Yorkshire. The A1 is an example of what can go wrong if that through route is lost. I very much doubt it is possible to justify extra spending on it to restore it as a through route (although that won't stop me trying). If that happens to the ECML as well, then Peterborough, Grantham, Newark, Retford and especially Doncaster are in trouble. Stevenage will probably do OK, it's close enough to grow on the back of London (although it has enough intrinsic problems already). I doubt it's possible to justify more than a semi-fast service for the 'rump' ECML without through traffic, so my concern is protecting that through traffic at all costs.

The Scottish services tend to run fast to York, so are of little use to people in Peterborough, Grantham, Newark, Retford etc.

There will still need to be services from London to these stations (possibly to Leeds, possibly to Hull or other northern destinations) which may mean more trains are able to stop at Stevenage/ Peterborough etc (rather than having to run non-stop to suit longer distance passengers.

Surely having more trains stopping at these southern ECML stations would be a good thing over-all? At the moment some places are being held back to try to squeeze in non-stop trains on that section of line.

Similarly it looks like Milton Keynes will get more trains stopping there.

 

[LE Greys]

The Scottish services tend to run fast to York, so are of little use to people in Peterborough, Grantham, Newark, Retford etc.

There will still need to be services from London to these stations (possibly to Leeds, possibly to Hull or other northern destinations) which may mean more trains are able to stop at Stevenage/ Peterborough etc (rather than having to run non-stop to suit longer distance passengers.

Surely having more trains stopping at these southern ECML stations would be a good thing over-all? At the moment some places are being held back to try to squeeze in non-stop trains on that section of line.

Similarly it looks like Milton Keynes will get more trains stopping there.

That's partly correct, but not exactly. Take Axminster or Yeovil Junction as an analogy rather than a direct comparison (comprable with Retford or Newark) or Salisbury (comparable with Peterborough). Now, it's possible to argue that Axminster, Yeovil Junction and Salisbury have a better service today than they did in the 1950s. It's better tailored to the needs of local people, runs to a 1tph even-interval timetable and is operated by modern DMUs. So what if you need to change trains at Exeter to reach anywhere west of there? You would normally have done that anyway, the Atlantic Coast Express only barely served Axminster, although it did stop at Salisbury, and the Devon Belle didn't stop there at all!

Just don't try telling that to the people who live there! Not that far to the north, Westbury and Castle Cary have an HST service which reaches Paddington far faster than their trains reach Waterloo. In fact, there are some times of day when it's quicker to travel to Westbury rather than wait for a Waterloo train, if you have the option. The relative pace of development on the Berks & Hants has been much higher, at least partly because of the diversion of long-distance traffic.

Now, I very much doubt they're going to cut services that far. A worst-case scenario is 3tph semi-fast with minimal on-board facilities, along with cuts to stations and the possible closure of a few loops. I'd expect them to be operated by the shorter version of IEP. Stations will most probably see reductions in staffing and building closures, certainly a loss of catering. A better scenario would be 4tph including 1tph to Newcastle, giving a better link to HS2 for traffic northwards.

Milton Keynes (and Stevenage) will be affected too, but in a different way. Most likely, this means increased suburban frequencies and increased parking. What that will do to station facilities I couldn't even guess, since there may be more people, but they will spend less time there. That's closer to somewhere like Woking or Basingstoke.

So, the history of express traction out of King's Cross will be, the early GNR engines, Stirling singles, Ivatt Atlantics, Gresley Pacifics (with later Thompson and Peppercorn additions), Deltics (plus the odd 47), HSTs, 91s (and the odd addition), a few years of long-form IEP and that's it. I've been lucky enough to be able to use the ECML throughout my life so far, as a fringe benefit, one of very few people who heads north, but does not live in London. I'm now aware I can't take that for granted.