Motorways and HS2

[LE Greys]

In which case a high speed line is probably not the right way to deal with the capacity problem at all. Anywhere in the UK. High speed rail works when there are large conurbations with a lot of empty space in between. The UK south of about Manchester consists of dozens of settlements with populations of between 1000,000 and 250,000, with a lot of the spaces in between built up as well. That pattern calls for a network with plenty of connections, not a main stem to concentrate the traffic flow. Arguably, HS2 is exactly the wrong solution to the transport needs of people in the southern half of the UK, where most people live and work.

For once I do believe you're right.


Thread split from here

 

[The Ham]

You regularly raise the issue of track costs but how significant are they in the overall scheme of things? The capital cost of rolling stock is one of the really big ones.

On each mile the track access charges are very small compared to the cost of buy the stock in the first place, however as trains often run for hundreds of miles a day it can soon add up. I was just saying that the cost of the leasing (which is closely related to the cost of purchasing the stock) would have to be lower for running locos as economical.

For instance a loco and six coaches doing 500 miles a day every weekday is likely to cost (assuming the cheapest loco) about £100,000 in track access charges (about £116,000 with a DVT added). Whilst a 6 coach doubled up Class 159 costs about £55,000 in track access charges. This would mean to be as profitable the loco hauled train would have to have a lease cost of £45,000 (£58,000 with a DVT) less than the DMU's.

This would in turn mean that the purchase cost and/or the maintenance and/or the life span of the of the loco and the coaches would need to work out to be significantly cheaper than the costs of the DMU's.

It would also mean that there would have to be a market for the loco and its coaches for a long time after the initial order. As both halves of the doubled up 159's could be used on more rural branch lines for many years after the main line was electrified, whilst a new electric loco would be needed for the mainline train and new DMU's for the lines which would have benefited from the cascading of the DMU's.

In which case a high speed line is probably not the right way to deal with the capacity problem at all. Anywhere in the UK. High speed rail works when there are large conurbations with a lot of empty space in between. The UK south of about Manchester consists of dozens of settlements with populations of between 1000,000 and 250,000, with a lot of the spaces in between built up as well. That pattern calls for a network with plenty of connections, not a main stem to concentrate the traffic flow. Arguably, HS2 is exactly the wrong solution to the transport needs of people in the southern half of the UK, where most people live and work.

A network of rail lines is what we have, HS2 is a bypass to parts of that network to enable more trains to run on that network. By removing most of the ICWC trains from the WCML to HS2 would mean that there more paths for people to travel between Birmingham and Rugby or Milton Keynes and Leighton Buzzard than at present making the network more useful to them rather than being crowded out by people travelling longer distances as well as those travelling to London.

Your argument against HS2 could be used for not building any motorways, as a network of roads to enable everyone to get every where is better than fast roads which bypass several smaller towns.

If we built a new bit to the network it would have to do something that meant that it was better than what people already use, given Chiltern have under cut the cost of the WCML services from Birmingham the only real option would be to build a line that was faster or at the very least meant that the end to end journey time was faster (by means of better located stations - good luck finding somewhere in London for that!). In which case it probably wouldn't stop at many places anyway and you'd be arguing against it because it wasn't really being part of the "network".

 

[LE Greys]

A network of rail lines is what we have, HS2 is a bypass to parts of that network to enable more trains to run on that network. By removing most of the ICWC trains from the WCML to HS2 would mean that there more paths for people to travel between Birmingham and Rugby or Milton Keynes and Leighton Buzzard than at present making the network more useful to them rather than being crowded out by people travelling longer distances as well as those travelling to London.

Your argument against HS2 could be used for not building any motorways, as a network of roads to enable everyone to get every where is better than fast roads which bypass several smaller towns.

If we built a new bit to the network it would have to do something that meant that it was better than what people already use, given Chiltern have under cut the cost of the WCML services from Birmingham the only real option would be to build a line that was faster or at the very least meant that the end to end journey time was faster (by means of better located stations - good luck finding somewhere in London for that!). In which case it probably wouldn't stop at many places anyway and you'd be arguing against it because it wasn't really being part of the "network".

That's not an ideal comparison. Motorways have far more junctions than HS lines have stations, so they are much easier to access. However, to pursue the analogy, take the M1 vs the A1 as an example. The M1 has done to the A1 what I am concerned HS2 will to to the ECML, taken away a lot of the long-distance traffic and reduced the economic output of the area it passes through. Choosing where to locate a business is often based on transport links as much as anything. So a business heavily-reliant on road transport to London is going to find Milton Keynes a much more attractive prospect than Peterborough. This tips the balance in favour of more investment in the M1 corridor and less in the A1 corridor (because that's where all the businesses are going, so that's where the congestion happens). What's the result? Well, the A1, the Great North Road is still mostly an A-road with single-carriageway sections north of Newcastle!

Can it be resolved without creating an east-west divide? Of course it can! Get out the diggers and upgrade the entire A1 so it's motorway from Scratchwood to the Tyne Tunnel and dual-carriageway for the rest. Maybe even renumber the Wetherby-Tyne Tunnel section as 'M1', to ensure that the southern half keeps the A1(M) number. Thing is, it's simply not going to happen, because there will always be other priorities. Even though the southern M1 needs a relief road, and even though upgrading the A1 is bound to increase local competitiveness, they'll keep pouring money into the M1 instead.

So, how about applying that to a rail model. Well, look at Dijon. The original TGV-SE line bypassed it completely, they were keen to get to Lyons. To this day, no TGV runs between Dijon and Lyons (AFAIK). I'd like to know whether this has affected the local economy and how it has done so. I shall watch LGV Rhin-Rhône with great interest.

I've said before that the ideal answer to high-speed rail in southern England is a 'wagon wheel' network running roughly parallel to the current main lines, (looking remarkably like the Serpell Report Option A) being built in stages and using existing stations wherever possible to make interchange easier and save costs. While this would limit capacity, be more expensive and take longer, it would ultimately serve more people and do a far better job of supplimenting the current network. In terms of money spent per person served, i.e. those who get to travel on an HS train at some point during the year, including say Newark-Retford (which would probably still use the ECML rather than HSNE for that section), then I'd make a reasonable guess that it's about the same.

The first stage doesn't need any new lines at all, it would be to bring HS1 domestic services into the same fare restrictions as everyone else. No more special fares or suppliments (do it at the same time as Heathrow Express to kill two birds with one stone). That sets the precedent, a high-speed service is a normal inter-city service that runs over a portion of high-speed line at some point during the journey. Continue to apply that principle, and expand the network with new sections of line to make it possible.

 

[HSTEd]

One of the reasons the A1 is still mostly the A1 is because of the legal restrictions imposed on motorways that drastically increase the cost of conversion of A roads into Motorways.

You have to provide a relief carriageway to account for all the traffic the conversion excludes from the route and to maintain local access for said traffic.

This means a lot of bridges, in the end it becomes cheaper to simply build or upgrade an existing motorway that does not have these issues.

As to the optimum high speed system... I favour something approximating the Japanese model, lots of stations and as much isolation from the conventional network as possible, running the longest, highest capacity trains we can on the trunk.

 

[The Ham]

That's not an ideal comparison. Motorways have far more junctions than HS lines have stations, so they are much easier to access.

Motorways have far more access points than HS2 will, but then roads have far more access points than the normal railway network.

For instance where I live everyone can get to a road much more quickly than to the railway station, some (whilst still being within the village) have to walk for more than 15 minutes to get to the train station.

The M1 has done to the A1 what I am concerned HS2 will to to the ECML, taken away a lot of the long-distance traffic and reduced the economic output of the area it passes through.

HS2, while it may make it quicker to travel to London from say Leeds than Doncaster, potentially having an impact on Doncaster. However, given that it is likely to be cheaper to get to London from Doncaster than Leeds and rents will be cheaper there will be many companies for whom Doncaster will be better.

Also, when the M1 bypassed the A1, it will have a direct impact on the amount of passing trade (service stations, shops and the like), once that passing trade goes it may no longer viable for that business to continue, meaning having to lay off staff (further loss of money in the local economy). However I am not aware of many people (unless they have a long change time) who leave stations and directly contribute to the local economy in a similar way.

 

[tbtc]

That's not an ideal comparison. Motorways have far more junctions than HS lines have stations, so they are much easier to access. However, to pursue the analogy, take the M1 vs the A1 as an example. The M1 has done to the A1 what I am concerned HS2 will to to the ECML, taken away a lot of the long-distance traffic and reduced the economic output of the area it passes through. Choosing where to locate a business is often based on transport links as much as anything. So a business heavily-reliant on road transport to London is going to find Milton Keynes a much more attractive prospect than Peterborough. This tips the balance in favour of more investment in the M1 corridor and less in the A1 corridor (because that's where all the businesses are going, so that's where the congestion happens). What's the result? Well, the A1, the Great North Road is still mostly an A-road with single-carriageway sections north of Newcastle!

Can it be resolved without creating an east-west divide? Of course it can! Get out the diggers and upgrade the entire A1 so it's motorway from Scratchwood to the Tyne Tunnel and dual-carriageway for the rest. Maybe even renumber the Wetherby-Tyne Tunnel section as 'M1', to ensure that the southern half keeps the A1(M) number. Thing is, it's simply not going to happen, because there will always be other priorities. Even though the southern M1 needs a relief road, and even though upgrading the A1 is bound to increase local competitiveness, they'll keep pouring money into the M1 instead

However the opening of the M1 didn't see the A1 downgraded or slowed down (which is one of the worries that people have about HS2's effect on the "classic lines"). The single carriageways between Morpeth and Dunbar are a hassle (I say this as a Berwick Rangers supporter who has spent more than enough time sat behind caravans/ tractors on that road!), but the M1 hasn't affected this.

The A1 serves a fairly empty part of the country - compared to the M1 which passes Leeds, Sheffield, Nottingham, Derby, Leicester, Northampton, Milton Keynes, Luton etc, so gets more investment.

The fact that the A1 was the main road for London - Newcastle journeys fifty years ago is an irrelevance. You wouldn't make London - Manchester trips via Matlock and Buxton nowadays (the route of the A6, so the "main road" before the Motorways were built).

 

[Philip Elliott]

The opening of the M69 did see the A46 from Leicester to Coventry downgraded and split into the A5460/B4114/B4065/A4600. Lower levels of maintenance and changed priorities at junctions have it a much poorer slower road.

 

[LE Greys]

However the opening of the M1 didn't see the A1 downgraded or slowed down (which is one of the worries that people have about HS2's effect on the "classic lines"). The single carriageways between Morpeth and Dunbar are a hassle (I say this as a Berwick Rangers supporter who has spent more than enough time sat behind caravans/ tractors on that road!), but the M1 hasn't affected this.

The A1 serves a fairly empty part of the country - compared to the M1 which passes Leeds, Sheffield, Nottingham, Derby, Leicester, Northampton, Milton Keynes, Luton etc, so gets more investment.

The fact that the A1 was the main road for London - Newcastle journeys fifty years ago is an irrelevance. You wouldn't make London - Manchester trips via Matlock and Buxton nowadays (the route of the A6, so the "main road" before the Motorways were built).

That's not the point. The M1 led to the A1 not being upgraded. It's a feedback effect caused by the building of the M1 creating traffic growth leading to upgrading. This creates more traffic growth leading to more upgrading, etc, etc. Wider implications are greater economic growth for the local area, creating even more traffic growth. Meanwhile, the A1 sees less investment and less traffic growth. This hampers local economic growth, which again means less traffic growth.

The Great North Road also runs through a series of towns that developed because they were on the Great North Road, initially as coaching towns with a local market to serve passing trade. The Great Northern Railway had a similar effect, just as a complete A1(M) would. I live in an area of the country where much of the economy is dependent on being 'on the way to Scotland/Tyneside/Yorkshire/Wherever'. Once that gets taken away, what's going to happen to where I live?

 

[tbtc]

That's not the point. The M1 led to the A1 not being upgraded

You previously said that "The M1 has done to the A1 what I am concerned HS2 will to to the ECML".

Actually, the A1 has been upgraded - are there any roundabouts between London and Newcastle nowadays? Most of the ones that I used to know have been removed by grade separated junctions (like the one at the A57 near Retford) - it's two or three carriages all the way to Morpeth - it's been upgraded to A1(M) for most of the route from Doncaster to Newcastle. Compared to forty years ago (when the M1 was being built), the A1 has seen a lot of improvements.

So, similar to the claims that HS2 will see no investment in "classic" lines - if your analogy is correct then the "classic" lines will continue to see investment (just like the CP5 announcement has spoilt the anti-HS2 argument that HS2 will "starve" other lines of any investment).

 

[HSTEd]

So, similar to the claims that HS2 will see no investment in "classic" lines - if your analogy is correct then the "classic" lines will continue to see investment (just like the CP5 announcement has spoilt the anti-HS2 argument that HS2 will "starve" other lines of any investment).

The starvation effect won't be visible until HS2 is or is nearly open. So CP6/7 at the earliest.

HS2 is at least a decade away from operational service still, even phase 1.

 

[Aictos]

You previously said that "The M1 has done to the A1 what I am concerned HS2 will to to the ECML".

Actually, the A1 has been upgraded - are there any roundabouts between London and Newcastle nowadays? Most of the ones that I used to know have been removed by grade separated junctions (like the one at the A57 near Retford) - it's two or three carriages all the way to Morpeth - it's been upgraded to A1(M) for most of the route from Doncaster to Newcastle. Compared to forty years ago (when the M1 was being built), the A1 has seen a lot of improvements.

So, similar to the claims that HS2 will see no investment in "classic" lines - if your analogy is correct then the "classic" lines will continue to see investment (just like the CP5 announcement has spoilt the anti-HS2 argument that HS2 will "starve" other lines of any investment).

There is indeed roundabouts still on the A1, I can count roundabouts in use at Sandy, Biggleswade, the infamous Black Cat roundabout and there's one just before the BC one after Huntingdon.

 

[LE Greys]

You previously said that "The M1 has done to the A1 what I am concerned HS2 will to to the ECML".

Actually, the A1 has been upgraded - are there any roundabouts between London and Newcastle nowadays? Most of the ones that I used to know have been removed by grade separated junctions (like the one at the A57 near Retford) - it's two or three carriages all the way to Morpeth - it's been upgraded to A1(M) for most of the route from Doncaster to Newcastle. Compared to forty years ago (when the M1 was being built), the A1 has seen a lot of improvements.

So, similar to the claims that HS2 will see no investment in "classic" lines - if your analogy is correct then the "classic" lines will continue to see investment (just like the CP5 announcement has spoilt the anti-HS2 argument that HS2 will "starve" other lines of any investment).

I've actually just checked the Central British Roads Database's A1 pages. There are in fact only five roundabouts on the A1, but they're all on the section I use the most, Baldock to Alconbury. They are at Perry, the notorious Black Cat, Sandy, Biggleswade North and Biggleswade South. That's actually parallelled by two motorways, the M1 and the M11. There are also five T-junctions where you can cross on the flat, and three where you can't on that section alone, and a total of thirty-three on the entire road between South Mimms and Washington.

So, yes, the A1 has seen minor tweaks along its entire length. What they have been doing is patch-fixing difficult sections rather than miles and miles of plain road. The major exception to this is Yorkshire, where they decided to sort it out properly. The second short exception to this is the hugely-overblown section between Huntingdon and Peterborough, which also includes the A14-A605 link (a major E-W link). IIRC, originally, that would have run all the way to Baldock, but it got cut back. Interestingly, that's the bit that runs through Bedfordshire, although I can't say whether this is the reason. Of course, it's always worth a closer inspection of some of the patch-fixes (q.v. CBRD Bad Junctions - the A1 has five all of its own, and they really ought to add Letchworth Gate as a sixth).

So, it may be that I ought to blame the counties rather than the M1, since Bedfordshire, Lincolnshire and County Durham seem to have done far less than Yorkshire or Cambridgeshire. Hertfordshire started off OK, but stagnated, with no improvements since 1986. However, you ought to look more closely at CP5. What is the overall outcome of everything that goes into it? Is is there to promote the growth of long-distance traffic on routes parallel with HS2, or is it there to promote local traffic on those routes?

What really concerns me is not CP5, or indeed anything in the next two decades, it's whether I'll still be able to get to Aberdeen with one change in 2050; whether the train I'll be travelling on will be as good as or better than an IC225; and whether the journey time will be faster or slower.

 

[HSTEd]

The primary reason they spent significant sums of money on taking out most of the remaining A1 roundabouts (in my local area this means Colsterworth and Gonerby Moor primarily, although I understand others have also been dealt with) was because they kept getting lorries jack-knifing on them.

They have spent about as much money on the A46/A52 junction building huge new embankments for the big new flying junction they have there.

 

[LE Greys]

Depends on passenger numbers by the time we get to 2050. If growth goes up by 1% year on year between now and then that will be 43% more people (i.e. 143 people for every 100 who travel now). Up that to 2% year on year and its 104% more (i.e. 204 people for every 100 who travel now).

That means that with even very low growth figures, even two towns with a medium number of people (say 50 people a day) travelling between them could well justify a fairly good connecting service unless the network gets so overloaded with people because no new lines are built that only the very major towns and cities retain any sort of service.

And there's the problem. My basic concern is 'HS2 is going to steal all our long-distance London passengers' (i.e. the ones who use the buffets and pay first class fares). Let's assume a 50% drop for King's Cross-Edinburgh, King's Cross-Newcastle and King's Cross-Leeds (remember, this is just an assumption) as soon as HS2 services reach there. Now, that's initially OK for everyone else. In fact, it allows some capacity increases for places such as Retford and Grantham. However, it changes the case for service patterns. No longer is there a case for a Leeds express (xx:03/xx:35), it would make more sense for it to follow the semi-fast stopping pattern that the York and Newark trains use (xx:08). That's not too bad, I reckon an IEP on a semi-fast can keep up with a 225 on an express because of its extra acceleration. It becomes more problematic with the North of Edinburgh trains. I can't see them being sustainable (if you can reach Aberdeen in six hours from Euston or seven hours from King's Cross, you go from Euston). The Edinburgh expresses (xx:00) are marginal as well, especially if their path gets taken by an HS-CC. You can slot something else into it at the southern end, but it's a cut. It's harder to get from one end of the ECML to the other.

Wind it on a few years. The timetable has been re-cast to cope with the changes in traffic patterns. HS2 is bedding in and absorbing more passengers as it does so. Roughly the same number of journeys are being made on the ECML, but they are shorter duration and first class does not see much use. This means that the buffets are losing money and people are not carrying as much luggage. There is also a stock replacement due at some point (225s can't go on for ever). What happens then? I'd predict shorter trains with no buffet cars and less luggage space. This would be an attempt to go after the medium-distance market whilst retaining some of the long-distance market by cutting costs. Thing is, there is no way that such a strategy could match HS2 for passenger growth, they would be lucky to return to the same number of journeys compared with today and passenger mileage would be down because these journeys would be shorter.

This all sounds a little gloomy, and I may well be wrong. But next time you go to King's Cross, walk through a 225, any one will do, and look at the reservation labels. Then, eliminate half the London-Some Big Place Up North ones and consider what effect that would have on passenger numbers.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The primary reason they spent significant sums of money on taking out most of the remaining A1 roundabouts (in my local area this means Colsterworth and Gonerby Moor primarily, although I understand others have also been dealt with) was because they kept getting lorries jack-knifing on them.

They have spent about as much money on the A46/A52 junction building huge new embankments for the big new flying junction they have there.

Similar for some of the flyovers put in at former crossroads. There's one north of Baldock where several vehicles got T-boned (it was on a crest) and so the flyover went in. Unfortunately, it's not wide enough to fit two motorway carriageways underneath it.

What this has to do with the future of Voyagers I don't know (and I was the one who brought it up). If the moderators want to move this, please do so.

 

[tbtc]

There is indeed roundabouts still on the A1, I can count roundabouts in use at Sandy, Biggleswade, the infamous Black Cat roundabout and there's one just before the BC one after Huntingdon.

Cheers - whilst I've done the section from Yorkshire to Edinburgh more times than I can remember, I've rarely used the section between Yorkshire and London.

yes, the A1 has seen minor tweaks along its entire length

I can only speak about the bits that I have experience of, but in the (roughly) fifty years since the M1 started, the A1 has seen a lot of upgrading to two lanes, removal of roundabouts, bypasses of most conurbations (Doncaster being a local example for me), upgrading to Motorway standard (with a parallel "A" road).

You've got three hundred miles of dual carriageway from London to Morpeth - that's a lot more than "minor tweaks" - compare improvements on the A1 in the last fifty years to improvements on the A6 (which has remained a single track road for most of its distance).

What really concerns me is not CP5, or indeed anything in the next two decades, it's whether I'll still be able to get to Aberdeen with one change in 2050; whether the train I'll be travelling on will be as good as or better than an IC225; and whether the journey time will be faster or slower

I know that we differ on this, but I really don't care about the intermediate route. If my Sheffield - London St Pancras journey was replaced by Virgin's plans for a Sheffield - London Kings Cross route (via Peterborough) then I wouldn't mind, similarly if HS2 makes it Sheffield - London Euston (via the West Midlands). The fact that one is an LNER station and the other is an LMS station wouldn't bother me, as long as it's a faster service/ better frequency/ longer train etc.

I'm sure you'll be able to do the journey with one change in 2050 (plus a short walk from Kings Cross to Euston whilst you change those trains).

 

[jimm]

I've actually just checked the Central British Roads Database's A1 pages. There are in fact only five roundabouts on the A1, but they're all on the section I use the most, Baldock to Alconbury. They are at Perry, the notorious Black Cat, Sandy, Biggleswade North and Biggleswade South. That's actually parallelled by two motorways, the M1 and the M11. There are also five T-junctions where you can cross on the flat, and three where you can't on that section alone, and a total of thirty-three on the entire road between South Mimms and Washington.

So, yes, the A1 has seen minor tweaks along its entire length. What they have been doing is patch-fixing difficult sections rather than miles and miles of plain road. The major exception to this is Yorkshire, where they decided to sort it out properly. The second short exception to this is the hugely-overblown section between Huntingdon and Peterborough, which also includes the A14-A605 link (a major E-W link). IIRC, originally, that would have run all the way to Baldock, but it got cut back. Interestingly, that's the bit that runs through Bedfordshire, although I can't say whether this is the reason. Of course, it's always worth a closer inspection of some of the patch-fixes (q.v. CBRD Bad Junctions - the A1 has five all of its own, and they really ought to add Letchworth Gate as a sixth).

So, it may be that I ought to blame the counties rather than the M1, since Bedfordshire, Lincolnshire and County Durham seem to have done far less than Yorkshire or Cambridgeshire. Hertfordshire started off OK, but stagnated, with no improvements since 1986. However, you ought to look more closely at CP5. What is the overall outcome of everything that goes into it? Is is there to promote the growth of long-distance traffic on routes parallel with HS2, or is it there to promote local traffic on those routes?

What really concerns me is not CP5, or indeed anything in the next two decades, it's whether I'll still be able to get to Aberdeen with one change in 2050; whether the train I'll be travelling on will be as good as or better than an IC225; and whether the journey time will be faster or slower.

Maybe you should get your facts straight first. The A1 is a national trunk road, managed by the Highways Agency in England and Transport Scotland north of the border - nothing to do with counties. Conversion to motorway (or simply building a new road parallel to the old one) has been carried out on the sections where traffic levels justified a motorway - hardly "minor tweaks". As you say yourself, the section of the A1 where roundabouts survive lies between two motorways - which syphon off traffic. So is the survival of the roundabouts here a coincidence? I don't think so.

The East Coast and West Coast main lines are not quadruple track from end to end, are they? Again traffic levels played a large part in determining where the extra rail capacity was provided.

A good amount of road traffic to/from points south of Darlington heading to Edinburgh, especially from Yorkshire, uses the shorter A68 route via Carter Bar and the Borders rather than getting mixed up in the congestion around Newcastle, so eases pressure on the A1 further north. And the A686 from Newcastle, which joins the A68, also offers a shorter route to Edinburgh than going up the coast. The Scots still class the A68 as a trunk road all the way from Edinburgh to the border and it is maintained by Transport Scotland, not the regional council.

A great deal of money was spent dualling the A50 to encourage traffic to Scotland from the East Midlands to cross to join the M6/M74 corridor at Stoke. And West Yorkshire traffic also has the M62/M61 link to the M6 at Preston. Both routes also ease the demands on the A1 north of Newcastle.

The opening of the M69 did see the A46 from Leicester to Coventry downgraded and split into the A5460/B4114/B4065/A4600. Lower levels of maintenance and changed priorities at junctions have it a much poorer slower road.

And why not? Anyone wanting a fast journey between Leicester and Coventry is going to be on the M69, which was the whole point of building it (and other motorways) in the first place - out of the way of the local traffic, or would you rather be fighting for road space with all those lorries instead?

 

[LE Greys]

Cheers - whilst I've done the section from Yorkshire to Edinburgh more times than I can remember, I've rarely used the section between Yorkshire and London.

I can only speak about the bits that I have experience of, but in the (roughly) fifty years since the M1 started, the A1 has seen a lot of upgrading to two lanes, removal of roundabouts, bypasses of most conurbations (Doncaster being a local example for me), upgrading to Motorway standard (with a parallel "A" road).

You've got three hundred miles of dual carriageway from London to Morpeth - that's a lot more than "minor tweaks" - compare improvements on the A1 in the last fifty years to improvements on the A6 (which has remained a single track road for most of its distance).

I'm not entirely sure whether anything that isn't parallelled by the M1 really counts in this debate. The relevant section of the A6, through Matlock and Buxton, which is not parallelled by a motorway, is an interesting case. I don't know the area, but I do know it's also in a national park. I'm not sure how comprable they would be to Preston, for instance, which is served very well by the M6.

However, the overall premise is that sections with a direct parallell merely involve a shifting of traffic to the motorway. If we define the economic footprint as 'within five miles of a junction', then all but the Peak District section of A6 falls within the M6 and M1 economic footprint (effectively, it's the backup road for non-motorway traffic, the slow lines). The same is not true of the A1.

I know that we differ on this, but I really don't care about the intermediate route. If my Sheffield - London St Pancras journey was replaced by Virgin's plans for a Sheffield - London Kings Cross route (via Peterborough) then I wouldn't mind, similarly if HS2 makes it Sheffield - London Euston (via the West Midlands). The fact that one is an LNER station and the other is an LMS station wouldn't bother me, as long as it's a faster service/ better frequency/ longer train etc.

I'm sure you'll be able to do the journey with one change in 2050 (plus a short walk from Kings Cross to Euston whilst you change those trains).

I imagine that's because you don't live on the intermediate route. I do.

If HS2 means that I have to go south to go north, with the extra expense of a 'via London' ticket, then I lose out badly as a result of it, nullifying the time saved for greater expense. Most likely, I'll continue with the 'not via London' route for that reason.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Maybe you should get your facts straight first. The A1 is a national trunk road, managed by the Highways Agency in England and Transport Scotland north of the border - nothing to do with counties. Conversion to motorway (or simply building a new road parallel to the old one) has been carried out on the sections where traffic levels justified a motorway - hardly "minor tweaks". As you say yourself, the section of the A1 where roundabouts survive lies between two motorways - which syphon off traffic. So is the survival of the roundabouts here a coincidence? I don't think so.

The East Coast and West Coast main lines are not quadruple track from end to end, are they? Again traffic levels played a large part in determining where the extra rail capacity was provided.

A good amount of road traffic to/from points south of Darlington heading to Edinburgh, especially from Yorkshire, uses the shorter A68 route via Carter Bar and the Borders rather than getting mixed up in the congestion around Newcastle, so eases pressure on the A1 further north. And the A686 from Newcastle, which joins the A68, also offers a shorter route to Edinburgh than going up the coast. The Scots still class the A68 as a trunk road all the way from Edinburgh to the border and it is maintained by Transport Scotland, not the regional council.

A great deal of money was spent dualling the A50 to encourage traffic to Scotland from the East Midlands to cross to join the M6/M74 corridor at Stoke. And West Yorkshire traffic also has the M62/M61 link to the M6 at Preston. Both routes also ease the demands on the A1 north of Newcastle.

The odd similarity with county boundaries may well be a coincidence then (but that's not necessarily important). I know I'm taking a very narrow view here, but what's relevant to someone who lives near Hitchin and often travels north is the state of the A1. All these other roads that siphon off traffic are more a hinderance to that than a help. It's not as though I'm ascribing this to a conspiricy against where I live, more as symptoms of my area's economic problems and warning signs of what might happen to it if it loses ECML through traffic. We've been lucky enough in the past to be able to grow on the back of this large quantity of through traffic, either by selliing the area as a good UK base (for instance for Confederation Life in Stevenage where my father used to work) or a good stopping-off point because it's on a major route to the north (A1 or ECML). If that's no longer the case, then it will affect economic growth where I live.

 

[Class172]

And why not? Anyone wanting a fast journey between Leicester and Coventry is going to be on the M69, which was the whole point of building it (and other motorways) in the first place - out of the way of the local traffic, or would you rather be fighting for road space with all those lorries instead?

Well you'll always get a good journey on the M69 as it's so quiet. It doesnt even need to be D3M, but at least the capacity is there.

 

[jimm]

The odd similarity with county boundaries may well be a coincidence then (but that's not necessarily important). I know I'm taking a very narrow view here, but what's relevant to someone who lives near Hitchin and often travels north is the state of the A1. All these other roads that siphon off traffic are more a hinderance to that than a help. It's not as though I'm ascribing this to a conspiricy against where I live, more as symptoms of my area's economic problems and warning signs of what might happen to it if it loses ECML through traffic.

I'd say you're making a mountain out of molehill here. Plenty of places would like such a truly terrible low-capacity road as the dual-carriageway A1 on their doorsteps, along with the economic problems currently endured by poor old Hertfordshire and those awful motorways that remove heavy traffic off other roads (NB I am being sarcastic). The section north of Hitchin and Letchworth is not drowning under a great weight of traffic, unlike the section going south towards London, nor those further north, so it has not been turned into a motorway. The only substantial town or city until you get all the way to Yorkshire is Peterborough. If it was lined with large settlements it would generate traffic that would justify a motorway, but it isn't. There are a few other roads where you could make a far better case for such treatment, such as the A34 between the M40 and the M3.

 

[tsr]

Well you'll always get a good journey on the M69 as it's so quiet. It doesnt even need to be D3M, but at least the capacity is there.

D3M can be useful in the event of diversions, though.

/offtopic

 

[LE Greys]

I'd say you're making a mountain out of molehill here. Plenty of places would like such a truly terrible low-capacity road as the dual-carriageway A1 on their doorsteps, along with the economic problems currently endured by poor old Hertfordshire and those awful motorways that remove heavy traffic off other roads (NB I am being sarcastic). The section north of Hitchin and Letchworth is not drowning under a great weight of traffic, unlike the section going south towards London, nor those further north, so it has not been turned into a motorway. The only substantial town or city until you get all the way to Yorkshire is Peterborough. If it was lined with large settlements it would generate traffic that would justify a motorway, but it isn't. There are a few other roads where you could make a far better case for such treatment, such as the A34 between the M40 and the M3.

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.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

To be honest, the A1 heading towards London isn't really that bad either.

 

[LE Greys]

To be honest, the A1 heading towards London isn't really that bad either.

Not from Baldock, no, although the two-lane sections often get snarled up during the rush hour because of use by commuters. This raises the other possible problem, the area will continue to suburbanise. I don't think that's going to harm economic growth, it will help the service sector no end. The question is whether that will have adverse effects on the local area if it affects local manufacturing. That's probably inevitable no matter what (William Ransom's factory in Hitchin is now a Sainsbury's for instance).

 

[Haydn1971]

A few points....

The "C" CBRD is actually "Chris" not "Central"

Re the M1 leading to the A1 being left for dead...

The M1 between J18 and J31 was built between 1962 & 1966, the A1 from Cambridgeshire to Yorkshire was mostley widened to dual carriageway between 1957 and 1964

The M18 was built in 1965-1967 as the M1 link to the A1(M) Doncaster Bypass, which was built in 1959-1961 as the first Yorkshire Motorway

The M1 from J31 to Leeds was built 1965-1968, the A1 north of Redhouse was improved in 1960-1961, Redhouse roundabout was removed in 1977-1979, the sections north of here were progressively improved to dual through 1961 to 1981

The M1 from Lofthouse to the A1 was built 1996-1999, the A1 has been progressively improved to motorway from the M62 north from 1993 to the present day.

Moral of this tale - the A1 has hardly been left to rot since the M1 was built

 

[LE Greys]

A few points....

The "C" CBRD is actually "Chris" not "Central"

Re the M1 leading to the A1 being left for dead...

The M1 between J18 and J31 was built between 1962 & 1966, the A1 from Cambridgeshire to Yorkshire was mostley widened to dual carriageway between 1957 and 1964

The M18 was built in 1965-1967 as the M1 link to the A1(M) Doncaster Bypass, which was built in 1959-1961 as the first Yorkshire Motorway

The M1 from J31 to Leeds was built 1965-1968, the A1 north of Redhouse was improved in 1960-1961, Redhouse roundabout was removed in 1977-1979, the sections north of here were progressively improved to dual through 1961 to 1981

The M1 from Lofthouse to the A1 was built 1996-1999, the A1 has been progressively improved to motorway from the M62 north from 1993 to the present day.

Moral of this tale - the A1 has hardly been left to rot since the M1 was built

And yet it still has bits that look like this (a mixed-use dual carriageway with houses, telegraph poles, bus stops and only two lanes per side), not like this (a massively-overblown bit of motorway). They are on the same road, less than fifty miles apart. Hard to believe, isn't it?

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. When the ECML goes from joint first (with the WCML, GWML and HS1) to about eighth, the same thing will happen, and that will have negative effects for the people living alongside it, one of whom is me. I'm trying to stick up for my local area.

And I guess it didn't help that I'd scarcely heard of the website until I looked it up.

 

[AndyLandy]

The M1 from Lofthouse to the A1 was built 1996-1999, the A1 has been progressively improved to motorway from the M62 north from 1993 to the present day.

Moral of this tale - the A1 has hardly been left to rot since the M1 was built

That's certainly been my perception. I've been travelling along the A1 between Ferrybridge and Washington for the last 25 years or so. It's progressively become more and more A1(M), with there now only being about 20-30 mile stretch somewhere between Weatherby and Scotch Corner still being plain A-road. That and the A1-M1 link that connects the M62 to the A1M shows there's some real investment in that route.

 

[Haydn1971]

The missing link through Scotch Corner is due to start next year. Shane that the Wadworth to Darrington bit isn't on the cards anymore.

 

[LE Greys]

The missing link through Scotch Corner is due to start next year. Shane that the Wadworth to Darrington bit isn't on the cards anymore.

That's north of the junction anyway. I've often wondered whether it would be worth renumbering anything north of Wetherby as M1 and the A167 back to A1 (since it contains much of the old road). Maybe it's too expensive to change all the signs.

 

[Haydn1971]

You need to join Sabre with thoughts like that

www.sabre-roads.org.uk

 

[Class172]

You need to join Sabre with thoughts like that

www.sabre-roads.org.uk

So on SABRE we're saying go to RailUK; and now the opposite is happening. :roll: