Talk:A1 road (Great Britain)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Great North Road (Split?)[edit]

I propose a split as the article follows an ancient route called the Great North Road, which is now covered by many other roads. It is not quite the same road. Simply south...... 18:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment - you will need to split out links as uses of the Great North Road will redirect here. Keith D (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't that normally happen if a split gains positive consensus? Simply south...... 21:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I see no convincing reason to split this article. Many roads alter from their original line by the construction of bypasses. The story of the Great North Road is well told in the existing article. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

    • See my reply to the oppose below.
  • Oppose - The history of the Great North Road and the fact it followed a different route to the modern road is well documented in the article. Roads never stay exactly the same for their whole length. Therefore, i see no reason for a split. Rimmer1993 (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
    • It was a historical route, that was later followed by the current road, but this has since deviated. There are articles on ther historical routes that are now followed by modern roads, most notably Watling Street. Simply south...... 22:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree - I first came here many months ago to find out about the original route of the Great North Road, and found that, after wading through all the modern changes, there were still inaccuracies that I knew about. I tried to correct things a bit with this edit, but it makes for a rather tortuous reading at times. The history will still be tortuous, even on a separate article but it should be much less so, and would be easier to expand to show historical changes. The fact that the A1 never really followed the line of the Great North Road (even in 1921) and that this article is now >45kB make it a good candidate to be split. Tim PF (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I've just skimmed though, and note that there's a previous comment section on this Talk:A1 road (Great Britain)#Great North Road. It dates back over three years, but I added my 2p last November (I was before I created this account). Tim PF (talk) 23:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - The junction list section of the article is messy. It could be tidied up and the amount of white space reduced if it were compressed into a single junction list. Martinvl (talk) 06:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what white space you are seeing; could depend on resolution. Combining the junction tables into a single list begs the question of how to mark the non-motorway breaks, and do you then combine the 5 or 6 motorway infoboxes as well. Would things be less messy if the A1(M) bits were also moved into a separate article? Tim PF (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. the present article looks like a ransom note. it is stuffed with every possible type of content, and different people's ideas of how to present the same data. I think the whole thing should be re-written and split into sub-pages like route, history, construction, settlements, cultural importance etc. --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 11:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

A1(M) motorway (Split?)[edit]

While discussing splitting out the Great North Road into a separate article, how about also splitting out the A1(M) motorway bits (as A38(M) motorway is separate from A38 road, which in turn is separate from the M5 motorway which replaced much of it? The actual split itself should be more straightforward, but its benefits less clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim PF (talkcontribs) 17:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Support. the present article looks like a ransom note. it is stuffed with every possible type of content, and different people's ideas of how to present the same data. I think the whole thing should be re-written and split into sub-pages like route, history, construction, settlements, cultural importance etc. --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 11:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I do not favour pre-emptive disambiguation, and in any case, even if sub-articles were written, this should still exist as a parent article, giving an overview of the whole topic. I don't necessarily object to an article on the A1(M) but only as a sub-topic of this parent article, and if the information becomes too much for this article, and it should still be summarised in this article. I don't understand the reference to the M5 and A38 - they are two completely separate roads, albeit following the same general route for some of their length. Quantpole (talk) 12:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by pre-emptive disambiguation, but I guess you are talking about a short disambiguation page just pointing to 2 or 3 different pages. That was not my intention. I would envisage that there would be an A1(M) motorway article with a {{seealso|A1 road (Great Britain)}}, and this would remain, but with a {{seealso|A1(M) motorway}} (or there may be better tags).
I don't understand the difference between an article on the A1(M) but only as a sub-topic of this parent article. Yes of course there would still be a summary section about the conversion to motorway standards, but it would start with a {{main}} tag.
The A38 was largely replaced by the M5 between Birmingham and Exeter, but there are some places where it remains the A38, and the number was only changed where it was downgraded to a B-road. Had the A1's motorway replacement become the M0 (the M1 already used) or even the M7, then sections replaced could have remained as the A1, rather than renumbered to the A167 or A168; I doubt then if anyone would have thought twice about the M0 Motorway not being a separate article from this. Even the M6 Toll has its own article, even though it was and is supposed to have replaced the M6 Motorway through Birmingham and the Black Country. Tim PF (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
By pre-emptive disambiguation I was referring to the comment above mine who seemed to be advocating splitting into lots of separate pages.
I Have no idea what you mean about the A38 being replaced. It is still there in near enough its entirety from Bodmin to Mansfield. I don't see how the A1 is in anyway similar to that. There are no sections where there is a road called the A1 parallel to a road called the Al(M). Old sections of the A1 have been renamed but we have articles for those roads. Separating them into two different articles would be a complete nonsense, and confusing to readers, who would be left trying to work out why the road seems to stop and start 5 or 6 times. The only way the article makes sense is to give an overview of the whole road. If you think that the A1(M) section is becoming too large for the parent article then it can be expanded as a sub-article, but it should still all be summarised here (in the same way that History of England is summarised atEngland). Similarly, if you want to go into the history of the route and which roads the old sections are now called go ahead and add the info. That would certainly be useful for the article. Quantpole (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I thought you were going back to my original comment. The only A38 gap is Tiverton to Exeter; I thought it was longer. Other paralleled road have had more downgraded, such as the A11 and A34 (M40), but most of the other single digit roads have kept their original designation, even when downgraded from a primary route, eg A5 on Anglesey and near M1, A6 north of Preston, A2. The point is that like the old A74 still paralleled by the A74(M), the old A1 had to be renumbered.
Yes, I can see that a separate article is problematical until there's enough money in the economy for it to stretch from the M25 to the Tyne without a break, but I'm sure that someone could come up with a sensible way to do it without the breaks (which are now mostly short enough that the junctions could be added into the motorway article). I think the History section of England is rather a large in proportion to History of England, but that may be a personal preference (ie to keep the summary section short when there is a perfectly good {{main}} article to save duplication, both in keeping up to date and for the readers).
Yes, I think that the A1(M) section is rather big for many readers, but that is especially for those seeking information about the Great North Road; it may be less of a problem if that is separated out, but I doubt it. Tim PF (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Or, to summarise the above: The A1 no longer follows the route of the Great North Road for a good fraction of its designated mileage, having had many realignments through its history of dualling, bypassing, and motorway-ising. If you want to drive the A1, you get on at St Paul's (or Prince's Street) and follow the signs. If you want to drive the Great North Road, you do your research, get a good map and stick notes on it (or program your satnav), and prepare to partly drive the A1, but also turn off it a good many times onto the smaller, older, but often somewhat straighter roads with varying classification numbers (A-something, B-something, a name, or no designation at all) that run through the middle of countless towns, villages and cities and interchange directly with hundreds of cross-streets.
If Route 66 in the USA had been superceded by an interstate that hadn't just stolen all of it's passing traffic and business, but also large parts of its blacktop outside of central Chicago and LA, you'd still have separate articles for that interstate and for route 66, because of the historical significance and interest.
Incidentally, whilst I'm at it: The supposed designation that was to be used, should the A1(M) have ever been joined up into a continuous route (regardless of how far the terminus penetrated at each end) was either just going to be A1(M) (as per the A38(M) and others that stand alone as continual, singular stretches of motorway bordered by non-upgraded A-road at each end), or... "M100", which appears to have been officially reserved for something... It would slot in between the M1 (& old M10) and M11... there's no other schemes which appear at all likely... and when said aloud it still starts with a "one" (hundred) rather than being "ten" or something else... but it might take an FoI request to confirm that is actually what it is. Unless it actually ends up taking the M10 designation after a suitable amount of time has passed following its recent downgrading, that is. There's no precedence for an "M0", "A0", "B0" or even "C0", so breaking out of the existing 1-9 scheme when the road is quite deeply within the "1" segment and there's 1X(X) numbers still to spare (even M101 or M111 could work...!) would be a bit strange to say the least. (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

'London and the South'[edit]

I am rather dubious of the claim that the pictured road sign at the foot of the North Bridge in Edinburgh used to say 'London and the South'. My recollection is that it always said 'Berwick upon Tweed'. Going south it was signposted to Berwick until Berwick, and then to Newcastle. It has always said 'the NORTH' at various points going north, but it was never comprehensively signposted to 'the SOUTH', although there may have been the odd such sign. I've driven the route many times over 40-odd years. PJCS (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC) Peter CS

Though I have no direct experience of it, being born well after the major north-south motorways were largely complete, I'm pretty sure the A6 (and then, A74) was the main motor route between London and Edinburgh/Glasgow. Hence why the continuous ribbon of almost entirely grade separated multi-lane tarmac reaching from all the way from near the middle of the southern city through to the outer rings of the northern ones follows a WEST coast route (alleviating the poor old A5, A34 and A6, especially by skipping the terrible slowdowns and pinch points at Shap, Penrith, Stoke, Carlisle and central Manchester), and the east coast motorways peter out at Newcastle, having taken their sweet time to be built even that far north. (And, technically speaking, aren't even continuous to that point - there's a non-"M" gap around Scotch Corner, north of where the M1 and A1(M) join, and it finally loses its M-way status just before the outer suburbs of Newcastle itself - though it does at least remain dualled and grade separated all the way up to Morpeth)
If London / The South was going to be co-signed with or posted instead of any destination/direction, it would have been the large one showing Glasgow, Carlisle, etc. If you didn't by then realise, however, that either of those two routes would be seeing you well on the way south and London-bound, you'd need more help than just a big sign saying "this way for the capital of a different province, 500+ miles away".
I've seen "collective" type signs for both THE NORTH and THE SOUTH every time I've done a big trip either way on the M6, by the way :-) ... whether it's mirrored on the rather smaller and lower trafficked A1, well... you know better!
BTW, last thing I read about the A1, from around the time where the numbering system was just starting to enter the public consciousness? Seemed to describe it as a rather quiet, desolate bit of roadway. It's become more popular down the years, but more as a way of getting between the various towns of East England, rather than from Southern England to Scotland. (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Google maps route link incorrect[edit]

How do we make a corrected one of these ourselves and link it in to wikipedia, then? Because the existing one is quite obviously incorrect and is only accurate for the middle section, which is quite easy to find on a map all by yourself.

At the London terminus, only the start point is specified (and that is itself incorrect) plus a couple of rather distant waypoints, so Gmaps plots a course using unclassified back roads and the A501 for the first section before then meeting up with the A1. At the north end, it diverges from the A1 at Morpeth and follows the A697 and A68 cross-country into Edinburgh for the final fifty miles or so, missing out Berwick and the far North-East coast entirely! It doesn't seem to have been manually drawn, or to have been made specific enough in its waypoints to avoid the Gmaps algorithm "routing" us along faster but otherwise incorrect paths.

Neither is it the old route of the road - it never ran along the A501 or A697 corridors, and it sticks rigidly to the modern dual carriageway and A(M) alignments for basically the entire route from the north circular to Newcastle. (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)