Jump to content

Talk:A14 road (England)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Crash frequency on the Cambridge-Huntingdon section

[edit]

I removed this dubious statement (in bold):

The high number of crashes, deaths and injuries (there is at least one crash almost every week) on this section has led to it being nicknamed the 'Road to Hell' by the Cambridge Evening News...

According to the CHUMMS Report (which admittedly is a few years old):

Accidents were perceived by some, as a significant issue on the A14. Data was obtained from Cambridgeshire County Council of reported incidents between 1995 and 1999 and a summary of results by accident severity and vehicle category is provided in Appendix 3. Analysis showed that the overall number of accidents is not significantly different to other similar A roads, but there was a higher incidence of "slight" accidents – often minor shunts, reflecting the congested traffic situation. This does not detract from some isolated serious accidents on the A14 in recent years. (Full links available here, but Appendix 3 appears not to be available.)

I've left in a reference to the "numerous accidents" on this section, which is at any rate less controversial, but it would help if up-to-date accident statistics could be found for this section, especially if they could be compared to national averages. The Highways Agency has a safety report for the Cambridge-Suffolk section of the A14 on their website [1], but unfortunately it doesn't include Cambridge-Huntingdon. Blisco 13:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was considering asking the Highways Agency for accident and traffic flow statistics for the road to get some definitive (and up to date) answers on the road's safety -- this would also be useful for citing where there are articles about notable sections of the road, such as the Orwell Bridge. -- Ratarsed 08:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistant numbering

[edit]

I've always wondered if it was inconsistant --- after all, the end closest to London is Felixstowe, in Zone 1 -- I'd suggest it's the Junction numbering that is inconsistant, instead?

As this is purely my interpretation, I've kept this to the talk page for now -- Ratarsed 08:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roads are supposed to be numbered according to the furthest zone anticlockwise, not the closest to London. However, that would mean that it starts in the 5 zone (just to the right of the A5), not the 4 zone as the article currently states, so I'll change it. As for the junction numbering, the Felixstowe end might technically be closer to London but it couldn't in any sense be considered to radiate from the capital, so the numbering just begins from the more logical start (i.e. the Midlands). It could be the only road in England where the numbering doesn't start from the end nearer to London, but I think that's just coincidence. --Blisco 08:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen that it is the furthest anticlockwise stated before, but all the exceptions I've seen, it's been the zone in which the end closest to the radial is in that has given the number (or it's an orphaned section of a similarly numbered road).
I agree that it would be shortsighted to say the A14 runs away from London, but I think it's fair to say that it is a route towards Birmingham (or away, but as Birmingham has no radials, that'd be inconsistant, too) from the Port of Felixstowe.
If it really is out of zone, I'm surprised they didn't retain the A45 designation? -- Ratarsed 12:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just remember that the A14 is a route cobbled together from a mix of existing roads and new-build sections, rather than numbered that way at the outset of route numbering. The route ideally was going to have an important number and was going to have a single number for its entire length. The A45 was already in use as an important road between Birmingham and Northampton - as well as its eastern sections which became the A14. The rest of the current A14 route was taken up largely by an upgraded A604 (which now no longer exists), a new-build section west of Kettering, and a short section of what was then the then A14. With the arrival of the M11 motorway, the then A14 between Royston (A10/A505) and Alconbury (A1) was no longer a very important route - so the opportunity was taken to truncate the then A14 at Huntingdon - then extend it at either end to Catthorpe (M1/M6) and Felixstowe - the western extension taking it out of zone. So in short, the number is there to create a single route out of several shorter sections. It's an important route so the double-digit number is useful. It's a bit like the A42, which is entirely outside of its numbering zone, but is again an important sounding number for an important route. Richard B 06:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


As stated in the main article, the A14 existed as a road before the A45 was chopped up and joined with the A604. It was the road that is now the A1198 which runs from Huntingdon to Royston. The spur which continues up to the A1(M) is however either the A14(M), the A604(M) according to Pathetic Motorways
LewisR 16:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Junction numbers

[edit]

Can anyone find any reliable (published) sources for all the junction numbers? The only reference I have found so far doesn't include junction 19A. I'd have thought the highways agency would have them, but I can't find them on the website... -- Ratarsed (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to find anything online either - in fact, the only reference I have is the signposts themselves. The junction numbers are only relatively recent in the history of the A14, so wouldn't have been on the original plans, but I do vaguely remember a Highways Agency project being listed on their website a few years ago about the numbering scheme. Not too helpful I know! -- Nibblesthemouse (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A14(M)/A604(M)

[edit]

The 1.2m section of the A14 spur between the junction with the B1043 and the A1(M) appears to have been referred to as both the A14(M) and the A604(M) on official information during its planning and implementation. It appears to have motorway classification since there is no further exit for non-motorway traffic after the B1043. It is also variously called the A14, the A14(M) and the A1(M) by major mapping providers. There is a page about the A14/A604(M) about it on 'Pathetic Motorways'[2], however the sources for their information do not link to primary resources. There is also a page on it Pathetic motorways with comments from various people about the numbering over the years[3] which includes a copy of an anonymous email from the person who claims to have specified the signage for the section who said I was responsible for signing the A14 in 1991 for which was Contract 9 of the Catthorpe to Spittals dualing of the old A14/A604. I noticed that the "Alconbury Spur" had no route number. I couldn't be the A1 as that was at Brampton and we couldn't have three A14's coming off spittals interchange. I asked the then DoT what they wanted to do about it and they decided that no action was the best action. Therefore I think it was signed (A1) and (A14) depending on where you are coming from. Incidentally to all intents and purposes it is refered to as the A14 by the HA today.[4]. There is also a page on Sabre.[5] PeterEastern (talk) 06:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is all the primary (Highways Agency/Legislative) information I can find and how it is represented on various major mapping sites:-PeterEastern (talk) 06:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • When heading north up the A14 spur there a 'motorway' sign just past the B1043 exit without a number of on, see photo in the top right of this page.[6]
  • When heading south on the A1 there is a sign for the 'A14'.[7]
  • The Highway Agency website (which uses Navteq data) refers to it as the 'A14(M)' (zoom in until you see the wording). [8]
  • Bing maps (which uses Navteq data in the UK) shows it as motorway but without a number.[9]
  • However... Yahoo Maps (which also uses Navteq data) shows it as motorway and a the A1(M). Which is also what we see on our own internal products that use Navteq data.
  • Google maps (which uses TeleAtlas data in the UK) shows it as a trunk road and as the A14.[10]
  • The scheme page for the A1(M) work in 1996-1998 refers to section as the A14(M) quoted here: the remainder constructed to dual 3 lane motorway, except for the short length of A14(M) which is dual 2 lane motorway.[11]
  • However... the map page for the same scheme (linked to from the 1996-1998 scheme page) refers to the same 1.2m section of road as the A604(M).[12].
  • And then the statutory instrument for the construction of the road in 1993 refers to it as the A604(M).[13]

So.. it is called the A604(M), the A14(M), the A14 and also the A1(M) or just as a 'motorway' depending what resource you use and which direction you are heading. How should we represent this in the article! PeterEastern (talk) 06:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All sorted now. Thanks for the scan. PeterEastern (talk) 06:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Notable Incidents"

[edit]

Is this section really needed? There must have been hundreds of accidents and incidents on the A14 over the years, I'm not quite sure what distinguishes these three incidents; the petrol station one, maybe, but the last one from 2008 is essentially a tragic but quite common type of incident on this and any other major trunk road. Bob talk 17:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I have removed the last one but have kept and added wlinks to the overheated acetylene cylinder one; a 24 hour closure with the bomb disposal team called out is a little more notable I guess. I will however be able to provide statistics for the total number of people killed and injured on this road by year in due course which will give a much better idea about the overall casualty rate. PeterEastern (talk) 20:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Bob talk 20:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully not too controvertial...

[edit]

I have made a one-character change to the history section ;-) ... the old route I feel must have started at J1, not J2 of the M6, even though it's from long before I was born. Probably just a typo, or a misremembering of the junction number.

The motorway was built westwards starting with the M1 junction, so there was never a point where J2 was connected up but J1 wasn't. At first, the A427 ran from the A45, north through the centre of Rugby, then through some very narrow and tight roads through Catthorpe, Swinford and South/North Kilworth (my father has lived in a couple of these neighbourhoods and it's startling to think of the through-routes being trunk A-roads with heavy lorries on, as they're little more than alleys in the village centres), only later being thankfully realigned to start at Coventry and run up to Lutterworth and straight across to Market Harborough, bypassing the villages.

In both cases, coming off the 2x3-lane, grade separated, 70mph road at Coventry, in order to either ---

  • 1/ head down to the A45 (in a pre-A46 bypass world no less), then back up through the centre of Rugby (no bypass there either), across the A5 at a staggered junction and onwards, or
  • 2/ head for the realigned road at Binley and strike out for Lutterworth on roads that are barely any better, just with more open village centres and a better A5 crossing

--- taking at least 17 miles either way (and probably upwards of 30 minutes) on single carriageway roads with lots of curves, at-grade junctions, 30mph town limits and few overtaking opportunities, when you could reach the same point by continuing on the motorway, coming off at J1, hitting the A5 at a roundabout and then either turning right to meet up with the old route or continuing straight on to reach the newer one at Lutterworth (taking about 12 miles in either case, 9 of them being on the motorway so the whole procedure may only take 15 minutes), just seems absolutely crazy. Unless Junction 1 wasn't built at first or something, and this was the only way to get to Rugby and the A5 as well as Lutterworth/Swinford/A427?

If someone has documentary evidence, by all means change it back and cite it, but just from rudimentary mapwork and knowledge of the area I can't see any good reason why you'd take what were essentially twisting backroutes with an undeserved A-number tacked on (and that I had to ride on before getting my full bike license) instead of sticking with the motorway for another 10 minutes or less and connecting to the port-bound route by one or two almost dead-straight good-quality purpose-built roads that don't go through any towns (Cotesbach maybe excepted, depending on bypass build date). Truckers aren't stupid when it comes to routing...

(And reaching dad's places in Swinford, Kilworth or Husbands Bosworth was a case of, when not using the catthorpe exit off the M6/A14/M1, coming off at J1 and going via Lutterworth then along or back down... or taking the unclassified Gibbet Lane off the A5 island, which is certainly good quality enough to be a former A-road and bypasses the worst of Swinford centre. Any other way was scenic, but decidedly lower quality in long-distance road terms.) 193.63.174.211 (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blank page in Chrome?

[edit]

A number of us here are getting a blank page for this article when using Google Chrome. With Firefox it is OK, but using Chrome blank on both a Mac and a PC from our office and also from a PC in a university. Is anyone else seeing this? The strange thing is that the A12 and M11 articles and others are just fine in Chrome. PeterEastern (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fyi, there is loads of HTML source there if one checks 'view source' from the Chrome browser. PeterEastern (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article still non-functional on Chrome here. Does anyone else have any problems? If so then we should notify some techies to take a look. PeterEastern (talk)
Chrome is now working again for me btw. PeterEastern (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Junction list vandalism

[edit]

Last night I started reworking the junction list (in my sandbox), aligning it with WP:RJL. I made a few small changes to undo some vandalism that had lain undetected for 6 months.Martinvl (talk) 11:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Layout error?

[edit]

I'm reading the article using the newest Mozilla Firefox and for an unknown reason list of references is visible on the junction list and it's like this: 


bl
a
bl
as
ome
th
i
ng

. How to fix it? 178.183.178.63 (talk) 12:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very strange. Works fine on Chrome and Safari, but on FF the references come out down the left-hand-side of the diagram as you say. The first lines of the garbage read 'the Hamlin atlas' which is the text for the first reference. Last month it was Chrome that didn't work properly, now it is FF. Is there anywhere to report technical errors like this that almost certainly have nothing to do with the article? PeterEastern (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have now reported the issue on Wikipedia:Help desk. PeterEastern (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem has been fixed with the inclusion of a {{clear}} command, but we are not sure why. I am posting a follow-up query on WP:VPT as was suggested by the person is added the clear command. PeterEastern (talk) 06:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The table was formatted "float:right" but the 100% width means it isn't intended to float at all. I've replaced most of the custom table-level formatting with class="wikitable". Hopefully, this removes the need for {{clear}}, so I've removed it. Is that OK now? — Richardguk (talk) 11:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great. Many thanks. PeterEastern (talk) 04:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rather out of date

[edit]

Given that current improvements seem to date back a number of years, for example. I wonder if anyone is particularly looking after this article? If there is then it might be well worth going through with a fine comb and finding all the out of date aspects. Otherwise I'll try to find time to do it. Whilst we're at it, I do wonder about the use of subheadings in this one - there do seem rather a lot of them at times. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have done the obvious updates and removed the banner. Thanks for highlighting this. PeterEastern (talk) 06:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diagram?

[edit]

The "Diagram" isn't a diagram at all, its a tabular listing, or "Table". I was looking for a diagram - i.e. a map-like graphical image of the road - so I was disappointed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.62.77 (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on A14 road (England). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on A14 road (England). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on A14 road (England). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on A14 road (England). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Identity of the former A14 spur north of Huntingdon"

[edit]

Since the former A14 trunk route through Huntingdon and up to Alconbury is now part of the A1307, the bulk of this section (where it discusses the identity of the "Alconbury spur") should really be moved to the A1307 page. The A14, on its new alignment, now completely bypasses the Alconbury area. Just wanted to check that this is the right action to take.

DAB (talk) 09:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Route: more three-lane sections

[edit]

There is a three-lane section near Kettering. From the Histon Road section is three-lane to the A1, and Girton to Bar Hill is now four! Mdrb55 (talk) 14:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Correction : 3 lanes from Milton Road Mdrb55 (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Road junction list

[edit]

Following the note from Rschen7754 that this in not the correct format, I had a go at starting a new junction list. So far I have done from junctions 0 to 7 in my sandboxA14 but could someone look and see if I am doing it correctly?

If it is ok, can it be posted in to allow others to continue it or does it have to be completed first? Or is there somewhere else it can go for others to continue work on? Thanks, Robertm25 (talk) 15:58, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now all junctions added (but not all have km distances yet, and no mile distances). At what stage can it be put in the article and the old one removed? Does it look OK? Robertm25 (talk) 01:40, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now complete - I will replace the existing diagram in the next few days if I don't hear anything.
NB Junction 31 seems complex - the M11 extends into the A14 westbound and A428 extends into the A14 eastbound with sliproads connecting the two A14 sections, the westbound of which is 0.6km longer than the eastbound. The DLS seem to reflect the westbound distances with the eastbound distances abbreviated. (There is also a eastbound exit to and westbound entry from the A1307.) I have shown both the M11 and A428 as being transition routes. Robertm25 (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:A14_road_(England)&oldid=1197131551"