Talk:North Circular Road/Archive 1
This is an archive of past discussions about North Circular Road. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Henlys
Henlys needs an apostrophe, probably before the s. 82.163.24.100 (talk) 10:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. The business dropped the apostrophe many years ago. See Henlys Group, Plaxton etc. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 07:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Woolwich Ferry
Should this be included as a primary destination on this page? The A406 does not go as far as the Woolwich Ferry. ZoeL (talk) 17:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- The A406 dual carriageway replaced an earlier section of road that lead through High Street South directly to North Woolwich; with the Woolwich Ferry acting as a direct link between the North and South Circulars. The new road was built with the (seemingly always) intention of building a new bridge to link those two roads. This has now been cancelled. I note the Woolwich Ferry approach is now renumbered A117, rather than A406; but it is still recorded as the primary destination by the Dept for Transport - as the note on the route notes. The Ferry still provides the only eastern link between north and south circulars. Without that link, it wouldn't be a 'ring road' - or, since Boris, isn't it? HTH Kbthompson (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Had a look-see today. Below the A13, the road is labelled "A1020-A4060 North Circular Road". Kbthompson (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Trunk Road status
The A406 is not now a Trunk Road, but a GLA Road. It became such under this Order: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2000/20001117.htm S. 14A of the Highways Act 1980 states that when a trunk road becomes a GLA Road, it ceases to be a trunk road. GLA roads are maintained by Transport for London.Pubwebmaster (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Crooked Billet
The link to the Crooked Billet does not seem to relate to the public house on the North Circular Road. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.122.67.12 (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oops. Quite right. Interesting article about a battle in 1778 but quite possibly not exactly the right link! Thanks, I have zapped it - if we ever get a real Crooked Billet road junction (London) article, or whatever, we can always link that! Best wishes and thanks again, DBaK (talk) 20:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Could someone who understands this topic please translate?
The road was constructed on the alignment planned for the abandoned motorway plans and the section between the M11 at Charlie Browns and the A12 at Redbridge was originally opened as part of the M11 with the latter junction designated as M11 junction 3. The intention was to rename this section as M15 once the A406 upgrade to motorway standard had proceeded further but this never happened, and the road was eventually downgraded from motorway to all-purpose road keeping the existing A406 designation.
This is very difficult to comprehend. Cheers. --Dweller (talk) 12:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- Shall we start with what's an "alignment"? There's no wikilink and I don't understand the use of this word in this context. --Dweller (talk) 09:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think that alignment means the planned route - the actual line of the road, in detail. It gets used in civil engineering - canal people are always on about it too. "The remains of the lock are visible on the old alignment through Bluebell Wood etc etc". I think they also talk about the current alignment so it's not just plans. I think it just means "the actual or intended or former line of the road or other structure". Sorry, bit woolly but hope it helps. I agree that the paragraph is very difficult to follow. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 10:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- I started doing some work on this article, but never went through all of it. I left this bit of prose alone because I wanted to see if there was a source that documented protests against it like the M11 link road protest, and I believe (from memory, which is definitely not a reliable source!) there was some tension and demonstrations at the time ... anyway I've translated it into something normal people would understand ;-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)