Talk:M62 motorway/Archive 1

Archive 1

Life in the fast lane

This farm, and why it is there, is hugely notable. I have passed this farm on the M62 with many people and it is always commented on. Further, it is reliably sourced. Has any other farm had a whole radio programme devoted to it? The fact that the individuals are not notable is wholly irrelevant - people speculate why the farm is there and this helps answer it. TerriersFan 23:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the heading to move things on. TerriersFan 18:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I've updated the section on the farm, as there is a "new" owner there now according to BBC North West's Inside Out.

Geographic boundary

I have moved this from the main article. It fails NPOV and is unsourced. Please discuss here whether there is any case for it being included and if there are any sources.

'It has been put forward that the M62 marks the boundary between northern England and the rest of the country. This is much to the chagrin of the midlands cities of Sheffield and Manchester, but frankly a look at a map of England will confirm the truth of this.'

TerriersFan 21:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, for starters both Sheffield and Manchester are usually considered to be Northern cities (albeit right on the nominal North/Midlands border in the case of Sheffield).BaseTurnComplete 09:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Heated/Antifreeze Section?

I was heard that part of the M62 had been built with underroad heating to stop it freezing? Is there any truth in this?

Some of the bridges around the Eccles interchange have heated elements in, the work was done a few years back. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Junction 5

Why does it start at junction 5 and not junction 1? Lugnuts 17:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The M62 was originally meant to plough through to central Liverpool - and an ambitious urban motorway network was also planned. All shelved in the 1970s. See CBRD for details. Richard B 18:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Good article candidate – on hold

I have copyedited the article. However there remains one sentence that needs further clarification: "The construction of this section required sixty-seven structures, including seven viaducts and eight junctions." This is at the end of the section titled "Construction in Greater Manchester". What is "a structure"? Axl 09:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed the sentence - I couldn't word it in without it being either ambiguous or out-of-place. Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 10:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I've reinserted it. I think it means bridges and overpasses (that stretch of motorway being devoid of anything else) Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 11:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that looks better. Any idea how busy it is (i.e. how many vehicles)? Axl 13:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

From personal experience, it tends to be busy between Leeds and Manchester during rush hours. I'll try to source it. Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 13:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. The statistic is based on an assumption that the DfT are using a kilometer as the standard length - I know for sure that, for the "world's biggest carpark", the M25 doesn't get only 100,000 vehicles per day. Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 14:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I've edited this, as the DfT actually use "Average annual daily traffic" (AADT) figures - which is the average value of the number of vehicles passing a point (in both directions) per day. The 95,000 figure only refers to an average of parts of the motorway east of J22. West of J22 it's a bit lower. The M25 does only have ~170,000 vehicles per day on its busiest section - but given that there are only 86,400 seconds in a day, that's around than 1 vehicle per second on average day and night - weekday and weekend. Weekends and nights will be much quieter - so peak M25 flow is likely to be considerably higher than 170,000 vpd.Richard B 18:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, nice job. The article is nicely written, describing the purpose, course and construction of the motorway clearly. Suitable references are included. Congratulations to all editors, especially Spectre (Will). Axl 14:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Co-ordinate error

The co-ordinates given for Junction 32a & 38 are the same. Junction 38 is the wrong one but cannot work out what the right figures should be using the Coord template. Keith D 21:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Andy Mabbett 21:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Highest Point

The article gives the highest point at 372 meters above sea level. Yet the reference gives it as 1442 feet, which converts to about 440 metres. Is the article refering to something different to the reference or is it just wrong?

Keith D 22:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Will ^(talk) 22:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

M62 corridor

I've added this back in, no reason was given for its deletion. The M62 is of great importance to rugby league supporters as most fans travelling to an away game will have to use the M62 as it links most of the teams.GordyB 10:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Source? Will ^(talk) 12:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Rugby League, the second-largest spectator sport in Britain, is almost wholly confined to towns along this motorway. A 1994 survey showed that 60 per cent of those regularly attending Rugby League matches lived within four postal districts on the M62 corridor. Seen as the quintessentially northern sport, it engenders fierce local feeling and as much divides the north as unites it.[1]

Mind you the rest of the article is crap. I go to rugby league matches all the time and never hear the kind of chanting mentioned in the article.GordyB 23:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Leading 11-2 at half-time, the Eagles comfortably played out the second 40 despite some late Wigan pressure to seal a truly memorable victory and take the Cup outside the M62 corridor* for only the third time in the competition's history.[2]

Could people stop deleting this section. If you have a problem with parts of it then please discuss it. If you need specific references then say what needs referencing. If you claim it is POV or contradiucts itself then which bits do you have a problem with (and why?). Do not just delete the section, it is very unhelpful.GordyB 16:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Sceptre has continued to make edits but ignored my message here and on his talk page. I will revert accordingly. If you don't like my edits then you are going to have a proper reason otherwise I will revert them.GordyB 23:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The term "M62 corridor" sounds generic - IMO, it refers just to the land on and adjacent to the motorway. Yes, I know some rugby towns lie on the motorway, but you're on the wrong articl. A wider term is "M4 corridor", referring to industrial developments in the area, and that's not on the motorway's article except in a "See also". Additionally, terms like "often in a derogatory sense", and "somewhat inaccurate" are POV. It would do best as a line in Rugby league in England, but not in this article. Will ^(talk) 20:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It is your opinion that "M62 corridor" means land on and adjacent to the motorway. However, it is commonly used otherwise - this should be noted. The name "M62" is itself extremely generic but this is no reason not have an article. It's not a question of some rugby league towns lying on the M62 - most of them do and critically all the important ones do.GordyB 15:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, link to Rugby league in England in a "See also" section. Will ^(talk) 17:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

With no explanation at all! What on earth would that mean to anybody? I suggest that you look at the teams in Super League (Europe) - 10 out of 12 of them are based around the M62. That's more than a mere oddity.GordyB 18:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Wigan isn't signposted from the M62 (and is nearly always accessed from the M6 or M61), and Hull is 16 miles from the M62's terminus at North Cave. So that's down to seven already. I can make a case for St. Helens to, but I'm going to AGF on that. Will ^(talk) 19:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you like to tell me how you could get from St Helens or Wigan to Hull without travelling on the M62 for 95%+ of your journey?GordyB

A58, A58(M), A64(M), A64, A63. Will ^(talk) 17:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Any chance of doing it in one day or would walking be faster?GordyB 17:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Sarcasm isn't helping. In fact, the non-motorway route is only five miles longer. Will ^(talk) 17:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

As you are 16, you will not have had the pleasure of driving on A roads. The difference might be 5 miles but the reality is that it will take you several hours longer.GordyB 18:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

*sigh* I know it will take longer, but you're exaggerating. It'd take an hour more. Besides, you asked me for a non-motorway route, not a non-motorway route that will take less than 6 hours (which it will anyway). Will ^(talk) 18:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I drive on those roads, it is not an hour different. Much of the time you can't do more than 40mph. Believe me nobody is going to try to do that twice.GordyB 18:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

M62 corridor: 15,200 hits [3] M6 corridor 716 hits [4] M65 corridor 685 hits [5]

So much for "generic".GordyB (talk) 10:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Top fifty don't refer to rugby at all. Only a tenth of results actually do. Still, it is a valid topic, but shouldn't take preference over the motorway itself (such as no more than a paragraph o two) Will ^(talk) 12:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Opening Timeline

Should the Opening Timeline be reversed to match the west-east of the route in the infobox and the route detail section?

Keith D 23:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it'd do well, but I don't know how to fix the orientation. Will ^(talk) 20:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

So where did it go, and why? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I could not find the timeline in the archives for 22 July 2007. Also, the inforbox template has gone. Martinvl (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for looking. How curious. I wonder if Keith D can remember what happened. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I have a feeling that it was something to do with the now deleted template that was on the article in 2007. Keith D (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Keith. Perhaps we could persuade Martinvl to have a go with his wonderfully clear hand-crafted version here? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Can I suggest adding coordinates (using {{coord}}) to more of the junctions, in the route template? Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 10:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Do not know what has happened since the globe appeared but the co-ords are now in bold and over powering - any chance of restoring them to how they were? Keith D 10:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The small tag makes them unreadable, but a not-small tag makes them rather overpowering :( I'll try to make a fix, though.Will ^(talk) 12:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason the globe appears is explained here (which was the first I'd heard of it, too). Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 13:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

A Monk and Co ltd

I have found that this company was the contractor responsible for at least the section between J16 and J17 - does anybody have any contact information for this company? They may now be called A. Monk Building & Civil Engineering Ltd Parrot of Doom 12:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Spoken version added

I have added a spoken version of this article; see the link above. Hassocks5489 (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. Will ^(talk) 22:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Supercity

Nice article - good to see something close to home on the main page. I wonder about a possible addition - a few years ago the starchitect Will Alsop promoted a thought experiment about a supercity that would run along the length of the M62 from Hull to Liverpool. There was a programme on television about it and various architectural workshops [6] I attended the one at Urbis. I think it's both an interesting idea and certainly as notable as 'M62 in popular culture' (of which it is a part really).[7] regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I heard about this, the mooted city was dubbed 'Prezzagrad' (after John Prescott who championed the idea) by the media. Google for it.--90.216.119.206 (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Why the gratuitous violence?

The bombing, in my opinion, disturbs the technical tone of the article – as does the scoop about the car crash – and is unjustified without mention of it being considered wrong and why, and what rehabilitation the vandal would receive if caught. Other than that, I found the piece entertaining because it appreciated a highway and was set in an exotic location. --Chuck Marean 18:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Major Cities

Why are Liverpool and Hull not included as major cities on the route. I know they're at either end but surely they should be included - Liverpool's one of the UK's core cities group, which Bradford and Wakefield aren't members of —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.121.151.142 (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that that particular field is for the cities it passes, and not its terminii. You are right that Knotty Ash is in Liverpool, but the M62 admittedly gives up the ghost 15 miles away from Hull. Will ^(talk) 19:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Highest point

This was previously stated as 1,442 feet, cited from Chris's British Road Directory website. I've revised it to 1,221 feet as shown in this picture http://www.panoramio.com/photo/7235243 of the road sign at the summit. Whilst Chris's website is comprehensive and informative, I think the sign (presumably erected by the Department for Transport) is a more reliable source.

Also, this is a good picture, found on Google Earth and Panoramio.com. It would be good to include it in the article, but I'm not sure whether being on Panoramio makes it free to use or not. Anyone know better than me? Annatto (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The lead section has the correct height and references two other sources for this. Maybe these references should be added to the section you corrected. paypwip (talk) 19:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Is that sign at exactly the highest point? The road seems to still climb, for a short distance, in a easterly direction - or is this just an optical illusion? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

It's perspective more than an illusion. The road does indeed start to dip from there onwards, but is much more pronounced after a couple of hundred meters. I've driven many a time on that particular stretch of road. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

It should indicate that the Highest Point of the Motorway, which is in fact the highest point of any motorway in England, is actaully between Rochdale and Huddersfield. The nearest towns toeither side of the Pennines. The pennines do not reach further east than Huddersfield and further west than Rochdale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.112.232.221 (talk) 11:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see this discussion Talk:Pennines#Eastern and western edges. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

construction images

Some useful and useable images here - http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/344077 (click his other images to find more). Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

M62 relief Road

I'm quite surprised this article doesn't mention this proposal, it would have made a major difference to traffic around the M60 had it been constructed. http://pathetic.org.uk/unbuilt/m62_relief_road/ Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Added. Nice catch :) Sceptre ^(talk) 17:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Good job :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Saddleworth

The M62 passes neither through the extended area of the group of villages now known collectively as Saddleworth or over Saddleworth Moor at any point. I have changed references in the article that say it does as these "facts" tend to go round and round. Saddleworth Moor is an area to the south of the A635 between Greenfield and Holmfirth, at least five miles south-east of junction 22. Saddleworth as a geographical area includes - at its own closest point to the M62 - the village of Denshaw. However, this does not extend to the M62. A number of websites and publications are misleading on this but maps are much clearer.JohnB57 (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Junction table updates

I've done the following to the table for the following reasons:

1. The most minor, but I added !scope="col"| to the front of the code for each column's header. This is for accessibility reasons.
2. I changed the shade of blue in the top row to match the official color.
3. I switched this to class=wikitable to better match the other RJL tables.
4. I removed the black background on the column header.
5. I added a Mile column, and calculated the mileages. (multiply by 0.621 and round to 1 decimal place)
6. The NORTH and The SOUTH were converted to The North and The South per MOS:ALLCAPS.
7. The italics were removed, also per the MOS provisions on their use.
8. I inserted the {{legendRJL}} key at the bottom with |country=GBR set. (UK also works as a alternate value for the parameter)

These changes are following what has been decided by UKRD editors at Talk:M25 motorway and the recent agreement to follow MOS:RJL in full as it has been modified. I decided that this article should be updated now because this is a Featured Article, and if other foreign editors are going to base article improvements off any UK article as a template, this should be the one. Imzadi 1979 → 19:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Stretching it a bit far?

"...the Merseyside Expressway, planned to run only between Liverpool and the M6, would need extending to the Stretford-Eccles Bypass, creating a continuous motorway between Liverpool and Ferrybridge..." implies that the Stretford-Eccles Bypass extended to Ferrybridge, which is doubtful.Danensis (talk) 11:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Article does not meet FA standards

This article does not currently meet the FA standards:

• well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate; - most of the article is sourced to a WP:SPS, and many of those links are dead.
• appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents; - there are too many headings and the article is not very well organized.
• consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes () or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended. The use of citation templates is not required. - there are many bare links and missing page numbers.

Please note that if attempts are not made to resolve these issues shortly, the article will be brought to WP:FAR. --Rschen7754 12:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Bad links that were highlighted on the Talk Page have been repaired. Martinvl (talk) 14:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding structure, I am not sure about subsections Stott Hall Farm and High traffic levels being in the same section (Features). As one is referring to a notable physical feature and the other to traffic levels, it makes the section seem a little vague. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  17:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Also, why are there citations in the lead? Most of those should be in the body, since the lead is supposed to just be a summary of the route. --Rschen7754 17:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

According to WP:LEADCITE, "The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but there shouldn't be as many as there are in there. The lead is not to present material that is not in the rest of the article. --Rschen7754 10:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I have dealt with both of these matters this evening –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 23:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Looking down the references, I see quite a few dead links, but I definitely don't see some of the higher quality sources one would expect with such an FA such as James Drake's proposals for the Lancashire Motorway Network, like The Road Plan for Lancashire, or any contemporary reports from Lancashire CC, TNA files such as MT95/248 "Lancashire C.C. Special Road scheme 1955 No 1: construction of Barton High Level Bridge." or anything from The Times digital archive ... I could go on, but you'd get bored - in summary it fails WP:FACR criteria 1b and 1c stone dead. It's time for FAR. In fact I'd put the article as it stands at around C class at best. Sorry. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

FAR notification

I have nominated M62 motorway for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Rschen7754 19:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Broken Links

Regarding the citations to CBRDs former road simulator at places describing the locations, wouldn't links to Google Maps/Streetview act as a good replacement? FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  11:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Martinvl (talk) 11:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

"M62 corridor"

Is the term "M62 corrdior", in popular culture/ reporting, noteworthy in its own right? If so, what does it mean? M4 corridor get's it's own article! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Notable accidents

Should the article include notable accidents, and if so how many? Is there any reliable source for which have been the most serious' (in terms of fatalities alone, or delay, or something else?) e.g. M4 has M4 motorway#Incidents and accidents. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

This has the potential to get out of hand. There are numerous incidents on a daily basis closing this motorway for hours at a time. The Windy Hill Bridge at Scammonden is well knwn as a suicide location. If I remember right there were three there in the last 12 months. A man jumped from a bridge near the Trafford Centre, earlier this year. A woman came off a bridge at Chain Bar, near Bradford not to long ago, a rugby player, Mathew Smith, from Sidall, leapt from Windy Hill Bridge. How can you decide which s more notable then the other? There are frequent landing by the air ambulance at Scammonden. A short while ago the national news spent the entire day reporting on an incdent where a HGV hit a coach full of women, going to a hen party, at Junction 32A, killing one and injuring 20+ others. The road was closed most of the day, with over a dozen fire engines, several ambulances and police vehicles, six air ambulances and dozens of NHS emergency services staff in attendance. The decision on what is or isn't notable is subjective and difficult to decude a criteria on that would satisfy everyone. Try doing two seperate searches on Google; one for:- 'M62 suicide, death' and another for 'M62, accident, death.' The amount of ? notable detail would fill a book and that would be too large. Even a stand alone article would struggle to cope with the daily updates. Richard Harvey (talk) 11:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The simplest answer seems to be to exclude everything. I'd suggest the next most simple solution is to list the top five most serious accidents by total fatalities. Some might link to separate articles, some might not. All the single-fatality suicides would certainly be ruled out. I'm not sure why a list is considered unacceptable. Very long dealys, and/or the deaths of notable people might also be considered, as at M4. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

In full disclosure, I am an American. That said, in the US highway articles, we typically try to only list individual events like these if they garner significant media coverage. If there is a trend that a roadway is notable for certain events, and the media reports on it, then we mention that. It sounds like if there was some report or media coverage about the M62's notoriety for suicides, that should be in the article. As for the last accident inserted, it originally read as if it were a bigger deal, inserted by someone with personal connections to those involved, and by someone wanting to "memorialize" the event in some way. It certainly didn't rise to the casualty level of the train crash nor the political implications of the bus bombing, so kudos to the person who removed it. Imzadi 1979 → 17:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your perspective, Imzadi1979. Well, it was certainly given media coverage: [8], [9], [10], largely through the notability of the band, I guess. But nobody died. I'm sure there have been many other accidents, with multiple fatalities, which would more warrant inclusion. I can't help but think that readers might expect to see coverage of the most serious accidents here, or at least a mention. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't know that that warrants being called "significant media coverage". I agree that there should be more serious incidents listed, but if this one gets to be notable enough, for some reason, then even without a loss of life, it probably needs to be listed. The amount of information used in the article can be scaled proportionate to the notability of the situation. This one incident could be dropped down to a single sentence while others get a more considered paragraph each. Imzadi 1979 → 19:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The bus incident is not notable, there are frequent incidents on the motorway and a two hour delay is not unusual. (I travelled the Pennine section regularly until recently and still do monthly) A list would encourage more non notable incidents to be added and the inevitable arguments over notability. The two most notable have a section. Richard Harvey's assessment is correct. J3Mrs (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree, so long as this last incident isn't blow up all over the media. If things there are similar to things here, unless for some reason there are criminal charges involved, the bus fire incident will blow over as a minor footnote. If that's the case, the bus fire shouldn't appear in this article at all. Imzadi 1979 → 19:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The bus fire was in 2008, I think it can be safely discounted. J3Mrs (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I fully agree, five years ago and no fatalities. Just non-notability. But I disagree with Richard Harvey's analysis that adding any other accidents, which are notable, would lead to some uncontrollable glut. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

But this is Wikipedia where trivia rules. Richard is quite right. J3Mrs (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure everyone would agree that the needless loss of many lives, in a series of tragic motorway accidents, counts as trivia. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)