Talk:M1 motorway

message: Again, according to both the Motorway Archive and contemporary mapping evidence, the M6 Preston Bypass opened in December 1958, with the M1, M10 and M45 opening in November 1959.
:Totally agree even the M6 motorway article afirms such Dainamo 21:14, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. iirc from the media reporting, the M1 was the first-planned but because of length (the M6 bit being far shorter) wasn't built / open first! --Vamp:Willow 23:12, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, the M6 was planned first - it was to be a "guinea pig" road, which spawned the M1 later. The M6 at Preston originally opened as dual 2 lane, with soft shoulders, which, apart from an extra lane each way, was exactly how the M1 was constructed. The media aren't a reliable source with roads history. Archive material from planning offices, however, is. For what it's worth - construction of the M62 began first, with the embankments for the Barton Bridge being placed in anticipation for the eventual Stratford-Eccles Bypass.
--Bryn666 23:50, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)

text: Well it's probably something to do with the length of the scheme; the Preston bypass is about 8 and a bit miles long, the M1 scheme 67 miles. The Preston bypass was just a bypass of a (then) town, whereas the M1 was an inter-urban scheme. Richard B 20:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That may well be what the editor was trying to indicate with their statement. Unfortunately though, neither length nor purpose of a motorway has much bearing on whether it can be described as "full-length". For example, the M57 motorway is about 10 miles long and only serves the purpose of a bypass around Liverpool but it is the "full-length" it is ever likely to be in the foreseeable future. On the other hand the M6 motorway is the longest motorway in the UK yet it won't be considered "full-length" until it reaches either the Scottish border or all the way up to Glasgow. Other than as a fanciful description, I am not sure what value the phrase "full-length" adds to the article. Even if a verified source can be found for the statement, I think it will have to be qualified in the article by phrasing it as something like "Many people often consider the M1 motorway to be the first full-length motorway in the UK, yet the first motorway was in fact the Preston Bypass, which now forms part of the M6". Road Wizard 22:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick search on google for "first full length motorway" reveals several quite reasonable looking sources for this claim, but I can't find one that states what is meant by "full length". Perhaps "first inter-urban motorway" would be more useful - the description in the Motorway Archive Richard B 23:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "First inter-urban motorway" does seem to be a more accurate phrase. Does anyone see anything wrong with the statement "Whilst the M1 is considered to be the first inter-urban motorway to be completed in the United Kingdom,  the very first motorway to be built in the country was the Preston Bypass, which later became part of the M6. " before I include it in the article? Road Wizard 12:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "very first" is an over-emphasis, but maybe your suggested mid-section could read "the first road to be identified as a 'motorway' in the UK was the Preston Bypass ..."? --Vamp:Willow 12:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I finally got around to adding the statement today. I took your advice and removed "very". Thanks. Road Wizard 12:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First UK Motorway?

message: You can get on and off at J25 in both directions. Will look what the signage is next time I'm passing. --Dunstan 15:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  J25 Info wrong 

message: Anyone got further details on the plan to build lanes between J5 and 10 for cars with at least one passenger?. --User:Oliver.Shepherd 18:41, 23 March 2006
* I have found 2 sources for you, one from the Times Online and the other from the horse's mouth at the Highways Agency website. Road Wizard 23:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another 4 sources for you. Official press-notices about the scheme. 10th December 04, 7th March 05, 7th March 06, 13th March 06. Road Wizard 23:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Building of New Lanes 

message: Should we add an entry for the private turnings on each carriageway between J14 and 15? Looking on Google Earth, it would appear that they are connected by a tunnel under the motorway, presumably for coppers to turn round at the border between Northants and Bucks. --Dunstan talk 10:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fascinating. Do you have a ref for that? --Guinnog 11:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=hanslope&ie=UTF8&t=k&om=1&ll=52.145801,-0.83921&spn=0.004306,0.014827 --Dunstan talk 21:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That does look like a service road for either the police or maintenance vehicles, but I am unsure as to the relevance in including it in this article. I would classify it along the same lines as saying "there is a broom closet on the second floor of the shopping complex". I suppose you could include it if you want to, but it certainly shouldn't be listed in the "List of junctions" section as it isn't really an exit or junction. It is one of many unmarked service roads along the motorway network which are off-limits to any unauthorised vehicles. If we did mention it in the article, would we also have to mention that unauthorised use is illegal and those caught using it by the police will likely be prosecuted? Road Wizard 21:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, no change to the article. I'd just wondered for a long time what it was before Google Earth came along to solve the mystery. --Dunstan talk 09:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: There are lots of these along all British motorways; it is a "change-direction" access for emergency vehicles only and it is a moving traffic offence for unauthorised drivers to use them, although some foolhardy types can be seen doing so. Not sure if it would be breaking UK law to add them to junction lists here, but perhaps - "knowingly inciting another to commit an offence". MarkThomas 21:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Underpass between J14 and 15 

message: In the motorway junction list, should it not have Junction 10A, also?
It goes from Luton South (Airport) to Junction 10...
Cheesypot 15:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  J10A 

message: The body of the article says the M1 is 193 miles long, as per the Motorway Archive , the infobox says 190.8, which seems closer to the 191 miles I've just got for a Google Maps route .  Which is correct? Dupont Circle (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length 

message: The consensus for the past two and half years has been Yorkshire, baring in mind that the M1 does a hard right and goes round Leeds never entering the city proper I feel saying it joins Leeds and London is misleading. --Nate1481( t/c) 13:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably West Yorkshire would be more appropriate to narrow it down a bit. Keith D (talk) 14:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: West Yorkshire makes sense to me, not knowing exact geography, I'm not sure how close it does get to being in 'Leeds proper', eg Does the M3 actually end in Southampton?  Bevo74 (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: West Yorkshire works for me, I'd say that the M3 goes to Southampton as it ends on waht is effectively the ring road, the M1 is going away from Leeds at the end. P.S. My initial revert was based on the fact the editor who changed it first had made several 'Leeds centric' edits including calling West Yorkshire 'Greater Leeds' (a term I've never heard after been here for 7 years). --Nate1481( t/c) 15:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Leeds is a district and a city which is within West Yorkshire and West Yorkshire is within Yorkshire and the M1 once went into Leeds (but the end bit was renamed the M621 motorway) and now the M1 goes to junction 43 of the A1(M) motorway (source A-Z West Yorkshire) Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  End Leeds or Yorkshire? 

message: Northern Ireland is part of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".  However it has its own M1 motorway.  Would it not be better therefore to rename this article "M1 motorway (GB)"? Martinvl (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted the page move, as it is controversial and no discussion to generate consensus has been made. There is a clear primary topic in this instance. If the user in question wishes to start a move discussion, instructions can be found at WP:RM Jeni (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about Northern Ireland? 

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*Consider removing links that add little to the article or that have been repeated in close proximity to other links to the same article, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and WP:CONTEXT. Guides recommend having greater than 3% words in links, but be sure not to overlink words just to add more links.[?]
*You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 650 yds, use 650 yds, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 650 yds.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[?] Specifically, an example is 650 yds.
*When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).
*As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of (if such appeared in the article) using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.[?]
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Regards, FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  17:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automated Peer Review 

message: I have long felt that it would be useful to be able to print off just the junction list as an aid to navigation when driving - if I can print off a picturem, why not a junction list? 
When I upgraded the M1 junction list to match the WP:RJL, I decided to be WP:BOLD and to try an experiment to see whether or nto there was a real demand for such a facility.  I did this as follows:
*I created a template:M1 motorway junction list that contained only the junction list.
*I created a new article M1 motorway junction list which linked to the template, but which ad little else.  (I plan to add categories later) 
*I linked to this template from the article M1 motorway and added a link to the new article informing readers that they could get a printable version of the list. Looking further into the future, I see scope for a "book" of junction lists.
I request editor's indulgence while we see if there is any takeup on this feature. If ther appears to be some takeup, I plan to add this feature to the M6, M5, M4, M62, M25, M60 in that order (long-distnace motorways and then the two major ring roads). Martinvl (talk) 13:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Printable junction list 

message: Since all distances on the M1 itself are shown in miles (standard UK practice on all road signs) I was curious as to why the table showing junctions and the distances between them is shown in kilometres?  IMHO this makes that table rather more difficult to use as a navigational aid if you have to convert between miles on the road signs and km in the article. Barty 11 (talk) 09:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to add in the miles as per WP:RJL.  However if you are actually driving on the M1 rather than armchair navigating, I suggest that you use the kilometre-based Driver location signs that are actually on the motorway (maybe you never noticed them) which is why the Wikipedia article catalogues them. Martinvl (talk) 09:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Those signs are a waste of space. Hardly anyone knows what they are. In fact, you're the first person I've come across who does. I suggest the motorway distances are given as miles in the table with km in brackets. In the UK we just don't think in kilometres, so even if everyone knew what those signs were about they would still think distances in miles. 86.9.233.162 (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Junction distances in miles as well? 

message: The article should point out that there is no warning as one approaches junction 18 from the north that the subsequent junction (17), which on most maps appears to offer access to the M25, cannot actually be used. 
It's already extraordinary that this important motorway (M25) cannot be accessed from the north, only from the south (presumably northerners are supposed to enter it via the north and then the south poles), but the fact that a naive traveller is not even told once that exit 17 is essentially non-existent (though he is repeatedly told to keep 2 chevrons behind the vehicle in front) add insult to injury.
Perhaps this problem also exists at other junctions. Paulhummerman (talk) 21:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you may have misread the signage or map, as J17 serves the much smaller M45 motorway (google map of it). When travelling south J6a is the one for the M25 (or J6 when travelling north). Baldy Bill (sharpen the razor|see my reflection) 21:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Junction 17 

message: I've made a modest edit to the 'recent developments' section of the article, as it seems to present a very partial view of what happened on the M1 widening to make it seem as if the project was more controversial than it was. I've sought to correct two things.
# The section began by stating that there were "major protests" against the widening of the M1. In a UK context, 'major protests' suggests something on the scale of the Newbury Bypass or Twyford Down. The only evidence for protest I can find (including the footnote) is for a single event where banners were unfurled from some motorway bridges in 2007. Wikipedia's page on road protests since 1997 only mentions the M1 with a throwaway reference to the existence of a 'NoM1Widening' group, and I can find no evidence of their activity beyond a press release suggesting they received a £1000 donation in 2007. This certainly does not seem to qualify as "major"; and I would question whether it even qualifies as "protest" at a level that warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. 
# I've also tried to straighten out the chronology of the revision of the M1 widening programme. The previous edit suggested that this was the result of cost overruns on the M1 project. This is only partially true. There was a widespread problem of cost overruns at the Highways Agency, of which the M1 was only one part. At the same time, hard shoulder running was also being developed, which led to the original plans being substantially revised. I've tried to make the chronology clearer, and get the tone a little more neutral.
86.141.147.19 (talk) 11:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that. Good work. I have done some more cleanup to the article. I do also agree that it was the cost escalation that was the killer for the original scheme, however I have referenced the protests in passing again because they were important, not least because it was the road protesters who uncovered the cost escalation in the first place.. I will add this link to the article actually. PeterEastern (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  M1 widening programme - trying for balance 

message: Substituted at 22:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on M1 motorway. 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:
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5yICBu7Js?url=http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/projects/4584.aspx to http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/projects/4584.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101030230558/http://nds.coi.gov.uk/clientmicrosite/Content/Detail.aspx?ClientId=202&NewsAreaId=2&ReleaseID=416188&SubjectId=36 to http://nds.coi.gov.uk/clientmicrosite/Content/Detail.aspx?ClientId=202&NewsAreaId=2&ReleaseID=416188&SubjectId=36
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090603171810/http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/projects/14485.aspx to http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/projects/14485.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090812124322/http://www.iht.org/motorway/m1cricdonc.htm to http://www.iht.org/motorway/m1cricdonc.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311003156/http://www.iht.org/motorway/m1introduction.htm to http://www.iht.org/motorway/m1introduction.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311002729/http://www.iht.org/motorway/m1m18barlwad.htm to http://www.iht.org/motorway/m1m18barlwad.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120207182418/http://www.iht.org/motorway/m1extension.htm to http://www.iht.org/motorway/m1extension.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on M1 motorway. 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:
*Added  tag to http://www.iht.org/motorway/m1m10m45.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071212114003/http://www.highways.gov.uk/knowledge/338.aspx to http://www.highways.gov.uk/knowledge/338.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080126112253/http://www.iht.org/motorway/m1eastamat.htm to http://www.iht.org/motorway/m1eastamat.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120119014428/http://nds.coi.gov.uk/content/detail.aspx?NewsAreaId=2&ReleaseID=420762&SubjectId=2 to http://nds.coi.gov.uk/content/detail.aspx?NewsAreaId=2&ReleaseID=420762&SubjectId=2
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090916021803/http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/projects/4478.aspx to http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/projects/4478.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605130555/http://www.highways.gov.uk/news/newsroom.aspx?pressreleaseid=156326 to http://www.highways.gov.uk/news/newsroom.aspx?pressreleaseid=156326
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160117183458/http://www.emcbe.com/january-constructive-article6.html to http://www.emcbe.com/january-constructive-article6.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090605162145/http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/projects/14484.aspx to http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/projects/14484.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120717053402/http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/projects/4347.aspx to http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/projects/4347.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110615114604/http://www.bedfordshire.gov.uk/ltp/section_15.html to http://www.bedfordshire.gov.uk/ltp/section_15.html
*Added  tag to http://www.iht.org/motorway/m1m10m45.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on M1 motorway. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722134904/http://www.therobeytrust.co.uk/Stocklist%20tri-tandem%20roller.htm to http://www.therobeytrust.co.uk/Stocklist%20tri-tandem%20roller.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120629032930/http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/projects/4482.aspx to http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/projects/4482.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'm puzzled by the claim that the original M1 had no central reservation (which is also repeated in a BBC article from 2002 - http://www.bbc.co.uk/northamptonshire/asop/northampton/m1.shtml). Photos of the motorway under construction on the roads.org.uk website (https://www.roads.org.uk/index.php/photo/m1-under-construction) clearly show a median strip, and of course all the overbridges have central piers. So I don't where this claim has come from. The early M1 had no hard shoulders - only soft ones - so maybe there has been confusion here. PhilUK (talk) 19:55, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed the text as indicated, and also deleted the reference to a Highways Agency website which no longer exists.PhilUK (talk) 17:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is a reference to support the change? Keith D (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Central reservation

message: The link to the Highways Agency "A1(M) Bramham to Wetherby – One Year After Study" document is broken. Could somebody please look into replacing this with an Archive.org link. I would do it myself but I'm not sure if there is a special procedure for references sourced from Archive.org.
DAB (talk) 02:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the note. I have added an archive version of the document. Keith D (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: "Leeds to Hook Moor" citation

message: The current road junction list does not comply with WP:RJL as indicated by the RJL template. I replaced it with the following list so that it complies with WP:RJL. Admittedly, the list is incomplete, but additional information could be added in later times by anyone. AlphaBeta135talk 18:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted the change as the information is incomplete and also because the new layout is confusing as it attempts to combine information on the 2 carriage ways into single column. The north & south destinations are not nessarily the same and the single column does not show which are north destinations & which are south destinations. The original layout with the carriageways to left & right of distance etc is much clearer. Keith D (talk) 21:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Some junctions have destinations that are identical or nearly identical in both directions to the point that they are combined into one row. This includes junctions where only one direction carries an extra city. Some other junctions have destinations that are very much not identical in both directions (e.g. Junction 23A on the M1). While my attempt at creating a MOS-compliant junction list is not clear about whether it is a northbound or southbound destination, perhaps it could be resolved like the one below. AlphaBeta135talk 22:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

text: It is still not very clear what is happening, 2 columns is much clearer placed either side of the location detail, which seems to take up far too much of the screen width. May be the templates need a redesign. Keith D (talk) 11:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I am going by the M5 motorway example from the Manual of Style, which uses just one column, not two. AlphaBeta135talk 12:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The M621 and the M876 even uses MOS-compliant junction list, albeit much shorter than the M1. AlphaBeta135talk 12:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably people just trying to use templates without considering the situation. May be those roads need to be changed back or tagging . Keith D (talk) 21:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would it be okay to implement this below junction list to accommodate two columns? It looks and feels similar to a MOS-compliant junction list, but with two columns. AlphaBeta135talk 19:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implementation of MOS-compliant road junction list