Talk:Snake Pass

message: "sections have been used for semi-professional cycling races such as the Tour of Britain.". The ToB is a professional cycle race. There's no 'semi' about it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.133.27.34 (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Tour of Britian

message: Is the road really part of the NT's high peak estate, in the sense that the road is privately owned (as opposed to most normal roads, which are publicly owned)? --VinceBowdren 11:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NT owned?

message: "This section is exceptionally scenic—the view at the start of the descent into Glossop is quite remarkable, on a clear day offering beautiful views over the city of Manchester, which is 10 miles away."
I have removed this section of the article, as it appears to violate WP:NPOV 92.28.68.34 (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: A reasonable proportion of the citations appear to have disappeared since they were added (circa 2015?) and need fixing or replacing. For now, they are tagged as dead links. Mauls (talk) 12:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed or replaced the dead links as appropriate. Mauls (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead links 

message: I can find no sources supporting the claim that the Woodhead line through the Woodhead Tunnel was closed in anticipation of any road schemes. Sources say it was closed due to the cost of upgrading it, and the availability of other rail routes. Mauls (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: See this. "" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't say the tunnel was closed in anticipation of the road scheme, it says a scheme was proposed that would have used the tunnel (so the scheme was apparently in anticipation of the tunnel closure, not the reverse). Mauls (talk) 09:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Woodhead Tunnel 

message: The section on gritting was a bit confused. It made a claim that Snake Pass was a secondary route, which was not in the cited source, and not supported by other sources - Snake Pass is actually a primary route given priority for gritting. The report from High Peak council is in disagreement with this status quo. I have therefore amended this section so it clearly reflects this. Mauls (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: As seen here, the A57 between Mottram Moor and Sheffield is in red (a secondary route), while the A628 to the Flouch Inn, then the A616 is the primary route. This can be observed on the ground where signs at Mottram Moor read "Barnsley A628, Sheffield (A616)" in green (primary) against "Glossop A57" in white (non primary). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The terms "primary" and "secondary" are not used equivalently by the different authorities responsible for road designation and gritting - this is shown on the Derbyshire County Council site, where even some unclassified roads (e.g through Edale) are classed as "primary" for gritting purposes. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gritting 

message: The section about proposals for motorways between Manchester and Sheffield, unfortunately, remains a bit confused. For example, after the bit on the 1981 Woodhead Tunnel closure, and the costs, it says 'consequently' the proposal was abandoned. However, the 1979 Department of Transport reported by Commercial Trader is clear that any idea of a motorway on this route had already been dismissed. Similarly, the Hansard citation of Barbara Castle (then Minister of Transport) doesn't support there being an actual proposal for a motorway in 1965 - the questioner asks about a motorway, but the minister in response only says there has been a traffic survey into routes between the M1 and M6. This suggests it is pre-proposal. The Motorway Archive reference implies there was an intention in 1965 when the Hyde By-pass (M67) was being planned, that it would form part of a motorway to Sheffield. Basically, the timeline is very unclear, and the sources aren't great. Mauls (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because idiots in the past threw out Steven Jukes' excellent ground-breaking research claiming Pathetic Motorways was an unreliable source, which is nonsense. His research comes from painstaking work in the National Archives, the London Metropolitan Archives and the Manchester Metropolitan Archives. What he doesn't know about the M67 isn't worth writing about. I can't ask the other subject expert I know,  for reasons that should be obvious. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not ideal... I can't find any other decent sources than Pathetic Motorways. Could it be reworked much more simply, to say that the M67 that exists today was built with the intention of being part of a motorway to Sheffield (that is supported by the Motorway Archive source) and then have the more recent tunnel proposal (BBC source) as the latest interaction of an alternative route? That gets the heart of it across in a way that can be verified by references. Mauls (talk) 09:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

text: Is Roads.org.uk (formerly CBRD) a suitable source? It makes a fairly clear statement about Woodhead Tunnel so I've added that as a source. Mauls (talk) 11:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally think it's an excellent and totally reliable source. More importantly, other reliable sources have said it's reliable (see refs at London_Ringways#Documentation). I am certain that is where I found the original information and tried to plug in other references around it so editors wouldn't complain. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sheffield to Manchester motorway