Talk:M6 motorway

M6 motorway received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

UK geography High‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Highways: United Kingdom Mid‑importance

	Roads portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Highways, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of highways on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HighwaysWikipedia:WikiProject HighwaysTemplate:WikiProject HighwaysHighways articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the United Kingdom Roads Task Force.
	This article's junction list has been marked as needing attention.

Lancashire and Cumbria Mid‑importance

	North West England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lancashire and Cumbria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Lancashire and CumbriaWikipedia:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaTemplate:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaLancashire and Cumbria articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Cheshire Low‑importance

	Cheshire portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cheshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cheshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CheshireWikipedia:WikiProject CheshireTemplate:WikiProject CheshireCheshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Greater Manchester Low‑importance

	Greater Manchester portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greater Manchester, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greater Manchester on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Greater ManchesterWikipedia:WikiProject Greater ManchesterTemplate:WikiProject Greater ManchesterGreater Manchester articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Warwickshire Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Warwickshire, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Warwickshire. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page.WarwickshireWikipedia:WikiProject WarwickshireTemplate:WikiProject WarwickshireWikiProject Warwickshire articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Questions 2003-2006

Is the section about the A556 clear enough? It's not currently motorway (i.e. no M suffix), but the debate to upgrade to motorway has rumbled on for years. I'm wondering if the M suffix is a little confusing. Darac 00:03, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I have written a specific A556 road page. Perhaps it is worth moving the A556(M) reference to the A556 page and referencing it from here? Pixie2000 12:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is the M6 really the first toll motorway ? ==Mangonel 12:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The M6 Toll - an alternative route of the motorway - is the first toll motorway in the UK. The old M6 remains and is not a toll road. Robdurbar 15:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is the first toll motorway that isn't also an estuary crossing. The M4 and M48 both have toll sections (at the Severn Bridges) - but only in one direction. Going from England into Wales on either motorway, you must pay a toll. Both are therefore toll motorways for a short section. Richard B 20:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is, (not the ones from rivers etc) but one for a motorway William ALBERT88 (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The M6 near Lancaster

The reason for the short slip road on the M6 near Lancaster at Junction 34 has nothing to do with having to re-build a bridge (bear in mind the bridge was built as part of the motorway!).

When the M6 was built, it was as a Lancaster bypass. To discourage local journeys, no entry or exit points were specified between the Galgate Junction and the Carnforth Junction. However, the emergency services were concerned as to whether access could easily be obtained, and so the slip roads for what is now Junction 34 were built, but not to the same standard as a proper junction. In fact they were fenced off from the road initially.

Later it was decided to upgrade the junction to enable full access.

The junction has been a problem for some time, but nothing was done about it because it was potentially going to be replaced by a new Lancaster Bypass. In the 1990s this bypass was planned to go to the west of Lancaster and therefore eventually, in 2004 (I think) the southbound entry and exit sliproads were upgraded.

however, the junction is still due to be replaced as part of the Lancaster Northern bypass.82.40.248.105 17:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinates

I've just added coordinates for the first and last junctions to the table of junctions, using the new {{coord}} template and hCard and Geo microformat mark-up (you may need to refresh your browser, to see them with the updated CSS). This means that the coordinates are not only readable in plain text, but are also parsable by software and may, for instance, be looked up on maps or downloaded to GPS units. What do people think? How would people feel about adding them for other junctions, and services? Please see the microformat project for background info. Andy Mabbett 15:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a good idea. Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 01:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Start and end I don't have a problem with and major junctions such as Great Barr (unless they have their own article) but every junction will simply clutter up the table without adding much of value. Regan123 15:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noticed that when trying that on M62 motorway Will ^(talk) 20:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but I would be inclined to add them for the services, as well. Andy Mabbett 09:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest that the coordinates for the services / major junctions etc. go on the specific pages for the services/major junctions - rather than in the main table. As with Regan123, I think too many coordinates in the table would clutter it up. One thing that would be ok in my opinion, but I'm not sure if it's supported by the software / or other users - could perhaps the coordinates be available as a file download linked from the motorway page - then that could be used to paste into Google Earth or GPS devices?? I would be against including more than a couple of coordinates in the table. Richard B 12:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think coordinates can fairly be said not to have "much value". By including them, people can find the location, easily, on one of many mapping and similar services. By including them in a Geo microformat, as here, they also become downloadable into Google Earth or GPS devices, for instance. Andy Mabbett 09:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: please see M62 motorway for use of coordinates in the route template; noting the final external link on the page (using {{kml}}, to a service which passes the coordinates to Google maps, so that they can be plotted as "push-pins". Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 10:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Adding coordinates to the junctions column tends to take up a lot of space and distracts from the visual impact of the article. May I suggest that references to coordinates be added to the junction column thus

M6 Motorway
Northbound exits	Junction	Southbound exits
Todhills rest area
Carlisle (North), Galashiels, Hawick A7	J44 ^{[coord 1]}	Hexham A689 Workington (A595), Carlisle A7

Coordinate List

^ J44 54°55′48″N 2°56′47″W / 54.93013°N 2.94643°W / 54.93013; -2.94643 (J44)

Systemic bias

Is there any particular reason why this page sits where it does? Other countries have enormously longer and more important M6 motorways, e.g., M6 motorway (Russia). I believe M6 motorway should be reserved for a disambiguation page. --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hauntings

This subsection has no place in what attempts to be a serious article. The single source is a press release from the company Tarmac which has been uncritically reprinted (shame on the Guardian), presumably as a bit of humour. Tarmac ran a completion in the run up the Halloween inviting people to send in their 'spooky stories' [1] for a chance to win a completion prize. Hardly surprising that:

People reported seeing ghosts (you don't expect to win the prize if you say they don't exist)
The longest motorway had the most spooky stories.

On this basis I think this hauntings section should be removed. Any comments? --ReddyRose 11:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Junction 34

I have been at the Lancashire County Records Office, and press cuttings from the road's opening in April 1960 clearly show this junction open to general traffic. It was planned as an emergency access but upgraded to a regular junction during construction; it was not fenced off after the road opened as claimed on Wikipedia and elsewhere. Bryn666 (talk) 02:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a source, then quote it. There is always room for improvement in verifying Wikipedia articles. Road Wizard (talk) 12:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

High Wind Warning System

There's now a high wind warning system that sets signs and signals automatically on the motorway between junctions 38 and 43, given live information from newly installed ultrasonic anemometers. This is the first time that an automatic system integrated with the NMCS2 (National Motorway Control System version 2) has been used in England.

The system went live in December 2008.

If you're interested in adding this to the Wiki, I'll try and get permission to upload some HA documents to prove that the system does exist.

Alternately, you could drive up the M6 past shap on a windy day - on Sunday 11th Jan 2009, gust speeds reached 71 MPH! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.141.165 (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic levels

Does anyone have any info on current traffic levels? When the M6 Toll opened, it was reported that M6 levels were "180,000". M6 Toll traffic has now fallen 20% from peak - how much has M6 fallen by? Lawrence18uk (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Economist called the M6 "gloriously empty." http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13611889&fsrc=rss -- Memoss (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The operator of the M6 Toll does publish figures for that road [2] and traffic has indeed fallen recently before the disappointing original figures. There is also a new information service from the government providing details for many other roads becoming available in the next few months, in the mean time you can see some results here.[3] The image after about 7 miunutes does show some decrease of HGV traffic around B'Ham since 2003. All of the data used in that presentation will soon be available online for reuse[4]. Unfortunately however, in general traffic volumes don't normally fall when a new road is opened due to the normal levels of suppressed demand which get released when the road opens, also called induced traffic. PeterEastern (talk) 08:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kilometres?

Shouldn't a British motorway page use miles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.142.161 (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Order of junctions in infobox

Is there some reason that the orientation of the junctions in the infobox on the right of the page differs by almost 180 degrees from that in the map above? Wouldn't it be more sensible to list the junctions north-to-south rather than south-to-north? --Qwfp (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also why does the mileage begin at 85 miles, not at 0 miles? Is this because it's 85 miles from London? In this case London is irrelevant. Niki2006 (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RTAs?

As above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.254.124 (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GAN - recommend withdrawl

I recommend withdrawl of this nomination at this time - for starters, the route description is not long enough for a route of this length or importance. --Rs chen 7754 20:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a helpful hint, but there are three self-published sources in use. We are full of esteem for our roadgeek colleagues that produce their own websites, but general consensus has not been to allow them under the exceptions for SPSs in Wikipedia articles. They may be generally reliable sources, but they aren't Reliable Sources as Wikipedia defines and uses the term, unfortunately.

Also of note, [5] isn't published by CBRD, even if that website hosts a copy of it. Imzadi 1979 → 21:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Junction 20/20A

I reverted Dr Greg's changes (which he described as being less confusing). The reality is that the junction sequence is:

J20 (off-ramp)
J20A (Southbound only)
J20 (on-ramp)

I know that this looks odd: it is and it is an unorthodox use of an "A" Junction. By reinstating things, the chainages are in the correct order. Martinvl (talk) 07:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.roadtraffic-technology.com/projects/northextension/
Triggered by \broadtraffic-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 10:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heysham to M6 Link Road

How should this be integrated into the article?

The Heysham to M6 Link Road is a 4.8km dual carriageway linking the Heysham and Morecambe peninsula to Junction 34 of the M6. It will be opened in summer 2016. In the process Junction 34 will be remodelled again. *"Heysham to M6 Link Road". A-Z Council Service. Lancaster City Council. Retrieved 13 April 2015.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on M6 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:

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) 07:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on M6 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:

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) 00:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on M6 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:

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) 18:32, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on M6 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:

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) 20:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on M6 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/20071027043810/http://www.cbrd.co.uk/futures/upgrade/m6.shtml to http://www.cbrd.co.uk/futures/upgrade/m6.shtml

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) 12:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Uk roadsign ferry.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Uk roadsign ferry.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] J44 54°55′48″N 2°56′47″W / 54.93013°N 2.94643°W / 54.93013; -2.94643 (J44)

[coord 1]