History of the A666
Motorway History A666, Lancashire
W M Johnson MBE BEng CEng FICE FIHT
CONTENTS
Key Plan
Foreword
Administration
Background
Development and preparation
Description the road
Description the structures
Contract works
Site clearance
Earthworks
Services and drainage
Surfacing
Bridges, walls and other structures
Political matters, the opening and the press
Cover Illustration The Farnworth Kearsley By Pass is pictured in 1999 looking south from the Church Road Bridge. The slip roads to and from the Bolton Road Circle rise to left and right. They are divided from the through (motorway) route, the Kearsley Spur, which connects to the Worsley Braided Motorway Interchange, by the Bolton Road retaining walls. The walls and the excavation between them were part of the By Pass contract but the surfacing of the Spur was carried out under the M61 motorway contract carried out some two years after the completion of the By Pass.
Foreword
The A666, Farnworth-Kearsley By Pass is not a motorway and, despite what is written elsewhere[1], nor are any of the roads leading from the Worsley Braided Interchange (M60, M61) to Bolton. These roads however form an important strategic link to the motorway system and it is felt that their inclusion in the Archive, within the M61 papers, is justified.
My association with what ultimately became known as the Farnworth-Kearsley By Pass began when I was appointed Resident Engineer (RE) shortly before the start of the contract works in July 1966. I had no involvement with the contract preparation or other preliminaries. For reasons explained later, there is little or no published information on the road, its development and construction not even an opening brochure. Particularly with regard to events prior to the start of the works, this account is largely based on information gleaned from minutes of the Lancashire County Councils Highways and Bridges Committee and from other material held in the Lancashire and Greater Manchester County Record Offices. For the help I received from the staff of both offices I am most grateful. I am also grateful to Adrian Golland, Assistant Director (Engineering) of the Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council and his staff for searching out plans from the papers currently held by his authority. Brian Hart, a former member of the REs staff and Stuart Coleman, who was intimately involved in the pre-contract works have each cast a kindly eye over earlier drafts of this note and have contributed from their own memories. Despite this help, the responsibility for the result is mine alone. There is a fair amount of personal recollection involved in this account and, after a time interval of more than thirty years, this is bound to be a little suspect, though it does not, I hope, contain too many inaccuracies. There is, unfortunately, a dearth of photographic record dating from the time of construction. The photographs used in this account were taken in 1998, about 30 years after completion of the works[2]. They do, however, have the virtue of illustrating how the road and its landscaping have bedded-in. I venture to suggest that it looks pretty good a tribute not only to its designers and constructors but also to those who have maintained it since completion. The vegetation has matured to such an extent that the photographs do not adequately convey the urban character of the road.
Administration
Farnworth-Kearsley By Pass is an all-purpose Principal Road. It ran through the pre-1974 areas of the Municipal Borough of Farnworth and the Urban District of Kearsley both of which lay within the administrative county of Lancashire. Lancashire County Council was, until 1974, the highway authority for all classified roads within the area. The County Surveyor and Bridgemaster (CS) was the Countys Chief Officer responsible for work on those roads. He reported to the Highways and Bridges Committee of the County Council. The road also ran into the County Borough of Bolton for about one third of its length. A County Borough (CB) was what is now described as a unitary authority and was highway authority for all adopted non-trunk roads within its boundaries. It was administratively independent of the County Council whose area surrounded it. The By Pass now lies totally within the boundaries of the present Metropolitan Borough of Bolton.
When first built, it acted as a by pass of the centre of Farnworth on the A666, Bolton-Manchester road though it was always envisaged as a link from Bolton to the motorway system. It was, within two years, linked to the M61/62 Worsley Braided Interchange by a short length of road known as the Kearsley Spur, thus enabling Bolton traffic to reach Manchester without passing through Kearsley. Two further years later, Bolton CB connected the By Pass at its northern end to the eastern limb of the Inner Relief Road. This provided a motorway-standard[3] link from the centre of Bolton to the national motorway system.
Background
The Road Plan for Lancashire, published by the Lancashire County Council in 1949 was a blueprint for the future road network of the County. It derived from much pioneering work by the County Surveyor and Bridgemaster, James Drake, who had joined the authority in 1945, and his staff. It contained a proposal for a motorway connection described as Route 231 Route 6 to Route 230, Farnworth. Route 6 is what is now M61 and Route 230 was described as the main route from Bolton to Manchester, following the line of the A666. There was no mention of a by pass of Farnworth. The County Surveyors Departments files covering what became known as the Farnworth (and) Kearsley By Pass were prominently sub-titled Route 231 in the Road Plan for Lancashire. This description was somewhat specious because Route 231 was clearly the link from the A666 to the motorway, in other words, what became known as the Kearsley Spur. The Farnworth-Kearsley By Pass was a realignment of part of Route 230 though never officially described as such.
There was a tendency, in the County Surveyors Department of the County Council in the 1950s, 60s and 70s, to believe that every scheme had its origin in a specific mention in the Road Plan. The Plan was a very percipient and valuable document, introducing objective concepts in assessing scheme priorities, but it wasnt infallible and it did not contain solutions to every highway problem in the county.
In December 1958, the then Minister of Transport floated the idea of assessing and planning for the long-term highway requirements for major conurbations outside London. The Minister suggested that working parties of Surveyors [Engineers] to County Councils and County Borough Councils should investigate and formulate proposals. This led to a consortium of local authorities with a common interest in the sub-region known as the S.E.L.N.E.C. (South East Lancashire North East Cheshire) area. It included the pre-1974 Counties of Lancashire and Cheshire together with all the County Boroughs in the area such as Manchester and Bolton. Though the S.E.L.N.E.C. area was, in some ways, a prototype for the Greater Manchester County, which came into being in 1974, there were substantial differences. Wigan and its environs, for example, though in Greater Manchester, were not included in the S.E.L.N.E.C. area.
There is clear evidence that the Ministers initiative provoked the thought which it was designed to do and, though Farnworth Borough Council were not directly involved, in May 1961 they requested the County Council to reconsider the proposal for Route 231. They were concerned that the connection of A666 at Long Causeway to what they described as the A6 diversion motorway near the Kearsley Chemical Works could attract fast traffic through the centre of Farnworth. This did not, apparently, come as a great surprise to the County Surveyor[4] who already had an estimate ready. In early summer of 1960 he had formed a small team of engineers to investigate alternative routes for a by pass of Farnworth. A number of routes were considered, each commencing just north of Moses Gate and skirting the east side of the built up area of Farnworth. All the routes cut through areas of housing already proposed for clearance. Various alternatives were considered for the southern termination of the road before deciding on a location south of the junction of the existing A666 with A5082, Long Causeway. The County Councils Highways and Bridges Committee added the scheme to the list of improvements estimated to cost more than 25,000 for construction in the years 1962/63. It was emphasised that the scheme could take advantage of property demolition already contemplated by Bolton and Kearsley. The May 1961 minute was the first official, though sketchy, mention of the Farnworth-Kearsley By Pass and the very short period of 6 years from this date to eventual completion in December 1967 illustrates what could be achieved on a County, as opposed to a Ministry road scheme.
Development and preparation
In June 1961, the scheme was included by the Committee[5] in a schedule for submission to the Ministry of Transport for grant in 1964/65. As a principal road, the scheme would attract a government grant of 75%. A rough estimated cost of 1,500,000 was quoted for what was described as A666 Farnworth By Pass from the Bolton CB boundary to the junction of Halshaw Lane, Kearsley.
Three months later, it was reported to the Committee that the Kearsley Urban District Council (UDC) were not in favour of the plan as the road would have far-reaching effects on, inter alia, housing projects, playing fields and recreational areas. The County Surveyor had submitted to a delegation from the UDC a revised plan which reduced the number of houses affected from 150 to125 of which number 22 were due for demolition in any case. Whilst Kearsley acknowledged that the revision was an improvement, they were clearly not impressed.
The fact that the Committee minute was headed Farnworth and Kearsley By Pass perhaps contains one clue to Kearsleys discontent which persisted throughout the period of planning and construction. It also shows how important a name can be; the choice of names was probably considered a rather minor matter in the 1960s but it could colour or reinforce, as in this case, a Districts reaction to a road proposal. A glance at the map will illustrate the point. If, first of all, the By Pass is considered as part of the A666, excluding the present motorway system as was the case immediately after construction of the By Pass, it clearly does not by-pass Kearsley. All traffic from Bolton sailed happily round Farnworth and rejoined the old route in time to pass through Kearsley, a typical linear development, as before. Even after the A666 was linked, by what was later known as the Kearsley Spur, to the M61, the By Pass provided little benefit to Kearsley, though the motorway itself did. There was not even a connection via the spur road from Kearsley for northbound traffic wishing to use the motorway to Preston and beyond. The feelings of the local council about being given such a by pass are understandable particularly if it is remembered that the ruling party in the UDC, the Liberal Party, rather ahead of its time, was already fundamentally opposed to motorway and major road construction. Farnworth Municipal Borough Council (MBC) had, not surprisingly, few reservations about a road which gave them considerable benefit with minimal inconvenience.
At that meeting in September 1961, the Committee also resolved to help a Mr Watson who had sold his house, shortly afterwards found to be affected by the by pass proposal, and bought a new one. Unfortunately, a building society, on finding out about the road, had refused to give the intending purchaser of Mr Watsons original house a mortgage and so Mr Watson now had two houses and two mortgages. Despite doubts about their powers to do anything in this type of case, the Committee decided to buy 22 Dale Street, Kearsley for 900, a sum arrived at by the District Valuer, a civil servant. Mr Watsons old house thus became the first of a number of properties purchased for the by pass.
After that little interlude, Kearsley UDC returned to the fray, submitting alternative proposals, none of which was acceptable to the County Surveyor. The Highways and Bridges Committee agreed to meet a deputation from the UDC. The meeting was held on 10th January 1962 and in the report on that meeting the CS put forward the following points in favour of his latest proposals.
Without the By Pass, the problems of heavy traffic on A666 wanting to connect to the Stretford-Eccles By Pass (then M62) would become acute.
There was already a serious accident record along the A666 through Farnworth.
His latest scheme had reduced the number of properties to be demolished in Kearsley (apart from property already earmarked for slum clearance) to 82.
Kearsley responded with their main criticisms.
The line of the proposed road would, they considered, sever their area.
It would reduce the area available for some proposed playing fields.
It would have an effect on residential properties.
They doubted whether the scheme would achieve its objectives.
Kearsleys representatives put forward three alternatives but, to each of them, the CS had strong objections. It was pointed out to Kearsley that, if they could withdraw their objections, it might be possible to have the road completed in, say, 5 years.
The Committee resolved to submit the latest revised scheme to Kearsley for their formal observations. The revision included a major change to reduce the effect on Kearsleys proposed playing fields. It had been intended to provide access to the severed eastern length of Church Road by building a new side road alongside the By Pass from the east side of the proposed Grosvenor Street Bridge. This would have run through the site of the playing fields, the size of which was unavoidably reduced by the By Pass itself. The revised proposal included a new bridge on the line of Church Road thus removing the need for the Grosvenor Street link albeit at substantial cost. In the interest of equity, a similar change was made in Farnworth where a fairly long link alongside the By Pass through Darley Park from Cemetery Road to provide access to the Farnworth Cemetery had been suggested. By providing a new bridge over the existing cemetery access, the need for the link was removed and some demolition was rendered unnecessary.
Kearsley were unconvinced by the County Councils efforts. In March, they sent in their reply which was fully reported to the Highways and Bridges Committee. In what was, generally, an elaboration of their previously stated views, perhaps the nub of their objections was contained in their recommendation that a road should be provided linking Bolton more directly with the A6 diversion (M61). In other words, dont solve Bolton and Farnworths problems in Kearsleys back yard. The Committee obviously felt that they couldnt do much more for Kearsley, who would still have a formal opportunity to register their objections, and resolved to submit the latest proposals to Bolton and Farnworth. Despite this, an advisory sub-committee visited the site at the end of March and suggested that minor modifications could be made. Kearsley were apparently unmoved but, in September 1962, Kearsley approved the scheme with reservations in regard to the detailed proposals. This preserved the County Councils proud record of never having a formal local authority objection to a road scheme proposed by them but, perhaps, only just!
Property purchase began to gather momentum. At their September meeting the Committee considered 3 possible purchases and it was subsequently rare to have a meeting without some mention of acquisition. Soil surveys costing 8200 were initiated. It was reported that Hunting Surveys Ltd had carried out an aerial survey of the area and were offering revised and contoured ordnance survey plans for 237. This must go down as one of the bargains of the century. It is difficult to conceive of traditional land surveys being able to cope with the accelerating motorway programme, particularly in an urban area such as that traversed by the By Pass although, to the credit of those involved in the preparation of the scheme, Farnworth-Kearsley was surveyed the hard way. Indeed, initial ground survey work had been started in the late summer of 1960, before any official mention of a scheme. It was discovered that the Ordnance Survey had valuable information resulting from a survey they had recently carried out and this was made available to the by pass survey team. They needed all the help they could get for, apart from the complexity of the site, they had to work through the very cold winter of 1960-61, often chipping ice off survey stations and dealing with instruments which, in the early afternoon, seized up due to the cold. Despite this, they had completed sufficient work by the Spring of 1961 to enable a scheme to be drawn up, based on accurate 1/500 scale plans, together with an initial estimate of the cost.
Late in 1962, meetings between officers of the County Council and of Bolton County Borough Council were held to discuss the arrangements for carrying out the work within the County Borough. In December 1962, agreement with Bolton was reported on the following lines.
1) Each authority to carry out its own land purchase, with separate compulsory purchase orders (CPOs) and to submit its own grant application for land purchase.
2) The County Council to survey, design and supervise construction throughout with Bolton having the right to approve the tender.
3) Cost of construction to include soil survey and site supervision.
4) 4% to be added to cost of construction to cover survey, design and administration expenses.
5) Bolton to contribute a fixed percentage of the cost of the work which would be 32% unless detailed estimates, when available, suggested a different figure.
This agreement was the basis of excellent co-operation between the two highway authorities. During the currency of the contract, a senior engineer from Bolton was appointed to liase with the Countys Resident Engineer and there were no difficulties at all with the relationship.
A little role reversal occurred in January 1963. Probably tired of constant nagging by local authorities to expedite grants, the Divisional Road Engineer of the Ministry of Transport (MoT) told the County Council that 4m. per annum was currently available for SELNEC area schemes but, unless a priority list was forthcoming from SELNEC, nothing could be allocated or approved. A report by SELNECs technical sub-committee was subsequently approved by the County Council and a meeting of all authorities to consider the report and programme was held in Manchester in July. By October the scheme for the By Pass had been submitted to the MoT for approval and indication of grant and, in January 1964, the Highways and Bridges Committee were notified that the Minister had approved in principle the inclusion of the Farnworth and Kearsley By Pass in the SELNEC area programme for the year 1963/64! It may appear a little odd that this approval should have been received when the financial year in question was over and with no notification of grant but, at the time, it was fairly typical of Ministry approvals.
The County Council was recommended to make its CPO in October 1963 covering properties in Farnworth and Kearsley. A measure of the complexity of the scheme is given by the fact that 199 properties were listed for a relatively short length of road.
In December 1963, an estimate for the By Pass of 2,611,000 was approved. This gave a nett cost to the County Council of 440,770, the balance being made up of government grant and Boltons contribution.
In May 1964, Bolton indicated that they wished to provide street lighting on the By Pass within the Borough. This graphically illustrated a weakness in the system. Lancashire County Council, though it was the highway authority for the proposed road outside Bolton, was not a lighting authority and it had to approach Farnworth and Kearsley and ask them if they would light the road. It probably surprised no one when they said they were not willing to do so. Fortunately, though not then apparent, a more rational system was not too far away. Almost coinciding with the start of the contract, the Local Government Act 1966 made county councils responsible for lighting main traffic routes. It was, however, February 1968 before grant was issued to light the By Pass at an estimated cost of 12,970. There were then negotiations with Bolton who agreed to the County Council lighting the whole of the road subject to Bolton paying a 7% administration fee in respect of the works in the County Borough.[6]
Claims for compensation from business and domestic tenants affected by the road were being received in increasing numbers and so the Committee delegated authority to officers to reach a provisional settlement in such cases subject to ultimate approval by the Committee. The amounts involved varied from less than 100 to 35,000, the latter sum paid on account to the owners of a mill who had had to buy a new property to keep their business going.
It had been intended to start the scheme proper in April 1965 but, in January, word was received from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government that they insisted on a separate planning application from Bolton for the work in that borough. They also insisted on a joint public inquiry into both planning applications and both compulsory purchase orders. At least, that was better than insisting on four separate inquiries! There were no objections outstanding to either Boltons or the Countys planning applications or to the Countys CPO. Because, however, three objections to Boltons CPO had not been withdrawn, an inquiry had been scheduled for 9th March and confirmation was not expected for some months. It was still hoped to start the contract works in October 1965.
Preliminary works were kept moving rapidly. Demolition contracts were let for commercial and domestic properties, partly at least because of vandalism to properties purchased by the County Council, and procedures were set in train for the permanent closure of 6 streets in Farnworth and 20 streets in Kearsley. Measures to ensure that service diversions would be carried out in such a way as to avoid delay to the contract, when it started, were put in hand with variable results and these are referred to later in this account.
In December 1965, the Minister informed the Highways and Bridges Committee that he had included the Farnworth and Kearsley By Pass as Selnec Scheme 212 with 860,000 attributed to the County Borough and 1,751,000 to the County Council. In March of the following year six contractors were invited to tender to carry out the work. They were Cubar Construction Ltd; M J Gleeson Ltd; Sir Alfred McAlpine and Son Ltd/Leonard Fairclough Ltd Consortium; A Monk and Co Ltd; Tarmac Civil Engineering Ltd and A E Farr and Co Ltd. The lowest tender of 1,894,714. 16s. 2d. from the McAlpine/Fairclough Consortium was accepted in May 1966.
In the same month, the government found a new money-raising wheeze. They published a White Paper describing a proposed Selective Employment Tax (SET). The contractors immediately requested reimbursement of the additional costs. Government advice was that contractors should not be invited to claim for the extra cost but, if such claims were received and if the contractor refused to accept the contract without reimbursement, the County Council could negotiate the best terms possible. In the event, the Consortium claimed 45,319 for SET and they were beaten-down to 36,171 which, it was felt, could be met from the contingencies allowance in the contract.
It was hoped to start work on the main contract on 1st July 1966 and, though grant would not be forthcoming by that date, the Ministry had no objection to work starting. When grant finally came in September 1966, it only amounted to 1,915,838 towards a total estimated cost of 2,575,251[7]. The Ministry had not allowed expenditure of 20,000 in respect of the widening of Loxham Street and 800 for printing costs. These deletions were not acceptable to the County Council who expected a further 15,600. On this basis, the net cost to be met by Lancashire was 474,593 and, by Bolton, 169,220. It was December 1967 before the Ministry accepted the cost of the widening of Loxham Street for grant purposes.
In February 1967, James Drake, the County Surveyor and Bridgemaster since 1945, had left the service of the County Council for what turned out to nearly two years secondment to the Ministry of Transport as the first Director of the North Western Road Construction Unit (NWRCU). He was away for the major part of the construction period of the Farnworth-Kearsley By Pass though his influence never seemed far away. John Dean, his Deputy, was appointed Acting County Surveyor during his absence.
Description the road
The Farnworth-Kearsley By Pass is a motorway standard all-purpose road with two 24 feet (7.4 metre) wide carriageways. At the time of its opening it ran from a uni-directional junction with Manchester Road, Bolton for 1.65 miles to a roundabout on Bolton Road, Kearsley with no intermediate junctions. Two years later it was directly connected to the Worsley Braided Interchange[8] by the A666(M) Kearsley Spur; the retaining walls and some of the road construction for the Spur under the Bolton Road roundabout were provided within the Farnworth-Kearsley By Pass contract. Almost exactly three years after the Farnworth-Kearsley By Pass was opened, it was connected, at its northern end, to the eastern limb of the Bolton Inner Relief Road. The two carriageways were of flexible construction with a crusher-run limestone upper sub-base layer, 8 inches of dense bituminous macadam with a limestone aggregate and 4 inches of hot rolled asphalt base and wearing courses. Cast in situ concrete marginal strips were provided at each carriageway edge. Lay bys were provided at intervals. There were no footways along the main part of the road though pedestrians were not legally excluded.
Description the structures
The bridges and other major structures specified in the contract were:-
Manchester Road Bridge a 2 span continuous steel girder bridge with an 81 feet wide reinforced concrete deck carrying the By Pass over Manchester Road. Each skew span was approximately 66 feet long. The abutments and pier were founded on 17 inch diameter bored cast in situ piles. The abutments were block faced and the pier was of smooth concrete.
Loxham Street Bridge a 2 span bridge with simply supported reinforced concrete deck slabs, again 81 feet wide. Each span was about 56 feet long and the concrete pier and abutments were faced with concrete blocks and founded on gravel. Loxham Street replaced Hall Lane as the main route from Moses Gate, Bolton and from Farnworth to the east.
Darley Park Bridge a single 27 feet span of pre-stressed concrete beams carrying the By Pass over the access road to Farnworth Cemetery. It was founded on fine dense sand. The wing walls were to be faced with concrete blocks and it was intended that a Mineralite finish should be used for the abutment faces.
Cemetery Road Bridge a single 39 feet span of pre-stressed concrete beams carries the By Pass over Cemetery Road. The wing walls, abutments and a retaining wall, necessitated by the close proximity of a fairly new house, were founded generally on clay and were faced with concrete blocks.
Church Road Bridge a four span, 30 feet wide bridge over the By Pass. There were 2 main spans each of 47 feet and 2 side spans of 42 feet. A simply supported reinforced concrete deck sat upon a central pier, two side piers and two bank seats with a smooth concrete finish, founded upon 17 inch bored cast in situ piles.
Grosvenor Street Bridge a two span continuous structure of mild steel Universal beams supporting a reinforced concrete deck over the main route at a point where it was widening out to accommodate the slip roads to the Bolton Road Roundabout. The deck was 36 feet wide and each span was about 78 feet. The abutments, faced with concrete blocks, and the smooth concrete finished pier were founded upon sand.
Bolton Road Circle, North and South Bridges (The North Bridge is shown) two identical bridges with single 85 feet spans, 36 feet wide, over the Kearsley Spur have plate girder construction with a reinforced concrete deck. Founded on boulder clay, the abutments, contiguous with long retaining walls, were to be finished in Mineralite.
Bolton Road Circle Footbridge a 12 feet wide, 83 feet span reinforced concrete box girder carried a 27 inch sewer and other main services. It is situated in the centre of the Bolton Road roundabout and pedestrians gain access to it by means of the four subways.
Hall Lane Subway A pedestrian subway in a 7 feet square reinforced concrete box. The internal walls were to be finished in Mineralite and the wing walls had a hammered concrete finish.
Bolton Road Circle Subways (the photograph shows the south western subway with a new New Jerusalem Church in the background) four reinforced concrete boxes, 7 feet 6 inches high by 9 feet wide varying in length from 42 to 49 feet, link the footways east and west of the roundabout with the footbridge in the centre. The internal finish was glass mosaic tiles.
Bolton Road Circle Retaining Walls (see cover photograph) Founded on clay, the wall system bounded the main carriageways or slip roads. The total length of these walls was 1907 feet and the height varied from 7 feet to 35 feet. The finish was billed as Mineralite.
Marion Street, Loxham Street and Ivy Grove Retaining walls were all intended to be of reinforced concrete; some were finished with concrete blocks.
Deep manholes were necessary particularly at the northern end of the works, involving dual shafts with rest chambers.
Changes were made to this list of structures during the contract period. Other retaining walls were added and some were deleted; changes of detail were also made
Contract works
Work officially started on site on 11th July 1966 and the programmed duration of the works was 24 months. The contractor established a site office compound for his staff and the County Councils resident staff at Clammerclough Road, near Farnworth Station and adjacent to the job. Although McAlpine and Fairclough tendered and won the contract as a consortium, in practise McAlpine did the roadworks and Fairclough did the bridgeworks. To all intents and purposes, in most respects, they operated as two independent contractors though they presented a reasonably united front to the employer. Initially, I used to look out of my office on a Saturday to see the two agents immersed in discussion and I wondered what they were cooking up for me. I soon found that they were usually arguing between themselves.
I have to declare a personal problem. Before my appointment as Resident Engineer (RE) on this contract, most of my experience was with directly controlled labour in the army and in a county division. My last job prior to this had been a very large direct labour scheme in which Fairclough and A Monk and Company carried out the bridgeworks and I was responsible for the roadworks. In direct labour work, an RE is also, in effect, the contractors agent. On that job, my work was seriously held up by the bridge contractor and a colleague suggested I made a claim against him. I found this difficult. By juggling my men and plant around, I had always found productive work for them to do and it really hadnt cost any measurable extra though, without too much dishonesty, I could have made a case for compensatory payment. In the event, I made no claim, largely because I believed, and still do, that an engineers skill is to minimise, not maximise, difficulties and that the claims philosophy militates against this.
When, therefore, I started to receive letters from the Farnworth-Kearsley contractor registering potential claims, I found it hard to view them with equanimity. One of the contractors agents, though assiduous in pursuit of his employers interests, was, in my view, excessively legalistic. When, one Monday, I found no fewer than thirteen letters of this type on my desk when I could actually see the agent in his office across the yard and had spoken to him shortly before without any mention of claims, I blew my top. It was our custom to have regular, usually monthly, progress meetings attended by an Assistant County Surveyor (ACS), a director of the contracting firm who was a very wise man, the agent and myself. Before we met the contractors representatives, I unburdened myself to the ACS who, I think, spoke to the director. During the meeting, I got wound up about something or other and the director looked at me with a serious expression. You know, Bill, he said, the trouble with you is that you write too many letters!
Site clearance
As will already be apparent from this account, a considerable amount of property demolition was required. Most of the property consisted of terraced houses, built before the turn of the century. All three housing authorities involved had re-housing already in hand but it is undoubtedly true that the Farnworth-Kearsley By Pass required a substantial amount of demolition of residential property. The need for re-housing, or, at least, some housing improvement, is illustrated by the fact that the sum of 250 was allowed in the contract for the provision of internal facilities in place of outside WCs in a part terrace in Ivy Grove which was retained. 12 new gable-ends were provided under the contract to part demolished terraces in addition to those provided pre-contract. The contract work was greatly facilitated by the extensive programme of pre-contract demolition.
Apart from the domestic properties, some workshops, mills and schools were demolished; two chimneys over 50 feet high at Darley House and Atlas Mill were also felled.
Grave difficulties resulted from the existence on the south western corner of the site of the Bolton Road Roundabout of the New Jerusalem Church with its attendant church hall and burial ground. Though the church building itself was not affected, the hall had to be demolished and something had to be done about the graveyard. It had not been in active use for many years and attempts to trace the descendants of the occupants were unsuccessful. Under Home Office license, contractors, approved by the Home Office, had to be used to disinter the bodies and take them away for cremation and re-burial. The magnificently named London Necropolis Company were responsible for the work but, of course, needed to engage local labour to carry out non-specialist work. They found some difficulty in getting volunteers from among the Consortiums work force! The site was surrounded by a six feet high sheet plywood fence and work started to disinter about 30 bodies. The very small space available made things difficult and unpleasant, particularly when more than twice the predicted number of bodies was found. The church minister had served on the western front in the First World War and found certain similarities in the conditions. Rumours abounded in the neighbourhood; in the queue at the local post office one day, I heard two women talking about local youths playing football with skulls a highly unlikely event. The church hall presented fewer difficulties. A temporary hall was provided at an estimated cost of 4500 pending the completion of a new building.
It was anticipated that about seven mine shafts would have to be dealt with in the course of the contract. In the event, despite the alleged position of the shafts being indicated on the plans and despite extensive searches, about half were never found. When a shaft was found, as one was in November 1966 at the site of the north eastern subway at Bolton Road Roundabout, the filling had to be proved as far as possible. The shaft was then capped by means of a concrete slab and filled properly above the cap.
Earthworks
The line of the road at its northern end and for about three-quarters of its length was close to the edge of the valley of the River Croal, a tributary of the Irwell. The valley side was steep and composed, at least in part, of gravel. The road, in this section, was at or above ground level, at times considerably above the valley floor, in sidelong ground. The valley side was, at intervals, crossed by steep-sided narrow valleys, known locally as cloughs. Some of these were apparent, as in the case of the one carrying Doe Hey Brook which was culverted under Manchester Road at the northern end. Others were not apparent as they had been filled-in at some time and were too narrow to be revealed by the preliminary soil survey. One, at least, had even been filled with a material indistinguishable from the natural ground and only came to light when defects manifested themselves in the new construction.
All types of filling material were used in the northern portion of the road. Clay from the Bolton Road cutting was used in the embankment near Cemetery Road. Burnt Colliery Shale from Lady Shore Colliery and pulverised fuel ash[9] were used in the deep fill at Smiths Road/Manchester Road as was chemical waste from an old tip at Little Lever. The culvert at Doe Hey Brook was filled with gravel. A particularly resourceful and ingenious engineer on McAlpines staff had an eye or, in the case of chemical waste, a nose for sources of imported filling. It may have helped a little that I had some experience in dealing with strange wastes and didnt throw up my hands in horror when their use was proposed. The County Surveyors Department had also used large quantities of such wastes to the benefit of the cost of the works and to the environment and so they, too, were not unsympathetic to their use. There could have been serious logistical problems had we known at the time what was discovered 3 months after the road was opened. On the route used by the chemical waste and the colliery shale to the site, a bridge carried A 6053, Hall Lane over the River Croal. The ends of its steel girders were concealed from casual inspection by a curtain wall. In the course of a more thorough inspection, an inspectors arm exploring the web of a girder behind the wall encountered nothing where the web should have been. The road was immediately closed until temporary support could be arranged and permanent repairs carried out.
A constant eye had to be kept on the quality of industrial waste. During the contract, the County Councils highways laboratory warned of problems with burnt shale from Bedford Colliery. There was a blowing action associated with magnesium sulphate when wet and possible long-term effects on concrete. If it were to be used, it should be at least four feet below formation and it should not be near concrete pipes or structures. Such timely warnings were invaluable and, in the event, this particular shale was not used on the contract.
After crossing Cemetery Road not to be confused with the cemetery access at nearby Darley Park the line of the road diverged from the valley side and, mainly in cutting, ran through to the Bolton Road Roundabout. The first cutting was relatively short and was situated either side of Church Road. Boreholes had been taken at what appeared to be reasonable intervals, specifically at each cut and fill line and at the site of the proposed Church Road Bridge in the centre of the cutting. They consistently appeared to indicate good clay throughout after removal of two feet or so of over-burden. Unfortunately it turned out that Church Road had been built along a natural causeway and the land on either side had been filled at some time in the past.
To the north of Church Road, material excavated during the construction of the Clammerclough Railway Tunnels, a softish clay, had been deposited; to the south, all sorts of rubbish, including what appeared to be the skeleton of a horse, was found.
The second, more significant, cutting started immediately after the Church Road cutting and continued through to the site of the Bolton Road Roundabout. Excavation was continued along the line of the Kearsley Spur though the road construction from the bottom of the slip roads was included in the latter contract. The excavated material was, in the main, reasonable quality clay.
The earthworks were not without minor traumas. While excavating the north western subway at Bolton Road Roundabout, the excavation collapsed because of an uncharted sewer only to be expected in an old urban area. We have seen earlier how the natural occurrence of gravel facilitates the creation of cloughs. Gravel used as embankment fill could facilitate similar phenomena. On Christmas Eve 1996, the site had virtually closed at lunch time and the men had adjourned to various hostelries. On a walk through the job in pouring rain at around 2.30 p.m., I saw that water was pouring from an unconnected drain and seriously eroding a gravel embankment near Darley Park. I enlisted the help of the contractors deputy agent and works manager and we combed the pubs of the area between us, attempting to find sufficient sober men to plug the leak. Our standards of sobriety had to be interpreted rather loosely in order to get anyone at all but, eventually, we mustered a crew who willingly and, occasionally, hysterically did what was necessary.
Some years before the start of construction there had been a major sewer collapse in the Fylde Street area of Bolton involving the collapse of a number of terraced houses on the line of the then unplanned by pass. This, too, was illustrative of the problems of working in a gravel area where any washout can have very serious consequences.
Despite the potential and real problems, by week 26, one quarter of the way into the contract period, 44% of the main road earthworks and 81% of the side road earthworks had been completed. By week 52, the earthworks were 93% finished.
Services and drainage
Public utility services were a major factor in such an urban location. The cost of diversion or alteration of the services was estimated at 165,000 and some could have caused major problems. Some of these difficulties were anticipated in the contract documents. Along the A666, severely affecting both ends of the job, ran what was then new technology a fibre optic telecommunications cable carrying a large number of signals including television programmes. The penalties for any damage resulting in loss of transmission were highly punitive and the GPOs[10] Special Requirements as noted in the documents included the following:-
The contractor should allow for a period of 5 to 6 months to elapse after the construction of the south west slip road at Manchester Road to a sufficient stage for the work on laying of ducts and construction of manholes to commence. The time to be allowed for the transferring of cables into the new positions at the Bolton Road Roundabout, Kearsley is 3 to 4 months.The time periods above are based on the assumption that [the cables] will not be required to be diverted simultaneously.
A pretty severe set of requirements bearing in mind that the contract period was 2 years and that the contractor actually substantially finished in less than 18 months! Additionally, the major services at the site of the roundabout in Bolton Road, Kearsley, could only be re-sited after the construction of the new footbridge in the centre of the roundabout. This footbridge also had to carry a 27inch sewer which ran along Bolton Road.
In an attempt to deal with further possible difficulties, the County Councils Highways and Bridges Committee had, in July 1965, authorised the giving of advance orders to the statutory undertakers for works and, specifically, for them to order materials for which there were excessive delays in supply. This should have helped considerably but, unfortunately, it didnt solve the problem. As was customary, once the contract was let, a meeting was held at which the successful contractor was introduced by the Resident Engineer to the statutory undertakers representatives. The contractor outlined his programme and the services were each asked if they could meet it. No serious problems which could not be solved by minor adjustments to the programme were disclosed during the meeting which I then closed. As he left the room, the representative of the Bolton Corporation Water Department said, Oh, by the way, we cant get the pipes [for a large water main diversion at Manchester Road Bolton] for more than 6 months. Collapse of stout party!! After a justifiable number of expletives, pressure was applied, mainly by the County Council, and serious delay was avoided.
Drainage was quite extensive but was greatly facilitated by the various deep cloughs intersecting the line of the road. At the northern end of the road, one or two very deep manholes were required one, in particular, had rest chambers and drop shafts though, as it was within a filled area, it did not require deep excavation. The largest pipe size used in the main drainage system was 27 inches diameter but large flows were catered for in places with smaller diameter pipes at steep gradients. Nowhere was lack of fall a problem.
Though not strictly connected with Farnworth-Kearsley By Pass, an additional small contract was supervised by my staff. Let to A E Yates Ltd of Horwich in the sum of 17,726. 18s. 3d., the culverting of Singing Clough was carried out as advanced works for the Kearsley Spur. Singing Clough provided an outfall for water from the future M61 contract and for a little water from Farnworth-Kearsley which was temporarily carried through the site of the roundabout at low level in an open ditch.
Surfacing
Over a variable thickness of sub-base topped with 6 inches of crusher-run limestone, the surfacing consisted of 8 inches of bitumen-bound granular base and 2 inches of hot rolled asphalt base course, both with limestone aggregate. The wearing course consisted of 1 inches of hot rolled asphalt with pre-coated granite chippings.
The particular limestone sub-base layer used on part of the scheme caused slight concern. Eldon Hill quarry in Derbyshire had a product which they called Chatter, an as-dug limestone which, they suggested, could meet the crusher-run specification. Chatter was used on the contract and it came close to the specification but never inspired confidence, resulting in a plethora of doubtful analyses. If, however, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, our difficulties with the product have not adversely affected the result.
The Farnworth-Kearsley By Pass was built before the site mixing of bituminous materials became common though the amount of materials used hardly justified a dedicated manufacturing facility. McAlpine had not previously had an in-house surfacing arm but, coincidentally with the start of the contract, they set up United Asphalt. They recruited key personnel from outside but the majority of the personnel had little direct experience of surfacing work. Farnworth-Kearsley was one of their first jobs, if not their first. They had purchased their own plant but, at this stage of their existence, they bought-in materials, mainly from AMASCO (AMalgamated ASphalt COmpany), a Manchester based supplier.
Although there were initial difficulties, there was a genuine willingness to learn and the quality of work was extremely good. I was delighted, on visiting the site in 1998, to see how good the ride still was and how well the surfacing materials had withstood the ravages of time, weather and traffic. Some surfacing, particularly in the slow lanes, had been relaid but much of it was original even after thirty years of hard wear.
How, you may ask, can I state this fact with any certainty? Unfortunately this is because one of my errors is still to be seen. When a load of coated chippings was delivered, ready to be rolled into the surface, it was, of course, black in colour; the bitumen coating masked the green of the specified chippings. It was only after rolling and after traffic wear that we discovered that one of the loads was not of Criggion green but of some other type of, in this case, pink chipping. In the outside lane of the northbound slip road at the northern end of the job untouched by the subsequent changes wrought by Bolton Metropolitan Borough and as good as new the wrong chippings are still visible. I could have ordered them to be replaced and the surface relaid at the time but the quality of the work was excellent, time was, as always, of the essence, and, in my experience, a patch is never as good in ride quality or in durability as the original. To risk adverse effects for cosmetic reasons did not seem reasonable. I, therefore, have to live with the result but I still think it was the correct decision. No one has yet commented to me on the appearance of the chippings; perhaps they will, now that they know who to blame!
Bridges, walls and other structures
In a built-up area, with a need to reduce land-take to an acceptable level, it is unsurprising that the number of structures, including retaining walls, was considerable; 8 bridges, 5 subways and 8 retaining walls, some of them extensive, for a road around 1 miles long. Taking this into account, it is, perhaps, remarkable and a tribute to the designers, the contractor and to my staff that there was little difficulty in their construction. Details of these structures as designed can be found in the section beginning on page 11.
There were some constraints applied to the bridge construction. For example, Loxham Street replaced Hall Lane as the traffic route from Moses Gate to Little Lever so filling could not be placed to the embankment at either location and the Hall Lane Subway could not be commenced until access along Loxham Street was available. At the Bolton Road roundabout, either of the two road bridges together with two of the subways had to be available for traffic before the footbridge and some service diversions could be commenced. The table of percentage completion given later in this section illustrates the effect of these constraints. At Grosvenor Street, access by leaving a plug or by means of a footway down the cutting sides and across the works was required in the contract but the contractor opted for a temporary Bailey bridge across the cutting to, I believe, the considerable benefit of the public. This temporary bridge had to be built wider than was necessary for the traffic using it to accommodate various services and the contractor was reimbursed for the extra work involved.
The situation with regard to retaining walls could be described as fluid. Retaining walls were added, modified and deleted. Four retaining walls were added during the currency of the contract at Manchester Road, Fern Street, Dale Street and Back Lord Street. The cost of these extra walls was 10,460 and the variation order which covered the work was issued on 20th June 1967.
The method of construction of the Ivy Grove retaining wall was radically changed at the contractors suggestion. It was very close to the new gable-end of a partly demolished terrace and excavation or even driven piling would have put the stability of the houses in jeopardy. Accordingly a line of contiguous bored piles was constructed and excavation in front of and between these piles was carried out subsequently followed by the placement of a concrete skin. Ground anchors were drilled through the wall to provide stability.
Deletions also occurred. At the north eastern subway at the Bolton Road roundabout, there was to be a gentle ramp from west and east to the subway mouth and a normal footway behind and parallel to the ramps. A retaining wall was needed to support the houses close to the periphery of the roundabout. A mine shaft was found one of the few to be close to its predicted position on the site of the proposed wall and I decided that the footway was not really required. By deleting it, a 1 in1 slope, paved to prevent erosion, could replace the wall and pedestrians could use the subway ramps which paralleled the deleted footway at a greatly reduced cost.
Structural finishes were always the subject of some debate in Lancashire. I had heard, though I had no personal experience of it, that Mrs Drake had a big say in the choice of colours of bridge girders, handrails and wall finishes. When the time came to choose the colours at Farnworth-Kearsley, her husband appeared alone. In theory he had no locus in the matter. He had been seconded to the Ministry of Transport as the first Director of the North Western Road Construction Unit and was not in post as County Surveyor and Bridgemaster of Lancashire at the time. Despite this we had a visit from him and a trip through the job to decide what colours to use. Some time before this, Ceramitex, a glossy textured paint, had been selected as the finish to those retaining walls and bridge abutments and wing walls which were originally to be finished in Mineralite at a saving of 1,200. Ceramitex allowed a wider choice of colours and the result that sticks in my mind is the broad vertical stripes in warm grey and white to the extensive walls on the approaches to and through the Bolton Road roundabout. Any treatment such as this requires maintenance and, in these days when funds for maintenance are harder to come by, it is, perhaps, not surprising that no trace of the Ceramitex remains, though, after thirty years, the bare concrete looks quite good.
Marion Street retaining wall supporting the bus lay by at the northern end of the Bolton bound slip road on Manchester Road provided an interesting lesson, or so I thought. It was built, apparently, on a reasonably uniform foundation but, shortly after construction, a vertical crack appeared, obviously as a result of settlement. Further excavation at the site showed that, many years before, there had been a very small narrow clough across the line of the wall which had been filled with material similar to the surrounding ground. Boreholes at each end of the proposed wall had not revealed the problem. I think it is important to talk about mistakes as well as successes and, when an engineering society visited the works in 1967, I made a point of taking them out of their way to see the crack in all its glory. I am sorry to report that they found what they described as my honesty in showing them the defect surprising it ought to be normal. To complete this part of the story, there is now no sign of the crack.
There were few other problems with the structures. I had already learned that, if the road approaching the bridge was finished in advance of the bridgework, it was advisable to stop the surfacing a minimum of 30 yards short of the bridge. I think it is quite unusual to find a bridge, the finished level of which is at or below the designed level. By the time waterproofing, with its overlapping layers of, in this case, copper-lined felt with bituminous coating has been laid, the level is almost bound to be above the predicted level and it has to be possible to grade the road surface to make a smooth line over the bridge. Discrepancies in horizontal location are rarer and, in fact, were virtually non-existent on the Farnworth-Kearsley By Pass. There was only one substantial piece of remedial work required. The north string-course of the Bolton Road Roundabout Footbridge was not up to standard in appearance when first cast. Visible as it was to many pedestrians then using the north bridge, the agent was initially reluctant to remove it on the not unreasonable grounds that everyone will see it being done. He soon realised, however, that the finished product would be at least equally prominent and the string-course was re-cast. A small portion of the major retaining walls at Bolton Road roundabout also required some remedial attention.
It may be of interest to show how the construction of certain of the structures progressed by listing the percentage completion of them at six months and one year. Bear in mind that the work was virtually 100% complete after 17 months.
Structure |
% complete after |
|
6 months |
12 months |
|
Manchester Road Bridge |
16 |
66 |
Loxham Street Bridge |
38 |
96 |
Darley Park Bridge |
19 |
96 |
Cemetery Road Bridge |
39 |
88 |
Church Road Bridge |
5 |
69 |
Grosvenor Street Bridge |
12 |
70 |
Bolton Road N & S Bridges |
34 |
68 |
Bolton Road Footbridge |
0 |
26 |
Bolton Road Subways |
37 |
65 |
Hall Lane Subway |
0 |
59 |
Retaining Walls |
5 |
42 |
I cant resist finishing this brief account of the bridgeworks by giving an example of the way in which undeserved reputations for omniscience are created. On a job as short as this, it was easily possible for the Resident Engineer to walk through the works once a day. Walking through one sunny day, I observed a member of my staff plumbing the eastern corner of the north abutment of Manchester Road Bridge with a theodolite. As I passed, I jokingly said, I dont know why youre doing that. Its obviously 3/8 inch out of true. I had been back in my office for some time when he appeared. How did you know? he asked.
Political matters, the opening and the press
After the pre-contract difficulties with Kearsley UDC, of which I knew little at the time, it is hardly surprising that there were more meetings with their representatives during the currency of the contract. They just did not seem able to accept that informal individual contacts worked just as well in solving problems, with me at least, as meetings with delegations of members. Alternatively perhaps they were well aware of that fact but wanted larger, more formal, meetings because of the publicity they could generate or am I being unfair?
One meeting with Kearsley UDC involved the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the County Councils Highways and Bridges Committee and the local County Councillor. It concerned excess traffic on Cemetery Road and was, in my opinion, a legitimate complaint though only marginally involving the County Council. The traffic largely resulted from the siting of a large land-fill site at the northern end of Cemetery Road which was used by Farnworth Borough and by Salford City Council. This use of a road in Kearsley for other peoples rubbish must have fuelled Kearsleys paranoia, first evident in the early By Pass negotiations. The County Council was only involved because the By Pass works aggravated the difficulties which were not improved by some, not very well executed, sewerage works carried out by Kearsley. Despite this, the delegation did agree to help Kearsley by putting pressure (unsuccessfully) on the Ministry for a 15mph speed limit and on the other councils, the sewerage contractor and on their own contractor to improve the situation. They refused, however, to go along with Kearsleys request for a weight limit on the grounds of impracticability.
Despite the problems which occurred from time to time throughout the contract, I can recall few, or no, formal meetings, other than site inspections, with either Bolton or Farnworth Borough Councils but there were quite a few with Kearsley. There was, indeed a distinct lack of complaints involving councillors from the two boroughs and, in the case of Bolton, this must be, at least in part, due to the excellent work of the appointed Bolton County Borough liaison officer, Harry Hibbert.
The County Councils Highways and Bridges Committee visited the site in the summer of 1997 in two Ribble coaches. They got access to the site via the contractors depot at Clammerclough Road. At that time, the road was completed only up to sub-base level about 12 inches below the finished level and the concrete marginal strips were in place. We anticipated difficulties in getting the coaches over the strip and, therefore, ramps were provided. Unfortunately, these were not adequate for the purpose and, to my embarrassment, the first coach went aground on the strip, unable to move. Fortunately, the councillors seemed to enjoy the incident, getting off the coach to lighten it and even offering to pick it up and carry it!
Members and officers of the Farnworth Borough Council also toured the road in the snows of winter 1967 after which a former Mayor of the Borough was quoted in the Bolton Evening News as saying, We were very impressed. The members seem to have been particularly struck by the views along the Croal and Irwell valleys. I am reported in the same article as having said that the by pass would be opened at the earliest opportunity without waiting for an official opening! If I did say that, I should not have done; I was certainly jumping the gun.
The opening of the road had been considered by the Committee in October 1967 when they resolved to defer consideration of a formal opening for the time being. In December they resolved that no action be taken to have a formal opening [of the By Pass] but that the Chairman and Vice Chairman be authorised to decide whether the road should be opened to the public prior to its opening to traffic. This is a little hard to understand as the road was an all-purpose road, not a motorway, and thus was available for unrestricted public access after opening even though no footways were provided.
As Christmas 1967 approached it was clear that the road would be substantially complete before the holiday. I must now admit to a little manipulation. I rang the Acting County Surveyor to apprise him of this fact. I suggested that, if the road were to be kept closed over the holiday period, in full view of an interested populace, and if, particularly, an accident were to happen on the route to be by-passed, we would all have to suffer justifiable opprobrium. After a suitable pause for thought, he agreed that we should get it open immediately and without ceremony. So, in company with the Assistant County Surveyor to whom I reported and helped by two police cars, I rolled some oil drums to one side cones were not de rigeur in those days and the road was opened to traffic. It was reported to the Committee that the By Pass had been opened to traffic on the afternoon of Thursday, 21st December 1967. The report was received.
I can see now that opening ceremonies, while a nuisance to those who have to organise them, can be politically beneficial. In this case, however, bearing in mind the attitude of one of the councils involved, there might have been unfortunate overtones. One other advantage, to historians at least, of opening ceremonies is that someone has to produce an opening brochure with useful information and photographs of the project. The absence of a ceremony means that there is no contemporary printed information specifically about the road.
One final story. Weeks after the road opened, I was sitting in my office at Farnworth, wrestling with the paperwork, which formed an epilogue to any job in those days, and, I guess, still does, when I read a letter in the local paper. It began, Yesterday, my father was killed on the new Farnworth-Kearsley By Pass and it went on to complain about the standard of the fencing. This was strange. I knew of no fatalities and enquiries of the police area traffic inspector elicited the fact that there had been none despite the fact, as he put it, that police Panda cars had extensively patrolled the road[11]. I rang the editor of the paper who promised to investigate. His secretary rang back. She told me that the letter as printed should have read cat and not father. I said that it was difficult to see how any road fencing could have kept out either cats or fathers, both of which had a perfect right to use the road, and, after further conversation, an apology was promised. The following week at the foot of the letters page there appeared a brief statement. Last week in a letter on this page, the word father was printed instead of cat. We apologise for any inconvenience caused. Im sure that made everything all right!
Wigan, 2000
[1] In, inter alia, A History of British Motorways (1984, Thomas Telford Ltd) by Dr G Charlesworth and the opening brochure of the Eastern Limb of the Inner Relief Road (1971, County Borough of Bolton)
[2] The photograph on the cover was taken, looking south through the Grosvenor Street bridge, towards the Bolton Road roundabout at the southern end of the scheme. The retaining walls shown were part of the Farnworth-Kearsley contract, as was the excavation between them.
[3] motorway-standard is a description of a road with grade-separated interchanges and some other features of a motorway though not all and probably without statutory restriction of the type of traffic, including pedestrians, using it. Confusion has been caused by Boltons description, in the opening brochure and elsewhere by people who ought to know better, of this road as an urban motorway. This has been picked up, for example, in Dr G Charlesworths book A History of British Motorways (1984, Thomas Telford Ltd) in which it is even given a spurious road number, A666(M). In this way are myths perpetuated.
[4] I suspect that requests such as this, if not engineered by James Drake, the then County Surveyor and Bridgemaster of Lancashire, were, at least, encouraged by him.
[5] When the word Committee is used, unqualified, in this account it means the Highways and Bridges Committee of the Lancashire County Council.
[6] Surprisingly, the September 1968 Committee minute, which reported and approved the agreement, makes no mention of any payment by Bolton in respect of the actual works!
[7] In December, 1972, the Committee approved a revised estimated cost of 2,565,092. This was, effectively, a final cost but was referred to as an estimate because of the need to allow for various land and property transactions, both plusses and minuses. The fact that this was slightly below the estimate given to Committee in December 1963, when the intervening years saw inflation and when the contract insulated the contractor from increases in his costs, reflect great credit on all concerned.
[8] The Worsley Braided Interchange is a complex interchange covering about 2 square miles and linking M61, M62, A666(M) and A580. M62 at the interchange is now numbered M60.
[9] Pulverised fuel ash, colloquially known as fly ash, is the waste product resulting from the burning of pulverised coal in power stations. A very fine pale grey ash, apart from small specialised uses, it was dumped as waste until the early 1960s when it was found to be an excellent filing material. Its light weight (1 ton per cu ydabout cu metre to 1 tonne compacted) and cementitious action were extremely useful in high embankments on weak sub-grades and in confined areas such as in backfill to bridge abutments. One of its few drawbacks was a tendency to blow about in dry conditions. Watering was the only remedy.
[10] In the days before the privatisation of public utilities, the GPO was nationally responsible for telecommunications.
[11] Panda cars were allegedly so-called because of the way they were painted, though I personally could not see a connection between a small pale blue and white car and a medium sized black and white quadruped. They were driven by beat policemen who were not trained as police drivers and their abilities were not appreciated by those who were so trained.