Talk:Snake Pass

	Snake Pass has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 9, 2015 Good article nominee Listed
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 30, 2015.

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Derbyshire Mid‑importance The article on Snake Pass is supported by the Derbyshire WikiProject, which is a collaborative effort to improve the quality and coverage of Derbyshire-related articles on Wikipedia.DerbyshireWikipedia:WikiProject DerbyshireTemplate:WikiProject DerbyshireDerbyshire articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. More information: /  At least one photograph is included in this article This article has an infobox UK geography Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Cycling Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cycling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cycling 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.CyclingWikipedia:WikiProject CyclingTemplate:WikiProject Cyclingcycling articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

"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)[reply]

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)

reply: The road is a normal public highway.

Not convinced the Def Leppard and Human League information is encyclopaedic, so I plan to remove them unless somebody shouts now. --VinceBowdren 09:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely think The Human League information is encyclopaedic. Could you put it back please? Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.193.160 (talk • contribs)

It counts as encyclopaedic only if it is verifiable. You are welcome to put it back if you have references showing it is verifiable --VinceBowdren 17:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I've fixed or replaced the dead links as appropriate. Mauls (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

See this. "It was proposed that one carriageway would go through the tunnel, with the other going “over” Woodhead on an improved alignment, which involved the construction of a large viaduct. A COBA (cost on benefit analysis) on these proposals was commissioned by the DoT back in the late 1970s/early 1980s, headed by Peter Hall. Needless to say, the COBA result came way off any reasonable amount for a road scheme." Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think it is evident that, although Derbyshire use (their own) primary and secondary classifications for gritting of roads, using these terms in the article could confuse readers, so I have changed to a more generic 'priority for gritting'. Mauls (talk) 10:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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, Eric Corbett for reasons that should be obvious. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]