Twelve notices, two ways to see the project

Explore a crossing project through contracts and places

Explore a small historical sample of Lower Thames Crossing contracts as a network and a geographic projection. Keep contracts, buyers, suppliers, frameworks and places distinct, then inspect the evidence behind each link.

Frozen historical sample, reviewed 3 October 2026. Eight of twelve notice pages were retrieved; four rows remain visibly unverified. Office postcodes, city proxies and the approximate crossing anchor are different kinds of location. This is not a live register, route map or statement of delivery progress.

Choose a reading

Filter node types, relationships and award years; adjust layout
Node types / colour key
Relationship types
Layout and dates

The year filter uses award date, not the stable ID or publication year. Organisations and places stay as context.

Geographic projection

North is up. Markers are coordinates or proxies; lines are relationships, never transport routes.

Coordinate projection only. Enable online street tiles for geographic context.

Relationship network

Drag nodes or pan; use buttons to zoom. Tab to a node and press Enter for details. Node size shows its visible connection count.

Solid: checked notice relation. Dashed: inferred. Dotted: legacy, not reverified. Arrowheads show direction. Labels appear on selected links.

Limits and gaps

    Card index — the same visible nodes

    Every card opens the same detail panel as its graph node. Search and filters apply to both.

    Read every visible relationship and its rationale

      What the two views reveal

      The network shows who and what each record connects. The geographic projection places those same records using their available coordinates. A contract without delivery coordinates is assigned to an approximate project anchor; an organisation may inherit an office postcode or a city proxy. Several nodes can share a point.

      Grouping records into one project, assigning delivery to an area and inferring a framework from an attachment name are modelling choices. Dashed lines expose those choices. Geographic closeness cannot by itself establish operational collaboration, governance, delivery, or causal influence.

      Scaling this pattern would require notice amendments, identity reconciliation, proper delivery geometry, subcontract tiers and dated snapshots. Those are future extensions, not capabilities of this frozen sample.

      Sources, corrections and modelling choices

      The 54 source nodes and 76 relationships are retained. Contract-to-supplier arrows are now labelled SUPPLIED_BY; delivery-area links are labelled ASSOCIATED_WITH_AREA. Relationship details preserve the original labels. The sample does not merge historical buyer names into a single legal identity.

      Primary notices corrected the gantry award date and contract term, and the hydrogen advisory dates, value and CPV. The finance notice gives different summary and award values; both remain visible. The task-order notice gives different summary and award end dates; both remain visible. Select those cards to inspect the differences.

      Public notice links are attached to the contract cards. For actual project geography and current project information, use the National Highways project pages. Inherited coordinate values were originally attributed to postcode pages on doogal.co.uk and a latitude.to crossing point; they have not been independently geocoded here.

      Adapted from lower_thames_crossing_geo_kg.html at source revision cd0528939fd0. Review date: 3 October 2026. The source hash and retention details are in the app documentation. The graph runs locally in your browser. Street tiles load only when enabled.

      Keep this view

      View files and links preserve filters, reading, layout settings and selection. Manual node positions, pins, map zoom and online-tile choice remain session-only. Data export includes the full graph, sources and correction notes.