M40/M42 interchange

[ps2mint]

Hi people,
I drove this route the other day, and judging by the layout of the road, am I right in thinking that the M40 may well have been originally desgned to carry on to the M5 interchange - I think this because when the M40 meets the M42 heading up from London, the road set up seems to give priority to people heading straight on towards the M5 - a similar set up exists if one is driving on the M42 from the M5 - in essence you have to turn off to stay on the M42 while to head on the M40 you simply drive straight ahead.

Just wandering!

[Johnathan404]

I'm not a regular around there but I think the layout reflects the traffic flows pretty well, especially if you remember that the M42 should have been bypassed by the Strensham-Coventry road, and the junction would have formed part of the Strensham-Solihull road which would have joined it from the south.

With hindsight, the M40 should have met the M5, but then we'd have one less thing to talk about!

[Chris Bertram]

I'll beat Steven to this:

Laydeezangemmun, the Strensham-Solihull Motorway.

The M40/M42 interchange is laid out now as a conventional directional-T junction with the classic triangular profile, but there's a lot of space in the middle for a continuation south and additional slips should anything ever happen, and with the Twyning junction (M5/M50) now being a roundabout, there would be no problem linking up there. But there's no money ((c) L. Byrne), and improvements to the A46 have been preferred recently, so no chance of it happening.

[Steven]

I'll beat Steven to this:

Laydeezangemmun, the Strensham-Solihull Motorway.

Thanks Chris!

The M40/M42 interchange is laid out now as a conventional directional-T junction with the classic triangular profile, but there's a lot of space in the middle for a continuation south and additional slips should anything ever happen, and with the Twyning junction (M5/M50) now being a roundabout, there would be no problem linking up there.

There's a map of the original junction design at Umberslade on the PM page - full of tight loops and swoopy slips.

I'm sure I've mentioned this before but even with the S-S Motorway, the M42 was always planned to TOTSO at Umberslade - there is no evidence to suggest the seemingly logical southern side of the Brummie Box being numbered M40. This is probably to do with the early motorway plans for an X-shape around the Birmingham and Coventry area, with a motorway heading from Bromsgrove to Hinkley. The current M42/A42 is a descendant of that idea, with the M40 idea coming much later on.

[AtoB]

Hello.

Regarding the M40 / M42 junction, I remember (I think it was in the mid-70's sometime) a plan that stated that when the M40 is built northwards, it will continue northwards through the general area of Earlswood, King's Heath, and on to the A38(M) in central Birmingham(!). I remember this distinctly because local TV featured a couple from the Earlswood area who were upset at the prospect of having to move twice to avoid new motorway schemes in the area.

It's not surprising that this M40 'Birmingham Urban Extension' wasn't built for a number of reasons, but if detailed plans had been created, it's surprising that the scheme isn't described anywhere on the internet, AFAIK

[Truvelo]

I may have mentioned this before but when the M42 was first built only the section north of J3a existed with the A34 junction being J1, A41 as J2, A45 as J3 and so on. This would tie in perfectly with the section west of J3a being M40. However, I remember Steven saying those junction numbers were only temporary. However, other motorways where only parts were built such as the M11, M23 and M62 started the junctions at higher numbers with the intention of future sections using the lower numbers. Surely if the M42 was planned to start at the M5 then it doesn't make sense to number the existing junctions from 1 knowing they will have to be renumbered when the extension is built. Furthermore when the junctions were renumbered why was there a J3a when it should have been 4?

[Steven]

Regarding the M40 / M42 junction, I remember (I think it was in the mid-70's sometime) a plan that stated that when the M40 is built northwards, it will continue northwards through the general area of Earlswood, King's Heath, and on to the A38(M) in central Birmingham(!).

The junction at Umberslade is not designed to take another route to the northwest, and there is no evidence of such a plan in any of the Strensham - Solihull Motorway documentation.

I don't believe there's anything about such a link in the West Midlands Transportation Plan of the 1960s, and I've not come across anything in the National Archives, nor in Birmingham City Council Archives.

It is possible, if such a plan exists, that there may be some references to it in the Solihull MBC Archives. I'd give it no more than a 2% chance of being a motorway scheme tied in with the M40. It's more likely to be an all-purpose upgrade to the A34 or A435 corridors.

[Steven]

Surely if the M42 was planned to start at the M5 then it doesn't make sense to number the existing junctions from 1 knowing they will have to be renumbered when the extension is built. Furthermore when the junctions were renumbered why was there a J3a when it should have been 4?

I don't know - but I can tell you that the section of M42 south of Birmingham was always referred to as part of the "M42 Birmingham to Nottingham Motorway", (and the Droitwich - Leicester Motorway before that) and not the M40 - which always starts at Umberslade.

There is zero evidence of any change of heart on the numbering.

[geo449]

I may have mentioned this before but when the M42 was first built only the section north of J3a existed with the A34 junction being J1, A41 as J2, A45 as J3 and so on.

I have an OS map from 1979 which shows this as correct. It also shows the (as was) planned lydiate ash M42>M5 north link road and the planned M40.

[mittfh]

Slightly O/T, but that pre-war planners map is fascinating - especially as part of their suggested route appears to follow a similar route to a certain toll road, and another part the doomed WOR. The rest sort-of exists, but follows a radically different route to that originally planned.

[A303Chris]

If I remember correctly the M42 between the A34 and M5 (southbound only then) opened in the mid 80's around 1984. I have an os sheet at home which shows the M42 at junction 3A before the M40 was even under construction. What it shows is the two seperate lanes spliting leaving a gap in the middle.

The junction numbers then go from 1 at Bromsgrove as they are now, but with out a junction 3A.

I just think junction 3A is badly designed. When the Warwick - M42 section was opened in December 1989, 13 months before the Worwaick - Oxford section was open there was a lot of crictism of the junction layout on the local media. I was in Birmingham just after it opened and BBC West Midlands had lorry drivers complaining that the one lane slip from the M40 on to the M42 northbound was horrendus and it was. The one lane became lane 3 of the M42 and therefor you had all the HGV's battling to get out of it as quickly as possible, which was hard given the fast moving traffic coming round in lanes 1 and 2. The current arrangement is a lot better.

I heard it was designed like this as it meant the bridges constructed were smaller and therefore cheaper.The M40 N/B to M42 N/B slip only needs a small bridge over the M42 s/B and does not cross the n/b carriageway.

The poor junction designed IMO has lead to the myths about the M40 going to the M5.

[Truvelo]

one lane slip from the M40 on to the M42 northbound

That's something I never knew. I always thought it had two lanes from the start as it's built to take two lanes and a hard shoulder. Or perhaps it was originally marked out as a single lane as more traffic was predicted to use the M42 west.

[A303Chris]

one lane slip from the M40 on to the M42 northbound

That's something I never knew. I always thought it had two lanes from the start as it's built to take two lanes and a hard shoulder. Or perhaps it was originally marked out as a single lane as more traffic was predicted to use the M42 west.

Yes it was bad I used it 2 weeks after it opened as it saved 15 minutes on my drive north. I used to go Reading, Oxford then A423 to Banbury then A41 to the M42 as this was less congested than the A34.

It was only when the the J8 to j15 opened in jan 1991 , that the DfT as it then was decided to change it to the arrangement now, possibly as you say the vehicle levels increased

[Steven]

The poor junction designed IMO has lead to the myths about the M40 going to the M5.

It's actually just the original junction design (incorporating the Strensham - Solihull Motorway), with the S-S component simply removed.

[Truvelo]

I have finally found something that may suggest the M40 was meant to continue to M5 J4a. At the extreme bottom left corner of this map it says M40/42 which could be interpreted as no final decision has been made on the numbering. The map is dated 1977 which by then the Strensham-Solihull route had been abandoned.

One other thing of interest on that map is a western bypass of Tamworth along with bypasses for the other towns and villages on the A453.

[Steven]

I have finally found something that may suggest the M40 was meant to continue to M5 J4a. At the extreme bottom left corner of this map it says M40/42 which could be interpreted as no final decision has been made on the numbering. The map is dated 1977 which by then the Strensham-Solihull route had been abandoned.

This is from 1972 though, which predates the above and shows the definite allocation of M42 to that stretch. The full copy of this map is available on PM's Western Orbital feature.

There is also documentation from 1970 which describes the M42 Birmingham - Nottingham Motorway as being 60 miles long, which is pretty much spot on the distance from Catshill to Stanton-by-Dale. The distance from Umberslade to Stanton-by-Dale is too short. There's references to the "M42 Bromsgrove Section" in 1971, etc, etc, etc.

[Truvelo]

Everything else I've seen says M42 and that's the only map I've found to date which says otherwise.

Having looked at the motorway timeline on CBRD it says the section north of Umberslade opened in 1976. We know the junction numbering when that section opened was A34 J1, A41 J2, A45 J3. The map I posted was from 1977 so now I'm thinking there may have been questions over the proposed numbering of the M5-M40 section for a few years in the late 70s. I haven't looked at much stuff from that era as I'm interested in early plans that show alternative junction layouts. Until more information surfaces it is still speculation at this point but the early numbering of the Solihull junctions I feel is still damning evidence that something isn't right. I can't imagine junctions would be numbered in such a way that they would have to be changed a decade later when it was known at the time the section west of J3a would be built later on.

[aj444]

Tamworth in a bit more detail...

[Steven]

The map I posted was from 1977 so now I'm thinking there may have been questions over the proposed numbering of the M5-M40 section for a few years in the late 70s.

There's certainly stuff from 1976, 1977 and 1978 about the M42 Bromsgrove Section.

[Philip_Baum]

I reckon the M40 number has not replaced the M42 from jct 3a to the M5 for strategic navigational purposes. Long distance M5 northbound traffic heading to M1 jct 23a is signed simply via one motorway route number (M42) rather than two (M40 and M42). Strategically, most long distance M5 northbound traffic heading for London and the South-East will use the M4, which is long before the M42 and M40. North of the M4 I wouldn't expect much long distance M5 northbound traffic would want to go south again via the M40. The M40 route is indeed a good alternative to the M6/M1 route for long distance traffic travelling from the North-West to London and the South-East but the M6/M1 is the primary route. Also; there are two ways to get to the M40 from the M6; either via the M5 and M42 or simply via the M42 from M6 jct 4a. Both routes would never involve an M6 to M40 transition even if the M40 route number were to replace the M42 from jct 3a to the M5. Also on a separate issue (junction numbering) I think Caltrans' freeway junction numbering system is far superior; the junction numbers are numbered by the mile post rather than sequentially. The advantage of this is when new junctions are built. In the mile post system the new junction would simply take the mile post number. Obviously the problem with the sequential approach is that the number has to be followed by a letter and some motorways start at a higher number (e.g. M11 starts at jct 4) as it was anticipated that extensions would follow but never did. I think the mile post system is far less messy.