M40 30th Birthday

The study of British and Irish roads - their construction, numbering, history, mapping, past and future official roads proposals and general roads musings.

There is a separate forum for Street Furniture (traffic lights, street lights, road signs etc).

Registered users get access to other forums including discussions about other forms of transport, driving, fantasy roads and wishlists, and roads quizzes.

Moderator: Site Management Team

User avatar
IAN
Member
Posts: 878
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2001 19:07

Re: M40 30th Birthday

Post by IAN » Sat Jan 16, 2021 21:25

SteveA30 wrote:
Fri Jan 15, 2021 20:38
Reminded of this by this site
http://www.365daysofmotoring.com/showon ... xO5XV76szk
The article states,

'It was originally planned that the section of the M42 between the M5 and the M40 (Junction 3A) would be renumbered as part of the M40, but this change did not take place'.

Is that true or just a bit of creative writing?
AKA M5 Driver

User avatar
ForestChav
SABRE Developer
Posts: 9346
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2005 00:00
Location: Nottingham (Bronx of the Midlands)
Contact:

Re: M40 30th Birthday

Post by ForestChav » Sat Jan 16, 2021 22:06

IAN wrote:
Sat Jan 16, 2021 21:25
SteveA30 wrote:
Fri Jan 15, 2021 20:38
Reminded of this by this site
http://www.365daysofmotoring.com/showon ... xO5XV76szk
The article states,

'It was originally planned that the section of the M42 between the M5 and the M40 (Junction 3A) would be renumbered as part of the M40, but this change did not take place'.

Is that true or just a bit of creative writing?
Logically it would make more sense due to the TOTSO and also then it would give each arm of the Birmingham orbital a different number. But given that you'd then need to renumber the M42 junctions (which had already been done once) as well as no doubt a whole load of local signage would it have been worth doing to look nice?
C, E flat and G go into a bar. The barman says "sorry, we don't serve minors". So E flat walks off, leaving C and G to share an open fifth between them.

Never argue with an idiot. They will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

User avatar
Alderpoint
Member
Posts: 999
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2015 14:25
Location: Leamington Spa

Re: M40 30th Birthday

Post by Alderpoint » Sun Jan 17, 2021 12:39

fras wrote:
Fri Jan 15, 2021 22:01
Yes, I suppose it is 30 years. Whow, how time flies !
My thought too!

We were living in Kenilworth at the time, but still managed to drive the section from Birmingham to Warwick in the December, before the section further south opened, and saw no other vehicles all and drove the full length with full beam headlights on.

At the time I was travelling to Poole for work every few weeks, and the opening of the M40 cut a good half an hour off the journey.

A couple of weeks after the M40 opened, there was a major multi-vehilce accident in fog just south of Banbury and the local rags typically reported "daft place to build a motorway, it's always foggy there."
Let it snow.

User avatar
Bryn666
Member
Posts: 30120
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54

Re: M40 30th Birthday

Post by Bryn666 » Sun Jan 17, 2021 13:51

IAN wrote:
Sat Jan 16, 2021 21:25
SteveA30 wrote:
Fri Jan 15, 2021 20:38
Reminded of this by this site
http://www.365daysofmotoring.com/showon ... xO5XV76szk
The article states,

'It was originally planned that the section of the M42 between the M5 and the M40 (Junction 3A) would be renumbered as part of the M40, but this change did not take place'.

Is that true or just a bit of creative writing?
Truvelo has evidence it was planned, it should be on the Wiki I believe.
Bryn
Traffic/Road Safety Dogsbody and General Grumpy Now-a-Thirtysomething Man
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/

User avatar
trickstat
Member
Posts: 5299
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 14:06
Location: Herts

Re: M40 30th Birthday

Post by trickstat » Sun Jan 17, 2021 13:54

Alderpoint wrote:
Sun Jan 17, 2021 12:39
fras wrote:
Fri Jan 15, 2021 22:01
Yes, I suppose it is 30 years. Whow, how time flies !
My thought too!

We were living in Kenilworth at the time, but still managed to drive the section from Birmingham to Warwick in the December, before the section further south opened, and saw no other vehicles all and drove the full length with full beam headlights on.

At the time I was travelling to Poole for work every few weeks, and the opening of the M40 cut a good half an hour off the journey.

A couple of weeks after the M40 opened, there was a major multi-vehilce accident in fog just south of Banbury and the local rags typically reported "daft place to build a motorway, it's always foggy there."
Because of course, fog never causes problems on roads that aren't motorways. :roll:

Glenn A
Member
Posts: 8255
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2005 19:31
Location: Cumbria

Re: M40 30th Birthday

Post by Glenn A » Sun Jan 17, 2021 16:20

The M40 would have significantly cut journey times from the West Midlands to the South Coast as it replaced the mostly S2 A34 between Birmingham and Oxford, which was like a missing link. Also it provided an alternative route to London.

User avatar
M4 Cardiff
Member
Posts: 2186
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 15:12
Location: Leamington Spa

Re: M40 30th Birthday

Post by M4 Cardiff » Sun Jan 17, 2021 16:41

As well as the well-known change in route to avoid Otmoor, looking at the locations of borehole records on the BGS site, it looks like other alternative routes were assessed quite late into the design process further north too, as well as a couple of other areas of extensive ground testing, that may have represented areas under consideration at the time as services areas.

So on the basis of the map, that I have done a crude overlay with, a more southerly route was assessed at Arncott, together with an online MSA or junction, a slightly more easterly route near Mollington / Warmington, where the split carriageway section is, an online MSA or junction at Avon Dassett, a more northerly route to the south of Leamington, using more of the Warwick Bypass, and a slightly more southerly route between Shrewley and Lapworth.

Does anyone have any documentation regarding these potential junctions or MSA's and any info on the potential junction layout that there could have been at Greys Mallory to the south of Leamington?
Attachments
m40.jpg
Driving thrombosis caused this accident......a clot behind the wheel.

User avatar
Ruperts Trooper
Member
Posts: 10059
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2012 13:43
Location: Huntingdonshire originally, but now Staffordshire

Re: M40 30th Birthday

Post by Ruperts Trooper » Sun Jan 17, 2021 16:50

Glenn A wrote:
Sun Jan 17, 2021 16:20
The M40 would have significantly cut journey times from the West Midlands to the South Coast as it replaced the mostly S2 A34 between Birmingham and Oxford, which was like a missing link. Also it provided an alternative route to London.
I regularly used the A423/A41/A452 from Oxford - Banbury - Warwick - North East Birmingham which always seemed a fast road - but I always travelled at off-peak times and my driving style then was very enthusiastic!
Lifelong motorhead
VW Touareg TDi for towing and longer journeys - Citroen C1 for shorter journeys.

User avatar
Steven
SABRE Maps Coordinator
Posts: 17114
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2002 20:39
Location: Wolverhampton, Staffordshire
Contact:

Re: M40 30th Birthday

Post by Steven » Sun Jan 17, 2021 17:51

Bryn666 wrote:
Sun Jan 17, 2021 13:51
IAN wrote:
Sat Jan 16, 2021 21:25
SteveA30 wrote:
Fri Jan 15, 2021 20:38
Reminded of this by this site
http://www.365daysofmotoring.com/showon ... xO5XV76szk
The article states,

'It was originally planned that the section of the M42 between the M5 and the M40 (Junction 3A) would be renumbered as part of the M40, but this change did not take place'.

Is that true or just a bit of creative writing?
Truvelo has evidence it was planned, it should be on the Wiki I believe.
It's actually creative writing, and "originally" is incorrect.

It was once suggested internally at the Ministry but the vast, vast majority of the documentation all states M42. Remember that the M42 is a descendant of the Droitwich - Leicester Motorway, which helps to explain the numbering.
Steven

Pathetic Motorways: tastier than a well-chewed slipper.
Founder Member, SABRE ex-Presidents' Corner

Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!

User avatar
Bryn666
Member
Posts: 30120
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54

Re: M40 30th Birthday

Post by Bryn666 » Sun Jan 17, 2021 18:14

Steven wrote:
Sun Jan 17, 2021 17:51
Bryn666 wrote:
Sun Jan 17, 2021 13:51
IAN wrote:
Sat Jan 16, 2021 21:25


The article states,

'It was originally planned that the section of the M42 between the M5 and the M40 (Junction 3A) would be renumbered as part of the M40, but this change did not take place'.

Is that true or just a bit of creative writing?
Truvelo has evidence it was planned, it should be on the Wiki I believe.
It's actually creative writing, and "originally" is incorrect.

It was once suggested internally at the Ministry but the vast, vast majority of the documentation all states M42. Remember that the M42 is a descendant of the Droitwich - Leicester Motorway, which helps to explain the numbering.
Yes, I should have clarified by "once planned" it falls into the same category as the "M7 going to South Wales" was once planned.
Bryn
Traffic/Road Safety Dogsbody and General Grumpy Now-a-Thirtysomething Man
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/

User avatar
Truvelo
Member
Posts: 16341
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 21:10
Location: Staffordshire
Contact:

Re: M40 30th Birthday

Post by Truvelo » Sun Jan 17, 2021 18:28

The suggested renumbering was from the days of Solihull-Strensham. I suspect it was considered as a way of tidying up the numbers of the motorways at J3A. Had the previously reserved numbers being used the M42 would TOTSO and the M40 and M50 would both terminate. Instead the suggestion was to have both the M40 and M50 cross each other with no TOTSO so it made sense. When Solihull-Strensham was cancelled it made these proposals redundant so that's probably why nothing more was heard about it. I think the only reasonable explanation for renumbering J3A to M5 as M40 these days is because the M40 has the mainline through J3A but the main movement is M42 to M42 so the right decision was made not to renumber.

There is of course concrete evidence that M40 to M5 was going to happen when the M42 north of J3A was first built with the present J4 opening as J1. Some may say it was just temporary until the section southwest was built and I known Steven is going to say otherwise but I don't buy that theory. Temporary termini elsewhere, such as M23 at Hooley and M11 Woodford, were opened with the junction numbers as though the sections further into London would be built. There is no suggestion to suggest M42 J4 would be any different.

The document with the suggested renumbering can be found here.
How would you like your grade separations, Sir?
Big and complex.

User avatar
Steven
SABRE Maps Coordinator
Posts: 17114
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2002 20:39
Location: Wolverhampton, Staffordshire
Contact:

Re: M40 30th Birthday

Post by Steven » Sun Jan 17, 2021 18:39

Truvelo wrote:
Sun Jan 17, 2021 18:28
Temporary termini elsewhere, such as M23 at Hooley and M11 Woodford, were opened with the junction numbers as though the sections further into London would be built. There is no suggestion to suggest M42 J4 would be any different.
Counter-examples to yours exist on M74 (twice!!), M8, M18 and M62 (the original) though. There is evidence that the M23's junctions were renumbered to fit the pattern that currently exist prior to opening too.

Plus, of course, M4 J8/9...
Steven

Pathetic Motorways: tastier than a well-chewed slipper.
Founder Member, SABRE ex-Presidents' Corner

Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!

User avatar
Truvelo
Member
Posts: 16341
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 21:10
Location: Staffordshire
Contact:

Re: M40 30th Birthday

Post by Truvelo » Sun Jan 17, 2021 18:48

M4 Cardiff wrote:
Sun Jan 17, 2021 16:41
As well as the well-known change in route to avoid Otmoor, looking at the locations of borehole records on the BGS site, it looks like other alternative routes were assessed quite late into the design process further north too, as well as a couple of other areas of extensive ground testing, that may have represented areas under consideration at the time as services areas.

So on the basis of the map, that I have done a crude overlay with, a more southerly route was assessed at Arncott, together with an online MSA or junction, a slightly more easterly route near Mollington / Warmington, where the split carriageway section is, an online MSA or junction at Avon Dassett, a more northerly route to the south of Leamington, using more of the Warwick Bypass, and a slightly more southerly route between Shrewley and Lapworth.

Does anyone have any documentation regarding these potential junctions or MSA's and any info on the potential junction layout that there could have been at Greys Mallory to the south of Leamington?
Yes, I have documents and maps showing most of the alternatives you have mentioned. Is there anything in particular that interests you? As far as the section south of Leamington is concerned I have already put stuff on the wiki here and here.
How would you like your grade separations, Sir?
Big and complex.

From the SABRE Wiki: Barford Interchange :


Barford Interchange is junction 14 of the M40.

The M40 north of here took over the A41 Warwick bypass. This junction is the tie-in. A roundabout provides a u-turn opportunity for non-motorway traffic that happened to go down this road. This avoids a single-carriageway motorway spur. M40 J13 provides the south facing slips towards London.

Early plans for the M40 favoured

... Read More