Woodford Interchange questions
Moderator: Site Management Team
- Sunil_of_Yoxley
- Member
- Posts: 1770
- Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2003 12:14
- Location: Ilford, East London
- Contact:
Woodford Interchange questions
I don't want to trouble Chris M with yet another email, so I'm asking this on the forum so others can chip in
On Chris M's maps on the Ringway Plans section on roads.org.uk, it is shown that the main line of Ringway 2 passes over the M11 southbound to R2 anticlockwise slip road.
Was that the original plan? Because for as long as I can remember, before the A406 was extended to Beckton in 1989 (to all intents and purposes along the R2 alignment), the anticlockwise M11 slip was built at a higher level than its clockwise counterpart, such that when the A406 mainline was finally inserted, it passed underneath the anticlockwise slip road.
Also, would the R2 mainline have passed over or under the missing M11 mainline towards Leytonstone? When the A406 was built, it seems that there was no gap in the embankment (not that one was needed by 1989, of course!) east of the northbound M11 slip road.
Thirdly, and possibly a completely long shot, was there ever a version of the plan for the M11 to have priority at the "country" end of the junction, and not to TOTSO in favour of the (missing) M12?
Thanks!
On Chris M's maps on the Ringway Plans section on roads.org.uk, it is shown that the main line of Ringway 2 passes over the M11 southbound to R2 anticlockwise slip road.
Was that the original plan? Because for as long as I can remember, before the A406 was extended to Beckton in 1989 (to all intents and purposes along the R2 alignment), the anticlockwise M11 slip was built at a higher level than its clockwise counterpart, such that when the A406 mainline was finally inserted, it passed underneath the anticlockwise slip road.
Also, would the R2 mainline have passed over or under the missing M11 mainline towards Leytonstone? When the A406 was built, it seems that there was no gap in the embankment (not that one was needed by 1989, of course!) east of the northbound M11 slip road.
Thirdly, and possibly a completely long shot, was there ever a version of the plan for the M11 to have priority at the "country" end of the junction, and not to TOTSO in favour of the (missing) M12?
Thanks!
My London railway station photos on Wikimedia Commons
Re: Woodford Interchange questions
Hello, Kris M here from the popular website Genericroadswebsite.org.uk. Allow me to chip in.Sunil_of_Yoxley wrote: ↑Fri Jul 16, 2021 18:18I don't want to trouble Chris M with yet another email, so I'm asking this on the forum so others can chip in
No, the sliproad would always have passed over R2 and the only available construction plans show it doing so. I expect that this is a mistake that will probably be corrected now that it's been pointed out...On Chris M's maps on the Ringway Plans section on roads.org.uk, it is shown that the main line of Ringway 2 passes over the M11 southbound to R2 anticlockwise slip road.
Was that the original plan? Because for as long as I can remember, before the A406 was extended to Beckton in 1989 (to all intents and purposes along the R2 alignment), the anticlockwise M11 slip was built at a higher level than its clockwise counterpart, such that when the A406 mainline was finally inserted, it passed underneath the anticlockwise slip road.
Under. The 1989 viaduct is much shorter (and narrower) than the one designed for R2 would have been. Construction plans show a viaduct that would have been wide enough for D2M starting much further east.Also, would the R2 mainline have passed over or under the missing M11 mainline towards Leytonstone? When the A406 was built, it seems that there was no gap in the embankment (not that one was needed by 1989, of course!) east of the northbound M11 slip road.
Not that I've ever seen. That arrangement almost certainly exists because the M12 was part of Abercrombie's Radial Route 7, which continued all the way in to Hackney. When the M11 was moved to the Roding Valley it was partly to economise on the number of new radial motorways in inner London, by piggybacking on Radial Route 7 instead of having to build another separate line all the way to Hackney. Consequently, the route number of the Hackney-Woodford length became M11, but the mainline of the route continued to head east towards Romford and not north towards Harlow.Thirdly, and possibly a completely long shot, was there ever a version of the plan for the M11 to have priority at the "country" end of the junction, and not to TOTSO in favour of the (missing) M12?
Chris
Roads.org.uk
Roads.org.uk
Re: Woodford Interchange questions
I have also wondered why the M12 has the mainline and now this makes sense.Chris5156 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 16, 2021 18:45 That arrangement almost certainly exists because the M12 was part of Abercrombie's Radial Route 7, which continued all the way in to Hackney. When the M11 was moved to the Roding Valley it was partly to economise on the number of new radial motorways in inner London, by piggybacking on Radial Route 7 instead of having to build another separate line all the way to Hackney. Consequently, the route number of the Hackney-Woodford length became M11, but the mainline of the route continued to head east towards Romford and not north towards Harlow.
I have some photos of a model of the junction which confirms what Chris says about the bridges passing over or below R2.
How would you like your grade separations, Sir?
Big and complex.
Big and complex.
- Sunil_of_Yoxley
- Member
- Posts: 1770
- Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2003 12:14
- Location: Ilford, East London
- Contact:
Re: Woodford Interchange questions
Thanks, Chris!Chris5156 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 16, 2021 18:45Hello, Kris M here from the popular website Genericroadswebsite.org.uk. Allow me to chip in.Sunil_of_Yoxley wrote: ↑Fri Jul 16, 2021 18:18I don't want to trouble Chris M with yet another email, so I'm asking this on the forum so others can chip in
No, the sliproad would always have passed over R2 and the only available construction plans show it doing so. I expect that this is a mistake that will probably be corrected now that it's been pointed out...On Chris M's maps on the Ringway Plans section on roads.org.uk, it is shown that the main line of Ringway 2 passes over the M11 southbound to R2 anticlockwise slip road.
Was that the original plan? Because for as long as I can remember, before the A406 was extended to Beckton in 1989 (to all intents and purposes along the R2 alignment), the anticlockwise M11 slip was built at a higher level than its clockwise counterpart, such that when the A406 mainline was finally inserted, it passed underneath the anticlockwise slip road.
Under. The 1989 viaduct is much shorter (and narrower) than the one designed for R2 would have been. Construction plans show a viaduct that would have been wide enough for D2M starting much further east.Also, would the R2 mainline have passed over or under the missing M11 mainline towards Leytonstone? When the A406 was built, it seems that there was no gap in the embankment (not that one was needed by 1989, of course!) east of the northbound M11 slip road.
Not that I've ever seen. That arrangement almost certainly exists because the M12 was part of Abercrombie's Radial Route 7, which continued all the way in to Hackney. When the M11 was moved to the Roding Valley it was partly to economise on the number of new radial motorways in inner London, by piggybacking on Radial Route 7 instead of having to build another separate line all the way to Hackney. Consequently, the route number of the Hackney-Woodford length became M11, but the mainline of the route continued to head east towards Romford and not north towards Harlow.Thirdly, and possibly a completely long shot, was there ever a version of the plan for the M11 to have priority at the "country" end of the junction, and not to TOTSO in favour of the (missing) M12?
I had a feeling the anticlockwise sliproad was a mistake, but it appeared on all three of the R2, M11 and M12 maps!
But just to clarify, the viaduct had M11 passing under, right? (I phrased my question as "Did R2 pass under or over the M11"?).
Too bad about the M12 Totso, I'll have to devise my own "non-Totso" (as well as at Hackney Wick), but that's for the Fantasy Roads thread!
My London railway station photos on Wikimedia Commons
- Sunil_of_Yoxley
- Member
- Posts: 1770
- Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2003 12:14
- Location: Ilford, East London
- Contact:
Re: Woodford Interchange questions
Thanks, Truvelo, those pics are amazing! Where did you get them? And are there pics of further north (M12 diverge) or further south (eg. M11 main line passing under the A406 to M11 n/bound slip)?
I walked under that n/bound slip road just yesterday (though I first visited it back in 2009), and tried to figure out exactly where the main line would have passed. There's one bridge column that doesn't look like any other bridge columns at Woodford interchange. It's kind of a trapezoid cross section (as opposed to double-cylinder), so I tried to rationalise it as being located on the line of the central reservation of the missing M11, but I have a nagging doubt it was a little too far north.
A picture of the slip road and its columns is here. The trapezoid column is the third from the right:
My London railway station photos on Wikimedia Commons
Re: Woodford Interchange questions
The photos of the model were taken at Kew. Unfortunately the model doesn't extend any further than what I photographed.
How would you like your grade separations, Sir?
Big and complex.
Big and complex.
Re: Woodford Interchange questions
They’re all just sections of a single London-wide map, so they will all be the same - I’ll have to correct it and then produce new versions of all the maps that show it.Sunil_of_Yoxley wrote: ↑Fri Jul 16, 2021 21:51I had a feeling the anticlockwise sliproad was a mistake, but it appeared on all three of the R2, M11 and M12 maps!
At some point the whole London map will be up on SABRE Maps, but I’ll have to finish it first!
Sorry - R2 would have passed over, the M11 mainline would have gone under at a similar level to the sliproad that exists today.But just to clarify, the viaduct had M11 passing under, right? (I phrased my question as "Did R2 pass under or over the M11"?).
I have copies of the layout plans for the junction that were produced by the consulting engineers who designed the M11, and I can post them when I’m next on my laptop, but they’re not very clear because they split the junction across several sheets and each one has north in a different direction!
Chris
Roads.org.uk
Roads.org.uk
- Sunil_of_Yoxley
- Member
- Posts: 1770
- Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2003 12:14
- Location: Ilford, East London
- Contact:
Re: Woodford Interchange questions
That's a shame! Anyway, I was thinking lately "do any models of Woodford exist", so it's great at least part of the junction was "modelled". Thanks for the pics!
My London railway station photos on Wikimedia Commons
- Sunil_of_Yoxley
- Member
- Posts: 1770
- Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2003 12:14
- Location: Ilford, East London
- Contact:
Re: Woodford Interchange questions
Chris5156 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 08:44They’re all just sections of a single London-wide map, so they will all be the same - I’ll have to correct it and then produce new versions of all the maps that show it.Sunil_of_Yoxley wrote: ↑Fri Jul 16, 2021 21:51I had a feeling the anticlockwise sliproad was a mistake, but it appeared on all three of the R2, M11 and M12 maps!
At some point the whole London map will be up on SABRE Maps, but I’ll have to finish it first!
Would be great to see the whole London map, I'm sure it will be worth the wait! Thanks for all the time you've invested into the Ringway Histories.Chris5156 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 08:44 I have copies of the layout plans for the junction that were produced by the consulting engineers who designed the M11, and I can post them when I’m next on my laptop, but they’re not very clear because they split the junction across several sheets and each one has north in a different direction!
Also I would be very interested to see the layout plans myself. I just wonder why there's that different "trapezoid" cross-section bridge support on the northbound slip shown in the picture I posted upthread.
My London railway station photos on Wikimedia Commons
Re: Woodford Interchange questions
I've done some poking around and I think you're on to something with this specific bridge support. In your photo, it's clear that it's not just an unusual shape, it also forms the focus of a point where the bridge deck changes shape, curving down a bit towards it. That strongly suggests that it was designed differently because it was the centre point of something significant.Sunil_of_Yoxley wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 09:53Also I would be very interested to see the layout plans myself. I just wonder why there's that different "trapezoid" cross-section bridge support on the northbound slip shown in the picture I posted upthread.
From your photo it appears to stand at approximately the place where the present-day streetlighting switches from the right to the left side of the sliproad, which makes it possible to mark its location on aerial photography and compare it to the plans. Unfortunately the plans I have don't show the location of supporting piers, and in any case they all show a much shorter viaduct than the one that was eventually built, but the differently-shaped pier does seem to fall at approximately the point where the mainline M11 would have passed underneath.
I'd surmise from that, and the shape of the bridge deck, that it was meant to stand in the central reservation and be a feature of the bridge design. So while I don't have evidence to conclusively say you're right, I'd say your theory is a pretty good bet!
Attached below is the plan sheet that best shows the whole junction layout - though to understand it you need to know that the main part of the plan shows option 4B, which has sliproads between the M11 inbound and Redbridge Roundabout. 4B was discarded as an option so those slips (and the C/D carriageways approaching Redbridge) were not part of the plan. The chosen layout, 4C, is shown in the boxout at top right, though confusingly it also shows 4A and the two are overlaid. Option 4C is the one that curves into the housing estate to the west, which is top left.
This comes from the consulting engineers' study at the point where the junction was first being designed, and before the extant parts came to be built the proposals were evidently refined, because some of the bridge structures (as described above) are longer or otherwise very subtly different from what you see here.
That, and the fact that the quality of the reproduction is terrible, and some tedious copyright issues, are just some of the reasons I don't bother posting many original plans like this to the website!
Chris
Roads.org.uk
Roads.org.uk
- Sunil_of_Yoxley
- Member
- Posts: 1770
- Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2003 12:14
- Location: Ilford, East London
- Contact:
Re: Woodford Interchange questions
Sorry for the delayed reply. I notice that you edited your original messageChris5156 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 17:41I've done some poking around and I think you're on to something with this specific bridge support. In your photo, it's clear that it's not just an unusual shape, it also forms the focus of a point where the bridge deck changes shape, curving down a bit towards it. That strongly suggests that it was designed differently because it was the centre point of something significant.Sunil_of_Yoxley wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 09:53Also I would be very interested to see the layout plans myself. I just wonder why there's that different "trapezoid" cross-section bridge support on the northbound slip shown in the picture I posted upthread.
From your photo it appears to stand at approximately the place where the present-day streetlighting switches from the right to the left side of the sliproad, which makes it possible to mark its location on aerial photography and compare it to the plans. Unfortunately the plans I have don't show the location of supporting piers, and in any case they all show a much shorter viaduct than the one that was eventually built, but the differently-shaped pier does seem to fall at approximately the point where the mainline M11 would have passed underneath.
I'd surmise from that, and the shape of the bridge deck, that it was meant to stand in the central reservation and be a feature of the bridge design. So while I don't have evidence to conclusively say you're right, I'd say your theory is a pretty good bet!
Attached below is the plan sheet that best shows the whole junction layout - though to understand it you need to know that the main part of the plan shows option 4B, which has sliproads between the M11 inbound and Redbridge Roundabout. 4B was discarded as an option so those slips (and the C/D carriageways approaching Redbridge) were not part of the plan. The chosen layout, 4C, is shown in the boxout at top right, though confusingly it also shows 4A and the two are overlaid. Option 4C is the one that curves into the housing estate to the west, which is top left.
This comes from the consulting engineers' study at the point where the junction was first being designed, and before the extant parts came to be built the proposals were evidently refined, because some of the bridge structures (as described above) are longer or otherwise very subtly different from what you see here.
That, and the fact that the quality of the reproduction is terrible, and some tedious copyright issues, are just some of the reasons I don't bother posting many original plans like this to the website!
glc-td-pm-cdo-07-331-nels-002.png
Yes, I noticed that bridge support when I first visited it in 2009 and thought "that seems strange".
By contrast, I did notice that, upon walking to the southbound bridge over the phantom M12 a couple of months ago in May, I saw that all the bridge supports there are of identical design, even though it passes over a mainline.
Thanks so much for the plan sheet - just about the Holy Grail in my opinion (well, almost!). Don't worry about the quality, that it exists is in itself amazing! I notice they also include the M12 Totso (though personally, I wish that the M11 mainline continued north - though that's more Fantasy Road territory).
Yes, I saw the different options (4A, etc.) on the M11's Ringway page - though there was an option 4D illustrated there along with 4A and 4C. No 4B. I guess 4A would have spared Snaresbrook but it would have ploughed through Wanstead Park and southern Leytonstone to get to the Central line.
But for me, the real "Mind blown" moment on seeing the plan was that the River Roding has been diverted - I only walked there on Thursday but didn't have a clue! No wonder it seems so straight!
My London railway station photos on Wikimedia Commons
Re: Woodford Interchange questions
Regarding the bridge support. If it was meant for the central reservation I would have expected it to be skewed as the M11 passes under it at an acute angle. Looking at Sunil's photo there doesn't seem to be much room for D3M to pass beneath the columns.
How would you like your grade separations, Sir?
Big and complex.
Big and complex.
Re: Woodford Interchange questions
thank you for that - Used to work down in the east end and have used this junction a few times - cool to see how it was imagined to be constructed. Those slips at the left side were a complete suprise ! It is such a small junction for the complexity of slip roads employed. Very compact and serves a lot of traffic flows indeed.
a true what could have been indeed.
a true what could have been indeed.
Re: Woodford Interchange questions
Where the M11 crosses Chigwell Road, there is a bridge over nothing just to the east of the M11. This was the bridge over the river pre M11.Sunil_of_Yoxley wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 21:53
But for me, the real "Mind blown" moment on seeing the plan was that the River Roding has been diverted - I only walked there on Thursday but didn't have a clue! No wonder it seems so straight!
The area has regularly had a flood problem from the Roding, a number of times it happened while the M11 works were happening. I had to walk home from school a number of times due to Charlie Browns roundabout being under water.
Re: Woodford Interchange questions
looking at that junction and the road space available still -
How about a reroute of the A12 to follow some of that proposed alignment ? Make the A406 / A12 junction less busy and could lead to a possible A12 bypass extending north by north east to relieve some of the traffic on the A12.
It would also provide a mirror to the A13 and provide a relief to the traffic in the east end.
Build it... Go on... ! and it would let them finish off that junction.
How about a reroute of the A12 to follow some of that proposed alignment ? Make the A406 / A12 junction less busy and could lead to a possible A12 bypass extending north by north east to relieve some of the traffic on the A12.
It would also provide a mirror to the A13 and provide a relief to the traffic in the east end.
Build it... Go on... ! and it would let them finish off that junction.
- Sunil_of_Yoxley
- Member
- Posts: 1770
- Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2003 12:14
- Location: Ilford, East London
- Contact:
Re: Woodford Interchange questions
I think you need a minimum 32 metres for D3M, assuming Google is accurate at ground level (and using the spacing of the street lights) the spacing of the columns seems to exceed that, and if that bridge column was on the median, you'd need only 16 metres either side, right? Skewing could perhaps be overcome by having a wider median. Perhaps! Anyway, what the builders' plan reveals is that the M11 would have passed under the northern end of the "bridge over nothing".
My London railway station photos on Wikimedia Commons
- Sunil_of_Yoxley
- Member
- Posts: 1770
- Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2003 12:14
- Location: Ilford, East London
- Contact:
Re: Woodford Interchange questions
Thanks, I seem to have found it:doebag wrote: ↑Wed Jul 21, 2021 07:22Where the M11 crosses Chigwell Road, there is a bridge over nothing just to the east of the M11. This was the bridge over the river pre M11.Sunil_of_Yoxley wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 21:53
But for me, the real "Mind blown" moment on seeing the plan was that the River Roding has been diverted - I only walked there on Thursday but didn't have a clue! No wonder it seems so straight!
The area has regularly had a flood problem from the Roding, a number of times it happened while the M11 works were happening. I had to walk home from school a number of times due to Charlie Browns roundabout being under water.
https://goo.gl/maps/Wfg7cMvjTZJvyVJU9
And it explains another straight-ish bit of the Roding west of the M11!
My London railway station photos on Wikimedia Commons
- Sunil_of_Yoxley
- Member
- Posts: 1770
- Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2003 12:14
- Location: Ilford, East London
- Contact:
Re: Woodford Interchange questions
Well I would turn the northern end into a Totso for the M12, let the M11 take over the main line through the junction - then I can extend my avatar to Dover via the East Cross Route, then the "A20(M)", and then the M20/A20! (Ooops! Now Chris will be able to work out why I'm so interested in the "A20(M)"...)Gav wrote: ↑Wed Jul 21, 2021 11:22 looking at that junction and the road space available still -
How about a reroute of the A12 to follow some of that proposed alignment ? Make the A406 / A12 junction less busy and could lead to a possible A12 bypass extending north by north east to relieve some of the traffic on the A12.
It would also provide a mirror to the A13 and provide a relief to the traffic in the east end.
Build it... Go on... ! and it would let them finish off that junction.
My London railway station photos on Wikimedia Commons
- Sunil_of_Yoxley
- Member
- Posts: 1770
- Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2003 12:14
- Location: Ilford, East London
- Contact:
Re: Woodford Interchange questions
Some pics I took of the northbound M11 flyover last week:
My London railway station photos on Wikimedia Commons