On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 00:49:24 -0700, MIG wrote:

On Oct 18, 11:47 pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007, MIG wrote:
On Oct 18, 10:46 pm, "Obadiah Jones"
wrote:

Or perhaps I should say 'what was the motivation for building it'?

I only ask because London Bridge is a mere ten minute stroll from
Cannon Street. Presumably Cannon Street trains have always passed
through London Bridge (apart from those heading towards Charing Cross).
So why go to the expense of building viaducts from the Borough Market
junction, bridging the river, and building a terminus station at Cannon
Street when it's virtually within spitting distance of a much more
significant station at London Bridge? Was it perhaps intended to extend
the line further north at some point?

London Bridge is only significant because so many trains go there or
through there. Nearly everyone arriving there by train immediately
goes somewhere else, by another train, by Underground or by bus.

But as Obadiah pointed out, even if you transfer to leg-power at London
Bridge, it's only a slightly longer walk to anywhere you want to get to. A
viaduct, bridge and stations purely to save a few minutes' walk seems a
bit generous. Could they not just have laid on omnibuses?

Mind you, i think these things were a lot cheaper back then. They must
have been, given the amount of railway that was built.

tom


Things would have been very different. The current road bridge and
the Embankment didn't exist yet in 1860-something, and neither did the
District Line.

Though there has been a bridge there since something like 800AD, if you
have a look at London Bridge (the bridge) in the rush hour, you will see
hordes of commuters walking between the City and London Bridge railway
station.

Robin