On 19 Oct, 11:40, John B wrote:
On 18 Oct, 23:47, Tom Anderson wrote:

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?

In addition to everything else mentioned - if you were to take the
current (totally rammed) pedestrian traffic on London Bridge at rush
hour, then add on the 23 peak tph (= c.24,000 pax assuming 8-car 465s
= 400 pax per minute) that currently go on to Cannon Street, you'd
need to pedestrianise the bridge to get them all across...

--
John Band
john at johnband dot orgwww.johnband.org

Of course, London Bridge (bridge) has, so far as I know, uniquely
uneven pavements. That on the downstream (busy) side is twice the
width of the other one just to take the pedestrian traffic (and it
doesn't wobble).

MaxB