On Oct 29, 10:52 pm, Mizter T wrote:
MIG wrote:
On Oct 19, 11:04 am, Mizter T wrote:
On 18 Oct, 23:03, 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.

That's just not correct.

The assertion that "nearly everyone" arriving at London Bridge travels
on from there by some form of public transport doesn't stands up to
any scrutiny - that's definitely not the case, especially during the
peaks.

An awful lot of City commuters walk from LB station over London Bridge
to reach their workplaces -

That's because their train terminates at London Bridge and it's not
worth the hassle of changing, but they'd stay on to Cannon Street if
there was such an option.

Many would, yes. But you said that "nearly everyone arriving there by
train immediately goes somewhere else, by another train, by
Underground or by bus" - clearly they don't, given the stream of
people crossing the Thames on London Bridge every morning.

I concatenated too much, but could have rectified it by adding "or on
foot".