On Jul 3, 10:22*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote:

"Roland Perry" wrote:

In message , at 21:37:31 on Fri,
3 Jul 2009, Peter Masson remarked:

Part of the business case for City Thameslink, and going under rather than
over Ludgate Hill was the value paid to BR for unlocking land for
development.

But people were also very happy not to have a railway bridge spoiling the
view of St Pauls.

Indeed. Though I don't recall hearing that the City Corporation contributed
any funding to the project towards achieving that aim.

The City Corporation must have put some money towards City Thameslink
station - originally named St Paul's Thameslink - because the City of
London crest is displayed on wall panels at platform level - see:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mackenzieblu/3260380147/
and
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mackenzieblu/3260343935/

That's not to say that they did so in order to remove the bridge and
regain the view of St Paul's up Ludgate Hill - but having a new
station on the western side of the City is probably good enough reason
in and of itself, especially if the alternative is no station at all -
i.e. Thameslink only stopping at Blackfriars and then Farringdon,
which is just beyond the northern edge of the City itself.