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 - the pavements across the bridge are
thronging during the rush hour. Plus of course the vicinity of London
Bridge station is a destination in itself - think of the offices on
Tooley Street, Southwark Street, Southwark Bridge Road, Guy's Hospital.

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 org
www.johnband.org

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

On 19 Oct, 13:50, MaxB wrote:
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...


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).


Blackfriars Bridge now has a much wider pavement on upstream (western)
side, but that's not anything to do with heavy pedestrian traffic -
instead it's because the third traffic lane has been removed from the
northbound side of the bridge, and the pavement extended over much of
this space.

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?

Well I guess it's down to history and that in the late 1800's,
competition for building railways and terminii was fierce.

As for now. then yes. Cannon Street is very very close to London
Bridge and the majority of commuters are bound for somewhere in The
City.

So you could argue that Cannon Street is no longer required.
But it does serve as useful interchange to the District/Circle and
it's also in spitting distance of Bank.
(more so than monument) So it use as an interchange to the Central/W&C
and DLR is quite good.

ALso note that Cannon Street Station and the office complex within it
will shortly be redeveloped as it's looking a bit tired.
(no doubt to provide more glass buildings and yet another Pret A
Manger!!!!)

On 19 Oct, 09:29, "R.C. Payne" wrote:
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.


Yes of course, but not the current one, and not in exactly the same
location. The situation was not as it is now in a number of ways.

On 19 Oct, 16:36, MIG wrote:
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.

Yes of course, but not the current one, and not in exactly the same
location. The situation was not as it is now in a number of ways.

....although I do rather like the idea of Viking hordes of commuters
crossing Old London Bridge in 850AD, presumably on their way to invest
their Danegeld...

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

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 09:29:24 +0100, "R.C. Payne"
wrote:

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.

Hence the pavement reputedly being wider on the downstream side of the
bridge than the upstream side.

(Is this actually true, or is it an urban myth?)

On 19 Oct, 17:33, James Farrar wrote:
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 09:29:24 +0100, "R.C. Payne"
wrote:

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.

Hence the pavement reputedly being wider on the downstream side of the
bridge than the upstream side.

(Is this actually true, or is it an urban myth?)

No urban myth - see this aerial view:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=e...=19&iwloc=addr

MIG wrote:
On 19 Oct, 09:29, "R.C. Payne" wrote:
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 00:49:24 -0700, MIG wrote:

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.

Yes of course, but not the current one, and not in exactly the same
location.

Rennie's 1831 bridge was in exactly the same location as the present one
(1973). It was the old medieval bridge which was a short way downstream.

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)