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.

The issue is not what would happen in a hypothetical world where all
trains that currently terminate at London Bridge would instead
terminate at Cannon Street, but what happens now in the real world. I
was just picking you up on having made a quite incorrect statement.


If London Bridge was so significant, there would be an equivalent
number of people walking south from the District Line every morning,
and there aren't.

It is increasing in significance as a destination, but of course is
nothing like being in the same league as the City. I never claimed
otherwise!

On 24 Oct, 20:05, Offramp wrote:
On Oct 22, 11:28 am, David Cantrell wrote:

On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 03:01:11AM -0700, wrote:

Oh God!!
The people who go to Borough market on Saturday!

Man to child:
"Alexander Alexander ! Time for LUNCH Alexander ! Ou est le fromage
Alexander? Ou est le fromage? Time for LUNCH. LUNCH!! LUNCH
Alexander!!!!!!"

One only wishes that the Clink was still in business to receive such
people with all the warm and generous hospitality they deserve.

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".

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 17:48:02 -0700, MIG
wrote:

On Oct 29, 10:52 pm, Mizter T wrote:
[...]
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".

Which is trivially true for nearly every station in London, whether
DLR, Tube or NR. (I can't think of any obvious counter-examples. St.
James's Park, possibly.)

On Oct 30, 1:46 am, James Farrar wrote:
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 17:48:02 -0700, MIG
wrote:



On Oct 29, 10:52 pm, Mizter T wrote:
[...]
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".

Which is trivially true for nearly every station in London, whether
DLR, Tube or NR. (I can't think of any obvious counter-examples. St.
James's Park, possibly.)

And by "somewhere else" perhaps I could really spell out "somewhere to
which other stations are nearer" and so on. I think the point is
clear.

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 01:11:05 -0700, MIG
wrote:

On Oct 30, 1:46 am, James Farrar wrote:
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 17:48:02 -0700, MIG
wrote:



On Oct 29, 10:52 pm, Mizter T wrote:
[...]
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".

Which is trivially true for nearly every station in London, whether
DLR, Tube or NR. (I can't think of any obvious counter-examples. St.
James's Park, possibly.)

And by "somewhere else" perhaps I could really spell out "somewhere to
which other stations are nearer" and so on. I think the point is
clear.

Yes, that you were wrong in the first place, and are scrambling with
semantics in order to avoid admitting it.

On Oct 30, 6:13 pm, James Farrar wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 01:11:05 -0700, MIG
wrote:





On Oct 30, 1:46 am, James Farrar wrote:
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 17:48:02 -0700, MIG
wrote:

On Oct 29, 10:52 pm, Mizter T wrote:
[...]
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".

Which is trivially true for nearly every station in London, whether
DLR, Tube or NR. (I can't think of any obvious counter-examples. St.
James's Park, possibly.)

And by "somewhere else" perhaps I could really spell out "somewhere to
which other stations are nearer" and so on. I think the point is
clear.

Yes, that you were wrong in the first place, and are scrambling with
semantics in order to avoid admitting it

I think you are picking holes in my wording to obscure my original
point that the importance of London Bridge is that so many trains go
there, not that so many people's destination is near there.

This was in answer to the suggestion that London Bridge is a more
important location for a station than Cannon Street. I suggested
that, on that basis, Clapham Junction should be a terminus instead of
Victoria and Waterloo.