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?

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.

Cannon Street is in the City, where many people actually need to go.
It also has room for trains to turn round, which three platforms at
London Bridge would not be adequate for.

You might as well suggest that all trains terminate at Clapham
Junction instead of going to Victoria or Waterloo, since it's a more
significant station than either by the same definition.

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

--
3364147 Complete space vehicles (excluding propulsion systems)

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.

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.

Robin

On 19 Oct, 09:29, "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.

That's presumably because there are still loads of trains that
terminate at London Bridge, and when you factor in the time taken to
cross the overhead bridge from platforms 8-16 to platforms 1-3, plus
wait for a Cannon Street train, then get to Cannon Street, it's
probably just as quick to walk it. I bet if all those trains that now
terminate at London Bridge went on to Cannon Street, there'd be far
fewer people walking across London Bridge itself.

Patrick

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 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 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