On 29 Mar, 16:31, Abigail Brady wrote:

On Mar 29, 10:32 am, Mizter T wrote:

And the bridge has already been moved into place over the road! I can
see orange jacketed bods walking over it right now. Good work. A new
mini London landmark is born.

Here are some camera-phone photos I took at lunchtime :

http://www.flickr.com/photos/6387911...57604300907267

(they are cc-by-sa)


Shoreditch High Street was reopen to traffic by 9pm-ish last night,
and I went under the new bridge. So it looks like work was completed
ahead of schedule - the relevant ELLX page [1] states that closures
will be in operation until 5am on monday morning, unless the road has
been closed again today for some extra work to be performed on the
bridge, though I can't quite see why that might happen - but as the
webcam has gone down and I'm not physically there I can say for sure
either way.

Though Radio 5 were still reporting that Shoreditch High Street was
closed ("due to roadworks"!) at the time - though there was still
congestion as Bishopsgate (and Norton Foregate) were closed southbound
for separate works.

It looks like TfL have sensibly embraced the 'under promise, over
deliver' maxim here - I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that the
ELLX does in fact open for business at the timetable change in
December '09, which I am led to believe is the date that is pencilled
in on the 'optimistic construction timetable' (as it were).

The bridge itself is impressive - it's big, and of a simple,
straightforward but eye pleasing design. Whilst I didn't see a double
decker going under it's quite clear that there's plenty of clearance
for high vehicles.

Whilst it comes as no surprise it must nonetheless be a bit odd for
locals to find this new dominating structure in place, especially as
there's never been a bridge there before. I think what it might have
been like when the line went in over Ludgate Hill between Blackfriars
(though was it not named St Paul's at the time) and Holborn Viaduct -
though that bridge did spoil a great view of St Paul's, which was
reinstated when the bridge was removed and the Thameslink line was
diverted under the road into City Thameslink station (which
confusingly on opening was also named St Paul's - well, St Paul's
Thameslink, to be precise).

The new bridge at Shoreditch doesn't obscure any classic view of this
sort, though I guess it does somewhat obstruct one's view of the
gleaming towers of the City from points north. I do hope that someone
made a decent photographic record of what it was like before the
bridge went up for the sake of posterity.

P.S. Abi - what does "they are cc-by-sa" mean?!

-----
[1] http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/proj...lway/2119.aspx

"Mizter T" wrote

The bridge itself is impressive - it's big, and of a simple,
straightforward but eye pleasing design. Whilst I didn't see a double
decker going under it's quite clear that there's plenty of clearance
for high vehicles.

One of the television news pictures showed someone measuring the height from
the roadway to the bridge.

Whilst it comes as no surprise it must nonetheless be a bit odd for
locals to find this new dominating structure in place, especially as
there's never been a bridge there before. I think what it might have
been like when the line went in over Ludgate Hill between Blackfriars
(though was it not named St Paul's at the time) and Holborn Viaduct -
though that bridge did spoil a great view of St Paul's, which was
reinstated when the bridge was removed and the Thameslink line was
diverted under the road into City Thameslink station (which
confusingly on opening was also named St Paul's - well, St Paul's
Thameslink, to be precise).

St Paul's was renamed Blackfriars in 1937 - the bridge lasted more than
another half century.

Peter

On 30 Mar, 12:08, "Peter Masson" wrote:

"Mizter T" wrote

The bridge itself is impressive - it's big, and of a simple,
straightforward but eye pleasing design. Whilst I didn't see a double
decker going under it's quite clear that there's plenty of clearance
for high vehicles.

One of the television news pictures showed someone measuring the height from
the roadway to the bridge.

A worthwhile precaution - whatever the plans say, it's worth making
sure the reality says the same thing!


Whilst it comes as no surprise it must nonetheless be a bit odd for
locals to find this new dominating structure in place, especially as
there's never been a bridge there before. I think what it might have
been like when the line went in over Ludgate Hill between Blackfriars
(though was it not named St Paul's at the time) and Holborn Viaduct -
though that bridge did spoil a great view of St Paul's, which was
reinstated when the bridge was removed and the Thameslink line was
diverted under the road into City Thameslink station (which
confusingly on opening was also named St Paul's - well, St Paul's
Thameslink, to be precise).

St Paul's was renamed Blackfriars in 1937 - the bridge lasted more than
another half century.


Indeed - I was really thinking about the name of the station when the
bridge was first built. I'm sure I've read of contemporary complaints
that this new fangled (and somewhat unpretty) railway bridge
significantly detracted from the view.

On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 03:45:02 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:

P.S. Abi - what does "they are cc-by-sa" mean?!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_licenses

Licensees may copy, distribute, display {and perform} the work and
make derivative works based on it only if they give the author or
licensor the credits in the manner specified by these AND licensees
may distribute derivative works only under a license identical to the
license that governs the original work.

On 30 Mar, 11:45, Mizter T wrote:
there's never been a bridge there before. I think what it might have
been like when the line went in over Ludgate Hill between Blackfriars

There are pictures of that bridge around online, I saw them once but I
can't remember the site.

diverted under the road into City Thameslink station (which
confusingly on opening was also named St Paul's - well, St Paul's
Thameslink, to be precise).

Personally i think "St Pauls Thameslink" is a much better name since
it locates the station precisely. City Thameslink on the other hand is
pretty vague and could mean anywhere from Holborn to Aldgate.

B2003

In message
, at
11:15:28 on Sun, 30 Mar 2008, Boltar remarked:
there's never been a bridge there before. I think what it might have
been like when the line went in over Ludgate Hill between Blackfriars

There are pictures of that bridge around online, I saw them once but I
can't remember the site.

http://www.loveplums.co.uk/Tube/Holb...t_station.html
--
Roland Perry

Boltar wrote:

Personally i think "St Pauls Thameslink" is a much better name since
it locates the station precisely.

Not really as it's nowhere near the existing St. Paul's tube station. All
the other "Something Thameslink" stations are within interchangable distance
of the other stations of the same name.

City Thameslink on the other hand is
pretty vague and could mean anywhere from Holborn to Aldgate.

Well yes - but the name should be something specific to locate it *and* not
be a name already taken.

In message , Tim Roll-Pickering
writes
Boltar wrote:

Personally i think "St Pauls Thameslink" is a much better name since
it locates the station precisely.

Not really as it's nowhere near the existing St. Paul's tube station. All
the other "Something Thameslink" stations are within interchangable distance
of the other stations of the same name.

City Thameslink on the other hand is
pretty vague and could mean anywhere from Holborn to Aldgate.

Well yes - but the name should be something specific to locate it *and* not
be a name already taken.

Okay, I'll suggest Ludgate Hill Thameslink.

Any advance on that?
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

In article , Ian Jelf
writes
In message , Tim Roll-Pickering
writes
Boltar wrote:

Personally i think "St Pauls Thameslink" is a much better name since
it locates the station precisely.

Not really as it's nowhere near the existing St. Paul's tube station. All
the other "Something Thameslink" stations are within interchangable distance
of the other stations of the same name.

City Thameslink on the other hand is
pretty vague and could mean anywhere from Holborn to Aldgate.

Well yes - but the name should be something specific to locate it *and* not
be a name already taken.

Okay, I'll suggest Ludgate Hill Thameslink.

Any advance on that?

Holborn Viaduct Thameslink.
After all, one entrance is where the old H.V. station used to be.
--
Bill Borland

On 30 Mar, 20:44, Bill Borland wrote:

In article , Ian Jelf
writes

In message , Tim Roll-Pickering

writes

Boltar wrote:

Personally i think "St Pauls Thameslink" is a much better name since
it locates the station precisely.

Not really as it's nowhere near the existing St. Paul's tube station. All
the other "Something Thameslink" stations are within interchangable distance
of the other stations of the same name.

City Thameslink on the other hand is
pretty vague and could mean anywhere from Holborn to Aldgate.

Well yes - but the name should be something specific to locate it *and* not
be a name already taken.

Okay, I'll suggest Ludgate Hill Thameslink.

Any advance on that?

Holborn Viaduct Thameslink.
After all, one entrance is where the old H.V. station used to be.

Ludgate Circus.

Or how's about just plain Ludgate - the old gate itself was about
halfway between the Cathedral and Ludgate Circus, so it's a more
geographically immediate name than St Paul's - though I do have to
grant you that it doesn't exist any more!