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)

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?

Cannon Street station opened in 1866, and for the next 50 years most
trains were reversed there before continuing to Charing Cross (opened
1864). H.P. White wrote in 1963; "In 1904 between 5 and 6 p.m. on
weekdays 25 down trains and almost as many up passed through London
Bridge and all but 2 or 3 had to be reversed in Cannon Street." And
these were all steam-hauled! In those days, Cannon Street had more
passengers than Charing Cross, so the demand was clearly there.

Also, the (horse-drawn) traffic congestion along the Strand and Fleet
Street in the 1870s and 80s was such that a shuttle service at 5-minute
intervals was run on an additional track between Charing Cross and
Cannon Street. (The Circle Line wasn't completed through Cannon Street
until 1884.)

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

"Obadiah Jones" wrote in message
...
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?



Built back when they were seperate and rival railway companies.
Cannon st station opened 1866.

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 Oct 18, 10:46 pm, "Obadiah Jones"
wrote:

Or perhaps I should say 'what was the motivation for building it'?

I seem to remember that the las remaining boat train to France left
from Cannon Street, either until quite recently - or it still does.

On 18 Oct, 23:03, MIG 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.

I wonder what the stats are. I'm thinking that the number of people
who have London Bridge as a final destination must be increasing, when
you think of all the employers in the area (Guy's Hospital, Ernst &
Young, Norton Rose, the rest of the More London Estate) plus the
popularity of Borough Market and Borough High Street generally.

Patrick

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