London Bridge - new platforms, same old problems

[SteveUK1978]

From the images in the leaflets they hand out I think the re-design looks great and the whole area is clearly much improved as a result of all the investment to date and that continues.

Glad you were in the minority RCH.

[James Barber]

I have to disagree with you SteveUK1978.

In the planning application NetworkRail stated their design could only ever cope with 15mins train delays. WE've all experienced longer delays than 15 mins. When it happens the station will be unsafe so they will close it.

they've replaced total coverage of terminating platforms with partial coverage. Windy rain the passengers get wet.

This isn't the civic public building to represent a great London in the 21st century. It's mean spirited dross designed to create shopping malls rather than great public transport interchange that lifts the spirits.

[healey]

They're completely rebuilding the station so moaning at a staff member isn't going to change a thing - they're powerless as far as the construction work is concerned.

[healey]

James Barber Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I have to disagree with you SteveUK1978.

> In the planning application NetworkRail stated

> their design could only ever cope with 15mins

> train delays. WE've all experienced longer delays

> than 15 mins. When it happens the station will be

> unsafe so they will close it.

> they've replaced total coverage of terminating

> platforms with partial coverage. Windy rain the

> passengers get wet.

>

> This isn't the civic public building to represent

> a great London in the 21st century. It's mean

> spirited dross designed to create shopping malls

> rather than great public transport interchange

> that lifts the spirits.

Hyperbole.

[Jeremy]

> they've replaced total coverage of terminating

> platforms with partial coverage.

Not sure what you mean by "total coverage", but the platforms were definitely uncovered when you got further away from the station. And they were constantly flooded whenever there was a bit of rain.

I'm hoping the narrow platforms are a temporary measure, because a whole trainload of people slowly shuffling through that narrow space is clearly ridiculous - and unsafe.

Also reducing from 16 to 15 platforms... I'm unsure how this is progress?

The building itself... I think it's fine. It's not beautiful, but it feels light and spacious compared to the old station.

[Tr?]

Interested to know what heritage buildings are going to be demolished?

[rch]

Here's a Huffington Post commentary that was widely quoted at the time. Both English Heritage and Terence Conran agreed that the design could have been more sympathetic:-

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/rooksana-hossenally/britsh-heritage-versus-future-enterprise_b_1204776.html

In the end, the Planning Committee compromised by agreeing that our Planning Officers would work with Network Rail to salvage the poorly designed frontage by adding more glass and curves, which is the design you see promoted today although it's still not exactly considered to be very special. But Network Rail wouldn't agree to incorporate the heritage buildings, probably because it's just cheaper to knock the whole lot down.

The southern frontage, which backs onto the Shard, is much better... opening up the public realm to the Shard and Guy's Hospital is working really well.

[miga]

.

[MarkE]

I checked the running of the trains first thing this morning and they seemed fine. Arriving into LBG on the 8:10 from EDW (which was running to time) we hit a queue waiting to get into LBG.

The queue of people trying to get off at LBG, passing the few people waiting in the 'pen' will undoubtedly have taken longer than Southern have timetables the turnaround of the train, hence causing further delays.

I did notice that other services were also queuing to get into LBG at the same time, however, so it didn't seem to be restricted to our service. In the meantime, however, it also seemed apparent that platform 14 is not in use - has a further platform been taken away for the time being?

[Earl Aelfheah]

They were using electric cattle prods to herd people in the pen this morning.

[Earl Aelfheah]

... that may not be entirely true

[miga]

...

[Penguin68]

London Bridge has always been a ?troubled? station, with a complex history.

Originally built for the London & Greenwich Railway (the oldest in London) it opened in December 1836. By 1842 the South Eastern Railway (SER) also terminated in London Bridge, as did the Croydon Company and then the London, Brighton and South Coast Railways Company (which latter two subsequently merged as the LB&SCR in 1846).

By the late 1850s the two companies operating into London Bridge were the SER and the LB&SCR ? running virtually separate stations on the site ? with a wall separating their two sets of platforms (the SER was to the north). Two platforms in 1836 became 21 at the station?s heyday (how have the mighty fallen!).

By as early as 1854 10 million passenger a year were using the station. (Source:- ?Bankside? by David Brandon and Alan Brooke)

Tne troubles in 2014 are just part of its rich history.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Didn't they sell the original London Bridge station to a yank who thought he was getting St Pancras?

[StraferJack]

is that the same as the yank who was sold the original London Bridge itself, thinking it was Tower Bridge?

[Penguin68]

the original London Bridge itself

It was the 19th century replacement London Bridge (not the medieval second or third bridge - often though of as the original because it had the longest history - which had houses, shops a chapel (and a mini stately home) on it) - and most evidence suggests he did know what he was buying.

[Earl Aelfheah]

He also bought Peckham thinking he was getting Durham.

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> is that the same as the yank who was sold the

> original London Bridge itself, thinking it was

> Tower Bridge?

[Otta]

But most disappointing, he bought West Dulwich thinking he was buying East Dulwich.

[StraferJack]

Just in case anyone thought I was joking

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Bridge

( should be noted that the buyer denied he got the wrong bridge... But c'mon)

[Earl Aelfheah]

:-)

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But most disappointing, he bought West Dulwich

> thinking he was buying East Dulwich.

[BrandNewGuy]

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ( should be noted that the buyer denied he got the

> wrong bridge... But c'mon)

Indeed - and many tourists still call Tower Bridge "London Bridge" in my experience. Check "London Bridge" on Google images - 10 of the first 16 photos are of Tower Bridge.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Reminds me of the tourists you used to see taking photos of the clock outside Victoria station, looking a little disappointed that Big Ben is so much smaller than they'd imagined.

[Toddinator]

Nightmare at LB tonight - experienced the new farm yard penning system!

[charlesfare]

I used to take the train from ED to london bridge for work for about a year and to be honest, a lot of people travelling that way do move like cattle and should be treated as such. I'm obviously exagerating but I think the whole thing with congestion would be easier if people moved with a bit more pep in their step.

[Tr?]

Take the No.40 folks, it's a pleasant ride if you get on early enough.

Maybe reserve the cattle prod for phone or book zombies.