London Bridge reconstruction works

[swt_passenger]

The plan was always to have 1 or possibly 2 fewer Cannon St services per hour than before, so there would have been no justification for a further platform. It’s been explained before that the feature limiting the overall capacity on lines 1-3 is the number of approach tracks towards Cannon St’s platforms.

 

[mr_jrt]

I can understand why the original platform 1 at Cannon St. was sacrificed, but if the will were there would it be possible to widen the bridge slightly on the eastern side on the north bank or to otherwise adjust the other platform widths to squeeze an 8th platform back in? ...I suspect the listed walls rather set the limits, but thought I'd ask regardless as despite the station and bridge being rather straight there does seem to be the curvature you would expect towards London Bridge (resulting in some spare space on the bridge), meaning you could conceivably retain the longer platforms whilst gaining platform 1 back with said widening.

 

[Daz28]

The plan was always to have 1 or possibly 2 fewer Cannon St services per hour than before, so there would have been no justification for a further platform. It’s been explained before that the feature limiting the overall capacity on lines 1-3 is the number of Cannon St platforms.

I’m struggling to understand that. Cannon Street has 7 terminating platforms fed by three platforms at London Bridge, whereas Charing Cross has 6 terminating platforms fed by four platforms at London Bridge.

 

[carriageline]

I’m struggling to understand that. Cannon Street has 7 terminating platforms fed by three platforms at London Bridge, whereas Charing Cross has 6 terminating platforms fed by four platforms at London Bridge.

Charing Cross is busier throughout the entire day.
Charing Cross station is also fed by 4 tracks.

Cannon Sts major limitation is borough market junction, and how close it is to the station throat. The signalling is also very tight outside Cannon St

 

[Bald Rick]

I kinda thought for all the money spent and rebuilding there’d be some operational improvements. I’m sure when 1,2,3 were closed I didn’t ofyen notice a tailback. It feels like it’s only back since the new platforms opened.

There wouldn’t have been a tailback, as none of the trains were calling at London Bridge.

Given all they've done, and all the money spent, I'm surprised they didn't add a fourth platform for Cannon Street services. It seems like some space could have been found from Tooley Street, perhaps at the expense of part of the top floor of The Shipwrights Arms, but given what they did to The Wheatsheaf this doesn't seem like something that would pose much of an engineering challenge.

A fourth platform would have been right out over Tooley St itself, also Bermondsey St and Holyrood St. Not at all practical. Even then, as others have said, it doesn’t solve the actual problem which is Borough Market Junction. To solve that you need a new track there, and that means going into Southwark Cathedral.

 

[swt_passenger]

I’m struggling to understand that. Cannon Street has 7 terminating platforms fed by three platforms at London Bridge, whereas Charing Cross has 6 terminating platforms fed by four platforms at London Bridge.

yes, I should have said more limited approach paths to Cannon St.

 

[ijmad]

Well, it's nearly the end of the bank holiday weekend, and it seems they've still only removed two gates from the upper concourse temporary gateline, not the whole lot. Perhaps something went wrong or some parts didn't arrive?

 

[Mikey C]

It seems like there hasn't been a day so far when all the lifts are working. They're perhaps more complicated than most, being freestanding and pushed up from below, rather than on a usual counterweight system. It's a bit of a shame they didn't put two lifts in for each pair of platforms - the space appears to be there for it.

Also seems to be very little progress being made on the final alternations to the high level platforms. There's been machinery parked up in the concourse taking up a lot of space ever since it opened in January.

The platform 1 lift working, but one of the banks of escalators is still out of action

One thing that's struck me today (and on my previous visit) is that trains are being dispatched very promptly. My SE service went a few seconds early, and one on another platform went bang on time too.

 

[FOH]

There wouldn’t have been a tailback, as none of the trains were calling at London Bridge.

But if the issues are with the junction and Cannon Street why would it make any difference whether or not trains are stopping at London Bridge?

 

[Bald Rick]

But if the issues are with the junction and Cannon Street why would it make any difference whether or not trains are stopping at London Bridge?

Because the train stopping at London Bridge effectively ‘disrupt’ the flow, and are another potential cause of delay. The blocking back usually happens if one is overtime at London Bridge, having a ripple effect behind. That doesn’t happen so often at Cannon St, and even if it does, the blocking back is much closer to Cannon St.

 

[FOH]

Because the train stopping at London Bridge effectively ‘disrupt’ the flow, and are another potential cause of delay. The blocking back usually happens if one is overtime at London Bridge, having a ripple effect behind. That doesn’t happen so often at Cannon St, and even if it does, the blocking back is much closer to Cannon St.

Ok, still not sure I totally get this as if one is late at London Bridge I’d expect it’d then be the recipient of a clear run into Cannon Street. Anyway you’ve a wiser head than I and I appreciate the replies. I think the original point stands though that the deal hasn’t improved at all for Cannon Street commuters.

 

[ComUtoR]

Ok, still not sure I totally get this as if one is late at London Bridge I’d expect it’d then be the recipient of a clear run into Cannon Street.

You never get a clear run into Cannon Street. The junction acts like a bottleneck and more often than not you are waiting something coming out and coming across you. The Junction is effectively 1 in 1 out.

The second part is different. When London Bridge was closed there were also less services into Cannon Street. Stopping at London Bridge was never an issue and you were clear all the way to the Junction. Headway was decent and the any service behind you had a decent path should it go wrong. You could also use London Bridge as a reversible line and dump a unit on the adjacent platform.

Now trains have to stop at London Bridge. The stacking up and the bottle neck begins with anything waiting in the platform. You have additional services and ones now waiting on the platform unloading passengers etc. That time waiting to unload also prevents using the adjacent platform to get a train round as that platform also gets blocked. Even if the train in the platform has a 'clear run' into Cannon Street units get slowed down into London Bridge all the way back to North Kent. It's the same getting out of Cannon. Once you left you had a 'clear run' out of London. Now your clear Cannon and hit the back of something in the platform at London Bridge. You then block the junction at Cannon Street and start to create a knock on effect for incoming services too as the bottle neck through into and out of Cannon.

London Bridge also suffers with 'Operational Issues' The slightest knock to services and you start to get services terminating at London Bridge. This never used to happen as you couldn't stop so everything 'flowed' in the same direction. With services terminating again, the wait in either direction can often create more delay as Driver turnaround can be 10 minutes, thus corking up the bottle.

You are totally right though, Thameslink got all the love. SE just got screwed.

 

[carriageline]

Mr Rick and Mr Utor pretty much hit the nails on the head. It is a million and one things that combine into a big problem. A few extra points:

When trains were not stopping at London Bridge they were a lot more predictable and Cannon St was operated differently to today. Now they stop, you don’t signal them too far towards Cannon St, as if they sit at London Bridge too long they would then crucify the station throat.

When they weren’t stopping, the Cannon st trains seemed to be padded to high heaven (think they still had time allowance for stopping at London Bridge). So even if a train was 8 late, you knew you could get it into the platform at Cannon St and have it within PPM if given a clear run.

Having a major station like London Bridge, right outside a major terminus is operationally bit of a nightmare. Throw in a complicated, tight throat, and a slow, very tight junction. Then this is the result.

If trains are a couple of minutes late, then they start to loose their slots over the junction. Towards the evening peak a lot of empties are pumped up towards Cannon St. Even in the timetable, trains are essentially booked to wait. once that que starts building, it soon builds up quickly.

Outside London Bridge heading towards Cannon st is a big bottle neck. as a train crawls out of London Bridge on a double yellow, the one on the adjacent platform is waiting it’s slot to follow it. Something will inevitably be crossing over at Borough Market Jct, means the first train sits at the junction, with one closely sat in London Bridge. If the first train was a 12 car, then it might even still be overhanging the empty platform, meaning no other train can drop into London Bridge.

A 12 car can almost touch the points outside the platforms and borough market jct. If you have a 12 car waiting a platform, then nothing else can really go in.

 

[FOH]

Interesting messages thanks. Makes me wonder then why the platforms were built much further to the West than the lower level platforms.

 

[Bald Rick]

Interesting messages thanks. Makes me wonder then why the platforms were built much further to the West than the lower level platforms.

Take at look at the area via your preferred provider of Aerial imagery. See where the platforms would have to go if they had moved east. Even moving the 50 metres to match the low level would have meant substantial landtake, demolition and lots more new viaduct. And the concourse would have been 50m further from the tube.

 

[FOH]

Take at look at the area via your preferred provider of Aerial imagery. See where the platforms would have to go if they had moved east. Even moving the 50 metres to match the low level would have meant substantial landtake, demolition and lots more new viaduct. And the concourse would have been 50m further from the tube.

Yeah I see that but equally the tightness is because the low level platforms are needlessly much further East than they were before. What looking overhead did make me think was why weren’t the lines just driven straight through the site of the News building when the previous layout was razed and the huge kink gotten rid off

 

[Bald Rick]

Yeah I see that but equally the tightness is because the low level platforms are needlessly much further East than they were before. What looking overhead did make me think was why weren’t the lines just driven straight through the site of the News building when the previous layout was razed and the huge kink gotten rid off

Aside from having to buy £100m worth of real estate, it would have made the curve much tighter, which would have reduced linespeed, extended journey times and consequently reduced capacity.

The people who do these things consider all options!

 

[swt_passenger]

Yeah I see that but equally the tightness is because the low level platforms are needlessly much further East than they were before...

Is it really that far? Looks from the plans that the buffers for P14/15 are actually somewhat closer than they were before, and the others only a few yards further away, but allowing for a much larger circulation area.

 

[ijmad]

Honestly it seems like poor foresight to have allowed The Shard to be built where it is. I know there was a tower block on the land parcel before but it was smaller and there was more room in front of the station.

I guess they likely collected a nice amount of cash from the sale of the site if so, but it seems like it would've been useful to have that space to move the terminal platforms up in to.

 

[Bald Rick]

Honestly it seems like poor foresight to have allowed The Shard to be built where it is. I know there was a tower block on the land parcel before but it was smaller and there was more room in front of the station.

I guess they likely collected a nice amount of cash from the sale of the site if so, but it seems like it would've been useful to have that space to move the terminal platforms up in to.

It would have beeen a very, very expensive way to get a few extra metres of the concourse. I’m not going to give out numbers, but that land was worth a lot of money, and it wasn't all in railway ownership.

 

[ijmad]

It would have beeen a very, very expensive way to get a few extra metres of the concourse. I’m not going to give out numbers, but that land was worth a lot of money, and it want all in railway ownership.

Yeah, figures! Did wonder if the land the Shard is on was NR owned or not!

 

[Bald Rick]

Yeah, figures! Did wonder if the land the Shard is on was NR owned or not!

Key letter missing from my original post (now edited) - the land wasn’t all in railway ownership.

 

[tomuk]

Mr Rick and Mr Utor pretty much hit the nails on the head. It is a million and one things that combine into a big problem. A few extra points:

When trains were not stopping at London Bridge they were a lot more predictable and Cannon St was operated differently to today. Now they stop, you don’t signal them too far towards Cannon St, as if they sit at London Bridge too long they would then crucify the station throat.

When they weren’t stopping, the Cannon st trains seemed to be padded to high heaven (think they still had time allowance for stopping at London Bridge). So even if a train was 8 late, you knew you could get it into the platform at Cannon St and have it within PPM if given a clear run.

Having a major station like London Bridge, right outside a major terminus is operationally bit of a nightmare. Throw in a complicated, tight throat, and a slow, very tight junction. Then this is the result.

If trains are a couple of minutes late, then they start to loose their slots over the junction. Towards the evening peak a lot of empties are pumped up towards Cannon St. Even in the timetable, trains are essentially booked to wait. once that que starts building, it soon builds up quickly.

Outside London Bridge heading towards Cannon st is a big bottle neck. as a train crawls out of London Bridge on a double yellow, the one on the adjacent platform is waiting it’s slot to follow it. Something will inevitably be crossing over at Borough Market Jct, means the first train sits at the junction, with one closely sat in London Bridge. If the first train was a 12 car, then it might even still be overhanging the empty platform, meaning no other train can drop into London Bridge.

A 12 car can almost touch the points outside the platforms and borough market jct. If you have a 12 car waiting a platform, then nothing else can really go in.

Would it make sense to reduce Cannon Street to 6 platforms, and shift the throat to the left. The platforms could be straighter and wider and with the layout being more symmetrical a faster, simpler set of crossovers installed. Possibly even removing the Metropolitan Reversible.

 

[ijmad]

Would it make sense to reduce Cannon Street to 6 platforms, and shift the throat to the left. The platforms could be straighter and wider and with the layout being more symmetrical a faster, simpler set of crossovers installed. Possibly even removing the Metropolitan Reversible.

Clearly the solution is to spend £15bn on brand new, vast, deep level stations at London Bridge, Cannon Street and Moorgate, connecting them together in to some sort of Cross London rail network.

... just kidding I'll show myself out.

 

[Mikey C]

Clearly the solution is to spend £15bn on brand new, vast, deep level stations at London Bridge, Cannon Street and Moorgate, connecting them together in to some sort of Cross London rail network.

... just kidding I'll show myself out.

In all seriousness, when you add up all the expenditure on Thameslink from the start (including City Thameslink station), I'd love to know how much has it cost, and how much it would have cost if instead we'd built a brand new deep tunnel and underground stations as with Crossrail?

 

[Bald Rick]

In all seriousness, when you add up all the expenditure on Thameslink from the start (including City Thameslink station), I'd love to know how much has it cost, and how much it would have cost if instead we'd built a brand new deep tunnel and underground stations as with Crossrail?

It’s not really that simple, as much of it needed doing anyway, e.g. London Bridge Resignalling, much of the track outside London Bridge was life expired, and something would had to have been done at London Bridge station itself, as most of the buildings were condemned, and there weren’t enough long platforms on the Sussex side. Outside the core, the platform extensions, station works and power supply upgrades would have been needed regardless of whether it was the existing tunnel or a new one.

When you take all that into account, what you wou,d save is the resignalling of the core, the canal tunnels and the new St Pancras station, the upgrades at Farringdon and Blackfriars, the new Borough Market viaduct and the Bermondsey dive under, plus a minority share of all the works at London Bridge. Altogether that’s about £2bn worth, which is enough to buy 2 simple Crossrail style deep level stations. No tunnels though.

 

[Daz28]

Clearly the solution is to spend £15bn on brand new, vast, deep level stations at London Bridge, Cannon Street and Moorgate, connecting them together in to some sort of Cross London rail network.

... just kidding I'll show myself out.

Rebuild Charing Cross station as a 6-8 platform station over the Thames (as per Blackfriars). Make 2 of the platforms as a through route into a deep tunnel that pops up at Cannon Street. That way instead of terminating, trains can arrive at Charing Cross and depart from Cannon Street, reducing the conflicting moves and increasing throughput.

I’ll put my crayons away now.

 

[swt_passenger]

...When you take all that into account, what you would save is the resignalling of the core, the canal tunnels and the new St Pancras station, the upgrades at Farringdon and Blackfriars, the new Borough Market viaduct and the Bermondsey dive under, plus a minority share of all the works at London Bridge. Altogether that’s about £2bn worth, which is enough to buy 2 simple Crossrail style deep level stations. No tunnels though.

In the TWA Order decision letter, from back in 2006, the following paragraph appears to make a quick comparison:

"The Inspector noted that the tunnelling option would require a very deep underground station at
London Bridge to avoid existing tunnels and below ground services, which would raise environmental
and technical problems and make interchange significantly more difficult and time-consuming. It
would also cost around two and a half times the proposed Thameslink scheme."

I expect if anyone could find the actual inspectors report online it might provide a fair amount of detail on why alternative suggestions don't stand up to analysis...

 

[hwl]

Honestly it seems like poor foresight to have allowed The Shard to be built where it is. I know there was a tower block on the land parcel before but it was smaller and there was more room in front of the station.

I guess they likely collected a nice amount of cash from the sale of the site if so, but it seems like it would've been useful to have that space to move the terminal platforms up in to.

The Shard site:
Was originally the LBSCR's "Terminus Hotel"...
but wasn't profitable enough due to poor location (south of the River pre Northern line and with a very much lower capacity bridge over the river) and became an LBSCR office...
which became a Southern Railway office in 1923...
which got bombed in 1941 and the remains immediately demolished for safety reasons...
the vacant site was sold off by BR in the 1960s...
so had been out of railway ownership for 50 years by the start of construction.

 

[swt_passenger]

Found an online copy of the Environmental Statement (Alternatives Report section) that reviews the tunnelled option, around section 3.3. It includes:

Both tunnelled alternatives were rejected on operation, construction, cost and environmental grounds. In summary, the reasons for rejection were as follows:
i) It is unlikely that passengers would wish to travel down a number of escalators to a deep level station for interchange purposes. This would mean that the high level services would continue to carry the majority of interchanging passengers;
ii) The scheme would not be likely to reduce significantly overcrowding at London Bridge Station without incorporation of other works. It would make interchange between Thameslink services and those to Cannon Street and Charing Cross more difficult because of the greater interchange distances involved;
iii) Significant expenditure would still be required at London Bridge to improve the station for the Cannon Street, Charing Cross and terminating services, even with the two low level Thameslink platforms;
iv) This would be a technically demanding scheme, particularly the very deep station construction. A great deal of design development work would need to be carried out to confirm that construction and operation would meet with HSE and HMRI approval. There is a significant risk that during the detailed engineering of the scheme further problems would be encountered and that overcoming these would cause major time delay and cost increases;

https://cdn.londonreconnections.com/files/reports/NR2004ThameslinkAlternatives.pdf