What's going to be done with the London Bridge trainshed?

Status
Not open for further replies.

asylumxl

Established Member
Joined
12 Feb 2009
Messages
4,260
Location
Hiding in your shadow
As I understand it, the plans for the new London Bridge station include the removal of the trainshed roof. If this is correct, I have a few questions.e

Does anyone have any idea what's going to be done with it after it's removal? Is it going to just be scrapped or will it be preserved in some capacity?

Also, why is it that various other London termini are having their train sheds restored after years of neglect and London Bridge Is having it's totally got rid of?

Thanks :)
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

ert47

Member
Joined
28 Feb 2010
Messages
666
Take whatever I say with a grain of salt for the mo...

As I understand it, the plans for the new London Bridge station include the removal of the trainshed roof. If this is correct, I have a few questions.e
It be correct.

Does anyone have any idea what's going to be done with it after it's removal? Is it going to just be scrapped or will it be preserved in some capacity?
I've heard it be being placed in storage.

Also, why is it that various other London termini are having their train sheds restored after years of neglect and London Bridge Is having it's totally got rid of?
Because of the redevelopment, as the through platforms are being expanded, platforms 7(lol)/8 (and possibly 9 methinks) will be removed from their current terminating status and changed into 2 through platforms.

This will mean that the lines will have to be re-aligned coming into London from the South (or East, however you look at it) and the current wall between platforms 8/9 gets in the way.

The only option is to remove the wall, but then this means that the engine shed will have to be removed as it is built to cover the existing number of platforms - not more, not less. The only option is to remove it.

As for it being re-instated (albeit smaller than it currently is) I has no ideas


Hope that makes sense, (and I hope someone could explain it better)
 

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
9,333
Last I heard, Railworld in Peterborough was interested in acquiring the train shed.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
5,728
Take whatever I say with a grain of salt for the mo...
Because of the redevelopment, as the through platforms are being expanded, platforms 7(lol)/8 (and possibly 9 methinks) will be removed from their current terminating status and changed into 2 through platforms.

This will mean that the lines will have to be re-aligned coming into London from the South (or East, however you look at it) and the current wall between platforms 8/9 gets in the way.

The only option is to remove the wall, but then this means that the engine shed will have to be removed as it is built to cover the existing number of platforms - not more, not less. The only option is to remove it.

Hope that makes sense, (and I hope someone could explain it better)
The terminating platforms are getting rebuilt too - and the shed columns are in all the wrong places for what they want to do. (The terminating platforms were rejigged in the '70s it think they may have previously had loops to remove engines at the front of trains between each set of platforms hence an unhelpful spacing of columns if you want to have 2 tracks rather than 3 between platforms.) The BR solution at the time was the current narrow platforms.

The rebuild will start at the southern (terminating) side of the station, the offices and signal equipment that takes up what would be p17 or 18 if they existed will go, in their place and that of P10-P16 will 3 new wider terminating island platforms built (i.e. 6 platform faces). These platforms will be wider for better people flow and have stairs and lifts down to the new access through the arches below, there will be access to the concourse as at the NW end as at present. The new islands will be done 1 at a time (proceeding northwards) to keep 6 terminating platforms in operation. The removal of the inner SSL services from London Bridge (and transfer to Overground) will free up some of the platform space required.

When the new terminating platforms are done, work starts on completely rebuilding P1-9 (and the through track), again an island at time proceeding northwards).
 

John Webb

Established Member
Joined
5 Jun 2010
Messages
1,882
Location
St Albans
Railworld at Peterborough have expressed a willingnessto give the shed a new home (I think it would cover their whole site!) but have no money to pay for the re-erection of it.
 

otomous

Member
Joined
5 Oct 2011
Messages
444
HWL, do you know whether ALL of the new terminating platforms will be 12 cars long? Last I heard only 4 of them were, the others being 10 and 8 if memory serves right, but I gather this was not set in stone.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
5,728
HWL, do you know whether ALL of the new terminating platforms will be 12 cars long? Last I heard only 4 of them were, the others being 10 and 8 if memory serves right, but I gather this was not set in stone.
My understanding is indeed that it isn't set in stone but was originally 4x 12cars (x20m) and 2x 8car (x20m), the southern most (new p14/15) slightly shorter due to the shard at the concourse end (they wanted a lot of circulating space before the gates) and the viaduct narrowing at the other. The 8 car solution for one island didn't seem to be pushing what was / is possible (NR still wanting some storage space?) and makes less sense since the Southern order for 10 car 377 (379s) many of which would be coming / going from that side (i.e. via Tulse Hill routes) while the shorter DMUs come in at the other side, thus potentially leading to lots of crossing and fewer actual paths. It has been very quite a while since any news on this.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
24,562
Location
Yorks
I have to say, the terminal platforms in the trainshed have never struck me as being particularly narrow (compared to say, 1-4 at Charing Cross or 1 and 2 at Brighton). Also the Southern part of the trainshed is underused, which appears to be because of the approach being blocked by London Bridge signal box.

Personally, I'd still rather see better use made of the space between the trainshed and existing through platforms than the demolition of the trainshed, but I fear that the wheels are already set in motion on this one.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
23,111
My understanding is indeed that it isn't set in stone but was originally 4x 12cars (x20m) and 2x 8car (x20m), the southern most (new p14/15) slightly shorter due to the shard at the concourse end (they wanted a lot of circulating space before the gates) and the viaduct narrowing at the other. The 8 car solution for one island didn't seem to be pushing what was / is possible (NR still wanting some storage space?) and makes less sense since the Southern order for 10 car 377 (379s) many of which would be coming / going from that side (i.e. via Tulse Hill routes) while the shorter DMUs come in at the other side, thus potentially leading to lots of crossing and fewer actual paths. It has been very quite a while since any news on this.
The formal planning drawings that were eventually placed online by Southwark council last July show that the six terminating platforms are all definitely at least 12 car, we discussed it in a thread at the time IIRC, but I've attached the drawing again here:
 

Attachments

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
23,111
Personally, I'd still rather see better use made of the space between the trainshed and existing through platforms than the demolition of the trainshed, but I fear that the wheels are already set in motion on this one.
How could you possibly fit three additional platforms with adequate levels of circulating area in that existing space though? More importantly, how do you fit in the extra approach tracks? That's the whole point of the rebuild after all...
 

brad465

Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
972
Location
Maidstone
Considering the Charing X through platforms will be closed for around 1-1.5 years, then the same with the Cannon Street platforms, the station won't have much use at the time, some trains could be diverted away, and the station traffic wise in terms of trains and passengers and size in use will not be far of the scale of Blackfriars right now (only the 2 through platforms open, and a lot of construction elsewhere).

This should mean less traffic should cause less disruption while the train shed is removed, and it would obviously be removed in stages, as for the platforms, less trains, less of a problem.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
23,111
This should mean less traffic should cause less disruption while the train shed is removed, and it would obviously be removed in stages, as for the platforms, less trains, less of a problem.
The construction process was most recently discussed a few days ago in this thread (not immediately obvious from the title!), I linked to a work schedule document from the planning website, and there's also some speculation about the detailed sequence there too:

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=60696
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
24,562
Location
Yorks
How could you possibly fit three additional platforms with adequate levels of circulating area in that existing space though? More importantly, how do you fit in the extra approach tracks? That's the whole point of the rebuild after all...
Have the extra through platforms staggered further West Slightly to go over where the concourse is now. Extend the circulating area under where the existing through platforms are now. Close the two most southerly existing platforms and rebuild them with the new ones, then when these are open, sweep away the most northern four through platforms and extend the Mezzanine under them.

At least, that's roughly how I would imagine such a process - albeit not being an engineer.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
23,111
At least, that's roughly how I would imagine such a process - albeit not being an engineer.
Presumably though, the people who actually are qualified engineers, would have done that if it was at all possible? Perhaps there was a design rule to stay within the site boundaries where possible - look at the issues surrounding the new viaduct before that was allowed.

Why would they pass up the possibility of a seriously reduced build programme, and end up with 9 through AND 9 terminating paltforms? You can only assume it must not be possible...
 

asylumxl

Established Member
Joined
12 Feb 2009
Messages
4,260
Location
Hiding in your shadow
Presumably though, the people who actually are qualified engineers, would have done that if it was at all possible?

Why would they pass up the possibility of a seriously reduced build programme, and end up with 9 through AND 9 terminating paltforms? You can only assume it must not be possible...
Or was deemed too expensive...
 

Barn

Established Member
Joined
3 Sep 2008
Messages
1,433
When the new terminating platforms are done, work starts on completely rebuilding P1-9 (and the through track), again an island at time proceeding northwards).
Will there be a through loop (non-platform) track in the rebuilt station?


 

Waddon

Member
Joined
15 Sep 2009
Messages
469
In regard to the original post about what is happening to the train shed post-removal, I hope it can find use on a preserved railway somewhere, after all this will probably be the last victorian era trainshed that is ever likely to come available anywhere in the UK, maybe it could be partly re-erected at somewhere like the Great Central's Leicester station (Ok I know it's not geographically accurate to put it there, but anyhow...) It would have been nice to see it erected somewhere on a preserved line in the Southern area but I can't think of any where there would be space
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
24,562
Location
Yorks
Presumably though, the people who actually are qualified engineers, would have done that if it was at all possible? Perhaps there was a design rule to stay within the site boundaries where possible - look at the issues surrounding the new viaduct before that was allowed.

Why would they pass up the possibility of a seriously reduced build programme, and end up with 9 through AND 9 terminating paltforms? You can only assume it must not be possible...
Not necessarily.

I'm sure the engineers will have looked at all sorts of solutions. As far as I'm aware, the current plan only came about a few years ago, so they would have looked at many options before then as well.

I find it hard to believe that there would be no way to fit eight platforms within the footprint outside of the shed. Admittedly, nine becomes much more difficult, but we've simply not seen anything from the engineers to suggest whether or not it would be possible anyway.

I'm also not convinced that the planned re-build is seriously reduced as I believe they're sweeping away the existing viaduct anyway and building a mezzanine.

Also, the current plan is to only leave six terminal platforms. If the trainshed were to remain, you would have space for more of these in addition to the additional through platforms outside, and a greater flexibility to deal with future growth. It might form a way of providing more capacity from Sussex, as trains could use the Dorking route into London (currently underused) and would at least have somewhere in London with decent Underground connections to terminate.
 

brad465

Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
972
Location
Maidstone
The construction process was most recently discussed a few days ago in this thread (not immediately obvious from the title!), I linked to a work schedule document from the planning website, and there's also some speculation about the detailed sequence there too:

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=60696
Fair enough, however, I also wrote about the works disruption in this thread I started on 1/1/12: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=57755&highlight=London+Bridge+2015-2017

But, considering it was a while ago, and going into that may go off topic, I won't go into any more detail over history with talk about the station. :|
 

Chris125

Established Member
Joined
12 Nov 2009
Messages
2,583
In regard to the original post about what is happening to the train shed post-removal, I hope it can find use on a preserved railway somewhere, after all this will probably be the last victorian era trainshed that is ever likely to come available anywhere in the UK, maybe it could be partly re-erected at somewhere like the Great Central's Leicester station...
It would be massively too big for Leicester, the only real possibility might be Ruddington but i dont think there are any realistic plans now for relocation - besides, i think NR have now got permission to demolish rather than dismantle the roof, presumably due its condition and the cost and difficulty of doing so. With little or no chance of it ever being re-erected i think its loss is now inevitable.

Chris
 
Last edited:

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
24,562
Location
Yorks
Oh yes, the old "it's too old, it's unrepairable, it's in such bad condition" line. How often have we heard that, then when demolitions turned down by the Authorities it's miraculously repaired.

We've heard that yarn too many times before.
 

Chris125

Established Member
Joined
12 Nov 2009
Messages
2,583
Oh yes, the old "it's too old, it's unrepairable, it's in such bad condition" line. How often have we heard that, then when demolitions turned down by the Authorities it's miraculously repaired.

We've heard that yarn too many times before.
Sometimes you have to be pragmatic - it cant be retained where it is, and even if they could dismantle it realistically there's little hope of ever finding a new home for such a large structure.

Chris
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
24,562
Location
Yorks
Even if they can't re-use it where it is it should certainly be dismantled. If they say that can't be done I'm even less convinced I'm afraid.
 

asylumxl

Established Member
Joined
12 Feb 2009
Messages
4,260
Location
Hiding in your shadow
Oh yes, the old "it's too old, it's unrepairable, it's in such bad condition" line. How often have we heard that, then when demolitions turned down by the Authorities it's miraculously repaired.

We've heard that yarn too many times before.
This was what I was alluding to when I asked why other stations are getting the sheds restored.

It really does seem like the current London Bridge is a poor relation to the other termini in that respect.
 

Chris125

Established Member
Joined
12 Nov 2009
Messages
2,583
Even if they can't re-use it where it is it should certainly be dismantled. If they say that can't be done I'm even less convinced I'm afraid.
What makes you think it can be dismantled? Even if it can be done 'in theory' given its age, construction and condition you have to bear in mind the cost, time and practical constraints of where it is.

It may be possible if time and money was no limit, but they are and if there's no realistic chance of it ever being rebuilt going to extreme lengths cant be justified and rightly so - just look at how long it took to find the far more practical and iconic Kings Cross footbridge a new home, and how its now being used.

Chris
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
24,562
Location
Yorks
This was what I was alluding to when I asked why other stations are getting the sheds restored.

It really does seem like the current London Bridge is a poor relation to the other termini in that respect.
Indeed. In truth I believe it's because under the current plans, the footprint of the through platforms will be fatter and encroach on the trainsheds space. I do wonder whether this is the only way it can be done.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
What makes you think it can be dismantled? Even if it can be done 'in theory' given its age, construction and condition you have to bear in mind the cost, time and practical constraints of where it is.

It may be possible if time and money was no limit, but they are and if there's no realistic chance of it ever being rebuilt going to extreme lengths cant be justified and rightly so - just look at how long it took to find the far more practical and iconic Kings Cross footbridge a new home, and how its now being used.

Chris
Peterborough has already offered a home for it.

And I don't see how the footbridge at Kings Cross is in anyway more iconic - it isn't even a landmark in the same way as the London bridge trainshed. Perhaps if the Hogwarts express had been heading towards Brighton :D

Perhaps it would be impossible to dismantle it, but as I've said before, the railway has a long history of saying things like this for convenience when they turn out to be nonsense (4th span at Paddington, Ribblehead viaduct etc)
 
Last edited:

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
23,111
Fair enough, however, I also wrote about the works disruption in this thread I started on 1/1/12: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=57755&highlight=London+Bridge+2015-2017

But, considering it was a while ago, and going into that may go off topic, I won't go into any more detail over history with talk about the station. :|
I also replied with #3 in that thread with the same work schedule from the planning website. :D Problem is new people keep asking basically the same questions - it's hard to keep track...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top