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

[Chris125]

Peterborough has already offered a home for it.

Is that offer still open? I dont remember it ever being concrete, and im pretty sure i read that it has since been withdrawn.

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

The trainshed isnt iconic at all IMO - while historically important due to its design, its been something of an eyesore due to its condition for a very long time.

Span 4 and Ribblehead Viaduct are only comparable if you think that Network Rail should also cancel the remodelling of London Bridge - as much as i'd love to see the roof saved, the Thameslink project has to come first.

Chris

 

[yorksrob]

Is that offer still open? I dont remember it ever being concrete, and im pretty sure i read that it has since been withdrawn.

Whether it has or not, it suggests there is the potential for interest there. It's certainly worth storing for the time being.

The trainshed isnt iconic at all IMO - while historically important due to its design, its been something of an eyesore due to its condition for a very long time.

Frankly, I don't see how anybody can describe that structure as an eyesore. Even though it is in need of some care and repair, it's beauty is still strikingly apparent and it still makes an impressive entrance to the capital (unlike the rest of London Bridge, or indeed any of the other terminal stations on that line unfortunately).

Span 4 and Ribblehead Viaduct are only comparable if you think that Network Rail should also cancel the remodelling of London Bridge - as much as i'd love to see the roof saved, the Thameslink project has to come first.

Chris

Absolutely not. I'm perfectly aware of the need for more through platforms to ease the flow through to Charing Cross, Cannon Street and Thameslink. The point is that the footprint of the station outside the trainshed is very large, and I'm sure that with the ingenuity for which our engineers are famous, additional platforms could be provided within this space along with ample circulating space underneath it.

As I've said previously, the current plan retains the same number of platforms overall, which means that whilst the flow Northwards will be eased, it is in my opinion, a wasted opportunity to keep additional terminating capacity at London Bridge to cope with future growth.

 

[HSTEd]

Pity, so we will inevitably end up with London Bridge being the new Euston in 20 years?

 

[yorksrob]

I think that the new plans do have some aesthetic merit, however we will certainly lose something rather wonderful. Waterloo International is a good illustration of how well excellent new architecture can be combined with the best of the old.

 

[John55]

Whether it has or not, it suggests there is the potential for interest there. It's certainly worth storing for the time being.



Frankly, I don't see how anybody can describe that structure as an eyesore. Even though it is in need of some care and repair, it's beauty is still strikingly apparent and it still makes an impressive entrance to the capital (unlike the rest of London Bridge, or indeed any of the other terminal stations on that line unfortunately).



Absolutely not. I'm perfectly aware of the need for more through platforms to ease the flow through to Charing Cross, Cannon Street and Thameslink. The point is that the footprint of the station outside the trainshed is very large, and I'm sure that with the ingenuity for which our engineers are famous, additional platforms could be provided within this space along with ample circulating space underneath it.

As I've said previously, the current plan retains the same number of platforms overall, which means that whilst the flow Northwards will be eased, it is in my opinion, a wasted opportunity to keep additional terminating capacity at London Bridge to cope with future growth.

At London Bridge the distance between the trainshed and the property boundary towards Tooley St at the country end is approximately 47m or (154 ft). In order to fit 9 tracks and platforms in that space you are going to end up with island platforms about 11 ft wide and the side platform 6 ft wide. Do you think that is enough space for all the passengers at London Bridge?

The new layout will have approx 83m (or 260 ft) width at the same point which will allow platforms with reasonable amounts of room for passengers, escalators and stairs etc.

One thing which has always puzzled me is why will there be any terminal platforms at London Bridge. In theory Charing Cross could turn 36 trains round in a peak hour and Cannon St could turn 42 trains round. Why not use the latent capacity in these stations rather than terminate at London Bridge?

 

[Bald Rick]

One thing which has always puzzled me is why will there be any terminal platforms at London Bridge. In theory Charing Cross could turn 36 trains round in a peak hour and Cannon St could turn 42 trains round. Why not use the latent capacity in these stations rather than terminate at London Bridge?

How would you get the trains to CHX and CST ?

 

[yorksrob]

What I would envisage would be that the eastern end of the two island platforms for Charing Cross (i.e. nearer the trainshed) would begin somewhere near the country end of the trainshed and extend over the concourse area nearer two the end of the new viaduct. The remaining five platforms would then be set further east (in a similar position to the current through platforms) and would utilise the space in the Eastern throat.

True, they wouldn't be the super-wide platforms envisaged in the current plan, however they would be similar to the current platforms (wide in the centre and narrower at the ends) which are wide enough to deal with flows of passengers.

 

[Chris125]

Absolutely not. I'm perfectly aware of the need for more through platforms to ease the flow through to Charing Cross, Cannon Street and Thameslink. The point is that the footprint of the station outside the trainshed is very large, and I'm sure that with the ingenuity for which our engineers are famous, additional platforms could be provided within this space along with ample circulating space underneath it.

I've seen enough explanations over the years of why you cant keep the trainshed due to the position and height of the new Thameslink lines to have no doubts. The same goes with the reduction in terminating platforms.

Chris

 

[yorksrob]

I've seen enough explanations over the years of why you cant keep the trainshed due to the position and height of the new Thameslink lines to have no doubts. The same goes with the reduction in terminating platforms.

Chris

I was under the impression that the Thameslink lines would be at the same level of the existing through platforms at London Bridge.

 

[Chris125]

I was under the impression that the Thameslink lines would be at the same level of the existing through platforms at London Bridge.

Correct. The terminating platforms are lower.

Chris

 

[asylumxl]

To be honest it seems to me that the aim of all the neglect over the years was to let it deteriorate to the point that there would be no objections to a remodelling.

I know the reasons why the shed is being removed etc, and the purpose of this thread was to find out what they intend to do with the trainshed when it's removed, and to get other peoples opinions on the matter.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks this is a shame. I'm sure if it was a termini north of the river things would be quite different...

 

[yorksrob]

It could be my lack of engineering knowledge, but I don't see why the raised area couldn't be extended South to run alongside the trainshed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks this is a shame. I'm sure if it was a termini north of the river things would be quite different...

Me too !

 

[John55]

To be honest it seems to me that the aim of all the neglect over the years was to let it deteriorate to the point that there would be no objections to a remodelling.

I know the reasons why the shed is being removed etc, and the purpose of this thread was to find out what they intend to do with the trainshed when it's removed, and to get other peoples opinions on the matter.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks this is a shame. I'm sure if it was a termini north of the river things would be quite different...

Like Charing Cross, Cannon St, Broad Street, Euston, half of Victoria and half of Liverpool Street?

I can understand a trainshed being reused where there is a function for which it can be adapted. Manchester Central and Bath Green Park for example. However demolishing and rebuilding a structure like that at London Bridge would be expensive and leave you with a building still needing a lot of additional money to make it usable for anything other than a trainshed and who needs a trainshed of that size?

I use London Bridge a lot and never have a sense of being somewhere special or interesting. When I pass through Paddington, Lime Street or York I do. I think that explains why the train shed at London Bridge will be demolished and hardly be missed.

 

[ert47]

It could be my lack of engineering knowledge, but I don't see why the raised area couldn't be extended South to run alongside the trainshed.

They probably couldn't be bothered to think about rebuilding the footbridge since it would have to come into the trainshed at a higher point...

 

[yorksrob]

Like Charing Cross, Cannon St, Broad Street, Euston, half of Victoria and half of Liverpool Street?

I can understand a trainshed being reused where there is a function for which it can be adapted. Manchester Central and Bath Green Park for example. However demolishing and rebuilding a structure like that at London Bridge would be expensive and leave you with a building still needing a lot of additional money to make it usable for anything other than a trainshed and who needs a trainshed of that size?

I use London Bridge a lot and never have a sense of being somewhere special or interesting. When I pass through Paddington, Lime Street or York I do. I think that explains why the train shed at London Bridge will be demolished and hardly be missed.

Familiarity breeds contempt. Just have a look one day. have a wander when you're not on the commute. Everything else at London Bridge is pokey and annoying, but when you get into the trainshed, it's spacious and grand.

And another thing. The trainshed at London Bridge is a big oblong space. A very imposing and attractive big oblong space, but a big oblong space nonetheless. What on earth makes you think that it is any less useable than any of those other big oblong spaces such as Manchester Central or Bath Green Park.

Oh yes, and when I do come into London Bridge, usually on the through lines, I do look out at the trainshed and feel I'm somewhere special. Just as when I come in under it on the Central, I feel impressed, like I've arrived somewhere important. That's why it will be sorely missed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

They probably couldn't be bothered to think about rebuilding the footbridge since it would have to come into the trainshed at a higher point...

Yes, quite probably. In my view, since the mezzanine would extend further eastwards under the through lines, I would have a subway to the Eastern end of the terminal platforms rather than a footbridge.

 

[HSTEd]

I imagine a marketground would love the trainshed to make the transistion to a covered market or something.

 

[Chris125]

What on earth makes you think that it is any less useable than any of those other big oblong spaces such as Manchester Central or Bath Green Park.

They didnt need to be moved! Its one thing to re-use an empty station roof if only as a carpark (and occasional market) like Bath's, its quite another to dismantle it and rebuild it elsewhere.

Your talk about extending the raised area south baffles me - the new lines are higher than the trainshed platforms and at an angle that isnt compatible with the roof, its supporting pillars or its north wall. Extending the station viaduct south, which were once in the plans but jettisoned because of cost i expect, doesnt change that.

Chris

 

[swt_passenger]

Your talk about extending the raised area south baffles me - the new lines are higher than the trainshed platforms and at an angle that isnt compatible with the roof, its supporting pillars or its north wall. Extending the station viaduct south, which were once in the plans but jettisoned because of cost i expect, doesnt change that.

Chris

I reckon it's also pretty clear from the planning drawings I've got that each individual island is significantly wider than before - they all include two banks of escalators with stairs between them - to meet modern design standards etc.

The aim obviously isn't just to squeeze a few minimalist platforms in, it is to modernize the whole station for future increasing capacity. My rough measurements suggest each new island is about 15m wide over a significant length, the current islands vary but are only about 10 - 12m wide at their widest points.

 

[yorksrob]

They didnt need to be moved! Its one thing to re-use an empty station roof if only as a carpark (and occasional market) like Bath's, its quite another to dismantle it and rebuild it elsewhere.

Your talk about extending the raised area south baffles me - the new lines are higher than the trainshed platforms and at an angle that isnt compatible with the roof, its supporting pillars or its north wall. Extending the station viaduct south, which were once in the plans but jettisoned because of cost i expect, doesnt change that.

Chris

Er sorry. but I just don't understand your bafflement.

The fact is, there is a railway line alongside the trainshed today . What exactly is your engineering experience that suggests that a route on the same alignment but on a viaduct isn't possible ? Please explain.

I'm sorry. I am truly baffled.

 

[Chris125]

Er sorry. but I just don't understand your bafflement.

The fact is, there is a railway line alongside the trainshed today . What exactly is your engineering experience that suggests that a route on the same alignment but on a viaduct isn't possible ? Please explain.

I'm sorry. I am truly baffled.

Eh?

The through lines are to the north of the trainshed, on a viaduct. The trainshed and its own platforms are south of these, also on a viaduct. Though both on viaducts, there is a height difference.

The new Thameslink lines are also south of the through lines, but at LB are alongside and at the same height, so are need to go through the north part of the trainshed.

The height and alignment of these new lines and platforms isnt compatible with the trainshed roof, so it needs to be removed.

Chris

 

[ert47]

Er sorry. but I just don't understand your bafflement.

The fact is, there is a railway line alongside the trainshed today . What exactly is your engineering experience that suggests that a route on the same alignment but on a viaduct isn't possible ? Please explain.

I'm sorry. I am truly baffled.

Eh?

The through lines are to the north of the trainshed, on a viaduct. The trainshed and its own platforms are south of these, also on a viaduct. Though both on viaducts, there is a height difference.

The new Thameslink lines are also south of the through lines, but at LB are alongside and at the same height, so are need to go through the north part of the trainshed.

The height and alignment of these new lines and platforms isnt compatible with the trainshed roof, so it needs to be removed.

Chris

I thought that the new Thameslink platforms will be the current 3/4 and then the Charing Cross trains will be using platforms 5-8 and then crossing the market using the newly built viaduct.

The lines from the country would swap sides just north of the Milwall football grounds (Bermonsea)

 

[Chris125]

I thought that the new Thameslink platforms will be the current 3/4 and then the Charing Cross trains will be using platforms 5-8 and then crossing the market using the newly built viaduct.

Dont read too much into everything else in this diagram as it shows an earlier design with a larger station footprint but it should at least give you an idea of whats happening with the Thameslink platforms in the middle - while they may replace existing platforms, the alignment especially at the western end willl be very different due to the borough viaduct.

Chris

 

[yorksrob]

Eh?

The through lines are to the north of the trainshed, on a viaduct. The trainshed and its own platforms are south of these, also on a viaduct. Though both on viaducts, there is a height difference.

The new Thameslink lines are also south of the through lines, but at LB are alongside and at the same height, so are need to go through the north part of the trainshed.

The height and alignment of these new lines and platforms isnt compatible with the trainshed roof, so it needs to be removed.

Chris

As I've mentioned before, if the two islands nearer the trainshed were built slightly further to the west, they could use more of the space where the concourse is today, alongside the Shard and avoid the trainshed roof. Also, this would mean that the platform entrances would be nearer to the country end of the train (the opposite situation to Charing X and Waterloo East) ensuring a more even spread of passengers through longer trains.

 

[Chris125]

As I've mentioned before, if the two islands nearer the trainshed were built slightly further to the west, they could use more of the space where the concourse is today, alongside the Shard and avoid the trainshed roof. Also, this would mean that the platform entrances would be nearer to the country end of the train (the opposite situation to Charing X and Waterloo East) ensuring a more even spread of passengers through longer trains.

If you can look at that diagram of the viaduct and the curves neccesary and seriously suggest that the platforms can be moved west, then i think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Chris

 

[ert47]

As I've mentioned before, if the two islands nearer the trainshed were built slightly further to the west, they could use more of the space where the concourse is today, alongside the Shard and avoid the trainshed roof. Also, this would mean that the platform entrances would be nearer to the country end of the train (the opposite situation to Charing X and Waterloo East) ensuring a more even spread of passengers through longer trains.

That wouldn't work as there is a sharp bend there where how many lines from London Bridge have to condense into 4 lines.

Also aren't there regulations about building straight(-ish) platforms?

 

[Minstral25]

That Diagram is interesting and shows clearly why the trainshed had to go.

The new terminating platforms stop about (my guess) 100ft short of the existing terminations so the trainshed would not cover that much of the new platforms and that the new Charing Cross platforms will cover of the old terminating station - presumably they need to do this so they can phase the works across the station as it still needs to run whilst the rebuild takes place.

Also if they removed the signal box they could easily fit a 7th terminating platform - shame the signalling transfer to Three bridges isn't until completion of the rebuild of London Bridge - if they did it now that would enable a bigger terminating station to use during the rest of the rebuild and allow for future capacity needs.

 

[yorksrob]

Oh well, if they can't use it at London Bridge due to track curvatures etc, I really think they ought to try and dismantle it.

 

[LE Greys]

Can it be sent to Stevenage, please?

Failing that, would Loughborough Central or some other preserved location be suitable?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Pity, so we will inevitably end up with London Bridge being the new Euston in 20 years?

Very likely. The new sections don't exactly look as though they could cope with dirt, wear and pigeon faeces for very long before just turning plain vile. Shabby Victorian still has a certain elegance, whereas new designs need far more attention than they can ever get. Newport is the new New Street already.

 

[Barn]

So the developers of the Shard have rebuilt much of the upper concourse and it certainly seems brighter, if slightly sparse. But does anyone know what's happening to the bit of the roof nearer the retail units, which is still in the old design. I hope the mismatch is just temporary... Maybe that bit gets demolished for the new Charing Cross viaduct?

 

[ert47]

Just had a thought, could send half of the roof to Crystal Palace and then the other half to East Croydon (for lols)