New London Bridge Station

[delores]

I think black cat just wanted something in the spirit of some of the better stations in London and why not? London Bridge has been neglected for so long it deserves something special or at the very least high quality.

[stimarco]

Originally Posted by delores

I think black cat just wanted something in the spirit of some of the better stations in London and why not? London Bridge has been neglected for so long it deserves something special or at the very least high quality.

And the new Guangzhou station isn't "special" or "high quality"? How about Berlin's Hauptbahnhof (German link; it has many more images), which opened in 2006 on the site of the old Lehrner Hauptbahnhof? This shares similar bi-level characteristics with London Bridge, albeit in a cross shape. Both those stations are excellent, modern stations, designed for today's users, not for yesterday's.

London Bridge deserves to be rebuilt from scratch. The present station's sole legacy is one of endless bodges and corner-cutting. Both the SER and LC&DR were notorious for cut-rate construction and London Bridge was no exception. It's no accident that only the ex-LB&SCR side has an overall roof, but that's also the side that's going to see fewer services once the new station is opened.

I contend that the present station is not worth preserving.

All the money that has to be spent on restoring and maintaining a 160-year-old structure must come from somewhere. That "somewhere" will be Network Rail, which only has a finite source of funding to work with. Funding that could be spent on improving other parts of the network instead.

If the original roof is restored, it would be restored over a smaller terminus section: the new through platforms will be replacing the two on the eastern side of the terminus, just outside the roof's supporting wall. This will mean even more passengers using the high-level side of the station (as terminating services will be diverted onto this part). But this section has never had an overall roof, and the present roof isn't even visible from there. So the majority of the station's users will see no benefit at all from a restoration.

Furthermore, the present roof's supporting wall is a solid brick structure. Like the one that used to divide Victoria in two, this wall acts as a huge visual and literal barrier, with only a single (very ugly, and fully enclosed!) footbridge passing through it. From an aesthetic standpoint, it's poor: you can't see through from one half of the station to the other. The station is thus difficult to 'read' visually, making navigation trickier.

Integrating both halves of the station architecturally would mean opening up the views and sightlines, making it easier to navigate the site and providing a greater sense of space.

(All in my humble opinion, of course.)

[Black Cat]

"London Bridge is a commuter station, not a tourist destination or "gateway" to London."

Actually London Bridge Station is a major gateway to London. Please check the passenger stats of those who use the station as well as those from Charing X, Waterloo East, Blackfriars and Cannon Street who pass through and change trains there - its an incredible number. LBS is one of the major railway termini and hubs of London without question. I believe that it is also the oldest of London's termini in continuous use since 1836 (pre-dating Euston) and features much historic fabric including the support structure

With the cuts proposed, the idea that a significant amount of funding is available for a high quality new station roof is, unfortunately, unrealistic, and hence the current redesign taking place, presumably a "value-engineering" exercise. My fear is that we will end up with cheap and nasty platform roofs akin to those at Gatwick airport (surely the nastiest piece of railway platform architecture in the UK) rather than a handsome and classy structure reflecting the grand tradition of railway termini design.

Currently, LBS has a large historic Victorian roof that is currently understood to be removed. This is not the finest of roofs to be sure, but it exists and is likely to be far better than a cheap and nasty series of platform roofs, so why not explore a conservation type plan B to the original proposal? For other London railway termini, this approach has worked very successfully, the most recent example being St Pancras. The LBS roof has a central large span arched roof which has much merit and which I believe should be conserved and integrated into the renovated station. If an amazing new roof was being proposed, I would be very open to this, but I think the current economic situation will not fund a mega billion dollar roof.

[stimarco]

Originally Posted by Black Cat

"London Bridge is a commuter station, not a tourist destination or "gateway" to London."

Actually London Bridge Station is a major gateway to London.

Not for tourists it isn't, which was my point. And I'm very, very well acquainted with the station. At the moment it's more famous for being a glorified 'gateway' to its own through platforms and the heavily congested infrastructure beyond.

London Bridge has no major tourist services. Dover Western Docks' rail connections were severed almost 20 years ago and is now being redeveloped for yet more road users. HS1 serves St. Pancras, and Gatwick is mostly served by trains to Victoria, and Thameslink, the latter using the through platforms, not the roofed terminus.

Greenwich has better links right into London via the DLR than by heavy rail; the DLR has much better interchanges for Canary Wharf, the City, and the West End, and doesn't spend anywhere up to fifteen minutes crawling painfully slowly up to its terminus because there aren't enough platforms during peaks, either!

I believe that it is also the oldest of London's termini in continuous use since 1836 (pre-dating Euston) and features much historic fabric including the support structure.

The "continuous use" view is only partly true: the Bricklayers Arms branch was built explicitly to avoid having to pay the fees into London Bridge. This state of affairs didn't last long, but BA did handle many services that previously served LB for a short period.

London Bridge station itself was rebuilt repeatedly through the mid-1800s. Nothing of what you see now is original. Permission to enlarge the station was occasionally given before the then-current station was even completed. The first station on the site looked like this.

With the cuts proposed, the idea that a significant amount of funding is available for a high quality new station roof is, unfortunately, unrealistic

Why? Selling the air rights is perfectly viable. It's been done before to both Charing Cross and Cannon Street, both of which are also important commuter termini. Why not London Bridge too? Why must every terminus in London have to be a monument?

It's not as if London Bridge (or any other station) will never, ever, see another round of renewal again. After all, much of the present station at London Bridge only dates back to the mid-1970s.

Given London Bridge's customer base, it's of more value to its users that the station be useful. I've never even noticed Gatwick's station—believe it or not, that's a sign of good design!—and I used it quite frequently. When you're carrying heavy suitcases or dragging wayward kids behind you, you're not interested in the scenery, but in getting to where you want to go as painlessly as possible. By this metric, Gatwick's station works very well indeed. Hopefully, its renewal will resolve some of the timetabling problems it has, but from a passenger's perspective, there really isn't that much to complain about.

This is entirely my point: why build a monument few people will bother to look at? That there are people who are obsessed by form over function doesn't mean they are always right.

Currently, LBS has a large historic Victorian roof that is currently understood to be removed. This is not the finest of roofs to be sure, but it exists and is likely to be far better than a cheap and nasty series of platform roofs...

Why do you associate "cheap" with "nasty" here on the basis of no evidence whatsoever? For all any of us knows, the replacement(s) for the present roof may be "cheap and cheerful"!

London Bridge was never a monumental station comparable architecturally with the likes of Waterloo, Liverpool Street and St. Pancras. It was London's first metro terminus, not the terminus of a major mainline across the country. Most of the lines it serves are entirely within the Home Counties—many within just the one county! It serves a glorified regional metro service, not a bunch of inter-city destinations.

Personally, I think the kind of money you're talking about spending would be better spent on a rebuild of Clapham Junction, which serves far more—and more far-flung—destinations and could really use some love.

[Sesquip]

I agree with Stimarco - any redesign of London Bridge should foremost be concerned with functionality. Getting people on and off trains, buses and tubes as quickly and efficiently as possible. That means a highly legible layout and generous circulation space. The air rights are no doubt highly valuable, so the design should include column locations for any future building. The roof should be simple and clean in design and easily demountable. No need for 50m spans or showboating engineering.

Question: Will the rebuild raise the terminating tracks to the same level as the through ones?

[makita09]

Originally Posted by Sesquip

Question: Will the rebuild raise the terminating tracks to the same level as the through ones?

No, there's no need. The through ones are on a gradient, being add-ons after the terminal station was built.

[cle]

Hmmm...I didn't see that but it might make sense. Platforms could be lengthened, and space could be opened up for circulation (retail) below. It could be straightened too, maybe.

Or they could be extended into the rather feeble concourse, as proposed for Waterloo - with access from below (and footbridge from the through platforms).

[makita09]

AFAIK most of the terminal platforms are 12-car already apart from the ones that will be deleted anyway, platforms 14 and 15 on the far side are short for no reason I understand (they terminate short of where all the other platforms in the main shed terminate, probably for a parcel force depot or some other great idea from the 70s) and platform 16 terminates in another shed anyway and extending it means an argument with the shard.

[stimarco]

Originally Posted by makita09

No, there's no need. The through ones are on a gradient, being add-ons after the terminal station was built.

I've used that station for nigh-on 35 years, man and boy, and I never even realised those through platforms were on a gradient. I've noticed the difference in height between the two sections, but I always assumed it was the terminus lines that dropped down as the approach viaducts are already plenty high enough to cross the roads beyond. I know the station forecourt is above the surrounding street level; was this simply due to the natural lie of the land, or was it built up for the station?

Also, I thought the through section was just a continuation of the pre-existing terminus that stood on that site, rather than a wholly new site. All the information I've been able to find seems to agree with this. (The LB&SCR originally owned the site now used for the through platforms and did a straight swap with the other companies involved to get the present terminus site instead. By all accounts, there was clearly already a station here.)

[stimarco]

Originally Posted by makita09

AFAIK most of the terminal platforms are 12-car already apart from the ones that will be deleted anyway, platforms 14 and 15 on the far side are short for no reason I understand (they terminate short of where all the other platforms in the main shed terminate, probably for a parcel force depot or some other great idea from the 70s)

Are these the platforms that end abruptly before a bunch of glorified Portakabins? I remember there being a car park of sorts there at one point.

...and platform 16 terminates in another shed anyway and extending it means an argument with the shard.

Given how many commuters the Shard development alone will need to fill it every workday, perhaps giving it a dedicated platform wouldn't be such a bad idea! :P

[Black Cat]

Originally Posted by stimarco

Not for tourists it isn't, which was my point. And I'm very, very well acquainted with the station. At the moment it's more famous for being a glorified 'gateway' to its own through platforms and the heavily congested infrastructure beyond.

London Bridge has no major tourist services. Dover Western Docks' rail connections were severed almost 20 years ago and is now being redeveloped for yet more road users. HS1 serves St. Pancras, and Gatwick is mostly served by trains to Victoria, and Thameslink, the latter using the through platforms, not the roofed terminus.

Greenwich has better links right into London via the DLR than by heavy rail; the DLR has much better interchanges for Canary Wharf, the City, and the West End, and doesn't spend anywhere up to fifteen minutes crawling painfully slowly up to its terminus because there aren't enough platforms during peaks, either!



The "continuous use" view is only partly true: the Bricklayers Arms branch was built explicitly to avoid having to pay the fees into London Bridge. This state of affairs didn't last long, but BA did handle many services that previously served LB for a short period.

London Bridge station itself was rebuilt repeatedly through the mid-1800s. Nothing of what you see now is original. Permission to enlarge the station was occasionally given before the then-current station was even completed. The first station on the site looked like this.



Why? Selling the air rights is perfectly viable. It's been done before to both Charing Cross and Cannon Street, both of which are also important commuter termini. Why not London Bridge too? Why must every terminus in London have to be a monument?

It's not as if London Bridge (or any other station) will never, ever, see another round of renewal again. After all, much of the present station at London Bridge only dates back to the mid-1970s.

Given London Bridge's customer base, it's of more value to its users that the station be useful. I've never even noticed Gatwick's station—believe it or not, that's a sign of good design!—and I used it quite frequently. When you're carrying heavy suitcases or dragging wayward kids behind you, you're not interested in the scenery, but in getting to where you want to go as painlessly as possible. By this metric, Gatwick's station works very well indeed. Hopefully, its renewal will resolve some of the timetabling problems it has, but from a passenger's perspective, there really isn't that much to complain about.

This is entirely my point: why build a monument few people will bother to look at? That there are people who are obsessed by form over function doesn't mean they are always right.



Why do you associate "cheap" with "nasty" here on the basis of no evidence whatsoever? For all any of us knows, the replacement(s) for the present roof may be "cheap and cheerful"!

London Bridge was never a monumental station comparable architecturally with the likes of Waterloo, Liverpool Street and St. Pancras. It was London's first metro terminus, not the terminus of a major mainline across the country. Most of the lines it serves are entirely within the Home Counties—many within just the one county! It serves a glorified regional metro service, not a bunch of inter-city destinations.

Personally, I think the kind of money you're talking about spending would be better spent on a rebuild of Clapham Junction, which serves far more—and more far-flung—destinations and could really use some love.

I guess we'll simply have to agree to differ on our opinions about LBS and exploring redevelopment/upgrade options to conserve the 1864-67 roof over the former LBSCR terminus (which I have learned is a listed grade II structure together with the arches supporting platforms 16-22). Please note that I am not against functional design, but its often the case that functional design and heritage conservation, and bold contemporary style design, can work together, hence my references to examples such as Liverpool Street Station and St Pancras Station.

I also see no problem with air rights projects over a station if it is sensitively considered. The north side of the station offers lots of opportunity, and LBT is an amazing example of redevelopment of a corner of the station (formerly the site of the Terminus Hotel building I believe) as well as the forecourt.

As a last thought, and given that Nick Grimshaw has been appointed as the architect to explore new design options, perhaps a good approach to consider is that which he used at Waterloo whereby the new bold north side platforms and station roof were added alongside that of the original station. This could be an exciting conceptual approach to repeat at LBS, to conserve the LBSCR side of the station and dramatically redesign the London Chatham Dover / SER side. Given the growing importance of LBS as a node (London's third busiest station serving the SE London, Kent and the Sussex coast including Gatwick) I don't see why such an approach ought not to be considered. Also, the termini platforms of the "low level" former LBSCR platforms to the south do not need to be aligned to those of the "high level platforms" of the north side on a grade, though the track level of the mid section platforms immediately to the north side of the 1850 dividing wall (which sit over the original brick viaduct of the 1836 station) may need to be raised and graded as part of making them through platforms.

[RBRJ]

QUOTE>>Given how many commuters the Shard development alone will need to fill it every workday, perhaps giving it a dedicated platform wouldn't be such a bad idea! :P<<QUOTE

Would this be at all feasible?

[cle]

Not really, as it would probably be served by just the services via Peckham Rye on the south side of the station.

But I think a phase two of the LB rebuild had a dedicated entrance into the Shard?

[makita09]

Originally Posted by stimarco

I've used that station for nigh-on 35 years, man and boy, and I never even realised those through platforms were on a gradient. I've noticed the difference in height between the two sections, but I always assumed it was the terminus lines that dropped down as the approach viaducts are already plenty high enough to cross the roads beyond. I know the station forecourt is above the surrounding street level; was this simply due to the natural lie of the land, or was it built up for the station?

This is the best image I can find online (sorry about the size). I've got some old photos I myself took in the early 90s that show it the most clearly but not to hand. There are some youtube videos where you can see 12-car trains passing the gradient change, which makes it easier to see. I first noticed it by standing on the end of those platforms many many time myself - I used to work in Angel and took the northern line to LB, then walked to the east end of the platforms to actually get a seat.



image hosted on flickr


There does also seem to be very slight drop on the terminal platforms as seen here (1976) but I thyink its partly an illusion as the track immediately to the left of the signal box is cruving. The other tracks are dead straight.

image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr

Also, I thought the through section was just a continuation of the pre-existing terminus that stood on that site, rather than a wholly new site.

All the information I've been able to find seems to agree with this. (The LB&SCR originally owned the site now used for the through platforms and did a straight swap with the other companies involved to get the present terminus site instead. By all accounts, there was clearly already a station here.)

Yes there was, but it was the same height as the current terminus platforms.

[makita09]

I think I've worked out why...

Originally Posted by stimarco

I've noticed the difference in height between the two sections, but I always assumed it was the terminus lines that dropped down as the approach viaducts are already plenty high enough to cross the roads beyond.

If you look at Tooley St that goes down the north side of the station it is flat, marginally above the level of the Thames. Yet it manages to go under the end of London Bridge (the actual bridge).

This is the view using Googlestapo streetview eastwards, you can see



and then from the same point looking west under the A3





I think the reason why the rebuild to a through station would have required raising the level was to get the tracks over the approach to London Bridge road bridge, which is 3 or 4 metres higher than the roads on the east end of the station.

[stimarco]

Ah, that would make sense.

I wonder if any modifications were made when the present bridge was installed: it's rather larger than its predecessors.

[cybertect]

Originally Posted by stimarco

Ah, that would make sense.

I wonder if any modifications were made when the present bridge was installed: it's rather larger than its predecessors.

I don't believe it has changed much.

A little known fact is that the southern end of London Bridge still has parts of [Rennie's] old bridge in situ.

You can see it clearly in StreetView: [West and East]

Getty have a photo of Queen Victoria's carriage passing London Bridge station during her Diamond Jubilee celebrations in 1897. The ground level looks about the same as today (I came across it when looking for something else the other day)

http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/...Hulton-Archive

[makita09]

Yeah and another interesting thing according to wikipedia is that Rennie's bridge spent 3 times as much building the approach roads as it did the bridge itself.

[CharlieP]

Just a thought - is there anything noteworthy about the title of this thread, or is it just a thread about the new (as in rebuilt) London Bridge Station? It's not going to be called "New London Bridge Station", is it?

[makita09]

Don't think so. I assumed it just meant the rebuild?