Talk:London Bridge station

chronology

The railway "chronology" appears twice. I think it would be better if it was written in continuous prose. 13:42 15th May 2006

1836, 1838 or 1839?

The article currently states that the station opened in 1838, then goes on in the chronology to detail the two stations dating from 1836 and 1839. If the chronology is correct (citation???) then the summary above it is wrong. Does someone have access to some reliable (and citable) information? StephenDawson 14:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Some good data at kent rail, never had a chance to amke full use of the excellent site across wikipedia. Pickle 19:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

"easy walking distance" seems like a very debatable phrase

"London Bridge is one of three rail termini in London not to have either a direct connection to, or within easy walking distance of, the Circle Line, the others being Marylebone and Waterloo."

You come out of the station, you're at the southern end of the bridge, you cross the bridge, you're at the north end of the bridge, you're at Monument, voila, circle line. From an admittedly rough squint at Multimap, it's maybe 7-800m. From memory, maybe 5-6 minutes. Do we really live in an age where 700m is considered too far to be easy walking distance!?

Now, before anyone jumps in... I realise it's not going to be so easy, and you don't cover 700m in 6min, if you're of low mobility (eldery, disabled, wearing stupid shoes, etc).

Which I suppose brings me to my point that this phrase is sufficiently subjective to be arguably meaningless in an encyclopaedic context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.7.47 (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it best to reword this, as I have done, to say that these stations have no direct connection to the Circle Line, and leave it at that. 79.75.17.137 (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC) Tony S

Revisions of 5th.December 2008

My understanding is that the station was originally called Tooley Street. Also Deptford is, or was, outside London. Chevin (talk) 09:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This is the old problem of the use of the word 'London' being anachronistic. I have reworded this so that it does not create the misunderstandig. 79.75.17.137 (talk) 17:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC) Tony S

Thameslink serving at London Bridge after 2011

I have changed the comments about not stopping after 2011 as they are complete rubbish. I know that this is what is stated on the Thameslink Programme website but the website is wrong. After lots of emails to both FCC and Networkrail I believe have established that the true situation. Nothing will change prior to October 2012. No final decision has been made as to whether Thameslink will serve London Bridge in the off-peak between 2012 and 2015. This is consistent with Network Rail's RUS for South London.

FCC did subsequently correct the website but only in one place. I pointed out the other reference but they have not changed it.--Pedantic of Purley (talk) 04:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

National Rail - Train services

The train services provided are definitely out-of-date and inconsistent with the list for Charing Cross station which appears to be more up-to-date. I know for a lamentable fact that the 2 tph to Smitham have been withdrawn but am not sufficiently knowledgeable to update the list. Ideally it should be correct. Failing that we should state that this was prior to 14 December 2008 or just remove it.--Pedantic of Purley (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Station Design

This page (and all descriptions of stations) could be greatly strengthened if knowledgeable parties would add facts about locations of elevators/lifts and escalators. Can be crucial for those with significant luggage or mobility problems to reach, leave or change platforms or train levels. john henne hennejon@aol.com June 21, 2009

Busiest platform in Europe

There is a section which has repeatedly been removed by IP editors - possibly all the same person - 1, 2, 3. Each time I have reverted because it's a referenced statement, and according to WP:V our policy is verifiability, not truth. The latest removal suggests "reference - http://www.mvv-muenchen.de/de/home/fahrgastinformation/index.html S-bahn Munich, 30 tph per platform in the Sbahn tunnel, more then platform 6 in london bridge.", but that page has nothing of the sort on it, so cannot be used for verification. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Answer: it's a Journey planner, you can check it between "Hauptbahnhof" and "MarienPlatz" in 7:00-8:00. you will count 30 tph per direction.

here is the english version: http://www.mvv-muenchen.de/en/home/timetable/journeyplanner/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.121.159 (talk) 10:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

That is a blank form. Further, even if I do fill it in with the above selections (which I shouldn't have to do in order to verify a claim), it still doesn't give any information about how often trains use a given platform; and even if trains only use one platform (how am I to know that?), counting trains within a time period constitutes original research, which is inadmissible. I shall again revert your edit, until you can produce a reliable source. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Redrose. What is needed is a verifiable source that is independent of the subject. Failing the provision of this, the article should remain as it is. Mjroots (talk) 11:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Once again I have reverted a similar content removal, with the user this time suggesting that de:S-Bahn München is a reliable source, which I believe that it is not, see WP:CIRCULAR.

If reliable evidence is available regarding these claims that the Munich S-bahn has a busier platform, I think the first thing to do would be to get it added to the English language page for the Munich S-Bahn, preferably by having it discussed at it's talk page first. Once it has been accepted there, then, and only then, can we consider removal from this article. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Architects

This article says "The wedge-shaped building in Tooley Street was designed by Charles Barry Jr"; could someone work that into the relevant part of the article, please? Can anyone add other architects?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on London Bridge station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140410040141/http://www.networkrail.co.uk/managed-stations/ to http://www.networkrail.co.uk/managed-stations/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

November 1954 incident

Does anyone have any further details or a better source for this incident in November 1954? Mjroots (talk) 07:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• Rayner, Bryan; Brown, David (1983). The '4 Sub' Story. Purley: Southern Electric Group. p. 74. ISBN 0-906988-09-8.

Car no. 10943 of unit 4102 was "damaged, London Bridge, 12.54 and repaired". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Would you be so kind as to add the incident to this and the 4 SUB articles please|#? Mjroots (talk) 13:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

That's all there is... --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)