Cannon Street station approach roads

[Simon Glidewell]

A very fine view of the approach roads into Cannon Street staion:-

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... =1&theater

[Guy Rixon]

Very nice pic - taken just after the layout changes for electric working IIRC.

I find it interesting that the track on this bridge is conventionally sleepered and seems to be ballasted, whereas the equivalent at Charing Cross was laid on longitudinal baulks without ballast.

[Simon Glidewell]

That is odd Guy; I remember seeing the track supports at Charing X when I used to commute to and from SE London. Can you imagine having a P4 layout with that track formation outside Cannon Street?! Mind blowing.

[Guy Rixon]

The collection of "advanced" formations is certainly impressive. I count 4 double slips, two tandems, the bank of four parallel cross-overs (in the distance); and that asymmetric scissors, with the diamond superimposed on the platform line and an interlaced turnout and another turnout gauntletted onto the end.

If anybody modelled just the mutant scissors they'd be due a serious prize. Incidentally, the layout before the rebuild (photo in the Middleton album "Charing Cross to Orpington") also had an offset scissors, in about the same place, but not the same one: the divergence angle at the station end is different in the before and after pictures. Presumably the engineers were perfectly happy with the extra crossings if it solved a problem for them. Lessons here for model design!

BTW, the Middleton book quotes the rebuild as happening between 5th and 28th June 1926.

[dal-t]

the Middleton book quotes the rebuild as happening between 5th and 28th June 1926.

4 weeks (Saturday to Monday) - think you could count on that being four years if it was undertaken today (then there'd be occupation overruns, cost overruns, bids by the Mayor to turn it all into a wildlife habitat, etc)!

[williambarter]

Not sure it sheds much light on the difference between CS and CX bridges, but The Engineer in 1895 ran as series of articles on the Thames Bridges.

About Cannon St it says the flooring is formed of wrought iron plates riveted to the girders. On these is spread a layer of asphalt, sloped to discharge water, and on top of that is a layer of cinder ballast for the permanent way.

In respect of Charing Cross, there is a need to provide headroom over the Embankment, hence the railway lies within the bridge superstructure rather than running on top of it as at Cannon St. I wouldn't like to say quite why that rules put ballasted p/way but suspect that therein lies the difference. Maybe it is simply that laying the p/way on timbers makes a thinner (vertically) formation.

William

[Simon Glidewell]

Not sure it sheds much light on the difference between CS and CX bridges, but The Engineer in 1895 ran as series of articles on the Thames Bridges.

About Cannon St it says the flooring is formed of wrought iron plates riveted to the girders. On these is spread a layer of asphalt, sloped to discharge water, and on top of that is a layer of cinder ballast for the permanent way.

In respect of Charing Cross, there is a need to provide headroom over the Embankment, hence the railway lies within the bridge superstructure rather than running on top of it as at Cannon St. I wouldn't like to say quite why that rules put ballasted p/way but suspect that therein lies the difference. Maybe it is simply that laying the p/way on timbers makes a thinner (vertically) formation.

William

Very interesting info William.

[Will L]

On many bridges, there are structural supports directly below the rails, which the track is attached to and that dictates the potion of the track. Clearly if you have point work on the bridge this becomes difficult if not impossible and you end up with a very different bridge structure able to take track loadings across it surface. I presume that this is the case when you see track laid in ballast on a bridge.

[Martin Wynne]

[Richard S]

Fascinating. Thanks for sharing that.

[Sandra Orpen]

It is perhaps surprising that only half the approach has been electrified on the third rail leaving the other half still worked by steam. This must have made operating the station difficult as the signal man would have to be very careful where electric trains were routed particularly if there was a problem in one of the electric platforms. Perhaps this is just a sign of the Southern saving money on electrification by doing it as cheaply as possible.

[Guy Rixon]

Concerning the steam/electric split, the steam-side (west) platforms are a fair bit longer than the electrified ones. After the 1926 rebuild, IIRC, only 8-coach electric trains were accommodated and it was a big job when they later had to adapt to 10-coach. However, the steam-hauled fasts to the channel ports were typically longer than 8 coaches; important services were 10 coaches and more before WW1.

Therefore, I suggest that the designers have actually split the station into suburban and long-distance sides and only coincidentally do these align with the electric-steam division.

[williambarter]

That rationale is plausible, as at Charing Cross only the Slow lines and platforms 1-3 were electrified at the outset. I had often thought that was the case, but have only recently seen a track plan showing all three rails to confirm it. The pressing need was to remove the weight of steam locomotives from the old side of the river bridge - not sure that applied at Cannon Street.

What I still don't know is when electrification was extended to the other three platforms and the Fast lines. Probably with electrification to Sevenoaks and Gravesend in 1935, as that would have made a serious difference to the numbers of electric trains, though Caterham/Tattenham a bit earlier could have made the difference.

William