"What gear was used..." isn't a very interesting question, IMO it is much more interesting to ask "what makes this picture good?"
Pic #1 - The Bus
Good composition, vertical lines on the left create perspective. Choice of aperture blurs the background (but not too much) and prevents distraction.
The bus' rectangular windshield acts as a frame, which creates a picture inside the picture, which seems further away, behind glass (the reflections on the bus' windshield are nice). Then the driver's head, which is dead center, is again framed in another rectangle. All this works to tell a little story, who is this guy, what is he thinking? Who is the other guy leaving the bus behind him? He's slightly out of focus, so kind of mysterious. The empty bus stop looks eerie in the night.
I like this picture. Notice we haven't talked about lenses yet ;) here it's mostly about composition, focal length, aperture (for the blurry background), and post-processing for the nice colors.
Photo #2 - Kitchen
Here the single most important "filter" is the steam rising from the food being cooked. This is what creates most of the ambience. Notice also there is again a frame inside the frame, with the inclusion of a guy on the left, who is basically us as we look at the photo. He's blurry, again good aperture choice, so he doesn't distract from the action.
Photo #4 - Bridge
This one is about perspective, and perfect exposure. Colors are the result of skilled postprocessing, so I'll ignore them. The composition is again good, and the car in the middle helps, by adding some life in an otherwise quite dead place, and its headlights create repeating patterns on the left side as they illuminate the pillars, which adds a very nice touch of warm color on the left side, which would otherwise be swamped in greenish tint.
However if you look at the streetlight on top center, you will notice there is a little bit of fog/smog which creates a "beam" of light. So here again, the "filter" is an atmospheric effect. Note the photographer nailed the exposure perfectly, as the sky is not pure black, and the (not very bright) "beam" coming out of the streetlight is clearly visible. If this had been exposed lower, he could still have added some "background light" in post, but the "beam" would have been lost. Also the buildings in the background silhouette against the slightly brighter sky. Less exposure, and it would have been black on black, and not recoverable in post.
Now, about your gear...
It's a DSLR, so you can have fun with filters in postprocessing, as long as the information is there in the RAWs. So exposure and composition are key. If you're cash-strapped, the only filter you need is a polarizer for fun, and maybe a ND-graduated filter for those sunsets and stuff like that, but don't spend money on filters until you reeeally need them.
If intense light hits the lens at night, you'll need a lenshood: your hand is free, just put it on the right place to block the light.
Wide apertures are nice for night photo due to catching more light (so, shorter exposure or lower ISO/lower noise, but the widest aperture will of course have lower depth of field. Which is an advantage when you want to blur things...
Now, the others recommended prime lenses: I'm gonna go against that. I agree that primes have the best image quality, best sharpness, and least flare, all of which matter when there is a streetlight or other intense light source in the frame to avoid halos.
However prime lenses are damn expensive, and since I believe this is your first DSLR, a good zoom would be a much better choice, as it would allow you to experiment, be creative, have fun, make tons of mistakes, and learn.
So I would recommend a 17-50 2.8 zoom, maybe Tamron or Nikon, check the reviews. I own a 10 year old Tamron 17-50 2.8 and for the price it was a damn good deal at the time. There are probably better alternatives today, but you get the idea.
Don't get a cheapo zoom with aperture like 3.5-5.6, first of all these are half blind so you can't do anything at night without a tripod, and also they tend to have quite a bit of flare. The difference between a 150€ cheap junk zoom and a 300€ Tamron 17-50 2.8 is huge. It's clunky and plasticky, but it works well and it's light, versatile, and cheap.
Primes are better, but you need to buy them, carry them, mount them on the camera... Nikon also makes a 17-55 2.8, more expensive.