Constructing Finsbury Park terminating platforms

[rmHawk765]

Recently, I have been looking over the lack of capacity at King's Cross, combined with the subpar reliability of the East Coast Main Line's Thameslink services, and I do think it is pretty clear we need somewhere new for ECML trains to terminate. I have been considering how Finsbury Park could have an extra through bi-di (not bay) track built for P3 & P6, which are currently not used because they simply share the US1 & DS1 tracks with P2 & P7. The island plats for P3/4 and P5/6 are fairly wide, and to me it seems like there is space to replace one half of both platforms with tracks. These could be built either replacing the current P4 & 5, which would allow a cross-platform interchange to the TL/GN service in the 'middle' on P2/P7 from both the Moorgate train on P1/8 and the terminating train on P3/6, or replacing the current P3/6, keeping the fast platforms intact. Additionally, there is plenty of space for another track between the goods line and the US2 for a new track and platform.

There are a few uses for such platforms I have thought of. One, is just as general terminating platforms for any increase in GN services in the future, to circumvent the lack of capacity at KGX. The other thing I was considering is to take advantage of it to scrap the constantly unreliable Peterborough to Horsham service, replacing it with a Peterborough to Finsbury Park service in the north. The other use, also relating to TL, is to be able to take 700s out of Hornsey and run Cambridge to Finsbury Park in the event of disruption to the Cambridge to Brighton route, which is not uncommon. This could be the first step to a wider restructuring of TL routes, as the only reasonable way I see to improve reliability on the network at the minute is to limit the number of trains going through the core.

I would be interested to see if anyone has better information on how feasible something like this is, including whether there is actually enough physical space, as I am only make a presumption here that there is.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

There would still be the constraint of a two track section through Welwyn - and terminating at Finsbury Park would have the disadvantage of tripping people out at a much more poorly connected location; the majority of them would want central London in the first place.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

There would still be the constraint of a two track section through Welwyn - and terminating at Finsbury Park would have the disadvantage of tripping people out at a much more poorly connected location; the majority of them would want central London in the first place.

IMHO that definitely should be sorted first. Expensive though I would have thought.

 

[rmHawk765]

There would still be the constraint of a two track section through Welwyn

I am not proposing adding any additional services right at this moment, therefore the Welwyn constraint is not really relevant. However, you are correct that it will have to be sorted at some point, as difficult as it may be.

and terminating at Finsbury Park would have the disadvantage of tripping people out at a much more poorly connected location; the majority of them would want central London in the first place.

Finsbury is not a poorly 'connected' location. By far the fastest option into central London is the Victoria line anyway, and even with Peterborough-Horsham gone (which was just a suggestion from me to prove the uses of my idea), there is still a minimum off-peak of 4tph into KGX/STP, and an additional 6-8tph from Dec 26 into Moorgate, all of which count as 'central London'.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Jan 2026 ==

Expensive though I would have thought.

It should be sorted, but the other issue other than cost is that there is no particularly convenient diversion route. The Hertford Loop cannot run on a reduced timetable for months to allow diversions, so a complete closure would be necessary.

 

[Uncle Buck]

terminating at Finsbury Park would have the disadvantage of tripping people out at a much more poorly connected location; the majority of them would want central London in the first place.

Of all the places the service could terminate at, Finsbury Park is not bad- it is on the Victoria and Piccadilly Lines, or people could always just change onto the next Thameslink train.

Thameslink is such a large network that it cannot be consistently reliable. It should never have gone out as far as Peterborough, Cambridge or Brighton. It should be on the scale of the Elizabeth Line or Paris RER instead. But it would be impossible to reverse that now as so many people depend on the existing patterns.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

It should be sorted, but the other issue other than cost is that there is no particularly convenient diversion route. The Hertford Loop cannot run on a reduced timetable for months to allow diversions, so a complete closure would be necessary.

Good point. That is very important these days as we have seen with Trans Pennine Upgrade. (and indeed S&C for WCML north)

 

[Uncle Buck]

Would this not however be the perfect use of the underused Northern City Line? A few trains per hour could run into Moorgate, which is on multiple tube lines and the Elizabeth Line?

 

[rmHawk765]

Would this not however be the perfect use of the underused Northern City Line? A few trains per hour could run into Moorgate, which is on multiple tube lines and the Elizabeth Line?

The NCL is limited to 6 coaches, and lengthening the platforms is borderline infeasible. It is quite annoying because otherwise, it would've been a good option.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Jan 2026 ==

Good point. That is very important these days as we have seen with Trans Pennine Upgrade. (and indeed S&C for WCML north)

Yep, I was thinking of the WCML North situation. Anyways, this is getting a bit off-topic - maybe this could warrant another thread.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Jan 2026 ==

But it would be impossible to reverse that now as so many people depend on the existing patterns.

Well the patterns are hardly 'dependable' to be completely honest, the main issue is just the fact that TL is so complexly intertwined into everything south of the river now.

 

[Uncle Buck]

The NCL is limited to 6 coaches, and lengthening the platforms is borderline infeasible. It is quite annoying because otherwise, it would've been a good option.

Sorry- I actually knew this.

Long, long, long term I would have a crossrail from Old Street to New Cross, and only use the intermediate stations for stopping services, but that is not looking very likey!

 

[rmHawk765]

or people could always just change onto the next Thameslink train.

Admittedly, if we do end up splitting Peterborough to Horsham, that leaves only 2tph to the core. If we look at a wider restructuring, something like Sutton to Finsbury is IMO the best option to retain 4tph+ into the core. That said though, walking a short distance from King's Cross NR/LU is always an option.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Jan 2026 ==

Thameslink is such a large network that it cannot be consistently reliable. It should never have gone out as far as Peterborough, Cambridge or Brighton.

The issue with it is that we should not have so many through routes. Bedford to Brighton has historically been quite an important route for one reason or another, and it warrants keeping as-is. With Cambridge-Brighton, although Cambridge to Gatwick represents a fairly large passenger flow, the service was overall a considerable downgrade for ECML users simply needing London.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Jan 2026 ==

It would be great to keep the discussion focussed more on my ideas surrounding Finsbury Park and the ECML specifically, rather than wider TL restructuring as that is a much more complex subject not directly relating to this.

 

[Magdalia]

I have been considering how Finsbury Park could have an extra track built for P3 & P6, which are currently not used because they simply share the US1 & DS1 tracks with P2 & P7. The island plats for P3/4 and P5/6 are fairly wide, and to me it seems like there is space to replace one half of both platforms with tracks. These could be built either replacing the current P4 & 5, which would allow a cross-platform interchange to the TL/GN service in the 'middle' on P2/P7 from both the Moorgate train on P1/8 and the terminating train on P3/6, or replacing the current P3/6, keeping the fast platforms intact. Additionally, there is plenty of space for another track between the goods line and the US2 for a new track and platform.

At the south end of Finsbury Park station the lines cross over the Seven Sisters Road. At the north end of Finsbury Park station the lines cross over Stroud Green Road. In both cases the railway is at an acute angle to the road and lines cross on different bridges and at different angles. At the north end the bridges are not at the same height. Anything that isn't constrained by the capacity of the existing bridges is going to be incredibly expensive and disruptive.

Also, each of the islands have existing stairways for entry to and exit from the platforms, and these are a constraint unless they are also moved at significant cost.

And it would all be to no effect unless there is capacity to reverse the trains. If up trains are terminating, how do they get to the down side to go back north? If down trains are terminating, how do they get to the up side to go back south?

Of all the places the service could terminate at, Finsbury Park is not bad- it is on the Victoria and Piccadilly Lines, or people could always just change onto the next Thameslink train.

Actually, in practice it was terrible, as was demonstrated when it was attempted at Christmas 2014, as part of an engineering blockade during the early stages of the construction of the Canal Tunnel.

There would still be the constraint of a two track section through Welwyn

The other thing I was considering is to take advantage of it to scrap the constantly unreliable Peterborough to Horsham service

Welwyn North and Peterborough-Horsham have been raked over extensively in other discussions on this forum.

 

[rmHawk765]

is going to be incredibly expensive and disruptive

Any addition to ECML terminating capacity at this point is going to be expensive and disruptive, because we have run out of space, yet we cannot just keep adding Thameslink routes.

And it would all be to no effect unless there is capacity to reverse the trains. If up trains are terminating, how do they get to the down side to go back north? If down trains are terminating, how do they get to the up side to go back south?

I should have probably specified that this makes sense only if the platforms are bi-di - not bay platforms, just extra through platforms.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Jan 2026 ==

Welwyn North and Peterborough-Horsham have been raked over extensively in other discussions on this forum.

Well what I am suggesting here directly links to Peterborough-Horsham, hence why I brought it up.

 

[D365]

Well what I am suggesting here directly links to Peterborough-Horsham, hence why I brought it up.

Cambridgeshire acts as a substantial commuter belt for London and has done so for decades. The suggestion that Peterborough trains could be turned at Finsbury Park is bonkers.

 

[swt_passenger]

Actually, in practice it was terrible, as was demonstrated when it was attempted at Christmas 2014, as part of an engineering blockade during the early stages of the construction of the Canal Tunnel.

Wasn’t that partly because the station staff decided to try and have arrivals and departures from the same platform? IIRC there was eventually a report about the platforming that revealed station staff followed their own ideas and it didn’t work?

 

[Clarence Yard]

No, it was poorly planned. I remember one Sunday block in HST days where it was co-ordinated with 6 car 313 shuttles running Moorgate to Finsbury Park, ECS to Harringay flyover and back to Finsbury Park and then pass down to Moorgate.

The idea was to have cross platform interchange at Finsbury Park, taking the KX punters down to Highbury to use the cross platform interchange there & vice versa.

There is absolutely no way you should put punters with cases down the stairs to the FP tube platforms or try to interchange onto special buses there. That was mad.

So Finsbury Park is a good shout to terminate anything coming from the south. Alexandra Palace is the equivalent for anything coming from the north and then you can use Harringay flyover to bring the unit back north again to pick up passengers at Alexandra Palace.

You don’t want to be doing any infrastructure work at Finsbury Park when the current infrastructure seems able to cope with terminating trains.

 

[Magdalia]

Any addition to ECML terminating capacity at this point is going to be expensive and disruptive, because we have run out of space, yet we cannot just keep adding Thameslink routes.

There are no additions to Thameslink routes. Remember that Cambridge-Maidstone was proposed but fortunately never happened.

What you are proposing would be as disruptive as the rebuild of London Bridge, but with no benefit.

I should have probably specified that this makes sense only if the platforms are bi-di - not bay platforms, just extra through platforms.

Platforms at Finsbury Park are not going to be bidirectional because it would create a conflicting at grade move across the ECML fast lines for each terminating train.

Wasn’t that partly because the station staff decided to try and have arrivals and departures from the same platform?

The fundamental issue was lack of suitable track and signalling capacity for reversing lots of trains. Only platform 4 (the up fast) is signalled for reversing.

Cambridgeshire acts as a substantial commuter belt for London and has done so for decades. The suggestion that Peterborough trains could be turned at Finsbury Park is bonkers.

Absolutely.

 

[Instinct04]

Of all the places the service could terminate at, Finsbury Park is not bad- it is on the Victoria and Piccadilly Lines, or people could always just change onto the next Thameslink train.

Thameslink is such a large network that it cannot be consistently reliable. It should never have gone out as far as Peterborough, Cambridge or Brighton. It should be on the scale of the Elizabeth Line or Paris RER instead. But it would be impossible to reverse that now as so many people depend on the existing patterns.

If you are going to terminate there, you need to do something about those awful spiral staircases. Unless you can find a way to discourage people from changing onto the Victoria/Picadilly Lines there. (You would instead advise them to take a NCL train to Highbury and use the wonderful cross platform interchange with the Victoria Line.

However, this is three changes. It may not be popular with commuters who previously had a direct train into Kings Cross.

There would still be the constraint of a two track section through Welwyn - and terminating at Finsbury Park would have the disadvantage of tripping people out at a much more poorly connected location; the majority of them would want central London in the first place.

Finsbury Park is not poorly connected at all..

 

[bramling]

Wasn’t that partly because the station staff decided to try and have arrivals and departures from the same platform? IIRC there was eventually a report about the platforming that revealed station staff followed their own ideas and it didn’t work?

I might be misremembering, but I think it was the opposite. The plan was to have everything reversing on platform 4, which just didn't work because the passenger flows degenerated into chaos. It didn't help that it was post-Christmas so there were a load of irregular users who likely all turned up (complete with large amounts of luggate) at Finsbury Park and didn't have a clue where they were going or what they were doing, had it been commuters there would likely have been less of an issue.

The station staff suggested shunting the trains to platform 5, which separated the incoming and outgoing flows, which worked better, albeit the shunts then caused a problem as they weren't planned.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Jan 2026 ==

I am not proposing adding any additional services right at this moment, therefore the Welwyn constraint is not really relevant. However, you are correct that it will have to be sorted at some point, as difficult as it may be.

Welwyn isn't really the major issue here. The general view seems to be in any case that quadrupling Welwyn would be unlikely to produce any additional paths in practice, though it would be good for performance. I don't reckon it will happen in any of our lifetimes as it would be so expensive and disruptive.

Finsbury is not a poorly 'connected' location. By far the fastest option into central London is the Victoria line anyway, and even with Peterborough-Horsham gone (which was just a suggestion from me to prove the uses of my idea), there is still a minimum off-peak of 4tph into KGX/STP, and an additional 6-8tph from Dec 26 into Moorgate, all of which count as 'central London'.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Jan 2026 ==


It should be sorted, but the other issue other than cost is that there is no particularly convenient diversion route. The Hertford Loop cannot run on a reduced timetable for months to allow diversions, so a complete closure would be necessary.

All this just to essentially take us back to separate London Bridge-Horsham and King's Cross-Peterborough services which we had until 2018. This isn't a serious suggestion as I know life isn't this simple, however I'd just boot out the open access (and if necessary some LNER) from King's Cross to create the space. A handful of 5-car trains per day is far less important use of capacity than a half-hourly 12-car London service from numerous large towns.

 

[swt_passenger]

I might be misremembering, but I think it was the opposite. The plan was to have everything reversing on platform 4, which just didn't work because the passenger flows degenerated into chaos. It didn't help that it was post-Christmas so there were a load of irregular users who likely all turned up (complete with large amounts of luggate) at Finsbury Park and didn't have a clue where they were going or what they were doing, had it been commuters there would likely have been less of an issue.

I found the report by ORR. It says that the NR/TOC developed plan was to shunt from P4 arrivals to P5 for departures, but later in the report it finds this was “not communicated to staff (station and signallers) correctly”. So this suggests staff began the day with reversal north from P4, and it took a while for this problem (of arrival and departure passengers conflicting) to be resolved, my bolding:

Recognising the limitations of Finsbury Park the incident response plan developed by
NR and the affected TOCs on the evening 26 December was to construct a train plan
that would limit the number of trains in operation. In particular the number of long
distance trains serving the station each hour was half that in the original timetable, with
the remaining services terminating at Peterborough. It specifically required mainline train
arrivals at platform 4 and departures from platform 5, as without that, inwards workings
could not arrive at the scheduled time. It was also intended as a means of segregating
passenger flow. For reasons outlined in Chapter 4 of this report, this arrangement, while
agreed in principle, was not enacted and on 27 December platform 4 was initially used
for both arriving and departing services.

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/om/investigation-report-2015-02-12.pdf

I think however that this doesn’t affect the basic point others have made, that Finsbury Park is a very poor choice to terminate LDHS services.

 

[whoosh]

I can't believe we are talking about abandoning Peterborough to Horsham as a service, when we a barely a year on from the route learning being completed.

 

[bramling]

I found the report. It says that the NR/TOC developed plan was to shunt from P4 arrivals to P5 for departures, but later in the report it finds this was “not communicated to staff (station and signallers) correctly”. So this suggests staff began the day with reversal north from P4, and it took a while for this problem (of arrival and departure passengers conflicting) to be resolved, my bolding:

I wonder if it was a case of signallers deciding it was easier to reverse everything off platform 4, and nobody envisaged such a problem with passenger flows. Ordinarily this would have been sensible, if you didn't have the spectacle of large numbers of people getting off the trains with luggage and milling around wondering where to go.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Jan 2026 ==

I can't believe we are talking about abandoning Peterborough to Horsham as a service, when we a barely a year on from the route learning being completed.

Peterborough to Horsham is the equivalent of a car driver taking a wrong turn and keeping on and on going the wrong way for fear of recognising that a mistake has been made and hoping that everything will somehow be all right in the end. It has been a shambles from the start, and needs heads to come out of the sand and find a solution.

 

[rmHawk765]

Platforms at Finsbury Park are not going to be bidirectional because it would create a conflicting at grade move across the ECML fast lines for each terminating train.

For trains that actually need to use the fasts (which is not all), this would happen only once when departing/arriving depending on which side is used, and with only 2tph of terminating trains I cannot see it being an issue. Correct me if I'm wrong, of course, I'm not an expert at pathing, but it seems ridiculous to me that 2tph having to block the fast lines is completely infeasible.

Cambridgeshire acts as a substantial commuter belt for London and has done so for decades. The suggestion that Peterborough trains could be turned at Finsbury Park is bonkers.

Well the users of Peterborough to Horsham I have spoken to have said they would much rather a service even to Finsbury Park with a cross-platform interchange to central London, rather than the mess of a service they have currently. Anecdotal evidence, I know, but it is believable if you look at the route's performance. I don't understand why terminating at Finsbury suddenly constitutes 'not London', and even so I literally factored in further connections to 'actual' central London in my original post. This whole point about Cambridgeshire is irrelevant, we are not scrapping its links to London.

I can't believe we are talking about abandoning Peterborough to Horsham as a service, when we a barely a year on from the route learning being completed.

Unfortunately it has proven to be a failure, and just because it hasn't existed for long doesn't excuse it. The same would've happened with Cambridge to Maidstone, thankfully that didn't get out of the woods.

All this just to essentially take us back to separate London Bridge-Horsham and King's Cross-Peterborough services which we had until 2018.

I understand it seems like we're going backwards, but Peterborough to Horsham has objectively failed at its goal.

I think however that this doesn’t affect the basic point others have made, that Finsbury Park is a very poor choice to terminate LDHS services.

Where else is actually feasible, given expanding KGX is impossible? Doing what I said in my original post is a lengthy task but I'd love to hear any other good alternative.

 

[bramling]

Well the users of Peterborough to Horsham I have spoken to have said they would much rather a service even to Finsbury Park with a cross-platform interchange to central London, rather than the mess of a service they have currently. Anecdotal evidence, I know, but it is believable if you look at the route's performance. I don't understand why terminating at Finsbury suddenly constitutes 'not London', and even so I literally factored in further connections to 'actual' central London in my original post. This whole point about Cambridgeshire is irrelevant, we are not scrapping its links to London.

I'd probably feel the same. A reliable 2tph to Finsbury Park would be vastly preferable to most compared to
* turning up at somewhere like Sandy and being stuck on the platform for hours with no idea when a train is going to materialise
* waiting an hour in London for a train, then get to Finsbury Park and hear an announcement that the train is now going to run fast to Peterborough
* find there's no Peterborough trains from London, take something else to somewhere like Hitchin and then have to wait on the forecourt for a promised bus which might never materialise

This has been a regular occurrence for passengers on this route since 2018.

 

[rmHawk765]

This isn't a serious suggestion as I know life isn't this simple, however I'd just boot out the open access (and if necessary some LNER) from King's Cross to create the space. A handful of 5-car trains per day is far less important use of capacity than a half-hourly 12-car London service from numerous large towns.

I'd honestly rather this, but it's pretty difficult now that the OAs have existed for a while, despite no infrastructure changes being needed. Seems odd it wasn't considered that at least some space needs to be left for GN/TL services, but I don't know too much about how the approvals for the OA operators went.

* turning up at somewhere like Sandy and being stuck on the platform for hours with no idea when a train is going to materialise

Speaking of Sandy, if the Tempsford development plans make it to fruition, Peterborough to Horsham will absolutely have to go. It is nowhere near reliable enough to serve a large new housing project, and it would be a complete joke to base the project around the railway but have it served so poorly. A frequency increase will probably even have to be considered.

 

[sprunt]

So Finsbury Park is a good shout to terminate anything coming from the south. Alexandra Palace is the equivalent for anything coming from the north and then you can use Harringay flyover to bring the unit back north again to pick up passengers at Alexandra Palace.

Terminating at Ally Pally seems like a complete non-starter given that the onward connections are two local bus routes or a half mile walk to Wood Green underground.

 

[London Trains]

Unfortunately it has proven to be a failure, and just because it hasn't existed for long doesn't excuse it. The same would've happened with Cambridge to Maidstone, thankfully that didn't get out of the woods.

Exactly, what I find utterly baffling is how there are people on this forum who are dead set against Cambridge to Maidstone, but at the same time can't see that Peterborough to Horsham has been a complete failure for the same reasons that they use to justify Cambridge to Maidstone being an extremely bad idea.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Jan 2026 ==

Where else is actually feasible, given expanding KGX is impossible? Doing what I said in my original post is a lengthy task but I'd love to hear any other good alternative.

I've previously suggested a "platform minus 1" at Kings Cross, built along York Way - it would be a bit of a squeeze, but if York Way was narrowed to one narrow lane with the bus stop and bus stands all removed, there should be enough space to fit in a platform.

 

[Magdalia]

For trains that actually need to use the fasts (which is not all), this would happen only once when departing/arriving depending on which side is used, and with only 2tph of terminating trains I cannot see it being an issue. Correct me if I'm wrong, of course, I'm not an expert at pathing, but it seems ridiculous to me that 2tph having to block the fast lines is completely infeasible.

The south end of the ECML has lots of infrastructure to eliminate at grade conflicting moves. These include flyovers at Holloway, Harringay, Alexandra Palace, Welwyn and Langley plus diveunders south of Finsbury Park. It isn't ridiculous that blocking the fast lines for at grade conflicting moves is completely infeasible, it is what happens when the route is being used to its full capacity. It is why, in recent years, there has been a new flyover at Hitchin and a new diveunder at Werrington. Introducing new at grade conflicting moves at Finsbury Park isn't going to happen.

 

[bramling]

Terminating at Ally Pally seems like a complete non-starter given that the onward connections are two local bus routes or a half mile walk to Wood Green underground.

Realistically, the only viable solutions are finding space at King's Cross, or finding somewhere at the south end of the Thameslink core to terminate the service. Herne Hill siding works on paper, though there would be the issue of whether this could be pathed through Blackfriars, and whether the time taken to empty trains out would be a problem. There's then the corresponding problem of where the Horsham end of the route goes.

Exactly, what I find utterly baffling is how there are people on this forum who are dead set against Cambridge to Maidstone, but at the same time can't see that Peterborough to Horsham has been a complete failure for the same reasons that they use to justify Cambridge to Maidstone being an extremely bad idea.

Cambridge to Maidstone would be a disaster because of the way it interacts with other services, in particular the fast Fen Line services, which already suffer as a result of the Cambridge to Brighton service. Peterborough does at least more or less have the railway to itself between Hitchin and Huntingdon, bar the handful of peak extras and a few freight services.

There’s also the issue that I suspect some Cambridge passengers might tolerate the Brighton service because they have alternatives when it goes down, and for the rest of the time it’s useful for those who can’t be bothered to change trains when they want to fly from Gatwick Airport.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Jan 2026 ==

The south end of the ECML has lots of infrastructure to eliminate at grade conflicting moves. These include flyovers at Holloway, Harringay, Alexandra Palace, Welwyn and Langley plus diveunders south of Finsbury Park. It isn't ridiculous that blocking the fast lines for at grade conflicting moves is completely infeasible, it is what happens when the route is being used to its full capacity. It is why, in recent years, there has been a new flyover at Hitchin and a new diveunder at Werrington. Introducing new at grade conflicting moves at Finsbury Park isn't going to happen.

Even with flyovers, both Welwyn and Hitchin are bottlenecks. Indeed one of the numerous remiss aspects of the Thameslink programme was that nothing was done to provide some extra flexibility at Welwyn Garden City. Expecting to turn 4tph on platforms 3 and 4 combined with 2tph through services was always going to be a problem, especially with Sevenoaks trains more likely to turn up at random times, and would have been even worse had Maidstone happened.

 

[Mr. SW]

I've just had a peep at Google maps to refresh my knowledge of the area. Southbound Slow line trains could be, at a push, sent down the branch towards Canonbury to reverse at or by Drayton Park (not the NCL Station!). Northbound Slow would somehow contrive to go as far as Harringay and use the flyover there.

But that's looking at something very rare, I would guess. Very, very rare.

Anything else would involve serious wad, and if you were going to do that, I would go the whole hog and get whatever is needed all done down as far as Belle Isle, replace any bridges and knock out anything that's in the way.

Which is unlikely to happen. Ever.

 

[Magdalia]

Exactly, what I find utterly baffling is how there are people on this forum who are dead set against Cambridge to Maidstone, but at the same time can't see that Peterborough to Horsham has been a complete failure for the same reasons that they use to justify Cambridge to Maidstone being an extremely bad idea.

Cambridge-Maidstone and Peterborough-Horsham are not the same. Cambridge-Maidstone is worse than Peterborough-Horsham in two important respects.

Most importantly the Cambridge-Maidstone trains would have been booked to stop in the 2 track section at Welwyn North, whereas the Peterborough-Horsham trains pass through the 2 track section without stopping. The trains that stop at Welwyn North are the most critical to the operation of the ECML, because of the extra time that they take to get through the 2 track section.

Cambridge-Maidstone would also have provided the stopping service north of Hitchin on a 2 track railway shared with non-stop Fen Line trains, Peterborough-Horsham has a 4 track railway north of Hitchin apart from Holme Fen.

As it happens, I am against both, but have yet to find a practical way of replacing Peterborough-Horsham with something else that works. Extra platforms at Finsbury Park is another proposal that doesn't work to add to the list.