Thameslink and possible Trick missed during construction

[pethadine82]

Was just wondering how 24 TPH are going to be managed, the current timetable takes nearly an hour to cross London, it is very slow.
Also why did they not tunnel under the ground to connect the far end of rails to canal tunnel, north of KGX as transversing so many lines is going to cause a bottle neck. As you move north there was what I believe rail that used to go through the arched tunnels towards FPK, that could have been brought back into use.
Another observation was when the East London Line was extended could they not have connected it north to finsbury park and have 3 pairs of track ( third being bidirectional ) so that after finsbury park, the service could call at Highbury and Islington, then Canada Water , New cross gate then on to Croydon, thus bypassing and easing congestion on the core. Those that want to go into central, just switch at FPK. Those that work in Canary wharf would have it very easy just changing at canada Water. Just a though, would welcome comments.

 

[30907]

1. Presumably you mean the timetable for trains diverted via Tulse Hill? That is about to change.
2. There is a perfectly good flyover route for southbound trains, so they will only cross one northbound line, used by the remaining slow line trains leaving KGX.
3. The ELL can only take 5-car trains, so there would be a capacity issue. Also, crossing the North London Line at Canonbury on the level would be virtually impossible as it's so busy.

 

[swt_passenger]

In addition to 30907’s point 2 above, there will also be fewer trains than now on the slow side in and out of Kings Cross, as the 8 tph peak service is mostly diversions rather than extras...

 

[Dr_Paul]

The original plans for developing the ELL made use of the Canonbury curve to go up to Finsbury Park; we discussed this just a few weeks back. However, this would entail the ELL having to cross the North London Line with all its passenger and freight traffic and, short of tunnelling under the NLL, this would have been difficult to manage.

We have also discussed on this site the missed opportunity to have had a four-platform station underneath St Pancras, which would have helped deal with the additional traffic to and from Finsbury Park and would also have permitted some overtaking on the Bedford line, thus speeding up traffic.

 

[Bald Rick]

We have also discussed on this site the missed opportunity to have had a four-platform station underneath St Pancras, which would have helped deal with the additional traffic to and from Finsbury Park and would also have permitted some overtaking on the Bedford line, thus speeding up traffic.

... and we have also demonstrated on this site (repeatedly) that a 4 platform low level St Pancras station was not feasible due to it being substantially more expensive, very much more disruptive to the railway and local community during construction, and result in (even) longer walking times from the platforms to the rest of the joint station complex.

So more money, more hassle, and worse for passengers - all to introduce an overtaking facility that is already provided before entering the core, which is actually where you need it.