wrote in message
...
On 3 Apr, 11:26, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:35:14 on Fri, 3
Apr 2009, Paul Terry remarked:

The northernmost part is cut and cover, but the rest was always planned
as bored.

And if, as some suspect, they never see traffic as a result of cutbacks
- they'll always be bored.
--
Roland Perry

Cutbacks to which programme, Thameslink? Is that really likely? Surely
now that the tunnels are built, the connection to ECML isn't that
extensive?

Not incorporating GN is a suggestion sometimes made in the event that the
London Bridge station phase of the work ( KO2) doesn't happen, ie there is
no capacity for the services. AFAICT partial GN diversion to Thameslink is
a fundamental part of the required capacity improvements on the GN though,
because KX suburban cannot be extended or widened on the existing site.
As work isn't due to start til 2012 though, anything could happen if the
allocated funding is hijacked for something else by the Treasury...

I did wonder how well the flat junction onto the ECML would work
though.

Only 6 (might be 8?) tph are intended to transfer from GN onto Thameslink -
with a remaining minority service into Kings Cross, and all those from the
GN slows. It ought therefore to be the least problematic junction,
especially in comparison to the merging with the existing services at St
Pancras LL, and then the 8/16 tph flat junction at the Blackfriars end of
the core section, separating the 25% 'non - London Bridge' services...

Paul S