St Pancras Low Level
 

I was standing at St Pancras Low Level the other day and saw that from
the Northern end of the platforms you can see a couple of bored
tunnels. One is to the left of the Midland line and the other is to
the right. Both are fenced off and neither has track laid.

Would I be right in thinking that these are the eventual connections
to the ECML? I had assumed they would be cut-and-cover rather than
bored. Does anyone know any details?

St Pancras Low Level
 

On Apr 3, 10:24*am, wrote:
I was standing at St Pancras Low Level the other day and saw that from
the Northern end of the platforms you can see a couple of bored
tunnels. One is to the left of the Midland line and the other is to
the right. Both are fenced off and neither has track laid.

Would I be right in thinking that these are the eventual connections
to the ECML?

Yes.

I had assumed they would be cut-and-cover rather than
bored. Does anyone know any details?

Sorry, not really. I think they're cut and cover at the northern end
though - see this bird's eye view:
http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?cp...&style=b&lvl=1

St Pancras Low Level
 

In message
,
writes

I was standing at St Pancras Low Level the other day and saw that from
the Northern end of the platforms you can see a couple of bored
tunnels. One is to the left of the Midland line and the other is to
the right. Both are fenced off and neither has track laid.

Would I be right in thinking that these are the eventual connections
to the ECML?

Yes

I had assumed they would be cut-and-cover rather than
bored. Does anyone know any details?

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

http://fp.martinunderwood.f9.co.uk/L...RL%20lines.gif

--
Paul Terry

St Pancras Low Level
 

In message
, at
03:08:44 on Fri, 3 Apr 2009, Mizter T remarked:
I had assumed they would be cut-and-cover rather than
bored. Does anyone know any details?

Sorry, not really. I think they're cut and cover at the northern end
though - see this bird's eye view:
http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?cp...&style=b&lvl=1

The SPILL box itself was built as cut and cover, but that view above
clearly shows why you couldn't realistically cut and cover all the way
to the ECML.

This picture might also be helpful, as it shows where SPILL is
positioned, and hints at the length of tunnel required to meet up with
the ECML (aligned left to right at the very bottom of the map).

http://www.arup.com/_assets/_download/download268.pdf
--
Roland Perry

St Pancras Low Level
 

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

St Pancras Low Level
 

On Apr 3, 11:39*am, Roland Perry wrote:

In message
, at
03:08:44 on Fri, 3 Apr 2009, Mizter T remarked:

I had assumed they would be cut-and-cover rather than
bored. Does anyone know any details?

Sorry, not really. I think they're cut and cover at the northern end
though - see this bird's eye view:
http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?cp...&style=b&lvl=1

The SPILL box itself was built as cut and cover, but that view above
clearly shows why you couldn't realistically cut and cover all the way
to the ECML.

This picture might also be helpful, as it shows where SPILL is
positioned, and hints at the length of tunnel required to meet up with
the ECML (aligned left to right at the very bottom of the map).

http://www.arup.com/_assets/_download/download268.pdf


Interesting. The positioning is pretty tight - avoiding the original
bits of St Pancras station, the British Library and the housing to the
west of Midland Road. I'd be interested to know how far if at all this
alignment deviates from what was there beforehand, i.e. the
subterranean course of the Thameslink line before SPILL was
constructed.

St Pancras Low Level
 

In article
,
() wrote:

I was standing at St Pancras Low Level the other day and saw that from
the Northern end of the platforms you can see a couple of bored
tunnels. One is to the left of the Midland line and the other is to
the right. Both are fenced off and neither has track laid.

Would I be right in thinking that these are the eventual connections
to the ECML? I had assumed they would be cut-and-cover rather than
bored. Does anyone know any details?

They are indeed and their other end can be seen at Belle Isle on the way
out of King's Cross. Due for connection in 2015 under the Thameslink
Programme.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

St Pancras Low Level
 

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?

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

St Pancras Low Level
 

On 3 Apr, 14:23, wrote:
Cutbacks to which programme, Thameslink? Is that really likely? Surely
now that the tunnels are built, the connection to ECML isn't that
extensive?

Yes, but they're only useful if the very expensive works to open up
capacity through London Bridge and Bermondsey go ahead. There's a
reasonable argument not to go ahead with this whole phase of works
once the current phase (12 cars at Farringdon and Blackfriars) is
done.

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

Holloway flyover plus all the bi-directional signalling in the area
means you have a lot of flexibility to avoid conflicts.

U

St Pancras Low Level
 

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