MIG

On 18 Jul, 14:02, Graeme Wall <R...@greywall.> wrote:
> In message <c0acb287-dd74-4e14-baad-3ffd268bf...@f40g2000pri...com>
>           MIG <googles...@doreenbird.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 18 Jul, 12:44, Graeme Wall <R...@greywall.> wrote:
> > > In message <84a3ac49-ad62-4dc6-9ea6-95446e022...@t12g2000prg..com>
> > >           MIG <googles...@doreenbird.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > On 18 Jul, 10:46, Graeme Wall <R...@greywall.> wrote:
> > > > > In message <41n084p1hgiqoujs8kgmbd5qc35e5m2...@>
> > > > >           David Hansen <SENDdavidNOhS...@spidacom.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:07:05 GMT someone who may be Chris  Tolley
> > > > > > <cj...@supanet.com> wrote this:-
>
> > > > > > >That wasn't always so, though, was it - some termini had arrival sides
> > > > > > >and departure sides.
>
> > > > > > I imagine most did. Firstly an arrival platform and a departure
> > > > > > platform, which was then repeated in larger form with subsequent
> > > > > > rebuilding. Of course in those days trains had/needed a fair amount
> > > > > > of attention and it was also useful to release the locomotive ASAP.
> > > > > > This led to the typical arrangement of an arrival side, departure
> > > > > > side, empty stock lines and locomotive/carriage facilities in
> > > > > > cheaper locations to the station itself. This was only changed from
> > > > > > the 1960s onwards.
>
> > > > > > >I also half-recall reading something about station layouts that asserted
> > > > > > >that the terminus layout with the greatest throughput would be such an
> > > > > > > arrangement with a reversing siding (or loop, though that would turn
> > > > > > > the trains) beyond the arrival and departure platforms.
>
> > > > > > Such a loop was proposed in a number of instances from about 100
> > > > > > years ago, particularly in London. I have vague recollections of
> > > > > > Euston and Waterloo, but may well be wrong. One was built on one of
> > > > > > the tube lines, I forget which (Charing Cross perhaps), but later
> > > > > > abandoned as part of an extension.
>
> > > > > The Piccadilly Heathrow extension involves a loop.
>
> > > > > IIRC the Central Line had a loop at White City.
>
> > > > It did once upon a time.
>
> > > > The current loop referred to is at Kennington on the Northern line
> > > > (from the Charing Cross direction).
>
> > > Can't find a reference to one at Kennington but David is correct about there
> > > being one at Charing Cross, it opened 6th April 1914 and continued in use
> > > until the opening of the extension to Kennington in 1926.
>
> > Yes, and I think it went under the Thames for part of its length.  
>
> It did, roughly between Cleopatra's needle and Charing Cross pier.
>
> > The
> > Bakerloo must have already crossed the Thames, so that section must
> > have been quite crowded with crossing tunnels.
>
> > I wonder if avoiding the loop has anything to do with why the Northern
> > Line platforms are above each other at Embankment and the Bakerloo
> > platforms are above each other at Waterloo?
>
> '60 Years Of The Northern' is silent on the subject.


Clive's answer is eloquent, however. I guess I should have said "at
different heights". It's difficult to judge the horizontal
relationship when you can only see one at a time ...

I had been assuming that the tunnels crossed the loop, but I didn't
realise that it had been filled in and tunnelled through again.