"Recliner" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 23:56:08 -0700 (PDT), e27002
wrote:



IMHO, not a good program. It was simplistic tothose with some
knowledge of the subject. It was misleading to those without. The
graphics were not bad.

What was misleading about it? Other than that it mentioned TfL and
Crossrail
projects in the same breath rather than making it clear that Crossrail
is
not part of TfL or "the London Underground system".

The City & South London was the first subway line? Whatever happened
to the Met? Apparently steam motive pwer was considered! (On a tube
line). Greathead was the first to tunnel with a shield! What was
Marc Brunel utilizing (OK, not so refined, but still the same
principle).

The program was simplistic and lacked detail, even for "normals".

Yes, it was simplistic and lacked detail, being intended for the US
market, although it apparently still required a longer attention span
than you could muster. It made quite clear the difference between the
Met's cut and cover tunnels (complete with horse-drawn carriages
driving on the right) and the pioneering deep tube tunnels used by the
C&SLR. It separately explained that multiple-unit electric trains (as
pioneered in NYC) had better traction than steam loco-hauled trains,
though it didn't mention the intermediate option of electric locos, as
used initially by the C&SLR.

Wasn't the better traction caused by the multiple driving wheels distributed
along the train rather than the use of electricity as opposed to steam?
Wouldn't an electric loco (with the same number of driving wheels as a steam
loco) have the same traction problems? Wouldn't a diesel multiple unit (or a
"steam multiple unit", if such things existed) be as good as an EMU?