Greetings.

I just got back from a trip to Moscow. I made extensive use of the Metro
there and thought I'd post my observations on how it compares with the
London Underground.


Things I like better about the Moscow Metro:

* The trains seem to run a lot more frequently. I used the system on both
weekends and weekdays, at various times of the day (morning and evening
rush hours, mid-afternoon, and late at night), and never had to wait more
than three minutes for a train, even if I arrived just as one was leaving
the platform.

* The stations are (famously) very beautifully decorated with marble,
columns, chandeliers, statues, reliefs, murals, etc.

* The stations are very spacious. Even during the crowded rush hour in
central stations there was plenty of space to move around. I was able to
walk quite fast in the crowds; there was no crunching or bottlenecks along
the platforms, though sometimes there was a bit of queuing at the
escalators.

* There is little or no visual advertising. There were no posters on the
platforms or escalators, and inside the trains themselves there were
usually only a couple small recruitment posters next to the maps. However,
some stations did play audio ads on the escalators.

* The pricing is simple: it's 26 RUB for each journey, regardless of
distance or number of interchanges.

* The stations look so clean! In London many of the stations look very
grimy, particularly on the ceilings and far sides of the tunnels. In
Moscow many of the stations are gleaming white everywhere.

* The platforms and trains don't seem to get as hot as London. It was 30
degrees every day I was in Moscow, and yet travelling on the Metro wasn't
particularly uncomfortable. (The buses, on the other hand, were terrible.
Interestingly, instead of displaying the name of the next stop on the bus's
overhead LED display, it would display the internal and external
temperature. The former would be as high as 40 degrees.)

* There seems to be a mobile phone signal in many stations I passed through
(maybe all of them -- I didn't check).


Things I like better about the London Underground:

* Our stations have countdown timers showing the destination of and time to
the next two or three trains. (Though I'm particularly upset at the recent
penchant for installing advertising projectors right in front of them,
obscuring their view and thus making them completely useless from most
viewing angles.) However, this would not be quite so advantageous in
Moscow, where the trains seem to run quite often and the lines don't tend
to split.

* LU stations have better station identification on the platforms: the
station name tends to be repeated conspicuously several times along both
sides of the tunnel, making it easy to tell at a glance through the train
windows where you are. In most of the Moscow Metro stations I passed
through, there were only one or two station signs in the tunnels which
weren't visible from every car, or sometimes even from the platform. If
you weren't listening carefully to the announcements, or counting stations,
then it was impossible to know where you were. Even where signs were
posted, sometimes it was in a very stylized font that took a while to read.


Other observations:

* There was much more uniformed presence in the stations and on the trains.
Station staff and militsiya were numerous and highly visible, though quite
bored-looking.

* The stations don't have entry gates or turnstyles. The only defence
against fare-dodgers seemed to be some uniformed old women standing at the
entrance who would yell, "Aren't you ashamed of yourself!" at people who
passed through without a ticket.


If anyone else here has used both the London and Metro underground systems,
I'd be interested in hearing how you thought they compared.

Regards,
Tristan

--
_
_V.-o Tristan Miller Space is limited
/ |`-' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- In a haiku, so it's hard
(7_\\ http://www.nothingisreal.com/ To finish what you

I found that the moscow metro was slightly less useful for tourists
because in the central area the stations seemed more spread out. It's
probably better for commuting and covering distance, but not so good
for popping between sights. On the other hand the ticketing was very
easy - go to the kiosk, hold up number of fingers for how many single
fares you need.

Greetings.

In article news:de18d0d1-dfb8-467c-
, skyguy wrote:
I found that the moscow metro was slightly less useful for tourists
because in the central area the stations seemed more spread out. It's
probably better for commuting and covering distance, but not so good
for popping between sights.

This disadvantage is somewhat mitigated by the fact that Moscow doesn't
actually have that many tourist sites. There aren't nearly as many museums
and historical buildings as, say, London or Vienna. But I do agree that
the stations are very far apart, even in the city centre. It's something I
noticed in Budapest and St. Petersburg as well.

Regards,
Tristan

--
_
_V.-o Tristan Miller Space is limited
/ |`-' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- In a haiku, so it's hard
(7_\\ http://www.nothingisreal.com/ To finish what you

In message , Tristan Miller
writes
I just got back from a trip to Moscow. I made extensive use of the Metro
there and thought I'd post my observations on how it compares with the
London Underground.

Thanks for those observations. It's some years since I last went
there, but that's roughly how I remember it. Many of the stations were
really interesting to look at, the only problem being how to find a
place to stand gawping around without being pushed over in the rush of
people going past.

One thing you didn't mention: all the escalators run at least 50% faster
than the ones on the London underground, which is much more efficient,
but the speed didn't seem to cause anyone any trouble. Now that more
London stations are equipped with lifts that the elderly or disabled can
use as an alternative, I think there's a case for speeding some of ours
up as well.

--
Clive Page

On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 10:25:24 +0100
Clive Page wrote:
One thing you didn't mention: all the escalators run at least 50% faster
than the ones on the London underground, which is much more efficient,
but the speed didn't seem to cause anyone any trouble. Now that more

They probably wear out faster too.

B2003

On 13 July, 12:56, Tristan Miller
wrote:
Greetings.

I just got back from a trip to Moscow. *I made extensive use of the Metro
there and thought I'd post my observations on how it compares with the
London Underground.

Things I like better about the Moscow Metro:

* The trains seem to run a lot more frequently. *I used the system on both
weekends and weekdays, at various times of the day (morning and evening
rush hours, mid-afternoon, and late at night), and never had to wait more
than three minutes for a train, even if I arrived just as one was leaving
the platform.

* The stations are (famously) very beautifully decorated with marble,
columns, chandeliers, statues, reliefs, murals, etc.

* The stations are very spacious. *Even during the crowded rush hour in
central stations there was plenty of space to move around. *I was able to
walk quite fast in the crowds; there was no crunching or bottlenecks along
the platforms, though sometimes there was a bit of queuing at the
escalators.

* There is little or no visual advertising. *There were no posters on the
platforms or escalators, and inside the trains themselves there were
usually only a couple small recruitment posters next to the maps. *However,
some stations did play audio ads on the escalators.

* The pricing is simple: it's 26 RUB for each journey, regardless of
distance or number of interchanges.

* The stations look so clean! *In London many of the stations look very
grimy, particularly on the ceilings and far sides of the tunnels. *In
Moscow many of the stations are gleaming white everywhere.

* The platforms and trains don't seem to get as hot as London. *It was 30
degrees every day I was in Moscow, and yet travelling on the Metro wasn't
particularly uncomfortable. *(The buses, on the other hand, were terrible. *
Interestingly, instead of displaying the name of the next stop on the bus's
overhead LED display, it would display the internal and external
temperature. *The former would be as high as 40 degrees.)

* There seems to be a mobile phone signal in many stations I passed through
(maybe all of them -- I didn't check).

Things I like better about the London Underground:

* Our stations have countdown timers showing the destination of and time to
the next two or three trains. *(Though I'm particularly upset at the recent
penchant for installing advertising projectors right in front of them,
obscuring their view and thus making them completely useless from most
viewing angles.) *However, this would not be quite so advantageous in
Moscow, where the trains seem to run quite often and the lines don't tend
to split.

* LU stations have better station identification on the platforms: the
station name tends to be repeated conspicuously several times along both
sides of the tunnel, making it easy to tell at a glance through the train
windows where you are. *In most of the Moscow Metro stations I passed
through, there were only one or two station signs in the tunnels which
weren't visible from every car, or sometimes even from the platform. *If
you weren't listening carefully to the announcements, or counting stations,
then it was impossible to know where you were. *Even where signs were
posted, sometimes it was in a very stylized font that took a while to read.

Other observations:

* There was much more uniformed presence in the stations and on the trains. *
Station staff and militsiya were numerous and highly visible, though quite
bored-looking.

* The stations don't have entry gates or turnstyles. *The only defence
against fare-dodgers seemed to be some uniformed old women standing at the
entrance who would yell, "Aren't you ashamed of yourself!" at people who
passed through without a ticket.

If anyone else here has used both the London and Metro underground systems,
I'd be interested in hearing how you thought they compared.

Regards,
Tristan

--
* *_
* _V.-o * * * * Tristan Miller * * * * * *Space is limited
*/ |`-' *-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- * *In a haiku, so it's hard
(7_\\ * *http://www.nothingisreal.com/* *To finish what you

Here is Gants Hill station on the Central Line, reportedly "inspired"
by Moscow (but not as ornate!):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ga..._concourse.JPG

I thoroughly agree with you Tristan. I was an independent journalist (still am) in SU during Soviet times and so pleased that it is still the same high standard. We also had fun on the buses at first not knowing where you pay or get a ticket. We were once at the front or the bus near the driver and the small change pot, when people passed us money and expected change - we hadn't a clue what we were doing and got in such a muddle everyone was laughing and making friends with us till a Moscow beauty. after collapsing with laughter, explained it all to us in perfect BBC English. She then escorted us to the local Friendship House (Dom Druxhba) and made us so welcome. Is it still like that now? Dasvidania moya dryg. Tavarisch Brian.