Although can the Met Line's overground service to Amersham etc really be
classed as a subway/underground service or is it a main-line service that
would be operated by National Rail and TOCs if it were in south London?

Most of the bloody passengers use the Mainline services from there because
some don't like LU trains. Though, I do know some prefer LU
--
To reply direct, remove NOSPAM and replace with railwaysonline
For Railway Information, News & Photos check out the Award Winning Railways
Online at http://www.railwaysonline.co.uk
"Loving First Great Western Link since 2004"

Paul Corfield writes:
Some of the other observations are responses to societal problems -
upholstered seats would never work in NYC given the prevalence of
vandalism and graffiti. I agree that metal or plastic seats are not
comfy but it would be far too expensive to provide them.

Actually, I wonder if that's still true now. The totally graffiti-
covered trains that you used to see 25 years ago are a thing of the
past, thanks to vigilant enforcement and improved security at the
yards (depots). Maybe the environment has also improved to where
proper seats could be reintroduced.

And New York does beat London on two other issues of onboard comfort:
all trains are air-conditioned, and with no "tube profile" trains, the
whole floor area is available for standing if needed.

On the whole I find the London system a much more pleasant environment,
but slower-moving and, of course, more expensive for most trips.
--
Mark Brader "Inventions reached their limit long ago,
Toronto and I see no hope for further development."
-- Julius Frontinus, 1st century A.D.

My text in this article is in the public domain.

In message , Spyke
writes
Express trains of the type that New York has are very rare on subways and
metros worldwide. In fact, I believe that they are unique to New York.

Not quite unique, as the Met line in London also operates express,
semi-fast and stopping services.

And the Piccadilly fasts in West London.
--
Roland Perry

Subject: Subway (New York) vs Underground (London) [Quite long]
From:

Thank you..very good report.p46

On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 08:49:00 +0000 (UTC), Christian Hansen
wrote:

Express trains of the type that New York has are very rare on subways and
metros worldwide. In fact, I believe that they are unique to New York.

Well not really - the Met Line is express in north west London and the
Piccadilly Line is express in west London.

I would agree that the scale of express operation is far greater in New
York but NYC is lucky that it followed the earliest underground pioneers
and therefore some forethought was applied to the construction of the
system. There are obvious parallels with things like the Paris RER and
German S Bahn systems which provide skip stop service in the suburbs as
well as fast links across the central area of their respective cities -
not subways per se but often in tunnel and performing the same function.

In New York, they do economies of scale: there are more commuters there than
in London, I believe.

Err depends how you define the term commuter and whether you are simply
comparing LUL against the NYC subway or whether you would include our
Overground railway lines which provide mass transit service in South
London where the Tube network is sparse. I realise you have a number of
main line commuter networks in New York as well but I'd guess they are
not as busy in totality as London's main line commuter network.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 15:21:12 -0000, (Mark Brader) wrote:

Paul Corfield writes:
Some of the other observations are responses to societal problems -
upholstered seats would never work in NYC given the prevalence of
vandalism and graffiti. I agree that metal or plastic seats are not
comfy but it would be far too expensive to provide them.

Actually, I wonder if that's still true now. The totally graffiti-
covered trains that you used to see 25 years ago are a thing of the
past, thanks to vigilant enforcement and improved security at the
yards (depots). Maybe the environment has also improved to where
proper seats could be reintroduced.

I know the paint graffiti has been dealt with but the scratch or dutch
graffiti was awful the last time I visited and the OP's post seems to
indicate no change. The only problem is that London is following New
York's downward spiral on the graffiti issue.

I think the maintenance issue would be the killer - metal and plastic
seats are very easy to clean and you do not have problems with seat
padding or ripped upholstery. There is also no risk of litter and drug
paraphernalia being stuffed into or between seats with metal or plastic
seats - unlike with seat cushions. I must prefer the Tube's seats and am
not looking forward to losing the relative comfort of the Victoria Line
seats when we get the new trains which I suspect will be narrow, firm
and uncomfortable.

And New York does beat London on two other issues of onboard comfort:
all trains are air-conditioned, and with no "tube profile" trains, the
whole floor area is available for standing if needed.

Can't argue with those points.

On the whole I find the London system a much more pleasant environment,
but slower-moving and, of course, more expensive for most trips.

On the slow moving aspect I'd counter that it depends what sort of trip
you are making. LUL seems to offer a much more frequent service than the
Subway. I can recall waiting for quite long periods to get specific
trains on shared routes in New York even in the rush hour. I'll agree
that once an express turns up it is quick but the lack of frequency
counts against speed in terms of assessing total journey time. My
argument may fall down on a line like the 7 in New York which is self
contained and therefore you only have a choice between an all stops and
an Express.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

"Annabel Smyth" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 at 12:47:55, Joe wrote:

The map is huge and confusing. The only thing I remember was the Q
diamond,
and never understood what it did, compared to the Normal Q line.

Q Diamond was the express, normal Q the local (we took the Q Diamond to
get to and from where we were staying with a friend in Brooklyn).

But nowhere does it obviously tell you that the diamonds are express and the
circles are local; if you look very closely in the corner of the map, in
very small print, you may notice that the word 'express' tends to be seen
near diamonds, but it's far from obvious. The squares seem to be
terminating points, but I'm not certain about that. The previous poster
said "The map is huge and confusing", I would say that is an understatement.

There are maps on at least some platforms, but they tend to be positioned
behind seats, so when someone is sitting there you can't see them! This
also seems to be the case with the maps inside cars. These maps seem to be
the same size as the ones you can get in folded form brom the booth at
stations, about 50x80cm. This map really could do with receiving the
attention of Mr. H. Beck. This map shows land masses and areas of water,
there's a lot of water around New York, and other features, such as parks
and some streets. It's not a diagram like the London one, but it's not a
true scale map either. If you don't have some idea of where the station
you're trying to reach is, geographically, there's no easy way to find it on
the map. To be fair, the Subway is a much larger system than the
Underground, and producing a really clear map would not be easy, but I'm
sure they could do better than the present one.

The signs on the side of the cars are difficult to see as the train pulls
into a crowded platform, there are no London type 'Next train' indicators on
the platforms, some stations have attractive tile mosaic name signs
displated high on the walls, otheres have only small square ones attached to
the columns, facing along the platforms, and difficult to see from a train.
Some stations have more than one name, if youare on the N, R ow W line, and
want the Staten Island ferry terminal, you need to get off at Whitehall
Street. This is shown on the map as being by the ferry terminal, but the 1
and 9 lines terminate at South Ferry station, which appears to be some
distance away. In fact, as you leave Whitehall Street station the New
entrance to South Ferry station is only about ten seconds walk away, and the
old entrance, closed since 9-11, little further. To confuse things further,
some of the previously mentioned signs on the columns at Whitehall Street
actually say South Ferry. The 4 and 5 lines serve nearby Bowling Green
station, all three stations being closer than exits from some single London
stations.

The map seems to represent tracks, or at least routes, rather than services,
the 1 and 9 lines are represented by a single red line, the N,R and W by a
single yellow one as are the Q, Q diamond and another branch of the W which
branch off at Canal Street, and turn East to cross the Manhattan Bridge,
this re-joins the other yellow line at DeKalb Av., something like the Bank
and Charing Cross branches of the Northern line, but the whole thing just
looks a mess on the map. Somebody has drawn a London style map of the
Subway, and put in on their web-site; I can't remember the address, but
Google will find it. The creator recognises some problems, mainly caused by
the number of stations. New Yorkers seem to prefer their style of map for
some reason.

I see nothing wrong with the plastic seats; ok, they're not as comfortable
as the London ones, but it's not as if people normally spend hours on end
sitting on Subway trains, and at least they're easy to keep clean.

In terms of passenger information, including the map, and siignage, London
is far better, but in most other ways I think New York is better. The
stations I have seen, admittedly quite a small number were clean, at least
parts likely to come into passengers were, both stations and trains were
more larger than typical London ones. Most ticket machines seem to work,
and unless you are making a short journey, the $2 flat fare is good value,
there was a major outcry last year when it was increased from $1.50.

Metrocards are available in unlimited ride, like Travelcard, and stored
value pre paid types. Free transfers are available to buses, and between
certain nearby stations, though strangely, not in the case of Whitehall
Street/South Ferry. For a single $2 fare it is possible to travel from the
Noth of the Bronx to the Southern tip of Manhattan. The Staten Island Ferry
is free, but even better, on reaching the Island, you swipe your Metrocard
through the gate at the Staten Island Railway terminal. and it gives you a
free transfer to that line, and the whole length of the Island.

It's a pity that the Metrocards are not valid on the other rail systems in
the area. The Subway is operated by the MTA, I think the suburban rail
lines in New York are too, but cross the Hudson, and you're in New Jersey.
Linking the two are the old Hudson Tubes, now known as PATH, operated by the
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, this links the World Trade Centre
and 33rd Street in New York with Newark and Hoboken in New Jersey. This
charges $1.50, but you can buy a card with 11 rides for the price of 10.
You cannot however use Metrocards, though there has been talk of it for the
future. It shouldn't be difficult, fit Metrocard readers to the gates,
record the number of triips made with them, and allocate the apppropriate
revenue to the Port Authority.

Once in New Jersey the suburban rail lines are operated by NJ Transit, as
are two light rail lines, the newly-built Hudson-Bergen, and the Newark city
Subway, which has recently received new vehicles, and been extended. All of
these systems have their own tickets. It's rather like needing one
Travelcard type ticket South of the Thames, another one on the Waterloo and
City, and different tickets on each underground line in the North.

The Hudson-Bergen line is impressive, the stops, stations or whatever
they're called, are better those on British tram/light rail systems, and
there seems to be almost no vandalism.

I seem to have said a lot about what's bad with these systems, but there's a
great deal which is good, A lot of money is clearly being spent on the
railways over there, to the fury of many of the local people, but they do
seem to be getting something to show for the investment. With certain
notable exemptions, we seem to be pouring large amounts of money in, but
getting little improvement out.

One thing I didn't say in my previous post was how marvellous the
commuter trains seemed to be compared to SouthCentral and Thameslink! We
took the commuter train to Trenton, New Jersey, and changed there to
another commuter train to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and it was
wonderful. Really comfortable, for local trains, with staff on the
trains to check your ticket and reduce vandalism, clean lavatories that
worked...... enough said! Left SC and TL absolutely standing!

I've only been one stop, from the new station serving Newark International
Airport Station to Newark Penn to change to PATH. I will be over there in
three weeks, probably for the last time, and will be going to Trenton to see
the new New Diesel powered light rail line, the 'River Line', which NJ
Transit opened from there to Camden three weeks ago

On 03/04/2004 13:16, in article ,
"Annabel Smyth" wrote:

was impressed by the length of the trains - I was never on one that was
uncomfortably crowded, even when I travelled in the rush hours.

This may be partly because Americans tend not to like walking - I used to
catch a northbound Lexington Avenue local from 23rd St., and found that
while most of the ten-car train was packed, there were usually seats in the
last car; to get to them involved walking three or four carlengths from the
station entrance.

Bob Watt wrote:

On 03/04/2004 13:16, in article ,
"Annabel Smyth" wrote:
was impressed by the length of the trains - I was never on one that was
uncomfortably crowded, even when I travelled in the rush hours.
This may be partly because Americans tend not to like walking - I used to
catch a northbound Lexington Avenue local from 23rd St., and found that
while most of the ten-car train was packed, there were usually seats in the
last car; to get to them involved walking three or four carlengths from the
station entrance.

Ah, just as on Victoria line in London ;-)

--
Lars Elmvang
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Min mailadresse finder du ved kun at skrive det overeksponerede domænenavn én
gang

On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 at 22:44:52, Stephen Furley
wrote:

But nowhere does it obviously tell you that the diamonds are express and the
circles are local; if you look very closely in the corner of the map, in
very small print, you may notice that the word 'express' tends to be seen
near diamonds, but it's far from obvious. The squares seem to be
terminating points, but I'm not certain about that. The previous poster
said "The map is huge and confusing", I would say that is an understatement.

What's more, it tends to be inaccurate; when we were there, there were
engineering works on one of the tracks over Manhattan Bridge, which
meant that the line didn't go where it said it did.

According to some sources, they can't do the "next train" indicators
that we have, as it's "too complex", which I think is b*ll*cks, but
there you are.....

But at least once you know where you are going, and which train to take,
you get a 24-hour service, on admittedly less comfortable, but also less
crowded trains.
--
Annabel Smyth
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html
Website updated 8 March 2004