Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Since we are on the topic of comparing things stateside, I thought I'd
share my recent experiences of the NYC subway system during a recent stay. Stations: All stations I saw appeared litter free with no signs of vandalism, however it is probably fair to say every single one looked very dirty and smelt like a public toilet! Most of the stations I used did show signs of renovation work in progress although in a couple of cases this meant that platforms and passageways were open with surfaces potholed while they were in the process of relaying them. Also there were no staff to be seen inside the ticket barriers on most stations. I was very impressed by the extending platform edges on the curved platforms at South Ferry, but was not impressed by the fact that the rear 5 coaches (of 10) do not fit into the station and there is no passenger connection between units 5 and 6. Anyone who could not read the English posters might have difficulty there as the muffled announcement did not help, and the staff made no effort to detrain people in the wrong carrages at the previous station. I realised in time, but there were still people in my carrage as I left and legged it along the platform. The station is on a loop so anyone in the wrong carrages will just get returned to the previous station. One thing that caused me a great deal of confusion is that the stations often have seperate external entrances for each direction of travel, and no internal bridge/underpass if you enter via the wrong one. Sometimes these external entrances were a block apart with no signposting between them. I guess this is something you get used to, but as a first time visitor to a station it is baffling. Trains: About the same as the UK, less evidence of tagging on the trains compared to the UK however they had a far worse etching problem, probably down to some lines having everthing internal covered in stainless steel plating. The newer trains had dot-matrix screens and clear recorded announcements, just like the Jubilee and Northern lines. One line also had lights behind each station on the route maps above the windows which indicated the trains current position on the line. One thing missing on all lines was seat cushions, the moulded plastic seats quickly become uncomfortable. On most trains you could look out the front window (drivers cab is on one side) which was kind of cool to stand by for a near drivers eye view. Fair structu Much easier to understand than London, no zones, no local cross-boundary fares just a single $2 flat fare per journey (including a bus transfer as part of the same subway journey). Travelcard style unlimited use tickets were also available but I used the pre-pay MetroCard which I could buy or refill at each station. Also if you put $10 on your MetroCard it gave you another $2 journey for free. Passenger information: No tube maps posted on platforms (usually the only one is outside the gateline), no destination/time indicators on platforms, most announcements muffled and distorted (yes, much worse than London). Signs were of variable quality. Given that multiple destinations depart from the same platforms, and there are express/stopping varients of services this lack of info didn't help. The line number/letter is displayed on the front of each train and once on the side of each car with the terminus points to make up for this though. The dot matrix signs inside the newer stock were also a great help in understanding where the train was going. Reliability: Did not experience any major service disruption - just as I rarely do on my daily DLR journey. Overall I think that if I was offered reduced / flat fares NYC style but in return for their shoddy, dirty, smelly stations, lack of staff, lack of information and uncomfortable trains then I would turn it down. After all, given the current exchange rate, I'm not paying more then $4 a day for my Z1+2 annual. So everyone at LU reading this, give yourselves a big pat on the back. I have experienced a comparable system and the Underground is equal or far better in all aspects except for cost. But then I guess you get what you pay for. Of course I'm sure other people's experiences will be different. -- Gareth Davis |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Gareth Davis" wrote in message om... Since we are on the topic of comparing things stateside, I thought I'd share my recent experiences of the NYC subway system during a recent stay. Stations: All stations I saw appeared litter free with no signs of vandalism, however it is probably fair to say every single one looked very dirty and smelt like a public toilet! Most of the stations I used did show signs of renovation work in progress although in a couple of cases this meant that platforms and passageways were open with surfaces potholed while they were in the process of relaying them. Also there were no staff to be seen inside the ticket barriers on most stations. I was very impressed by the extending platform edges on the curved platforms at South Ferry, but was not impressed by the fact that the rear 5 coaches (of 10) do not fit into the station and there is no passenger connection between units 5 and 6. Anyone who could not read the English posters might have difficulty there as the muffled announcement did not help, and the staff made no effort to detrain people in the wrong carrages at the previous station. I realised in time, but there were still people in my carrage as I left and legged it along the platform. The station is on a loop so anyone in the wrong carrages will just get returned to the previous station. One thing that caused me a great deal of confusion is that the stations often have seperate external entrances for each direction of travel, and no internal bridge/underpass if you enter via the wrong one. Sometimes these external entrances were a block apart with no signposting between them. I guess this is something you get used to, but as a first time visitor to a station it is baffling. Fair structu Much easier to understand than London, no zones, no local cross-boundary fares just a single $2 flat fare per journey (including a bus transfer as part of the same subway journey). Travelcard style unlimited use tickets were also available but I used the pre-pay MetroCard which I could buy or refill at each station. Also if you put $10 on your MetroCard it gave you another $2 journey for free. Passenger information: No tube maps posted on platforms (usually the only one is outside the gateline), no destination/time indicators on platforms, most announcements muffled and distorted (yes, much worse than London). Signs were of variable quality. Given that multiple destinations depart from the same platforms, and there are express/stopping varients of services this lack of info didn't help. The line number/letter is displayed on the front of each train and once on the side of each car with the terminus points to make up for this though. The dot matrix signs inside the newer stock were also a great help in understanding where the train was going. Overall I think that if I was offered reduced / flat fares NYC style but in return for their shoddy, dirty, smelly stations, lack of staff, lack of information and uncomfortable trains then I would turn it down. After all, given the current exchange rate, I'm not paying more then $4 a day for my Z1+2 annual. So everyone at LU reading this, give yourselves a big pat on the back. I have experienced a comparable system and the Underground is equal or far better in all aspects except for cost. But then I guess you get what you pay for. Of course I'm sure other people's experiences will be different. -- Gareth Davis Broadly I found the same things. One thing that seemed weird for me was to get used to not having to put your ticket in the barrier to get out of the station. I'd say there are fewer stations and far fewer interchanges than in London, but I love the idea of having express trains on the network. I thought passenger information was very, very lacking. One thing that I didn't think was particularly helpful was their using the term "uptown" and "downtown" at the same time as having "up" stairs and "down" stairs. Talking of stairs, haven't they heard of escalators? Money wise, overall, I think it's got to be less expensive than London. $7 a day buys you an unlimited travel card for subway/buses beats the £8+ for a Peak LT card. |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 00:54:31 -0500, "JB" wrote:
Broadly I found the same things. One thing that seemed weird for me was to get used to not having to put your ticket in the barrier to get out of the station. I'd say there are fewer stations and far fewer interchanges than in London, but I love the idea of having express trains on the network. There are 468 stations on the New York subway system. There are 275 on London Underground. I have traveled through 466 NYC subway stations--only omitting Pennsylvania Ave. and New Lots Ave. in Brooklyn (they were a bit daunting when I lived in New York). 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. I thought passenger information was very, very lacking. One thing that I didn't think was particularly helpful was their using the term "uptown" and "downtown" at the same time as having "up" stairs and "down" stairs. Talking of stairs, haven't they heard of escalators? Money wise, overall, I think it's got to be less expensive than London. $7 a day buys you an unlimited travel card for subway/buses beats the £8+ for a Peak LT card. In New York, they do economies of scale: there are more commuters there than in London, I believe. As for escalators, there are very few needed because most subway lines were "cut and cover" lines rather than deep-bored tubes. There are some escalators from #7 stations in Manhattan, and some in other places--going from the elevated #4 station at 161st St. to the underground D station, for example (ISTR, but my memory may be faulty). Uptown and Downtown as directional designators helps signage as, for example, at 42nd Street Times Square "Uptown" trains can end at 137th St., 148th St. Lenox Terminal, 207th Street Washington Heights, 242nd Street Van Cortlandt Park, 241st Street in the Bronx, 168th Street and Broadway, 57th Street Manhattan, Ditmars Boulevard Astoria, or 179th Street Jamaica (some of these may have changed in the interval of the last 13 years since I lived there...). To put all these possible destinations on a sign outside the subway entrances (not to mention the Downtown destinations, which could be quite extensive as well) would mean a very large sign or very small writing. However, most New Yorkers have a vague idea whether the place they're going is Uptown or Downtown, and visitors either learn quickly or end up in Flatbush. In Brooklyn, perversely, Downtown is the part nearest Manhattan, so a train going "Downtown" from Coney Island will end up going "Uptown" once it reaches Manhattan. It's a quirk that residents just know, and visitors and newbies must quickly learn. -- Chris Hansen | chrishansenhome at btinternet dot com "The problem with the French is that they have no word for 'entrepreneur'." President Bush to Prime Minister Blair, at Bush's first G8 summit. |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() 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. -- Spyke Address is valid, but messages are treated as junk. The opinions I express do not necessarily reflect those of the educational institution from which I post. |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Spyke" wrote in message
... 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. 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? |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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" |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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! |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
I was very impressed by the extending platform edges on the curved
platforms at South Ferry, but was not impressed by the fact that the rear 5 coaches (of 10) do not fit into the station and there is no passenger connection between units 5 and 6. Anyone who could not read the English posters might have difficulty there as the muffled announcement did not help, and the staff made no effort to detrain people in the wrong carrages at the previous station. I realised in time, but there were still people in my carrage as I left and legged it along the platform. The station is on a loop so anyone in the wrong carrages will just get returned to the previous station. This is a very old problem and one that has been exacerbated by the newer subway cars that do not allow free passage between the rear cars and the forward ones because the conductor's cab in the middle blocks passage. The last time I was in New York (in October 2003) I was in car 5 and the conductor made lots of very clear announcements in the previous station. Then as the train neared South Ferry, he made another announcement and opened the door between his cab and the 5th and 6th cars so that those who were in the rear part of the train could get into the front to exit. The practice of the C/R opening the cab door at South Ferry has been banned. Any C/R caught doing that will earn a trip to Jay St. The really irritating thing is that the 6th car actually platforms at SF, but, as the doors can't be isolated, you can't get out. I could see a case for putting signs at the downtown end of the uptown side (if you get what I mean!) of Rector St station reading "South Ferry", as it's not a long walk and is infinitely preferable to exiting the system and paying another $2 to enter on the downtown side. Tourists often don't realise quite how close IRT stops really are. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
On attempts to modernise signalling in New York subway | London Transport | |||
[USA]Prohibition-era train steams onto New York subway for 1920s TV series | London Transport | |||
New York subway (was: London Free Rides) | London Transport | |||
New York subway (was: London Free Rides) | London Transport | |||
New York subway (was: London Free Rides) | London Transport |