London v Paris
 

Clive Coleman writes:
Does this mean they've done away with the rubber tyred trains?

No. I believe http://world.nycsubway.org/perl/show?15541 shows
one of the new trains on the right; if you brighten the image, you
can clearly see the rubber.
--
Mark Brader "Inventions reached their limit long ago,
Toronto and I see no hope for further development."
-- Julius Frontinus, 1st century A.D.

London v Paris
 

Morton wrote:
"Richard J." wrote in message
k...
Morton wrote:

1. The Metro trains are better than London Underground. All I saw
were wider (holding more people) and much cleaner.

There are no small-sized tube trains in Paris, but I would guess
that the trains are no wider than, say, D-stock.

They were Metropolitan-style.

I've found some dimensions to compare. These are overall train widths
in metres, London figures from Tubeprune's site, Paris from Alstom's
site:

London sub-surface: A (Met) 2.95; C (Circle etc.) 2.92; D (District)
2.85.

London tube: 67/72 (Vic, Bakerloo) 2.64; 73/95/96 (Picc, Northern,
Jubilee) 2.63 (Alstom's site says 2.6); 92 (Central, W&C) 2.62.

Paris: MP89 (Lines 1, 14) 2.45.

MP89 look at least as wide as the earlier Paris types. So, rather
surprisingly, Métro stock is actually narrower than all London stock
including the small tube trains.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

International lollipops (was: London v Paris)
 

--- Paul Terry said:


Connecting with another thread here about "lollipop" bus routes, this
reminds me that ACTV in Venice have, in probably a majority of cases,
vaporetto services in both directions from the same stop - to the
perpetual confusion of many tourists.


In Gent, Belgium, one of the tram routes does a large lollipop. It's
very confusing on the maps, since they don't have any Beck-style
diagrams for the tram network -- just street maps with tram and buss
routes superimposed on them.

London v Paris
 

Richard J.:
I've found some dimensions to compare. These are overall train widths
in metres, London figures from Tubeprune's site, Paris from Alstom's
site:

London sub-surface: A (Met) 2.95; C (Circle etc.) 2.92; D (District)
2.85.

London tube: 67/72 (Vic, Bakerloo) 2.64; 73/95/96 (Picc, Northern,
Jubilee) 2.63 (Alstom's site says 2.6); 92 (Central, W&C) 2.62.

Paris: MP89 (Lines 1, 14) 2.45.

MP89 look at least as wide as the earlier Paris types. So, rather
surprisingly, Métro stock is actually narrower than all London stock
including the small tube trains.

But remember, there are places in a tube train where the ceiling is
too low for most people to stand. A simple width measure doesn't
provide a complete comparison.

(For that matter, it would also be informative to compare train
lengths. Paris trains are relatively short, I think, but I don't
have numbers handy.)
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "WARNING: Pastry may be *hot* when heated."
-- [alleged] Kellogg Pop-Tarts box

My text in this article is in the public domain.

London v Paris
 

Mark Brader wrote to uk.transport.london on Wed, 3 Nov 2004:

Clive Coleman writes:
Does this mean they've done away with the rubber tyred trains?

No. I believe http://world.nycsubway.org/perl/show?15541 shows
one of the new trains on the right; if you brighten the image, you
can clearly see the rubber.

But aren't those on line 6, not line 1? I remember when it was
converted to rubber-tyre working (line 6, I mean), during my years
there.
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 31 October 2004

London v Paris
 

Mrs Redboots wrote:
Mark Brader wrote to uk.transport.london on Wed, 3 Nov 2004:

Clive Coleman writes:
Does this mean they've done away with the rubber tyred trains?

No. I believe http://world.nycsubway.org/perl/show?15541 shows
one of the new trains on the right; if you brighten the image, you
can clearly see the rubber.

But aren't those on line 6, not line 1?

Look below the photo: "Location: Bastille. Line: Metro Ligne 1"
There's another photo at http://world.nycsubway.org/perl/show?15538 ,
also taken at Bastille, which shows the rubber tyres on the MP89 stock
more clearly.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

London v Paris
 

Richard J. wrote to uk.transport.london on Wed, 3 Nov 2004:

Mrs Redboots wrote:
Mark Brader wrote to uk.transport.london on Wed, 3 Nov 2004:

Clive Coleman writes:
Does this mean they've done away with the rubber tyred trains?

No. I believe http://world.nycsubway.org/perl/show?15541 shows
one of the new trains on the right; if you brighten the image, you
can clearly see the rubber.

But aren't those on line 6, not line 1?

Look below the photo: "Location: Bastille. Line: Metro Ligne 1"
There's another photo at http://world.nycsubway.org/perl/show?15538 ,
also taken at Bastille, which shows the rubber tyres on the MP89 stock
more clearly.

Oh, of course..... I didn't see under the photo.
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 31 October 2004

London v Paris
 

Look below the photo: "Location: Bastille. Line: Metro Ligne 1"

Oh, of course..... I didn't see under the photo.

Bastille is a rather distinctive station, incidentally. It's located
at a point where Line 1 pops above ground to cross a canal, and has
both a sharp horizontal curve (pictured) and a sharp vertical curve
within the station. In fact, the west end of the platforms, where
the sharpest horizontal curve is (or maybe the entire horizontal
curve, I forget), is no longer used, and it's evident that this was
*made possible* by extending the platforms onto the vertical curve
that was formerly just east of the station. In other words, it was
felt better to have people getting out of trains step onto a sloping
platform than to have them step across a gap.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto, | "Able was I ere I saw Panama."

My text in this article is in the public domain.

London v Paris
 

Dave Arquati wrote in
:

The only way I can think of making it more intuitive is to use
"citybound", or perhaps to highlight Zone 1 stations on the line
diagrams. Then again, using citybound would probably add new
confusion, and it would only work for non-central stations.

Especially as "The City" means one thing to those who live and work in
London and something completely different to tourists, who usually use it
to mean "the central area where all the stuff is I want to see", or in
other words the West End.

Iain

London v Paris
 

In article , Mark Brader
writes
On the MBTA subway system in Boston, known as the T for short, they
do in fact use "inbound" and "outbound" as directions on most of the
system.

The Tyne & Wear Metro uses "in" and "out". "In" is from St.James or the
airport to South Shields or Sunderland; "out" is the opposite. The terms
come from "inside" and "outside" on the loop bit, but it means a train
to Monument could be "in" or "out" depending on where you are (and in
some places both though with different travel times). For Shields and
Sunderland locals, "in" is towards them, of course.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: