"Nigel Pendse" a écrit dans le message de
...
"Ian Jelf" wrote in message

In message , Tom
Anderson writes
Conversely, London never had the el-to-subway transition that built a
lot of the NYC system (there are one or two examples of this
happening in London, though).

I'll probably kick myself when you answer this.......but where are
there any examples of this happening in London?

How about where the District and Picc climb out of their subsurface and
deep level tunnels at Earl's Court to just below ground level at
Hammersmith and then up a steep gradient on to the viaduct by
Ravenscourt Park? Or where the Wimbledon Line climbs on to a quite high
viaduct in Fulham? And the Central west of White City?

In each of these cases, we have an Underground line climbing from a
tunnel to viaduct level, and staying at viaduct level for at least a few
stations.

Yes and no, because although those are indeed examples of what the OP of the
text meant, what he actually wrote (as he clarified subsequently) referred
to the construction of tunnels *to replace* surface or elevated lines. The
only cases I can think of are on the Central Line between Stratford and
Leyton, a short length of the NLR North Woolwich branch and the Kingsway
tram tunnel (at least partly). In London, unlike NYC, there are several
examples of the opposite situation, eg parts of the DLR (Sivertown tramway)
where new elevated sections replace surface lines formerly serving the
docks...

Regards,

- Alan (in Brussels)

"Mark Brader" wrote in message
...
In the pictures that I have seen of it, they seemed to be about
the same width as the London trains, perhaps a bit smaller.

Quite a bit smaller. I don't think any photos exist of the interior
of Beach's single car, and drawings may not represent the size
accurately. But here are some comparative tunnel diameters:

Actually, I have a photo of one of the cars and it does show the interior.
There was a PBS special on NYC a few years ago, and the companion book has a
picture of one of the cars after it (and the station )was excavated in 1912.
You're right about the word "system", my poor choice of words. ;-) I guess I
was using it in a general sense.

Also, AFAIK, the typical lack of integration among lines originally
intended
to compete with each other is even more pronounced in NYC than in London
where, as has been mentioned, the central tube lines were subsequently
extended into the suburbs along the rights-of-way (if not the tracks) of
the
'main-line' railways. , You will see far more stations idenified by the
'double-arrow' symbol indicating interchange with 'National Rail' on the
pocket route map for London than the corresponding symbols for interchange
with PATH, Metro-Rail and the LIRR on the NYC map. Of course, the local
topography may be relevant here.

This is oh so true. In NYC, there are actually very few stations that
interchange with the suburban railways, and only Penn Station has the
"national" railway running in and out of it, and that of course is Amtrak.
Amtrak does also run on the suburban tracks as you head out of the city. The
only stations that I am aware of that have the suburban railways
interchanged with the subway are Penn and Grand Central Stations, (Long
Island Railroad and MetroNorth, respectively.) WTC, (PATH) Jamaica Station
in Queens (Long Island Railroad), and Flatbush Avenue in Brooklyn. (Long
Island Railroad) There are other PATH stations in Manhattan, but can't
remember them off the top of my head.

Finally, after about a century of different fare policies (flat fare in
NYC,
distance-based fare stages in London), there now seems to be a convergence
towards a more sophisticated zone-based system with stored-fare cards...

Still flat fare in NYC, though they use the MetroCard now as opposed to
subway tokens. (thank goodness!) MetroNorth and LIRR have always had zone
based systems. PATH as I recall was always a flat fare system, though I
rarely used it.

David Spiro wrote:
Also, AFAIK, the typical lack of integration among lines originally

intended

to compete with each other is even more pronounced in NYC than in London
where, as has been mentioned, the central tube lines were subsequently
extended into the suburbs along the rights-of-way (if not the tracks) of

the

'main-line' railways. , You will see far more stations idenified by the
'double-arrow' symbol indicating interchange with 'National Rail' on the
pocket route map for London than the corresponding symbols for interchange
with PATH, Metro-Rail and the LIRR on the NYC map. Of course, the local
topography may be relevant here.


This is oh so true. In NYC, there are actually very few stations that
interchange with the suburban railways, and only Penn Station has the
"national" railway running in and out of it, and that of course is Amtrak.
Amtrak does also run on the suburban tracks as you head out of the city. The
only stations that I am aware of that have the suburban railways
interchanged with the subway are Penn and Grand Central Stations, (Long
Island Railroad and MetroNorth, respectively.) WTC, (PATH) Jamaica Station
in Queens (Long Island Railroad), and Flatbush Avenue in Brooklyn. (Long
Island Railroad) There are other PATH stations in Manhattan, but can't
remember them off the top of my head.

33rd, 23rd and 14th Streets, all of which are adjacent to subway stations, and
Christopher Street, which is not near a subway station.

There's also a subway station (served by the 4, 5 and 6 trains) next to the
125th Street Metro-North station.

PATH, of course, interchanges with both New Jersey Transit (commuter trains
and the Newark City Subway) and Amtrak at Newark's Penn Station.

--

Stephen

Beth: My parents let me watch The Wizard Of Oz when I was 5 years old,
and it gave me nightmares for years.
Dave: Oh right,the wicked witch.
Beth: No, Dorothy.

Alan (in Brussels) wrote:
"Nigel Pendse" a écrit dans le message de
...

"Ian Jelf" wrote in message


In message , Tom
Anderson writes

Conversely, London never had the el-to-subway transition that built a
lot of the NYC system (there are one or two examples of this
happening in London, though).

I'll probably kick myself when you answer this.......but where are
there any examples of this happening in London?

How about where the District and Picc climb out of their subsurface and
deep level tunnels at Earl's Court to just below ground level at
Hammersmith and then up a steep gradient on to the viaduct by
Ravenscourt Park? Or where the Wimbledon Line climbs on to a quite high
viaduct in Fulham? And the Central west of White City?

In each of these cases, we have an Underground line climbing from a
tunnel to viaduct level, and staying at viaduct level for at least a few
stations.


Yes and no, because although those are indeed examples of what the OP of the
text meant, what he actually wrote (as he clarified subsequently) referred
to the construction of tunnels *to replace* surface or elevated lines. The
only cases I can think of are on the Central Line between Stratford and
Leyton, a short length of the NLR North Woolwich branch and the Kingsway
tram tunnel (at least partly). In London, unlike NYC, there are several
examples of the opposite situation, eg parts of the DLR (Sivertown tramway)
where new elevated sections replace surface lines formerly serving the
docks...

Also on the DLR, the previously elevated Island Gardens was replaced by an
underground station when the line was extended across the Thames to Greenwich
and Lewisham (Mudchute, also, was originally an elevated station, and was
rebuilt, though it is not now underground - it's just north of the tunnel portal).

--

Stephen

I think she periodically makes a whirring noise and then just shuts down.

"Stephen Farrow" wrote in message

Alan (in Brussels) wrote:
"Nigel Pendse" a écrit dans le
message de ...

"Ian Jelf" wrote in message


In message , Tom
Anderson writes

Conversely, London never had the el-to-subway transition that
built a lot of the NYC system (there are one or two examples of
this happening in London, though).

I'll probably kick myself when you answer this.......but where are
there any examples of this happening in London?

How about where the District and Picc climb out of their subsurface
and deep level tunnels at Earl's Court to just below ground level at
Hammersmith and then up a steep gradient on to the viaduct by
Ravenscourt Park? Or where the Wimbledon Line climbs on to a quite
high viaduct in Fulham? And the Central west of White City?

In each of these cases, we have an Underground line climbing from a
tunnel to viaduct level, and staying at viaduct level for at least
a few stations.


Yes and no, because although those are indeed examples of what the
OP of the text meant, what he actually wrote (as he clarified
subsequently) referred to the construction of tunnels *to replace*
surface or elevated lines. The only cases I can think of are on the
Central Line between Stratford and Leyton, a short length of the NLR
North Woolwich branch and the Kingsway tram tunnel (at least
partly). In London, unlike NYC, there are several examples of the
opposite situation, eg parts of the DLR (Sivertown tramway) where
new elevated sections replace surface lines formerly serving the
docks...

Also on the DLR, the previously elevated Island Gardens was replaced
by an underground station when the line was extended across the
Thames to Greenwich and Lewisham (Mudchute, also, was originally an
elevated station, and
was rebuilt, though it is not now underground - it's just north of
the tunnel portal).

I know it's not exactly the same, but the replacement of High Holborn by
Thameslink means that commuter trains now tunnel under Ludgate Hill
rather than crossing over it (and obscuring the view of St Paul's in the
process). Of course, the Snow Hill tunnel had been there all along, but
had been abandoned for decades before being brought back into service
again.

In article ,
Mark Brader wrote:


The condensing didn't work so well once the Circle Line (then called the
Inner Circle) was opened in 1884, because there was no chance to stop
the trains and drain off the hot water. Nevertheless, steam working
continued until 1905.

Regular steam hauled freight services using condensing pannier tanks
continued on the H&C/Circle line between Paddington and Smithfield
(Farringdon) until the 1960s. It was quite a strange experience waiting at
say Great Portland St (Metropolitan) on a Saturday morning and seeing a
pannier and assorted freight wagons trundle through.

David

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 14:19:45 +0200, "Alan \(in Brussels\)"
wrote:

Yes and no, because although those are indeed examples of what the OP of the
text meant, what he actually wrote (as he clarified subsequently) referred
to the construction of tunnels *to replace* surface or elevated lines.

The Circle line through Barbican almost fits this description - it was
in open cutting before being rebuilt in tunnel when the Barbican
Centre was built.

wrote:

Ironically although it is called the London Underground it has more
miles of track on the surface. Is this the same with the New York
Subway?

From http://www.nycsubway.org/faq/factsfigures.html

Route miles: 137 underground, 93 elevated, surface or open cut
Track miles: 443 underground, 213 elevated, surface or open cut

Michael Wares

David Spiro and I (Mark Brader) wrote:
In the pictures that I have seen of it, they seemed to be about
the same width as the London trains, perhaps a bit smaller.

Quite a bit smaller. I don't think any photos exist of the interior
of Beach's single car, and drawings may not represent the size
accurately...

Actually, I have a photo of one of the cars and it does show the interior.

Thanks for the correction. However, there was still only one car.
--
Mark Brader | "Don't be a luddy-duddy! Don't be a mooncalf!
Toronto | Don't be a jabbernowl! You're not those, are you?"
| --W.C. Fields, "The Bank Dick"