Having grown up in NYC and being a user of its subway for all my life, I was
wondering about some of the differences between it and the London tube. Both
systems are some of the first ever constructed, with London being the
oldest, IIRC. I have traveled the London tube, and found it superior in some
ways to NYC, even with its problems, and not as good in others. (But then
again, what system doesn't have some degree of issues to contend with?)

As a history buff, I am curious as to how the London system started, and
where the first line or lines were. NYC's system started as a private
enterprise, the Interborough Rapid Transit system, and the only line it ran
was from City Hall in Lower Manhattan up to 116th Street, in what is now
Spanish Harlem. Back then, (in 1904) this was the upper limit of urban NYC,
at the end of Central Park.

--
David Spiro
"We spend all our time searching for security, and then we hate it when we
get it."
--John Steinbeck

"David Spiro" wrote in message
...
Having grown up in NYC and being a user of its subway for all my life, I
was
wondering about some of the differences between it and the London tube.
Both
systems are some of the first ever constructed, with London being the
oldest, IIRC. I have traveled the London tube, and found it superior in
some
ways to NYC, even with its problems, and not as good in others. (But then
again, what system doesn't have some degree of issues to contend with?)

As a history buff, I am curious as to how the London system started, and
where the first line or lines were. NYC's system started as a private
enterprise, the Interborough Rapid Transit system, and the only line it
ran
was from City Hall in Lower Manhattan up to 116th Street, in what is now
Spanish Harlem. Back then, (in 1904) this was the upper limit of urban
NYC,
at the end of Central Park.

Briefly...

The first underground line was the one from Paddington to King's Cross -
what is now the Metropolitan/Circle. This was opened in 1863. I believe it
was originally driven by steam locos which condensed the steam rather than
releasing it into the tunnel. I'm not sure what they did with the smoke...
This railway (and the rest of the Circle line) is mainly cut-and-cover so
it's only just below ground level. It was built by a separate company, the
Metropolitan Railway, with financial backing and rolling stock intially
coming from the Great Western Railway.

Most of the tube lines (built by boring through the rock rather than by
cut-and-cover) were built between about 1880 and 1910, though in many cases
the extremities, further away from central London, were not built until the
1920s and 30s - for example the Northern Line beyond Clapham Common, Golders
Green and Archway.

The Victoria Line was built as recently as 1968-71 and the Jubilee Line is
newer still: the Baker Street to Charing Cross section was 1979 and the
"Jubilee Line Extension" from Green Park to Stratford was completed as
recently as 1999 in preparation for passengers to get to the Millennium
Dome.


There are a number of good books on the subject which go into far more
detail than my very brief summary he

- The London Underground: A Diagrammatic History, Douglas Rose, pub Douglas
Rose, ISBN 0-9507101-5-6 (Map showing all the lines that are or were at one
time run by London Transport, with opening and closing dates of
lines/stations or dates of transfer to/from LT)

- London's Underground, John Glover, pub Ian Allen, ISBN 0-7110-2416-2

-

Martin Underwood wrote:

The Victoria Line was built as recently as 1968-71 and the Jubilee Line is
newer still: the Baker Street to Charing Cross section was 1979 and the
"Jubilee Line Extension" from Green Park to Stratford was completed as
recently as 1999 in preparation for passengers to get to the Millennium
Dome.


Although of course the Jubilee Line extension was decided upon before
the site of the offical Millennium celebrations.

"Stuart" wrote in message
news
Martin Underwood wrote:

The Victoria Line was built as recently as 1968-71 and the Jubilee Line
is newer still: the Baker Street to Charing Cross section was 1979 and
the "Jubilee Line Extension" from Green Park to Stratford was completed
as recently as 1999 in preparation for passengers to get to the
Millennium Dome.


Although of course the Jubilee Line extension was decided upon before the
site of the offical Millennium celebrations.

I probably put the cart before the horse there. The fact that the JLE was
going through that peninsular on the south bank of the Thames probably
influenced the choice of the site of the Millennium Dome.

Martin Underwood wrote:
"Stuart" wrote in message
news
Martin Underwood wrote:


The Victoria Line was built as recently as 1968-71 and the Jubilee Line
is newer still: the Baker Street to Charing Cross section was 1979 and
the "Jubilee Line Extension" from Green Park to Stratford was completed
as recently as 1999 in preparation for passengers to get to the
Millennium Dome.


Although of course the Jubilee Line extension was decided upon before the
site of the offical Millennium celebrations.


I probably put the cart before the horse there. The fact that the JLE was
going through that peninsular on the south bank of the Thames probably
influenced the choice of the site of the Millennium Dome.

Inded, here was a big campaign to put it (or something like it) in
Birmingham

Martin Underwood:
The first underground line was the one from Paddington to King's Cross -

Actually the first section opened continued to Farringdon.

what is now the Metropolitan/Circle.

No; it was originally the Metropolitan Railway, but in today's nomen-
clature it's part of the Hammersmith & City Line. Most of the original
route is also part of the Circle, but not at the Paddington end, where
the two lines split; and as for the Metropolitan Line, of course that's
now considered to branch off at Baker Street.

This was opened in 1863. I believe it
was originally driven by steam locos which condensed the steam rather than
releasing it into the tunnel.

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.

I'm not sure what they did with the smoke...

They released it into the tunnel, and the management claimed that it was
good for you. (It smelled bad, so it must be, right?) One time at an
inquiry, a driver reported that it "very seldom" got thick enough to
obscure his view of the signals.
--
Mark Brader "Great things are not done by those
Toronto who sit down and count the cost
of every thought and act." --Daniel Gooch

My text in this article is in the public domain.

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

"Martin Underwood" wrote in message
...
"David Spiro" wrote in message
...
Having grown up in NYC and being a user of its subway for all my life, I
was
wondering about some of the differences between it and the London tube.
Both
systems are some of the first ever constructed, with London being the
oldest, IIRC. I have traveled the London tube, and found it superior in
some
ways to NYC, even with its problems, and not as good in others. (But then
again, what system doesn't have some degree of issues to contend with?)

As a history buff, I am curious as to how the London system started, and
where the first line or lines were. NYC's system started as a private
enterprise, the Interborough Rapid Transit system, and the only line it
ran
was from City Hall in Lower Manhattan up to 116th Street, in what is now
Spanish Harlem. Back then, (in 1904) this was the upper limit of urban
NYC,
at the end of Central Park.

Briefly...

The first underground line was the one from Paddington to King's Cross -

The first was the Pneumatic Tube Company in NY.



what is now the Metropolitan/Circle. This was opened in 1863. I believe it
was originally driven by steam locos which condensed the steam rather than
releasing it into the tunnel. I'm not sure what they did with the smoke...
This railway (and the rest of the Circle line) is mainly cut-and-cover so
it's only just below ground level. It was built by a separate company, the
Metropolitan Railway, with financial backing and rolling stock intially
coming from the Great Western Railway.

Most of the tube lines (built by boring through the rock rather than by
cut-and-cover) were built between about 1880 and 1910, though in many
cases the extremities, further away from central London, were not built
until the 1920s and 30s - for example the Northern Line beyond Clapham
Common, Golders Green and Archway.

The Victoria Line was built as recently as 1968-71 and the Jubilee Line is
newer still: the Baker Street to Charing Cross section was 1979 and the
"Jubilee Line Extension" from Green Park to Stratford was completed as
recently as 1999 in preparation for passengers to get to the Millennium
Dome.


There are a number of good books on the subject which go into far more
detail than my very brief summary he

- The London Underground: A Diagrammatic History, Douglas Rose, pub
Douglas Rose, ISBN 0-9507101-5-6 (Map showing all the lines that are or
were at one time run by London Transport, with opening and closing dates
of lines/stations or dates of transfer to/from LT)

- London's Underground, John Glover, pub Ian Allen, ISBN 0-7110-2416-2

-

"Moishe Lip****z" wrote in message
news:iYDNe.258$IG2.251@trndny01
"Martin Underwood" wrote in message
The first underground line was the one from Paddington to King's
Cross -

The first was the Pneumatic Tube Company in NY.

Not so. The Met opened several years earlier, and was a proper railway,
not just a short demo line.

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005, David Spiro wrote:

Having grown up in NYC and being a user of its subway for all my life, I
was wondering about some of the differences between it and the London
tube. Both systems are some of the first ever constructed, with London
being the oldest, IIRC.

You do remember correctly.

I have traveled the London tube, and found it superior in some ways to
NYC, even with its problems, and not as good in others.

Interesting - would you like to expand? We've had at least one thread on
this comparison in the past, but it'd be interesting to hear you opinions.

As a history buff, I am curious as to how the London system started, and
where the first line or lines were. NYC's system started as a private
enterprise, the Interborough Rapid Transit system, and the only line it
ran was from City Hall in Lower Manhattan up to 116th Street, in what is
now Spanish Harlem. Back then, (in 1904) this was the upper limit of
urban NYC, at the end of Central Park.

I refer you to:

http://www.davros.org/rail/culg/

A somewhat terse but authoritative treatment of this subject.

Briefly, though, London's history is similar to New York's - there were
several separate, and indeed competing, companies to begin with, which
were only brought together later (first when some American called Yerkes
bought most of them, then when they were nationalised). A lot of the early
companies were relatives of the mainline railway companies that had
termini in London (and i include the Metropolitan in that!).

The biggest physical difference between the networks is that London's
lines are mostly in deep tunnels - 'tubes' - in the clay layer (or
something) ~20 metres below the surface; only a few lines (the Circle
line, the lines coming off it at tangents, and the East London line) are
built at shallow depth using cut-and-cover. AIUI, New York's lines are all
shallow (except for PATH and such). This means that stations are rather
different in structure, and the tunnels, and thus the trains, are smaller
(i assume because digging wide deep tunnels was ruinously expensive).
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).

Another interesting difference is the almost complete lack of underground
line in south London - here, the suburban surface rail network was very
well-developed early on (and extensive urbanisation was later than in the
north, i think), so the need for tubes never arose. I don't know if
there's a a parallel in New York - are there any boroughs with surface
rail lines rather than subways?

tom

--
If you tolerate this, your children will be next.