On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 07:58:41 -0400, David of Broadway
wrote:

Michael Hoffman wrote:
PigPOg wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 10:05:00 -0700, Nerdbird
wrote:

This web site may be of interest to the visitor to London. The
Underground and taxis are discussed.


http://hometown.aol.com/nerdbird1/LondonNYC.html

Found this site very interesting. I'm a Londoner yet know nothing of
NYC. I've never been able to find (or have someone explain) the
Uptown/Downtown concept. I mean, where exactly is Uptown New York?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uptown%2C_Manhattan

This New Yorker suspects that that page was not written by a New Yorker.
It's not accurate in the slightest. (But I'm too lazy fix it, so I
really have no right to complain.)

Darn; your parenthetical comment means I can't really point you at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Sofixit :-)

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 05:57:34 -0700, sweek
wrote:

24 hour running and express services are things I really wish we had.

The greatest advantage of the four-track system [1] is that it allows
24-hour running. The express trains often save you less time than you
might think.


[1] Well, it mostly is... I was particularly intrigued by the
three-track layout on the 7 in Queens...

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 22:33:15 -0400, David of Broadway
wrote:

Paul Corfield wrote:

Not exactly. (But impressively close for someone who doesn't ride the
buses in question!)

MTA New York City Transit has operated a large number of express routes
between Staten Island and Manhattan and several express routes between
Queens and Manhattan and between Brooklyn and Manhattan for decades.
(There's also an express route between Queens and the Bronx, but that's
an anomaly.)

OK - I was going from memory and failed to load up a MTA Bus Map ;-)

The various city-subsidized private bus operators operated many local
routes in Queens and Brooklyn, along with express routes between Queens
and Manhattan, Brooklyn and Manhattan, and the Bronx and Manhattan.
Those routes were recently taken over by the newly formed MTA Bus.

I knew I'd got a bit of it correct.

- What are New York's night buses like?

Not dissimilar to the concept used in London - i.e. 24 hour service on
key corridors. There is not the same need as in London for longer
distance routes as the Subway is 24 hours in NYC.

Generally, New York doesn't have any specific night buses. Some bus
routes run all night - that's all.

But many of London's routes are now on exactly this basis - the daytime
route but running all night.

London is now catching up with NYC with its never ending variants of
what line or station is open or closed at any point in time! I think
I'd struggle to cope with a Subway system that is subject to such
frequent change to its operating pattern.

Catching up? With three exceptions, every single subway station in New
York is open around the clock. (The three exceptions are the two
northernmost stations on the 3, which are replaced by bus service at
night, and Broad Street on the J/M/Z, which is closed on weekends, when
the J is cut back to Chambers Street.)

What I meant was that with the scale of work going on in London we have
almost as long lists of what is open, what is half open, closed and what
is replaced by a bus as NYC used to have for its subway system. I
wasn't alluding for a moment to our system being open 24 hours which it
demonstrably is not (for LU). There are a few exceptions on rail routes.

But our route patterns can certainly get confusing.

Err yes. While I know you've had to close large sections of the network
for rehabilitation works I do find it quite odd that the route and
service pattern changes as much as it does.

The statements about your lack of express services were probably
referring to the Underground, where they're largely accurate, except on
the western Piccadilly and Metropolitan.

I don't think they were. The website author mentioned rail rather than
Tube or Subway.

- We do have a couple of jewish neighbourhoods, which you probably never
ran into: Golders Green is the big one, and Stamford Hill is smaller,
poorer and much more orthodox, with furry hats and curly sideburns
everywhere you look.

Don't forget Gants Hill and Barkingside. Not as obviously orthodox as GG
or SH but plenty of Jewish businesses and synagogues.

Also Hendon and Edgware.

True but really just a continuation of the Golders Green area.

(I didn't realize Gants Hill and Barkingside were Jewish. The various
lists of kosher restaurants that I consulted didn't include any in those
neighbo(u)rhoods.)

Well there's certainly a synagogue and a range of kosher businesses that
follow Sabbath opening and closing rules. Can't think of a kosher
restaurant in the area but I'm just commenting from what I've seen from
the bus.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

"Michael Hoffman" wrote in message
...

There are two terminals in Gatwick. I've never thought of either of them
as being the "main bit." One happens to have a rail station, but they
both have access via road (and coaches stop at each one).

Weeell, the south terminal (which has the rail station) was built first so
I always think of it as the "main bit". If you take off from or land at
the north terminal you have to get the little shuttle thingy to the
trains.

Ian

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
h.li
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Michael Hoffman wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Michael Hoffman wrote:

Peter Robinson wrote:
Michael Hoffman wrote:

Luton does not have a one-seat rail journey to the centre--you
have to take a shuttle to Luton Airport Parkway first.

Eh? Half FCC train stop at Luton Airport Parkway. Or am I
missing the point?

Graham Harrison said that all London airports have direct rail
links to the centre, as opposed to NYC where the "rail link" to
two airports involves getting a rail shuttle from the mainline
rail station.

Actually, i think it was me who said that.

I was pointing out that Luton is not any better than that.

Using Google Maps' routes, Luton Airport Parkway to the terminal
(well, the bus station) is 1.5 miles, Howard Beach or Jamaica to
JFK is 4.9. I wouldn't say that was 'no better', but you're right,
it's still not a distance you'd want to walk, so it's a two-seat
ride.

I've never taken the Luton bus, but the AirTrain is the same system
used for intra-airport travel at both EWR and JFK. If you're going
to count it as being a two-seat ride, perhaps you should also count
the terminal at LGW that doesn't have a rail station (can never
remember which is which).

Fair enough. The criterion should probably be how many seats there are
between baggage reclaim and city centre - i take it the reclaim (and
check-in) for that terminal is in the terminal itself, and not the
main bit? I've never used Gatwick myself ...

You wouldn't normally sit on the short shuttle ride from the north to
the south terminal (I don't remember there being any seats). It's not
much different to the shuttle trains that take you to remote piers in
airports like Stansted, except that it's land rather than air-side. In
fact, it's probably quicker and easier than the walk to the HEx station
from, say, Terminal 1 at Heathrow.

Ian F. wrote:
"Michael Hoffman" wrote in message
...

There are two terminals in Gatwick. I've never thought of either of them
as being the "main bit." One happens to have a rail station, but they
both have access via road (and coaches stop at each one).

Weeell, the south terminal (which has the rail station) was built first so
I always think of it as the "main bit". If you take off from or land at
the north terminal you have to get the little shuttle thingy to the
trains.

Yes, but if you come via some other means of transportation, you don't.
It's not like, say, a satellite terminal at Stansted.
--
Michael Hoffman

On Jul 31, 5:04 pm, James Farrar wrote:
The greatest advantage of the four-track system [1] is that it allows
24-hour running.

I don't think this is actually as important as it's made out to be.
The system has a lot of two track sections that are also 24 hour, and
even in the four track sections one pair is generally in use 24 hours
a day, with only occasional diversions for engineering. It'd be
interesting to find out what working practices allow this and whether
they could be applied in London.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

David of Broadway wrote:
Michael Hoffman wrote:
PigPOg wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 10:05:00 -0700, Nerdbird
wrote:

This web site may be of interest to the visitor to London. The
Underground and taxis are discussed.


http://hometown.aol.com/nerdbird1/LondonNYC.html

Found this site very interesting. I'm a Londoner yet know nothing of
NYC. I've never been able to find (or have someone explain) the
Uptown/Downtown concept. I mean, where exactly is Uptown New York?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uptown%2C_Manhattan

This New Yorker suspects that that page was not written by a New
Yorker. It's not accurate in the slightest. (But I'm too lazy fix
it, so I really have no right to complain.)

In my experience, entries in Wikipedia are more often wrong than right.

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 18:38:51 +0100, Michael Hoffman
wrote:

Ian F. wrote:
"Michael Hoffman" wrote in message
...

There are two terminals in Gatwick. I've never thought of either of them
as being the "main bit." One happens to have a rail station, but they
both have access via road (and coaches stop at each one).

Weeell, the south terminal (which has the rail station) was built first so
I always think of it as the "main bit". If you take off from or land at
the north terminal you have to get the little shuttle thingy to the
trains.

Yes, but if you come via some other means of transportation, you don't.
It's not like, say, a satellite terminal at Stansted.

There are also shuttles to the satellite at the South terminal.
--
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org

"Terry Harper" wrote in message

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 18:38:51 +0100, Michael Hoffman
wrote:

Ian F. wrote:
"Michael Hoffman" wrote in message
...

There are two terminals in Gatwick. I've never thought of either
of them as being the "main bit." One happens to have a rail
station, but they both have access via road (and coaches stop at
each one).

Weeell, the south terminal (which has the rail station) was built
first so I always think of it as the "main bit". If you take off
from or land at the north terminal you have to get the little
shuttle thingy to the trains.

Yes, but if you come via some other means of transportation, you
don't. It's not like, say, a satellite terminal at Stansted.

There are also shuttles to the satellite at the South terminal.

Not any more there aren't, and not for several years. You now take
travelators, outbound on the low level and inbound on the high level. I
assume they did away with the airside shuttle a few years ago to fully
segregate arriving and departing pax. There are still a few relics of
the old shuttle track visible, which is one of the few (or only) airside
abandoned railways in the UK.