London Underground 'best metro in Europe'
 

"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
...

Conceptually the RER is excellent. I personally find the stations awful
and many of the trains are dingy and stuck with late 70s / early 80s
decor which is dark and gloomy.

I rather like their exteriors, however.

London Underground 'best metro in Europe'
 

In message ,
writes
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 16:03:17 +0100
Ian Jelf wrote:
Such judgements are always subjective, of course. But I have always
been a firm believer in the fact that London's transport system as a
whole is one of the best in Europe.

Poor reliability and sky high prices.

By European (but certainly not by UK) standards, London is expensive.

I seldom have any reason to complain about reliability in my fairly
extensive use of the Tube. Nor do I have problems with buses but
whenever I make such a point on here I always caution that I only really
use buses frequently in Central London. (Although whenever I've needed
them in suburbia I have no complaints and again the network compares
very well indeed with those in other parts of Britain.)

I wouldn't categorise it as anything
close to the best. I'll take frequent services and cheap tickets over tidy
stations any day. The NYC subway is a dump but the trains are fast, frequent,
air conditioned and it doesn't cost much.

Are they any more frequent than our Tube? I didn't get that impression
(I appreciate that they have express services superimposed.). I also
found it a much harder system to navigate.

networks, although I've not been to either. (Nor have I been to Moscow
but I've had a look at Gants Hill and I'm told it's much the
same.......)

Its the same in the way that primark is the same as harrods.

Well, they're both shops....... :-))
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

London Underground 'best metro in Europe'
 

On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 13:59:31 +0100, Joe wrote:

Having been to Berlin recently I was shocked that many of the
underground stations were unstaffed. The stations were filthy and
covered in graffiti

Hamburg's system is almost completely unstaffed, apart from the
trains, but most stations are in good condition.

While quite a small system, it's one I hold up as an example of the
best I have used. It doesn't have the capacity issues of LUL, but
many things are done far better aside from that.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

London Underground 'best metro in Europe'
 

On Mon, 27 Apr 2009, Paul Corfield wrote:

On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 16:03:17 +0100, Ian Jelf
wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8020042.stm

Interesting.

Having bought a book at the weekend featuring Metro rolling stock from
across Europe I was astonished at the photos of the Rome Metro trains. I
didn't use the Metro when I was in Rome having been deterred by a truly
horrendous entrance by Roma Termini. The trains are filthy and
plastered with graffiti - the whole thing is utterly offputting. How the
Romans actually tolerate such neglect I just don't know - I can't think
of one railway system in the world whose stock is in such bad condition.

Hmm. I was in Rome a while ago, and didn't get that impression at all. It
all seemed fine to me. The stations tended to be a bit dank, like Euston
Square is, and the trains were more New York (specifically, the J train)
than London in terms of comfort, but it was fine to use.

I have though heard that Madrid and Barcelona have truly splendid
networks, although I've not been to either.

On my list to visit but again my new Metro book shows some wonderful and
interesting rolling stock for those networks. The other knack they have
is to keep extending their networks all the time - there seems to be no
end to their willingness and ability to improve their Metro and tram (in
Barcelona) systems.

Madrid's is lovely. The new line out to the airport is particularly fine -
the station at the airport itself is gorgeous. Barcelona's was fine when i
was there several years ago, but quite like Rome, ie nothing exciting. The
fact that the network also includes funiculars and cable-cars is rather
excellent, though!

tom

--
.... the gripping first chapter, which literally grips you because it's
printed on a large clamp.

London Underground 'best metro in Europe'
 

Tom Anderson wrote:

Barcelona's was
fine when i was there several years ago, but quite like Rome, ie
nothing exciting. The fact that the network also includes funiculars
and cable-cars is rather excellent, though!

Maybe we should campaign for some in London, up Gants Hill, maybe.

London Underground 'best metro in Europe'
 

"John Rowland" wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote:

Barcelona's was
fine when i was there several years ago, but quite like Rome, ie
nothing exciting. The fact that the network also includes funiculars
and cable-cars is rather excellent, though!

Maybe we should campaign for some in London, up Gants Hill, maybe.


Or through Crystal Palace Park. If we can't have a tram...
--
Current nearest station: West Dulwich

London Underground 'best metro in Europe'
 

On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 19:33:41 +0100
Paul Corfield wrote:
Not done Frankfurt and many years since I have been to Brussels and
Amsterdam. The key point is that those systems have very few staff
present on them which means that there is little pride in the system.
It's no wonder they look down at heel and untidy.

I was in Brussels last year a couple of times. The metro seemed quite
tidy to me though the information was woeful. We ended up going in the
wrong direction on one of the underground tram lines because trying to
decode the rats nest system map for the centre was a nightmare.

Romans actually tolerate such neglect I just don't know - I can't think
of one railway system in the world whose stock is in such bad condition.

They're italians. They couldn't sort out a **** in a toilet, never mind a
**** up in a brewery. Its amazing the system works at all.

B2003

London Underground 'best metro in Europe'
 

On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 22:47:31 +0100
Ian Jelf wrote:
Are they any more frequent than our Tube? I didn't get that impression
(I appreciate that they have express services superimposed.). I also
found it a much harder system to navigate.

The frequency was about the same, but it always seemed reliable. There was
none of this 15 min wait in the rush hour ******** with yet another feeble
excuse over the tannoy. The only time I had a long wait was somewhere out
in the sticks waiting for a connection to Howard Beach.

B2003

London Underground 'best metro in Europe'
 

In message , writes
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 22:47:31 +0100
Ian Jelf wrote:
Are they any more frequent than our Tube? I didn't get that impression
(I appreciate that they have express services superimposed.). I also
found it a much harder system to navigate.

The frequency was about the same, but it always seemed reliable. There was
none of this 15 min wait in the rush hour ********

Do you mean on the outer end of a branch like at Amersham or somewhere?
I don't think I've ever waited more than 6 or 7 minutes even in places
like Stanmore or Ruislip Gardens at 7.30am on a Sunday.
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

London Underground 'best metro in Europe'
 

In message , writes
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 19:33:41 +0100
Paul Corfield wrote:
Not done Frankfurt and many years since I have been to Brussels and
Amsterdam. The key point is that those systems have very few staff
present on them which means that there is little pride in the system.
It's no wonder they look down at heel and untidy.

I was in Brussels last year a couple of times. The metro seemed quite
tidy to me though the information was woeful. We ended up going in the
wrong direction on one of the underground tram lines because trying to
decode the rats nest system map for the centre was a nightmare.

It always reminds me as though it was built in c1972 and hasn't been
touched since!

Actually, I've had much more use of the pre-Metro, the tram served
tunnels, which it sounds as though you experienced, rather than the true
Metro there.

I'm sure that without a reasonable knowledge of the City (which I'm
lucky enough to have), sorting out where to go would be
less-than-intuitive.

As an aside, I did briefly consider proposing to my wife in a Brussels
underground station, as she (and it) are called "Louise". In the end I
settled for Lake Louise in Alberta. She tells me she was glad about
the choice of venue.......

Romans actually tolerate such neglect I just don't know - I can't think
of one railway system in the world whose stock is in such bad condition.

They're italians. They couldn't sort out a **** in a toilet, never mind a
**** up in a brewery. Its amazing the system works at all.

The tram systems in Milan and Turin (the only places I've been to in
Italy for any meaningful time) seemed to work effectively although as
always with such networks working out the system map was tricky.
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk