"david stevenson" wrote in message
...
Morton wrote:

ll I saw were wider
(holding more people)

If we widened ours, how would they fit in the tunnels?
Or are you proposing a complete rebuild of the tunnels?

I'm not proposing anything at all. I'm only commenting on how much better
the Paris Metro is. Personally, if I was in charge, I'd strive to be the
most unpopular man in London and completely rebuild the tube. So yes, in the
end I am proposing a rebuild of the tunnels.

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 21:09:04 +0100, "Morton"
wrote:

Just come back from Paris for a couple of days and had my first metro
experience. A few comments:

1. The Metro trains are better than London Underground. All I saw were wider
(holding more people) and much cleaner. Some trains had a rather quaint
flick-switch opener to activate the door opening rather than all
automatically opening.

Depends on your definition of "better". The deep tube lines in London
are obviously more claustrophobic and cramped because of the tunnel
size. This is partly because we built the first such lines in the world.
Others learnt from our "errors" if you wish to call them that.

I agree some Tube Lines are not spotlessly clean but some are a lot
better than they used to be. I agree the newer Paris stock - such as on
lines 1 and 14 - are nice and bright. The older Paris stock is not much
different from our old stock.

2. Signs on the Metro are much inferior to the Underground. I've been in
London for 4 years now so perhaps am used to the Underground but I felt the
Metro's signage was really confusing and incomplete.

The famous London vs Paris signage debate. Well I can use both systems
perfectly well. The first time I used the Paris Metro I was horribly
confused but I cope with it now. Same with the New York and Tokyo
subways where service patterns and colours are very confusing until you
"tune in" to how it works.

The newer style of signs and publicity are far better than the older
stuff and RATP are making a big effort to improve this aspect of the
system. If you've used the LU system for years then you will find it
easy because you are familiar with it. The LU system isn't foolproof -
just look at the number of tourists and visitors standing in front of
signs looking lost.

3. Further to that, the Metro map was shown in different formats opposed to
the famous Harry Beck Tube map. Different maps confused the hell out of me.

I prefer the RATP map that is closest to the Beck design for a pocket
map but I have to say that the "imposed on a street map" design is very
useful given that so many Paris Metro stations are close to each other.
It is genuinely useful to know that you can walk a few hundred metres in
the other direction to get to a more useful line rather than make an
interchange trip that would take far longer - especially with the
distance between lines in some Parisian stations.

4. I did like the cross-city trains (RER) in Paris. Double-decker trains
were impressive. I do hope that cross-rail does this.

Well they're OK in terms of crowd busting but I visit friends out in the
suburbs and often have to travel at night and I find them a less
attractive option then. Apart from the newest stock they are badly
vandalized and usually have half of the carriages in a four car set
closed with the lights off. That, for me, is a bit unnerving as it
simply says there are undesirable people using the system and that
security is not all it could be.

5. Surprisingly the Underground is cleaner and brighter than the Metro.
While Paris is spotless compared to London, I thought the Metro was drab,
uninspiring and could do with a good clean.

To be fair to RATP they spent the big money on making the trains
reliable with good signalling and control systems first. This is why the
system runs so well. They are now spending a lot of money on station
refurbs but many of the designs are very standardized and lacking in the
character of the older, more varied stations. There was been a big push
on cleanliness in London and that will continue as our stations get
upgraded too. Paris still has a level of smoking in their stations - the
ban is famously ignored by the populace. That doesn't help on the
cleanliness front.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

"Morton" wrote in message
...
Just come back from Paris for a couple of days and had my first metro
experience. A few comments:

A lot snipped

4. I did like the cross-city trains (RER) in Paris. Double-decker trains
were impressive. I do hope that cross-rail does this.

The RER double-deckers are good for shifting more people but they are a
bu**er to get on and off. The vestibules tend to get extremely crowded with
people who don't want to go up or down the stairs to the seating areas.
I have lived in the London area all my life and never been mugged or been
subjected to a pickpocket on the London Underground network. On my very
first visit to Paris, however, I was the subject of a two-man pickpocket
attempt and I understand that pickpocketing has been a serious problem on
the Metro.
The complexity of the system, particularly the parts which the passenger
doesn't normally see, is fascinating and I would love to have some videos of
cabrides showing all the hidden sidings, etc.
Cheerz,
Baz

"Marratxi" wrote:

4. I did like the cross-city trains (RER) in Paris. Double-decker trains
were impressive. I do hope that cross-rail does this.

The RER double-deckers are good for shifting more people but they are a
bu**er to get on and off. The vestibules tend to get extremely crowded
with
people who don't want to go up or down the stairs to the seating areas.

This certainly is a problem in doubledecker trains. It is not possible to
have more doors than the ones above the bogies at the end of the carriages
(it takes way to much space to make doors + stairs in the middle; it would
cancel out the gain of having a doubledecker). Therefore, twice as many
people have to use fewer doors than in an ordinary metro-like train.
Therefore, I think doubledeckers are not very suited to railway lines with
many stops and little distance between stops.

Here in the Netherlands, doubledeckers have been in use for almost 20 years
now. They are mainly in use on the middle-distance commuter lines between
the big cities and the more distant commuter towns (Amsterdam-Alme (25
km, Amsterdam-Amersfoort: 40 km etc) where many people get on the train at
the starting point and the trains get gradually emptier. For this type of
services, doubledeckers are perfectly suited.

In the 1990s. Dutch doubledeckers have been tested in the Munich S-Bahn
(comparable to the railway network in South-London or the RER in Paris.
Somewhere between metro and train). S-Bahn services travel between the
busiest point in Munich and surroundings of the city and people usually
travel short distances (in the city, at least). This means many people go on
and off the train on most stations in the city. The tests showed that
doubledeckers weren't suited because of a lack of doors.

regards,
hgrm

"Han Monsees" wrote in message
...

"Marratxi" wrote:

The RER double-deckers are good for shifting more people but they are a
bu**er to get on and off. The vestibules tend to get extremely crowded
with
people who don't want to go up or down the stairs to the seating areas.

This certainly is a problem in doubledecker trains. It is not possible to
have more doors than the ones above the bogies at the end of the carriages
(it takes way to much space to make doors + stairs in the middle; it would
cancel out the gain of having a doubledecker). Therefore, twice as many
people have to use fewer doors than in an ordinary metro-like train.
Therefore, I think doubledeckers are not very suited to railway lines with
many stops and little distance between stops.

That was similar to the problem that was encountered with the BR Southern
Region double-deckers (4001 and 4002), when they were tested on the suburban
services on the Dartford lines (in addition to the appallingly cramped
conditions required to fit within the British loading gauge). Although there
were additional doors between the vehicle ends, the additional time taken by
passengers from the upper decks detraining cancelled out the benefits.

Han Monsees:
This certainly is a problem in doubledecker trains. It is not possible
to have more doors than the ones above the bogies at the end of the
carriages (it takes way [too] much space to make doors + stairs in the
middle; it would cancel out the gain of having a doubledecker). ...

Paris does in fact have some double-decker RER trains with an additional
set of doors in mid-car. I have here a La Vie du Rail special from 1999
about the then new RER Line E (also called Eole), and here's a free
translation of one section of it:

# Rolling stock specifically adapted to the operator's demands
# ------------------------------------------------------------
#
# But with the MI2N rolling stock, ALSTOM (leader of an industrial
# group formed with ANF-Bombardier) has broken a sigificant barrier
# in favor of client satisfaction. The builder has learned to develop
# and product a specific stock conforming 100% to the requirements of
# the two customers ordering the MI2N trains. The RATP, confronted
# by operational constraints related to station dwell times, had in
# fact made it a non-negotiable requirement to install three large
# doors per car. The objective was to speed loading and unloading,
# and thus the dwell times of the trains in the stations. 14 trainsets
# are currently being successfully used on RER line A. The SNCF, for
# its part, faced with the increasing growth of the daily migrations
# in the Ile-de-France, had to find rolling stock with the greatest
# possible capacity while assuring improved comfort.
#
# The bet was won. A double MI2N set offers the capacity to load or
# unload 1,100 people in 50 seconds, thanks to the three doors per
# car, each providing an opening 2 m wide. And it can carry close to
# 3,000 riders. Such performance, never achieved by other stock,
# makes Eole a unique product in the world, a reference point on the
# battlements of Mass Transit. In peak hours, MI2N trains can provide
# the capacity to transport 90,000 passengers per hour in each direction.
# Such levels of traffic permit the operator to more effectively
# amortize the infrastructure cost.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "We don't use clubs; they weren't invented here.
| We use rocks." -- David Keldsen

In message ,
Morton writes
Just come back from Paris for a couple of days and had my first metro
experience. A few comments:

1. The Metro trains are better than London Underground. All I saw were wider
(holding more people) and much cleaner. Some trains had a rather quaint
flick-switch opener to activate the door opening rather than all
automatically opening.

You didn't mention the upholstery - spartan, hose-down plastic covers.
I've always liked the door-openers, they're so . . . well, French. Like
a 2CV.

2. Signs on the Metro are much inferior to the Underground. I've been in
London for 4 years now so perhaps am used to the Underground but I felt the
Metro's signage was really confusing and incomplete.

I've never had a problem on the Metro, but then I'm going slower and
being more attentive. After thirty years, there's still bits of the Tube
that confuse me i.e. finding the right platform at Baker Street; getting
the right direction Jubilee train at Westminster; remembering which exit
to use at Oxford Street to avoid the crush.

5. Surprisingly the Underground is cleaner and brighter than the Metro.
While Paris is spotless compared to London, I thought the Metro was drab,
uninspiring and could do with a good clean.

. . . and smells of ****, while the Tube just smells of centuries-old
air.

And don't forget the entertainment. I heard my first carriage-wide
begging announcement on the Metro in the 70's, years before it started
on the Tube.

--
Martin @ Strawberry Hill

Usenet wrote to uk.transport.london on Sun, 31 Oct 2004:

In message 4182a361$0$43610$ed2e19e4@ptn-nntp-
reader04.plus.net, Morton
eg.com writes

You didn't mention the upholstery - spartan, hose-down plastic covers.
I've always liked the door-openers, they're so . . . well, French. Like a
2CV.

Back in my day you still had wooden seats, except in 1st class! The old
Sprague trains were being replaced, but only on a few lines by then. I
think the 2 classes on the metro were abolished in the 1980s, but I
don't know the exact date - I was very surprised to come back to Paris
in 1993, after an absence of more than 20 years, and find there was only
one class!.
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 31 October 2004

I've lived in London for several years now, and lived in Paris before.
The Metro needs a bit of maintenance and rework, but let's face it, the Tube
needs to be started from scratch again. Which will never happen, since my
fellow Londoners will never admit to having an inferior network to anyonein
the world.

It's not that signage is confusing (I never had any problem with it, but
then, I'm a map addict), but some designs are very questionable.

For instance, the Paris local maps show exactly where the Metro exits are,
and what you face when you get out. In London, someone decided it would be
better to just show a big round Tube sign, and once you get out you are
totally lost as to which street is which one.

Most of the trains don't have their directions written anywhere else than in
the front. Correct me if I'm wrong, but when on a platform, what you see of
the train is not the front, but the side. In Paris, directions are on the
sides, and inside. Simple and logical.

Colour coding vs. numbers: colours are ok for locals (I tend to prefer
nicknaming the lines myself), but please note that tourists don't remember
the colours anyway.

A good point for London: everybody understand the concept of "keep right" in
the escalators. A major pain every time I take the Metro Or maybe it's
the ratio of tourists to locals, higher in Paris?

On the other hand, Londoners tend to disregard the fact that in order for
them to board a train, they have to let people off first. Very impolite, in
Paris it doesn't happen that much - but maybe it's more because of the
general crampness in the Tube, its very narroy platforms?

International signs: the RATP made a real effort in adding ES, IT, DE and EN
signs here and there. Apart from station names in Hindi in Southall and
Ealing, LU doesn't seem to care and assumes everybody speaks English. Which
is true, but it says a lot about the London state of mind vs. the Paris
state of mind.

Just my 2 pences.

"patrick" root@localhost wrote in message
...

LU doesn't seem to care and assumes everybody
speaks English. Which is true, but it says a lot about
the London state of mind vs. the Paris state of mind.

I'm not convinced. When I was in Paris, the woman selling tickets in the
Eiffel Tower didn't speak a word of English. At Paris's number one tourist
attraction, I thought that was very poor.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes