"Richard J." wrote in message
k...
Morton wrote:

1. The Metro trains are better than London Underground. All I saw
were wider (holding more people) and much cleaner.

There are no small-sized tube trains in Paris, but I would guess that
the trains are no wider than, say, D-stock.

They were Metropolitan-style.

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.

In what way did you feel the signage was incomplete?

I may be wrong but I think London Underground is extremely fool proof. As
long as people can distinguish North from South, East from West. LUL make
the signage 'really ****ing obvious'. The line colours, North V South, East
v West means I could jump onto an unfamiliar station and flow through it
without much brain power. At various stations in Paris, signs would point to
different lines, I'd walk via the directions then come to an intersection
but less obvious pointers. I'd wander around for a few minutes until I catch
sight of a poor sign then move on. The Underground has flow. The Metro
doesnt.

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.

Yes, IIRC there are three basic designs

I've a DK guide on Paris. Very good and with a 'proper' Beck-like map on the
back. My Insight plastic map was excellent for walking around but the Metro
map was rubbish. The lines were superimposed on a blank map but even worse,
the colours of the lines didnt correspond to the official Beck-like map. The
number 1 line, hitting FDR, Clemenceau, Concord etc was blue but it's yellow
in the Beck-like map.

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

It's not planned. Since Crossrail will run on existing lines outside
Central London, the loading gauge is to small for a true double-decker.

Shame. I've seen double-decker trains in Paris and Amsterdam now and it's
obviously much better than what we have in London. Why cant we bite the
bullet and make a transport system that thinks ahead?

Morton wrote to uk.transport.london on Sat, 30 Oct 2004:

Shame. I've seen double-decker trains in Paris and Amsterdam now and it's
obviously much better than what we have in London. Why cant we bite the
bullet and make a transport system that thinks ahead?

This would involve joined-up thinking, something which our transport PTB
have *never* been capable of. I don't just mean the present moguls,
either - I remember, as a child, how often down trains from London were
timed to just miss the bus, so one had a half-hour wait for the next
one.... and so on.
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 26 September 2004

In article ,
Morton writes
I may be wrong but I think London Underground is extremely fool proof. As
long as people can distinguish North from South, East from West. LUL make
the signage 'really ****ing obvious'.

I don't entirely agree, especially with the Circle Line. Not long ago I
arrived at Liverpool St somewhat tired, and getting down to the Circle
Line saw that the directions were marked as "Eastbound" and "Westbound"
and was momentarily confused. Most tube maps show Liverpool St as the
extreme eastern end, with the line running north-south, so how is the
poor foreigner to work out which way is clockwise and which
anti-clockwise? If only they used those terms all every Circle Line
station all would be much clearer.

Another case: take the Northern Line northbound from Kings Cross one
stop, switch to the Victoria Line and take it one stop again northbound:
where do you end up? Back at Kings Cross.

Also I recall seeing several stations where the two opposite directions
are called "Westbound" and "Northbound". There may be good reasons for
these, but they are guaranteed to confuse. The Paris system of naming
directions by the terminal stations isn't at all bad, in my opinion.


--
Clive Page

Clive Page wrote:
In article ,
Morton writes
I may be wrong but I think London Underground is extremely fool
proof. As long as people can distinguish North from South, East
from West. LUL make the signage 'really ****ing obvious'.

I don't entirely agree, especially with the Circle Line. Not long
ago I arrived at Liverpool St somewhat tired, and getting down to
the Circle Line saw that the directions were marked as "Eastbound"
and "Westbound" and was momentarily confused. Most tube maps show
Liverpool St as the extreme eastern end, with the line running
north-south, so how is the poor foreigner to work out which way is
clockwise and which anti-clockwise? If only they used those terms
all every Circle Line station all would be much clearer.

Similarly at High Street Kensington, where the line runs north-south,
but station announcements sometimes refer to a "westbound Circle Line
train", meaning (I think) one that is going south and then east. The
directions are based on the District Line trains which share the same
tracks but go south, then west.

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

"Richard J." wrote in message
...

Similarly at High Street Kensington, where the line runs north-south,
but station announcements sometimes refer to a "westbound Circle Line
train", meaning (I think) one that is going south and then east. The
directions are based on the District Line trains which share the same
tracks but go south, then west.

Yet, bizarrely, out of the public arena we refer to Circle trains as either
clockwise/anticlockwise or Inner Rail/Outer Rail!

Clive Page wrote to uk.transport.london on Sat, 30 Oct 2004:

The Paris system of naming directions by the terminal stations isn't at
all bad, in my opinion.

It's very much a case of what you are used to. As a young adult, I
lived in Paris for some years, and found the Underground very confusing
on my infrequent visits to London. Now, of course, having lived in
London for many years, I can cope with the Tube - and find the Metro
very different. Not difficult, just different. For a start, the network
is a lot bigger than it was when I lived there!
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 26 September 2004

Clive Page wrote:
In article ,
Morton writes

I may be wrong but I think London Underground is extremely fool proof. As
long as people can distinguish North from South, East from West. LUL make
the signage 'really ****ing obvious'.


I don't entirely agree, especially with the Circle Line. Not long ago I
arrived at Liverpool St somewhat tired, and getting down to the Circle
Line saw that the directions were marked as "Eastbound" and "Westbound"
and was momentarily confused. Most tube maps show Liverpool St as the
extreme eastern end, with the line running north-south, so how is the
poor foreigner to work out which way is clockwise and which
anti-clockwise? If only they used those terms all every Circle Line
station all would be much clearer.

Another case: take the Northern Line northbound from Kings Cross one
stop, switch to the Victoria Line and take it one stop again northbound:
where do you end up? Back at Kings Cross.

Also I recall seeing several stations where the two opposite directions
are called "Westbound" and "Northbound". There may be good reasons for
these, but they are guaranteed to confuse. The Paris system of naming
directions by the terminal stations isn't at all bad, in my opinion.

At least people have a general idea of the direction they're travelling
in (e.g. if you're in west London, you know east goes towards the
centre). Infrequent users don't have a clue what terminal station they
should be heading towards, as it has no relevance to their journey (if
you're travelling from Heathrow to central London, do you care that your
train is going to Cockfosters?).

The line diagrams on the platforms are invaluable for the user who isn't
sure which direction they want.

The only way I can think of making it more intuitive is to use
"citybound", or perhaps to highlight Zone 1 stations on the line
diagrams. Then again, using citybound would probably add new confusion,
and it would only work for non-central stations.

Some of the Circle line signs do leave a lot to be desired.


--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...

Some of the Circle line signs do leave a lot to be desired.

The signs at Euston are a joke as well. That problem would go away if the
Northern Line were rebranded as two separate lines (one through Charing
Cross and one through Bank) without changing the current service patterns.

sits back and waits for people to suggest that such a rebranding would
cause Camden Town to get overcrowded

--
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

Dave Arquati writes:
The only way I can think of making it more intuitive is to use
"citybound", or perhaps to highlight Zone 1 stations on the line
diagrams. Then again, using citybound would probably add new confusion,
and it would only work for non-central stations.

On the MBTA subway system in Boston, known as the T for short, they
do in fact use "inbound" and "outbound" as directions on most of the
system. In the city center they switch to some sort of destination-
based signage. But their city center is a lot smaller than Central
London, so a large proportion of the stations are outside it.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto This is a signature antibody. Please
remove any viruses from your signature.

In article , Mark Brader
writes
On the MBTA subway system in Boston, known as the T for short, they
do in fact use "inbound" and "outbound" as directions on most of the
system.

The Tyne & Wear Metro uses "in" and "out". "In" is from St.James or the
airport to South Shields or Sunderland; "out" is the opposite. The terms
come from "inside" and "outside" on the loop bit, but it means a train
to Monument could be "in" or "out" depending on where you are (and in
some places both though with different travel times). For Shields and
Sunderland locals, "in" is towards them, of course.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: