|
London v Paris
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. 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. 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. 4. I did like the cross-city trains (RER) in Paris. Double-decker trains were impressive. I do hope that cross-rail does this. 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. M. |
London v Paris
"Morton" wrote in message ... While Paris is spotless compared to London, I thought the Metro was drab, uninspiring and could do with a good clean. You didn't observe any merde de chien then? -- Terry Harper, Web Co-ordinator, The Omnibus Society 75th Anniversary 2004, see http://www.omnibussoc.org/75th.htm E-mail: URL: http://www.terry.harper.btinternet.co.uk/ |
London v Paris
The merde de chien is a grossly overstated Parisian "thing"...
What I found much more interesting was the upfront activities of the RATP "Agents Surete"...... Now the BTP they aint.........But boy do they put it about and to great effect too if the speed of departure of the Eastern European Beggars from our carriage was anything to go By....! In rememberance of John Peel....In through the Out door !!! |
London v Paris
"Terry Harper" wrote in message
... "Morton" wrote in message ... While Paris is spotless compared to London, I thought the Metro was drab, uninspiring and could do with a good clean. You didn't observe any merde de chien then? No. We spotted very few dogs, although I caught one customer leaving a restaurant with a dog. I thought Paris was very clean. I was most impressed with a local up at Montmatre kicking an empty beer can and other rubbish into a kerb drainage hole. |
London v Paris
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. There are no small-sized tube trains in Paris, but I would guess that the trains are no wider than, say, D-stock. I find the old latches somehow more satisfying to use than the mere push-buttons on more modern stock. The latest stock on line 14, and I think line 1 too, has all-door opening. 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'm used to both systems, and don't have a problem with the Métro signs. The main difference is the use of (to give a Piccadilly line example) "Uxbridge/Heathrow" and "Cockfosters" instead of "westbound" and "eastbound". In what way did you feel the signage was incomplete? 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: a Beck-like diagram that is a reasonable compromise between geometry and geography, a quite different diagram that seems to have been designed for printing on small pages such as diaries, and a geographic one with the lines superimposed on a simplified street map, which is the version displayed at 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. 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. 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. It varies quite a lot between stations. But the relative lack of signal failures, persons under trains, stations closed by defective safety equipment, etc. is worth a bit of grime. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
London v Paris
"Morton":
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. Richard J.: I'm used to both systems, and don't have a problem with the Métro signs. The main difference is the use of (to give a Piccadilly line example) "Uxbridge/Heathrow" and "Cockfosters" instead of "westbound" and "eastbound". In what way did you feel the signage was incomplete? At a number of interchange stations where the signs are relatively old, they don't show the line number. As if you got off at Green Park, meaning to change to the Jubilee Line, and only saw signs for "Cockfosters", "Uxbridge/Heathrow", "Stratford", and "Stanmore". Now obviously you have to know which one of those is right for the train you want, but if you're thinking "first I find the Jubilee Line, and then I have to remember which endpoint my westbound train goes to", then it's a bit disconcerting. There is also the matter of some of the station names being so long and similar that they get abbreviated on signs, in ways that may not be obvious to foreigners. I don't remember any real examples offhand, but it wouldn't surprise me to see "Montreuil" used instead of "Mairie de Montreuil" to mean eastbound on line 9, say. One might easily think that was a different station, maybe on a different line; and an English-speaker might also think that "Mairie" was the important word, since it comes first, and would never be omitted in abbreviating. Of course I don't know if Morton had either of these points in mind. -- Mark Brader, Toronto | "We don't use clubs; they weren't invented here. | We use rocks." -- David Keldsen My text in this article is in the public domain. |
London v Paris
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? -- confguide.com - the conference guide |
London v Paris
"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? |
London v Paris
"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. |
London v Paris
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! |
London v Paris
"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 |
London v Paris
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 |
London v Paris
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 |
London v Paris
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) |
Doubledeckers (was: London v Paris)
"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 |
Doubledeckers (was: London v Paris)
"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. |
London v Paris
"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! |
Doubledeckers (was: London v Paris)
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 |
London v Paris
There is also the matter of some of the station names being so long
and similar that they get abbreviated on signs, in ways that may not be obvious to foreigners. I don't remember any real examples offhand, but it wouldn't surprise me to see "Montreuil" used instead of "Mairie de Montreuil" to mean eastbound on line 9, say. One might easily think that was a different station, maybe on a different line; and an English-speaker might also think that "Mairie" was the important word, since it comes first, and would never be omitted in abbreviating. That one can go one worse - if there's a definite article involved. Mairie des Lilas station is in (and is often shortened to) Les Lilas. |
London v Paris
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. You're just used to LU. Try riding the Northern (Charing X) Line Southbound and getting off at Waterloo. Try following the signs to the exit (they rather peter out - you're left deducing it by the fact that you don't want to go to the bloody Jubilee Line, which there are too many signs towards). If you want even more of a laugh, try finding the subway under the main line platforms or the Waterloo & City Line. Oh, and which way does the Piccadilly Line run? Get on an eastbound train at Leicester Sq, ride two stops and you're on a northbound train. Paris has perfect flow if you know what you're doing (and they haven't recast the bloody timetable in the intervening period - I waited a good 10 minutes for an Austerlitz bound train at Pte d'Auteuil one time before realising that all trains now went to Boulogne). Some things aren't intuitive. If you arrive by TGV at Montparnasse and want to go to CDG Airport, most people would look at the map, take the 4 to St-Michel or Châtelet, then transfer to line B. For a start the RER's nearer Halles than Châtelet (and don't even think about St-Michel), but why walk all that way to line 4 (and it IS a VERY long way to lines 4 and 12 at Montparnasse) only to sit on a slow packed train anyway. The answer is, if you didn't know, line 6 towards Nation, changing at Denfert-Rochereau onto the RER. |
London v Paris
snip
I'm used to both systems, and don't have a problem with the Métro signs. The main difference is the use of (to give a Piccadilly line example) "Uxbridge/Heathrow" and "Cockfosters" instead of "westbound" and "eastbound". In what way did you feel the signage was incomplete? I find the description of the northbound Piccadilly line from Kings Cross to Cockfosters as "Eastbound" to be utterly counter-intuitive. Peter |
London v Paris
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 |
London v Paris
|
London v Paris
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 |
London v Paris
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 |
London v Paris
"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 |
London v Paris
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. |
London v Paris
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 |
London v Paris
I'm finding this an interesting thread as I get to work in both London
and Paris pretty frequently and consider that I know both systems well. They both have their ups and downs. The "space trains" on Paris's Line 1 are - I think - magnificent. The distinctive smell of the Paris Metro - variable thought it is - has never gone away since my first visit in the early 1980s. London's classic tube map is unsurpassed. None of the Paris versions really achieves what Beck and Garbutt did, in my view. The Bullseye/Roundel is *far* better at marking out stations in crowded streetscapes. Exactly as people like Pick and Holden intended, there it is to assure you that you're near somewhere where you'll be able to "get your bearings. The "ME" symbol in Paris is much poorer at this and its use is very much intermittent. (That said, I love the classic "bouches de metro" Art Nouveau entrances!) In message , Morton writes I may be wrong but I think London Underground is extremely fool proof. So did I until I worked in tourism. Some people get *very* confused or simply refuse outright to use it "because they won't know where they're going or where to get off". Curiously, it is often people from other parts of the UK that are the worst for this. (I met a charming French family in Spitalfields yesterday afternoon trying to get to Tower Bridge. They took my advice and set off armed with a map and a sense of determination; the people I'd had the day before from another part of the UK didn't venture outside Covent Garden during the r free time because they wouldn't have dreamed of getting a tube or bus......) As long as people can distinguish North from South, East from West. You would perhaps be surprised how few people can. I am constantly *staggered* at how many people don't seem to know that North is usually at the top of a map. 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. I would agree but many wouldn't! 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. Once you master the metro's system for always guiding you with the Line Number, the "direction" and the "Correspondance" then that too is very easy. Paris and London just have different solutions to the problem but I wouldn't; say that one was necessarily easier or harder than the other. Just my view..... -- Ian Jelf, MITG, Birmingham, UK Registered "Blue Badge" Tourist Guide for London & the Heart of England http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk |
London v Paris
Ian Jelf wrote to uk.transport.london on Mon, 1 Nov 2004:
The distinctive smell of the Paris Metro - variable thought it is - has never gone away since my first visit in the early 1980s. I can assure you it was there in the 1970s! In fact, it was the thing that "took me back" more than anything else when we went back for the first time in 1993 (it might have been 1994, now I come to think of it, but would swear to neither!). the people I'd had the day before from another part of the UK didn't venture outside Covent Garden during the r free time because they wouldn't have dreamed of getting a tube or bus......) I can never understand this attitude - for me, part of the challenge of a new city is working out how to use it's public transport! -- "Mrs Redboots" http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/ Website updated 31 October 2004 |
London v Paris
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. |
London v Paris
"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 |
London v Paris
John Rowland wrote: "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. I reckon she found you so sexy, she assumed you were bilingual, John: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3966413.stm |
London v Paris
"Dave Newt" newtonline{AT}gmail.com wrote in message
t.net... John Rowland wrote: When I was in Paris, the woman selling tickets in the Eiffel Tower didn't speak a word of English. I reckon she found you so sexy, she assumed you were bilingual, John: Maybe she thought I was a cunning linguist? -- 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 |
London v Paris
"Patrick":
Apart from station names in Hindi in Southall and Ealing, LU ... assumes everybody speaks English. That's Punjabi at Southall, if it still looks like this: http://users.chello.be/cr41864/travel/colchester/southal00.jpg And it's not an LU station anyway. Ealing I don't know about. On the other hand, I learned the German word for "baggage" from the doorways of Piccadilly Line trains. -- Mark Brader | Peter Neumann on Y2K: Toronto | This problem gives new meaning to "going out on | a date" (which many systems will do on 1/1/00). |
London v Paris
|
London v Paris
"John Rowland" wrote in message
... 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. Pre my visit I thought French people either rarely spoke English or disapproved of tourists not trying the local lingo. After a few failed attempts I soon realised that many people in Paris (well, the tourist areas I visited) spoke English. And not one hint of derision. Handily, on the Metro I found that the French word for carnet is carnet :-) |
London v Paris
Ian Jelf wrote:
I'm finding this an interesting thread as I get to work in both London and Paris pretty frequently and consider that I know both systems well. They both have their ups and downs. The "space trains" on Paris's Line 1 are - I think - magnificent. I would add Line 14 to that; the same design of stock, but driverless. It's great fun to sit at the front! -- John Ray |
London v Paris
In message , Mrs Redboots
writes I can never understand this attitude - for me, part of the challenge of a new city is working out how to use it's public transport! -- "Mrs Redboots" In which case, if you come to West Cumbria, don't forget your car. -- Clive. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:54 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk