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.

"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/

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 !!!

"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.

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)

"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.

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

"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?

"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!