NYC and London: Comparisons.
 

Having grown up in NYC and being a user of its subway for all my life, I was
wondering about some of the differences between it and the London tube. Both
systems are some of the first ever constructed, with London being the
oldest, IIRC. I have traveled the London tube, and found it superior in some
ways to NYC, even with its problems, and not as good in others. (But then
again, what system doesn't have some degree of issues to contend with?)

As a history buff, I am curious as to how the London system started, and
where the first line or lines were. NYC's system started as a private
enterprise, the Interborough Rapid Transit system, and the only line it ran
was from City Hall in Lower Manhattan up to 116th Street, in what is now
Spanish Harlem. Back then, (in 1904) this was the upper limit of urban NYC,
at the end of Central Park.

--
David Spiro
"We spend all our time searching for security, and then we hate it when we
get it."
--John Steinbeck

NYC and London: Comparisons.
 

"David Spiro" wrote in message
...
Having grown up in NYC and being a user of its subway for all my life, I
was
wondering about some of the differences between it and the London tube.
Both
systems are some of the first ever constructed, with London being the
oldest, IIRC. I have traveled the London tube, and found it superior in
some
ways to NYC, even with its problems, and not as good in others. (But then
again, what system doesn't have some degree of issues to contend with?)

As a history buff, I am curious as to how the London system started, and
where the first line or lines were. NYC's system started as a private
enterprise, the Interborough Rapid Transit system, and the only line it
ran
was from City Hall in Lower Manhattan up to 116th Street, in what is now
Spanish Harlem. Back then, (in 1904) this was the upper limit of urban
NYC,
at the end of Central Park.

Briefly...

The first underground line was the one from Paddington to King's Cross -
what is now the Metropolitan/Circle. This was opened in 1863. I believe it
was originally driven by steam locos which condensed the steam rather than
releasing it into the tunnel. I'm not sure what they did with the smoke...
This railway (and the rest of the Circle line) is mainly cut-and-cover so
it's only just below ground level. It was built by a separate company, the
Metropolitan Railway, with financial backing and rolling stock intially
coming from the Great Western Railway.

Most of the tube lines (built by boring through the rock rather than by
cut-and-cover) were built between about 1880 and 1910, though in many cases
the extremities, further away from central London, were not built until the
1920s and 30s - for example the Northern Line beyond Clapham Common, Golders
Green and Archway.

The Victoria Line was built as recently as 1968-71 and the Jubilee Line is
newer still: the Baker Street to Charing Cross section was 1979 and the
"Jubilee Line Extension" from Green Park to Stratford was completed as
recently as 1999 in preparation for passengers to get to the Millennium
Dome.


There are a number of good books on the subject which go into far more
detail than my very brief summary he

- The London Underground: A Diagrammatic History, Douglas Rose, pub Douglas
Rose, ISBN 0-9507101-5-6 (Map showing all the lines that are or were at one
time run by London Transport, with opening and closing dates of
lines/stations or dates of transfer to/from LT)

- London's Underground, John Glover, pub Ian Allen, ISBN 0-7110-2416-2

-

NYC and London: Comparisons.
 

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005, David Spiro wrote:

Having grown up in NYC and being a user of its subway for all my life, I
was wondering about some of the differences between it and the London
tube. Both systems are some of the first ever constructed, with London
being the oldest, IIRC.

You do remember correctly.

I have traveled the London tube, and found it superior in some ways to
NYC, even with its problems, and not as good in others.

Interesting - would you like to expand? We've had at least one thread on
this comparison in the past, but it'd be interesting to hear you opinions.

As a history buff, I am curious as to how the London system started, and
where the first line or lines were. NYC's system started as a private
enterprise, the Interborough Rapid Transit system, and the only line it
ran was from City Hall in Lower Manhattan up to 116th Street, in what is
now Spanish Harlem. Back then, (in 1904) this was the upper limit of
urban NYC, at the end of Central Park.

I refer you to:

http://www.davros.org/rail/culg/

A somewhat terse but authoritative treatment of this subject.

Briefly, though, London's history is similar to New York's - there were
several separate, and indeed competing, companies to begin with, which
were only brought together later (first when some American called Yerkes
bought most of them, then when they were nationalised). A lot of the early
companies were relatives of the mainline railway companies that had
termini in London (and i include the Metropolitan in that!).

The biggest physical difference between the networks is that London's
lines are mostly in deep tunnels - 'tubes' - in the clay layer (or
something) ~20 metres below the surface; only a few lines (the Circle
line, the lines coming off it at tangents, and the East London line) are
built at shallow depth using cut-and-cover. AIUI, New York's lines are all
shallow (except for PATH and such). This means that stations are rather
different in structure, and the tunnels, and thus the trains, are smaller
(i assume because digging wide deep tunnels was ruinously expensive).
Conversely, London never had the el-to-subway transition that built a lot
of the NYC system (there are one or two examples of this happening in
London, though).

Another interesting difference is the almost complete lack of underground
line in south London - here, the suburban surface rail network was very
well-developed early on (and extensive urbanisation was later than in the
north, i think), so the need for tubes never arose. I don't know if
there's a a parallel in New York - are there any boroughs with surface
rail lines rather than subways?

tom

--
If you tolerate this, your children will be next.

NYC and London: Comparisons.
 

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
h.li...
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005, David Spiro wrote:

Another interesting difference is the almost complete lack of underground
line in south London - here, the suburban surface rail network was very
well-developed early on (and extensive urbanisation was later than in the
north, i think), so the need for tubes never arose. I don't know if
there's a a parallel in New York - are there any boroughs with surface
rail lines rather than subways?

I thought one of the reasons that there are very few tube lines south of the
Thames is that the geology is different and doesn't lend itself to
tunnelling - except around Crystal Palace where the Sydenham tunnels are
through rock that is easier to tunnel through.

NYC and London: Comparisons.
 

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
h.li...
Another interesting difference is the almost complete lack of underground
line in south London - here, the suburban surface rail network was very
well-developed early on (and extensive urbanisation was later than in the
north, i think), so the need for tubes never arose. I don't know if
there's a a parallel in New York - are there any boroughs with surface
rail lines rather than subways?

Well, in the Bronx where I grew up, some of the lines, such as the #6 are
almost completely above ground, though it does go under for about the last
quarter of it's journey before going into Manhattan, which is completely
below ground. The only other line that I am familiar with that is just about
all above ground is the #7 Flushing line train, which only goes below ground
at its eastern terminus at Main Street in Flushing. On the whole, the system
is a mix of both above and below ground service. Even in Manhattan, the #1
Broadway local train is on an elevated section through a part of Harlem, the
last elevated subway in Manhattan, albeit for a short stretch.

I am living now in upstate NY, in the city of Rochester, which does not have
a subway though it did up until the 50's. It was at the time, the smallest
American city to have a subway system, though quite frankly, it is not large
enough to really need one. There is an adequate bus system that has gotten
better in the 6 years I have been here.

NYC and London: Comparisons.
 

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
h.li...
I have traveled the London tube, and found it superior in some ways to
NYC, even with its problems, and not as good in others.

Interesting - would you like to expand? We've had at least one thread on
this comparison in the past, but it'd be interesting to hear you opinions.

Well, for one, I found the London system far easier to navigate than NYC. I
think that this is in part due to the fact that there is no "express/local"
service on the Underground, at least not that I am familair with or have
heard of. The express/local idea can be confusing to navigate, even to the
natives! Imagine being a tourist. On the other side of the coin, the
"express/local" type of service that NYC runs is a very efficient way of
moving people around (minus delays, of course) as you can allow for faster
service based on your destination. I don't know that this was easier to
achieve due to the cut-and-cover method, or simply was a brilliant idea at
the time.

The London service also seems to be more expansive in terms of its coverage
to local neighborhoods. There are too many places in the outer boroughs of
NYC where the only way to reach a subway is to first take a bus. This is
especially true in Queens, less so in Brooklyn and the Bronx. As far as
overall service is concerned, I would be hard pressed to comment, as I am
not a daily commuter in London. I can tell you that in the two times I have
been there, I had nothing but a fine experience on the Underground. Of
course, back in 1989, I couldn't say the same of the then British Rail,
which really screwed up my travel plans........it was better in 1999, when I
used GNER, though I don't know how things are these days with all that I
have read.

This means that stations are rather
different in structure, and the tunnels, and thus the trains, are smaller
(i assume because digging wide deep tunnels was ruinously expensive).

Ah, so that explains why the trains were narrower as well. I always wondered
about that. Actually, if you go back to the history of NYC, there was a time
in the 1800's when a "pneumatic tube" system of trains was developed, though
it did not last long. In the pictures that I have seen of it, they seemed to
be about the same width as the London trains, perhaps a bit smaller.

NYC and London: Comparisons.
 

Try the "horses mouth" - http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tube/company/history/

Regards,
Max B


"David Spiro" wrote in message
...
Having grown up in NYC and being a user of its subway for all my life, I
was
wondering about some of the differences between it and the London tube.
Both
systems are some of the first ever constructed, with London being the
oldest, IIRC. I have traveled the London tube, and found it superior in
some
ways to NYC, even with its problems, and not as good in others. (But then
again, what system doesn't have some degree of issues to contend with?)

As a history buff, I am curious as to how the London system started, and
where the first line or lines were. NYC's system started as a private
enterprise, the Interborough Rapid Transit system, and the only line it
ran
was from City Hall in Lower Manhattan up to 116th Street, in what is now
Spanish Harlem. Back then, (in 1904) this was the upper limit of urban
NYC,
at the end of Central Park.

--
David Spiro
"We spend all our time searching for security, and then we hate it when we
get it."
--John Steinbeck






---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0533-3, 17/08/2005
Tested on: 18/08/2005 16:26:07
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2004 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

NYC and London: Comparisons.
 

Well, for one, I found the London system far easier to navigate than NYC. I
think that this is in part due to the fact that there is no "express/local"
service on the Underground, at least not that I am familair with or have
heard of.

There are some fast and semi-fast trains on the underground, though
only on the Metropolitan line north of Harrow-on-the-Hill, and not on
the Uxbridge services.

NYC and London: Comparisons.
 

David Spiro wrote:
I don't know that this [express/local trains] was easier to
achieve due to the cut-and-cover method, or simply was a brilliant idea at
the time.

I'd class it a brilliant idea -- the other thing that express/local
achieves is much more operational flexibility (you don't get a total
line shutdown if a train breaks down) and the ability to run 24-hour
service (you can easily close down one track overnight to work on it).
But there's no doubt that building four tracks using cut and cover is
less than twice the cost of building two, whereas building four deep
tracks is probably more than twice the cost of two (once you've built
crossover caverns, step-plate junctions etc.)

The London service also seems to be more expansive in terms of its coverage
to local neighborhoods. There are too many places in the outer boroughs of
NYC where the only way to reach a subway is to first take a bus.

Same in London, even quite close in at times. The Bricklayers Arms/Old
Kent Road area springs to mind, but that's only because I used to live
near there. (In a perfect world, they'd extend the Bakerloo Line that
way.) In general, the gaps are increasingly being filled in by light
rail of various kinds -- the Old Kent Road area will get the
Cross-River tramway, for instance, assuming it ever happens. DLR is
expanding all the time, filling in a lot of East London near the river,
Croydon Tramlink has helped, the Uxbridge Road tram may happen
eventually, etc.

NYC and London: Comparisons.
 

David Spiro wrote:
Having grown up in NYC and being a user of its subway for all my life, I was
wondering about some of the differences between it and the London tube. Both
systems are some of the first ever constructed, with London being the
oldest, IIRC. I have traveled the London tube, and found it superior in some
ways to NYC, even with its problems, and not as good in others. (But then
again, what system doesn't have some degree of issues to contend with?)

As a history buff, I am curious as to how the London system started, and
where the first line or lines were. NYC's system started as a private
enterprise, the Interborough Rapid Transit system, and the only line it ran
was from City Hall in Lower Manhattan up to 116th Street, in what is now
Spanish Harlem. Back then, (in 1904) this was the upper limit of urban NYC,
at the end of Central Park.

--
David Spiro
"We spend all our time searching for security, and then we hate it when we
get it."
--John Steinbeck


Ironically although it is called the London Underground it has more
miles of track on the surface. Is this the same with the New York
Subway?