| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
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? |
NYC and London: Comparisons.
"David Spiro" wrote in message
... "Tom Anderson" wrote in message h.li... 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. It's most definitely a better way of doing things, but prohibitively expensive when drilling tunnels. With cut-and-cover, you just make your trench a bit wider. With deep-level tunnels, you have to dig twice as many tunnels. |
NYC and London: Comparisons.
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 15:27:52 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote: (i assume because digging wide deep tunnels was ruinously expensive). I suspect so. A modern equivalent, the Merseyrail Loop, is very nearly[1] full mainline loading gauge because modern tunneling equipment made it rather easier. [1] PEP-derived EMUs, e.g. 508s, fit, but not the slightly larger Mk3-derived units like 455s, as I recall. The structure gauge difference can be seen quite nicely in those 455s that have a spare 508 car inserted. Not enough to have a major impact on passenger comfort or internal layout, but enough to be visible. Neil -- Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK When replying please use neil at the above domain 'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read. |
NYC and London: Comparisons.
On 18 Aug 2005 08:43:27 -0700, "Joe Patrick"
wrote: 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. Also, effectively, on the shared section between the District and Piccadilly lines towards Heathrow. They are designated as different lines, but the principle is not really any different. Neil -- Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK When replying please use neil at the above domain 'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read. |
NYC and London: Comparisons.
In message , Tom
Anderson writes 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). I'll probably kick myself when you answer this.......but where are there any examples of this happening in London? -- Ian Jelf, MITG Birmingham, UK Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk |
NYC and London: Comparisons.
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005, Ian Jelf wrote:
In message , Tom Anderson writes 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). I'll probably kick myself when you answer this.......but where are there any examples of this happening in London? There aren't - what i was thinking of, but didn't say, was surface-running to underground transitions. Sorry! As for that, i believe that some of the sub-surface network (i thought it was the northern side of the Circle but can't find any evidence for that) were built at or near ground level, for the use of steam engines, but when electric trains became available, it was rebuilt underground (presumably so the land on top could be built on). It's possible i'm imagining this, though. tom -- On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage |
NYC and London: Comparisons.
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005, Martin Underwood wrote:
"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. Yes, i've heard that too, but i think it's an urban myth. We've gone over it here before; google groups might be able to turn up more info. tom -- On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage |
NYC and London: Comparisons.
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005, Neil Williams wrote:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 15:27:52 +0100, Tom Anderson wrote: (i assume because digging wide deep tunnels was ruinously expensive). I suspect so. A modern equivalent, the Merseyrail Loop, is very nearly[1] full mainline loading gauge because modern tunneling equipment made it rather easier. [1] PEP-derived EMUs, e.g. 508s, fit, but not the slightly larger Mk3-derived units like 455s, as I recall. The structure gauge difference can be seen quite nicely in those 455s that have a spare 508 car inserted. Not enough to have a major impact on passenger comfort or internal layout, but enough to be visible. I'm afraid i don't know my PEP from my Mk3; do you mean that the tunnels are smaller than W6A gauge? Or are these Mk3 things bigger than W6A? Building a tunnel infinitesimally smaller than the standard loading gauge seems like the height of madness - for a negligable saving, you throw away the ability to every kind of passenger train, present and (near) future, without worrying about the details of its size! tom -- On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage |
NYC and London: Comparisons.
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005, David Spiro wrote:
"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 see. I guess the difference is that the subway and above-ground bits were built by the same companies, as two ways of building lines, as necessary. In London, we had one lot building mixed lines in the north, and another lot building purely above-ground lines in the south - the distinction survives today, as the lines are operated by entirely different organisations. In fact, the really important distinction between north London's underground and south London's railways is not their altitude, but their topology: underground lines usually consist of a central section with one or two limbs at each end, so they can easily run a high-frequency service; the railways, however, generally have many more branches, and interconnect into a complex network, making it impossible to deliver high frequencies at the outer ends. I have no idea why it worked out like that; perhaps because it's so much easier to add branches to an existing surface line than it is to add onto a tube. Socio-economic factors are probably also in there somewhere. Also, of course, the underground lines all run under the centre, whereas the railways all stop at termini just outside the city centre (apart from Thameslink). You might think that's a physical thing - after all, you can hardly drive surface railways through central London - but the thing is, there are north London surface railways (there are a handful of these; it's not all tubes!) that did it. The Great Northern & City railway planned to do it as early as 1891 (although it didn't _quite_ happen until the 1970s!), and around the time of the first world war, the London & North Western Railway managed to hook its line up to the Bakerloo tube line. Now, the southern end of that line is at Elephant & Castle, which is pretty close to a number of southern railway routes, so i really don't understand why none of those were joined up to it. tom [1] Or whatever it's called - Great Northern Electrics, Northern City line, Moorgate line, etc. -- On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage |
NYC and London: Comparisons.
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005, Neil Williams wrote:
On 18 Aug 2005 08:43:27 -0700, "Joe Patrick" wrote: 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. Also, effectively, on the shared section between the District and Piccadilly lines towards Heathrow. They are designated as different lines, but the principle is not really any different. Indeed. Perhaps the confusion in NYC could be avoided simply by changing the names of the lines! tom -- On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage |
NYC and London: Comparisons.
wrote in message
oups.com... 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? Not anymore. Far more of it is underground than above ground these days, at least to my knowledge. |
NYC and London: Comparisons.
In message , Tom
Anderson writes On Thu, 18 Aug 2005, Ian Jelf wrote: In message , Tom Anderson writes Conversely, London never had the el-to-subway transition that built lot of the NYC system (there are one or two examples of this happening in London, though). I'll probably kick myself when you answer this.......but where are there any examples of this happening in London? There aren't - what i was thinking of, but didn't say, was surface-running to underground transitions. Sorry! I see what you mean! Sorry for the confusion, too. As for that, i believe that some of the sub-surface network (i thought it was the northern side of the Circle but can't find any evidence for that) were built at or near ground level, for the use of steam engines, but when electric trains became available, it was rebuilt underground (presumably so the land on top could be built on). "Sort of", I'd say. The Metropolitan line as built has rather more open air sections than now but I think that the gradual building over had as much to do with pressure on land as it did with the conversion to electric traction. Fortunately the two went hand in hand. (I've always found it difficult to imagine what it must have been like in steam days on the sub-surface lines. One of those experiences I'd love to have, just once!) -- Ian Jelf, MITG Birmingham, UK Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk |
NYC and London: Comparisons.
"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
.li... Indeed. Perhaps the confusion in NYC could be avoided simply by changing the names of the lines! Well, the problem is that the express service trains usually only run express in Manhattan, with exceptions during rush hour service. Example: The 3 Lexington Ave. lines, #'s 4,5, and 6. The #6 train is a local train during non-rush hour times, except for certain places in the Bronx, where it runs express until it reaches 125th Street in Manhattan during rush hour. (At which time, it switches back to local service, until its terminus at Brooklyn Bridge/City Hall) At 125th Street, one can then switch to either the #4 or #5 (which run on the same track in Manhattan. They run different routes in the Bronx., and then the same route again when they pass into Brooklyn from Manhattan. Still with me? Now, you have trains like the #1 Broadway local which ALWAYS run local service the whole time, as far as I remember. ( This train starts in the far northwest Bronx and runs to South Ferry in Manhattan.) The express service trains on this Broadway route are the #'s 2 and 3, but I forget how their service runs, other than they too go to Brooklyn and terminate somewhere there. This may have changed in recent years, but I am not completely sure, as I have not lived in the city for 6 years, but do keep up on things when I can. Confused yet? Now you see the problem, as it goes beyond simply changing the line designations. It is a matter of knowing the train timetables, and understanding what constitutes rush hour, which usually means between 7-10 AM, and 4-7 PM, generally. Now comes the fun of knowing which side of the platform to stand on for which train............provided they didn't switch the express train to the local track for whatever reason.........;-) |
NYC and London: Comparisons.
Martin Underwood wrote:
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. Although of course the Jubilee Line extension was decided upon before the site of the offical Millennium celebrations. |
NYC and London: Comparisons.
"Stuart" wrote in message
... Martin Underwood wrote: 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. Although of course the Jubilee Line extension was decided upon before the site of the offical Millennium celebrations. I probably put the cart before the horse there. The fact that the JLE was going through that peninsular on the south bank of the Thames probably influenced the choice of the site of the Millennium Dome. |
NYC and London: Comparisons.
[On building 4-track lines]
It's most definitely a better way of doing things, but prohibitively expensive when drilling tunnels. With cut-and-cover, you just make your trench a bit wider. However, this also requires the *street* to be wide enough. Common in New York, not so common in London. With deep-level tunnels, you have to dig twice as many tunnels. Or make them wide enough for two tracks each instead of one. (Of course that could also have been done with the 2-track lines...) The trouble with a double-track tunnel is that you either have to excavate a lot of wasted space above and below the tracks, or else make the tunnel walls stronger to compensate for the weaker non-circular cross-section. But, after all, there are lots of them on main-line railways; it's not an impossible choice. And "wasting" space above the tracks actually would have brought some benefits -- better ventilation, reduced air resistance, more space for any wires or other utilities needed in the tunnel, and and the possibility of converting to an overhead power supply if this was ever found desirable. Most New York 4-track lines have all the tracks side by side, but not all. There are multiple places where two tracks are above the other two -- either using a double-deck cut-and-cover tunnel, or using a cut-and-cover tunnel for the locals above a deep tube for the express. That last should ring a bell -- around 1900 the District Railway was planning a deep-level express line under their existing route from just east of Earl's Court as far as Mansion House. This is the origin of the section of the Piccadilly Line that runs below the District from West Kensington to South Kensington, although of course it was not built as an express route, bypassing only the former station. -- Mark Brader, Toronto "Information! ... We want information!" -- The Prisoner My text in this article is in the public domain. |
NYC and London: Comparisons.
Martin Underwood:
The first underground line was the one from Paddington to King's Cross - Actually the first section opened continued to Farringdon. what is now the Metropolitan/Circle. No; it was originally the Metropolitan Railway, but in today's nomen- clature it's part of the Hammersmith & City Line. Most of the original route is also part of the Circle, but not at the Paddington end, where the two lines split; and as for the Metropolitan Line, of course that's now considered to branch off at Baker Street. 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. The condensing didn't work so well once the Circle Line (then called the Inner Circle) was opened in 1884, because there was no chance to stop the trains and drain off the hot water. Nevertheless, steam working continued until 1905. I'm not sure what they did with the smoke... They released it into the tunnel, and the management claimed that it was good for you. (It smelled bad, so it must be, right?) One time at an inquiry, a driver reported that it "very seldom" got thick enough to obscure his view of the signals. -- Mark Brader "Great things are not done by those Toronto who sit down and count the cost of every thought and act." --Daniel Gooch My text in this article is in the public domain. |
NYC and London: Comparisons.
David Spiro:
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. No, there wasn't. Such a system was *proposed* and promoted by Alfred Beach. In 1870 he opened a demonstration line about 100 m long, with one car that shuttled back and forth into a dead-end tunnel from a single station. Note incidentally that this was the same year that the cable-hauled Tower Subway opened in London, also operating a single shuttle-service car, but in this case carrying passengers between two stations. Both lines were equally unsuccessful. The Tower Subway shut down (as a rail operation) in a few months. Beach kept his demonstration line open a bit longer, but never came close to attracting the support he'd need to build any more. At one point he gave on up the politicians he'd originally been associated with and switched to a different lot, and in an attempt to make this credible, put out the story that in building the demonstration line he'd had to do it in secret because he had *no* political backing. This falsehood found its way into an article of mine, which I will cite in a moment. Pneumatic tubes of various sizes *were* built in both cities for non-passenger purposes, i.e. mail and telegrams, and I suppose David may have had that in mind when he referred to a "system". For more on this see my article http://www.davros.org/rail/atmospheric.html But for the true story about Beach, see the book-length web site http://www.columbia.edu/~brennan/beach/ 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. Quite a bit smaller. I don't think any photos exist of the interior of Beach's single car, and drawings may not represent the size accurately. But here are some comparative tunnel diameters: 6'8" Tower Subway 8' Beach's line 10'2" C&SLR (first deep London tube) as originally built 10'8¼" Standard early London tubes (smaller ones were enlarged) 17' Main line single-track tunnel (approximate) 25' Channel Tunnel single-track tunnel -- Mark Brader | "...Backwards Compatibility, which, if you've made as | many mistakes as Intel and Microsoft have in the past, Toronto | can be very Backwards indeed." -- Steve Summit My text in this article is in the public domain. |
NYC and London: Comparisons.
"David Spiro" a écrit dans le message de ... "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. As nobody has yet mentioned it, I'd like to point out that there's an excellent unofficial Web site nominally on the NYC Subway - but with a lot on others, and relevant links too, eg the bibliography at: http://www.nycsubway.org/biblio/othercities.html . Also, AFAIK, the typical lack of integration among lines originally intended to compete with each other is even more pronounced in NYC than in London where, as has been mentioned, the central tube lines were subsequently extended into the suburbs along the rights-of-way (if not the tracks) of the 'main-line' railways. , You will see far more stations idenified by the 'double-arrow' symbol indicating interchange with 'National Rail' on the pocket route map for London than the corresponding symbols for interchange with PATH, Metro-Rail and the LIRR on the NYC map. Of course, the local topography may be relevant here. Finally, after about a century of different fare policies (flat fare in NYC, distance-based fare stages in London), there now seems to be a convergence towards a more sophisticated zone-based system with stored-fare cards... Regards, - Alan (in Brussels) |
NYC and London: Comparisons.
Martin Underwood wrote:
"Stuart" wrote in message ... Martin Underwood wrote: 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. Although of course the Jubilee Line extension was decided upon before the site of the offical Millennium celebrations. I probably put the cart before the horse there. The fact that the JLE was going through that peninsular on the south bank of the Thames probably influenced the choice of the site of the Millennium Dome. Inded, here was a big campaign to put it (or something like it) in Birmingham |
NYC and London: Comparisons.
"Ian Jelf" wrote in message
In message , Tom Anderson writes 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). I'll probably kick myself when you answer this.......but where are there any examples of this happening in London? How about where the District and Picc climb out of their subsurface and deep level tunnels at Earl's Court to just below ground level at Hammersmith and then up a steep gradient on to the viaduct by Ravenscourt Park? Or where the Wimbledon Line climbs on to a quite high viaduct in Fulham? And the Central west of White City? In each of these cases, we have an Underground line climbing from a tunnel to viaduct level, and staying at viaduct level for at least a few stations. |
NYC and London: Comparisons.
"Nigel Pendse" a écrit dans le message de ... "Ian Jelf" wrote in message In message , Tom Anderson writes 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). I'll probably kick myself when you answer this.......but where are there any examples of this happening in London? How about where the District and Picc climb out of their subsurface and deep level tunnels at Earl's Court to just below ground level at Hammersmith and then up a steep gradient on to the viaduct by Ravenscourt Park? Or where the Wimbledon Line climbs on to a quite high viaduct in Fulham? And the Central west of White City? In each of these cases, we have an Underground line climbing from a tunnel to viaduct level, and staying at viaduct level for at least a few stations. Yes and no, because although those are indeed examples of what the OP of the text meant, what he actually wrote (as he clarified subsequently) referred to the construction of tunnels *to replace* surface or elevated lines. The only cases I can think of are on the Central Line between Stratford and Leyton, a short length of the NLR North Woolwich branch and the Kingsway tram tunnel (at least partly). In London, unlike NYC, there are several examples of the opposite situation, eg parts of the DLR (Sivertown tramway) where new elevated sections replace surface lines formerly serving the docks... Regards, - Alan (in Brussels) |
NYC and London: Comparisons.
"Mark Brader" wrote in message
... 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. Quite a bit smaller. I don't think any photos exist of the interior of Beach's single car, and drawings may not represent the size accurately. But here are some comparative tunnel diameters: Actually, I have a photo of one of the cars and it does show the interior. There was a PBS special on NYC a few years ago, and the companion book has a picture of one of the cars after it (and the station )was excavated in 1912. You're right about the word "system", my poor choice of words. ;-) I guess I was using it in a general sense. |
NYC and London: Comparisons.
Also, AFAIK, the typical lack of integration among lines originally intended to compete with each other is even more pronounced in NYC than in London where, as has been mentioned, the central tube lines were subsequently extended into the suburbs along the rights-of-way (if not the tracks) of the 'main-line' railways. , You will see far more stations idenified by the 'double-arrow' symbol indicating interchange with 'National Rail' on the pocket route map for London than the corresponding symbols for interchange with PATH, Metro-Rail and the LIRR on the NYC map. Of course, the local topography may be relevant here. This is oh so true. In NYC, there are actually very few stations that interchange with the suburban railways, and only Penn Station has the "national" railway running in and out of it, and that of course is Amtrak. Amtrak does also run on the suburban tracks as you head out of the city. The only stations that I am aware of that have the suburban railways interchanged with the subway are Penn and Grand Central Stations, (Long Island Railroad and MetroNorth, respectively.) WTC, (PATH) Jamaica Station in Queens (Long Island Railroad), and Flatbush Avenue in Brooklyn. (Long Island Railroad) There are other PATH stations in Manhattan, but can't remember them off the top of my head. Finally, after about a century of different fare policies (flat fare in NYC, distance-based fare stages in London), there now seems to be a convergence towards a more sophisticated zone-based system with stored-fare cards... Still flat fare in NYC, though they use the MetroCard now as opposed to subway tokens. (thank goodness!) MetroNorth and LIRR have always had zone based systems. PATH as I recall was always a flat fare system, though I rarely used it. |
NYC and London: Comparisons.
David Spiro wrote:
Also, AFAIK, the typical lack of integration among lines originally intended to compete with each other is even more pronounced in NYC than in London where, as has been mentioned, the central tube lines were subsequently extended into the suburbs along the rights-of-way (if not the tracks) of the 'main-line' railways. , You will see far more stations idenified by the 'double-arrow' symbol indicating interchange with 'National Rail' on the pocket route map for London than the corresponding symbols for interchange with PATH, Metro-Rail and the LIRR on the NYC map. Of course, the local topography may be relevant here. This is oh so true. In NYC, there are actually very few stations that interchange with the suburban railways, and only Penn Station has the "national" railway running in and out of it, and that of course is Amtrak. Amtrak does also run on the suburban tracks as you head out of the city. The only stations that I am aware of that have the suburban railways interchanged with the subway are Penn and Grand Central Stations, (Long Island Railroad and MetroNorth, respectively.) WTC, (PATH) Jamaica Station in Queens (Long Island Railroad), and Flatbush Avenue in Brooklyn. (Long Island Railroad) There are other PATH stations in Manhattan, but can't remember them off the top of my head. 33rd, 23rd and 14th Streets, all of which are adjacent to subway stations, and Christopher Street, which is not near a subway station. There's also a subway station (served by the 4, 5 and 6 trains) next to the 125th Street Metro-North station. PATH, of course, interchanges with both New Jersey Transit (commuter trains and the Newark City Subway) and Amtrak at Newark's Penn Station. -- Stephen Beth: My parents let me watch The Wizard Of Oz when I was 5 years old, and it gave me nightmares for years. Dave: Oh right,the wicked witch. Beth: No, Dorothy. |
NYC and London: Comparisons.
Alan (in Brussels) wrote:
"Nigel Pendse" a écrit dans le message de ... "Ian Jelf" wrote in message In message , Tom Anderson writes 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). I'll probably kick myself when you answer this.......but where are there any examples of this happening in London? How about where the District and Picc climb out of their subsurface and deep level tunnels at Earl's Court to just below ground level at Hammersmith and then up a steep gradient on to the viaduct by Ravenscourt Park? Or where the Wimbledon Line climbs on to a quite high viaduct in Fulham? And the Central west of White City? In each of these cases, we have an Underground line climbing from a tunnel to viaduct level, and staying at viaduct level for at least a few stations. Yes and no, because although those are indeed examples of what the OP of the text meant, what he actually wrote (as he clarified subsequently) referred to the construction of tunnels *to replace* surface or elevated lines. The only cases I can think of are on the Central Line between Stratford and Leyton, a short length of the NLR North Woolwich branch and the Kingsway tram tunnel (at least partly). In London, unlike NYC, there are several examples of the opposite situation, eg parts of the DLR (Sivertown tramway) where new elevated sections replace surface lines formerly serving the docks... Also on the DLR, the previously elevated Island Gardens was replaced by an underground station when the line was extended across the Thames to Greenwich and Lewisham (Mudchute, also, was originally an elevated station, and was rebuilt, though it is not now underground - it's just north of the tunnel portal). -- Stephen I think she periodically makes a whirring noise and then just shuts down. |
NYC and London: Comparisons.
"Stephen Farrow" wrote in message
Alan (in Brussels) wrote: "Nigel Pendse" a écrit dans le message de ... "Ian Jelf" wrote in message In message , Tom Anderson writes 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). I'll probably kick myself when you answer this.......but where are there any examples of this happening in London? How about where the District and Picc climb out of their subsurface and deep level tunnels at Earl's Court to just below ground level at Hammersmith and then up a steep gradient on to the viaduct by Ravenscourt Park? Or where the Wimbledon Line climbs on to a quite high viaduct in Fulham? And the Central west of White City? In each of these cases, we have an Underground line climbing from a tunnel to viaduct level, and staying at viaduct level for at least a few stations. Yes and no, because although those are indeed examples of what the OP of the text meant, what he actually wrote (as he clarified subsequently) referred to the construction of tunnels *to replace* surface or elevated lines. The only cases I can think of are on the Central Line between Stratford and Leyton, a short length of the NLR North Woolwich branch and the Kingsway tram tunnel (at least partly). In London, unlike NYC, there are several examples of the opposite situation, eg parts of the DLR (Sivertown tramway) where new elevated sections replace surface lines formerly serving the docks... Also on the DLR, the previously elevated Island Gardens was replaced by an underground station when the line was extended across the Thames to Greenwich and Lewisham (Mudchute, also, was originally an elevated station, and was rebuilt, though it is not now underground - it's just north of the tunnel portal). I know it's not exactly the same, but the replacement of High Holborn by Thameslink means that commuter trains now tunnel under Ludgate Hill rather than crossing over it (and obscuring the view of St Paul's in the process). Of course, the Snow Hill tunnel had been there all along, but had been abandoned for decades before being brought back into service again. |
NYC and London: Comparisons.
In article ,
Mark Brader wrote: The condensing didn't work so well once the Circle Line (then called the Inner Circle) was opened in 1884, because there was no chance to stop the trains and drain off the hot water. Nevertheless, steam working continued until 1905. Regular steam hauled freight services using condensing pannier tanks continued on the H&C/Circle line between Paddington and Smithfield (Farringdon) until the 1960s. It was quite a strange experience waiting at say Great Portland St (Metropolitan) on a Saturday morning and seeing a pannier and assorted freight wagons trundle through. David |
NYC and London: Comparisons.
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 14:19:45 +0200, "Alan \(in Brussels\)"
wrote: Yes and no, because although those are indeed examples of what the OP of the text meant, what he actually wrote (as he clarified subsequently) referred to the construction of tunnels *to replace* surface or elevated lines. The Circle line through Barbican almost fits this description - it was in open cutting before being rebuilt in tunnel when the Barbican Centre was built. |
NYC and London: Comparisons.
David Spiro and I (Mark Brader) wrote:
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. Quite a bit smaller. I don't think any photos exist of the interior of Beach's single car, and drawings may not represent the size accurately... Actually, I have a photo of one of the cars and it does show the interior. Thanks for the correction. However, there was still only one car. -- Mark Brader | "Don't be a luddy-duddy! Don't be a mooncalf! Toronto | Don't be a jabbernowl! You're not those, are you?" | --W.C. Fields, "The Bank Dick" |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:25 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk