Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 - |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Stuart" wrote in message
news ![]() 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. |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Martin Underwood wrote:
"Stuart" wrote in message news ![]() 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 |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Martin Underwood" wrote in message ... "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 - The first was the Pneumatic Tube Company in NY. 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 - |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Moishe Lip****z" wrote in message
news:iYDNe.258$IG2.251@trndny01 "Martin Underwood" wrote in message The first underground line was the one from Paddington to King's Cross - The first was the Pneumatic Tube Company in NY. Not so. The Met opened several years earlier, and was a proper railway, not just a short demo line. |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet | London Transport | |||
City Hall NYC - stunning photos | London Transport | |||
City Hall NYC - stunning photos | London Transport | |||
Piccadilly Line 7/7 Comparisons | London Transport | |||
London - Kiev comparisons | London Transport |