I know this sounds like a ridiculous idea, but considering we have class
segregation on the mainline and suburban trains in the UK (First and
Standard), has/was there ever an idea to have First and Standard seating on
the underground network? When the underground was first built, was there
ever class segregation or have the toffs always had to mix with the
riff-raff on the underground?

"Toby" wrote in message ...
I know this sounds like a ridiculous idea, but considering we have class
segregation on the mainline and suburban trains in the UK (First and
Standard), has/was there ever an idea to have First and Standard seating on
the underground network? When the underground was first built, was there
ever class segregation or have the toffs always had to mix with the
riff-raff on the underground?

There was firts class on the Paris metro when I was there in
1980 (ish), so it isn't so silly.

tim

"Toby" wrote in message ...
I know this sounds like a ridiculous idea, but considering we have class
segregation on the mainline and suburban trains in the UK (First and
Standard), has/was there ever an idea to have First and Standard seating on
the underground network? When the underground was first built, was there
ever class segregation or have the toffs always had to mix with the
riff-raff on the underground?

The Metroplitan and District Railways definitely had different classes of
carriage on opening, but all the (limited) info I have suggests the 'tube
lines' from the C&SLR onwards, only had a single class.

Paul

wrote:
On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 13:45:09 +0100, "Toby" wrote:

When the underground was first built, was there
ever class segregation or have the toffs always had to mix with the
riff-raff on the underground?

But don't all the toffs travel in Bentley's and rollers in London
?all I have ever seen on the tube when I have had to travel by tube
is your so called riff-raff .

Evidently you haven't been on a train to/from the City in the rush hour.

Not being a Londoner I do consider the tube to be a rather unsafe
mode of travel

Why? What passenger fatalities or injuries have you read about?

especially during the rush hour the way people are
allowed to fill the trains to almost riding on the roof surly means
that a sudden stop will cause a great number of deaths which could
be avoided if the number of standing passengers where limited to a
reasonable number .

On the contrary, if people are tightly packed there is less chance of
being thrown against hard parts of the train interior. I find buses
much more dangerous in that respect than the tube.

I know the rush hour stupidity has gone on for many years but isn't
it time something was done about it .

Yes, please lobby your MP to get the government to build Crossrail
without further delay.

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

what about fare evasion... how do you police first class

"Richard J." wrote in message
k...
wrote:
On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 13:45:09 +0100, "Toby" wrote:

When the underground was first built, was there
ever class segregation or have the toffs always had to mix with the
riff-raff on the underground?

But don't all the toffs travel in Bentley's and rollers in London
?all I have ever seen on the tube when I have had to travel by tube
is your so called riff-raff .

Evidently you haven't been on a train to/from the City in the rush hour.

Not being a Londoner I do consider the tube to be a rather unsafe
mode of travel

Why? What passenger fatalities or injuries have you read about?

especially during the rush hour the way people are
allowed to fill the trains to almost riding on the roof surly means
that a sudden stop will cause a great number of deaths which could
be avoided if the number of standing passengers where limited to a
reasonable number .

On the contrary, if people are tightly packed there is less chance of
being thrown against hard parts of the train interior. I find buses much
more dangerous in that respect than the tube.

I know the rush hour stupidity has gone on for many years but isn't
it time something was done about it .

Yes, please lobby your MP to get the government to build Crossrail without
further delay.

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

On 8 Apr, 16:39, "Raymond Kirk" wrote:

what about fare evasion... how do you police first class


And how would your Oyster card know you'd travelled in first class
when you touched out?

"Toby" wrote in message ...
I know this sounds like a ridiculous idea, but considering we have class
segregation on the mainline and suburban trains in the UK (First and
Standard), has/was there ever an idea to have First and Standard seating on
the underground network? When the underground was first built, was there
ever class segregation or have the toffs always had to mix with the
riff-raff on the underground?

The Met is probably the only line, for example in 1904 a special fare from
Baker St to Rickmansworth was 2/6d single and 3/9d return. 3rd Class was
1/3d and 1/11d respectively. (Source: Metro Memories - D Edwards, R.Pilgrim
1977. I think they also ran a Pullman service but you could argue this was
really the Underground!

MaxB

In message , Toby writes

I know this sounds like a ridiculous idea, but considering we have class
segregation on the mainline and suburban trains in the UK (First and
Standard),

Many commuter services no longer have first class.

When the underground was first built, was there ever class segregation

Only on lines serving the outer suburbs (Metropolitan and District).
Given that most journeys were very short, first class facilities were
otherwise not needed (a comfortable armchair and a full English
breakfast might be nice on the journey from Manchester to London, but
hardly practical when en route from King's Cross to Moorgate).

or have the toffs always had to mix with the riff-raff on the
underground?

The tube network was created as a way of moving large numbers as cheaply
and quickly as possible (hence the Central's moniker of "the tuppeny
tube"). Also, given that journeys were very short on the original
network, comfort was not a prime consideration. I suspect that its
owners always knew that those with means would use their own preferred
transport, as they still do today ("two jags" anyone?).

--
Paul Terry

"Toby":
has/was there ever an idea to have First and Standard seating on
the underground network? When the underground was first built, was there
ever class segregation or have the toffs always had to mix with the
riff-raff on the underground?

Paul Scott:
The Metroplitan and District Railways definitely had different classes of
carriage on opening, but all the (limited) info I have suggests the 'tube
lines' from the C&SLR onwards, only had a single class.

The Metropolitan Railway, which always considered itself a main line,
had *three* classes when it opened in 1863. For the original route
from Paddington to Farringdon (now part of the Hammersmith & City Line),
single fares were 6d. first, 4d. second, and 3d. third. Likewise the
District, or Metropolitan District Railway to give it its full name.

In 1875 the Midland became the first major railway to abolish second class
(leaving first and third), and other British companies generally followed.
The Met and the District made the change when they introduced electric
trains in 1905. First class was withdrawn from some subsurface surfaces
in 1934-36 -- I don't have details -- and most of the remaining ones in
1940, leaving only the Aylesbury and Watford trains on the Met, which
had to compete with two-class main-line services. Both the Met trains
and their competitors became single-class in 1941, and that was that.

The Aylesbury service is also where the Metropolitan operated the two
Pullman cars that it obtained in 1910, which seated 19 passengers in
upholstered armchairs. These cars, which only made one or two round
trips a day in rush hours and after-theater, were withdrawn at about
the same time as the regular first-class services.

The deep-level tube lines have been single-class from the outset,
with the exception of the Great Northern & City Railway, the short
tube from Finsbury Park to Moorgate, which (although always intended
for through working with the main-line railways, as today) operated as a
self-contained route before 1976. This line was owned by the Metropolitan
Railway from 1913 to 1933, and accordingly operated two-class trains from
1915 until 1934 (but from 1916 on, off-peak services were single-class).

I should also mention the Tower Subway, the little cable-car shuttle
that ran under the Thames for a few months in 1870. All seats in the
12-passenger car were identical, but a first-class ticket (costing 2d.
instead of 1d.) gave priority in boarding.

(Sources: A History of London Transport, Rails Through the Clay, The
Oxford Companion to British Railway History, and an old posting of
mine whose source I forget.)
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "The time to make up your mind about people
| is never." --The Philadelphia Story

My text in this article is in the public domain.

In article , Paul Terry
writes
When the underground was first built, was there ever class segregation
Only on lines serving the outer suburbs (Metropolitan and District).

Where Paddington was, of course, an outer suburb.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: