On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, David of Broadway wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, David of Broadway wrote:

The statements about your lack of express services were probably
referring to the Underground, where they're largely accurate, except
on the western Piccadilly and Metropolitan.

Strictly speaking, that're true, but my point was that NR trains act as
expresses for LU lines in some situations. For example, the Great
Northern from King's Cross, which only has stations north of Finsbury
Park (if you forget about Moorgate and all that) is the express service
of the northeastern Piccadilly. The London, Tilbury and Southend line
is the express service of the eastern District. Other lines don't have
such close correspondence to LU lines, but often serve overlapping
areas at the edge of town, providing a quicker service in.

And we in New York have the LIRR between Jamaica and Penn Station and
Metro-North between various points in the Bronx and Grand Central.
(Granted, the subway has substantially lower fares.)

Absolutely. I wasn't for a moment trying to imply that London had
something that New York didn't - perish the thought! Just that it doesn't
give a complete view to say that London has no expresses, as this implies
that wherever you are, you're looking at a
one-stop-each-and-every-500-metres ride into town.

In New York, I might hop on a 1 local train at 116th Street, transfer to the
2/3 express at 96th Street, transfer back to the 1 local at 14th Street, and
get off at Houston Street. (Whether I save any time in the process is a
different question - in my experience, depending on the time of day, it could
jump me ahead one or two locals. OTOH, if there's a long wait for the
express, I might not even catch the local I started on.)

Or maybe I'm taking a relatively short trip, one for which the time savings
on the express are minimal. I can simply take whichever train comes first,
since the local and express stop at the same station, usually at the same
platform.

Or if a train breaks down on one track, the following trains can be rerouted
around it on the other track. The resulting congestion is sometimes painful,
and local passengers may have to backtrack, but at least the trains can keep
moving.

And, as has been pointed out elsewhere, parallel tracks make track work much
easier to carry out while the trains are still running.

Yes, yes, i'm not debating the superiority of the NYC system. Merely
making an observation about London!

I really do wish we had the kind of robustness multi-tracking affords,
though. Even bidirectional signalling and a few more crossovers would be
something.

tom

--
The girlfriend of my friend is my enemy.

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, David of Broadway wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, David of Broadway wrote:

The statements about your lack of express services were probably
referring to the Underground, where they're largely accurate, except
on the western Piccadilly and Metropolitan.

Strictly speaking, that're true, but my point was that NR trains act
as expresses for LU lines in some situations. For example, the Great
Northern from King's Cross, which only has stations north of Finsbury
Park (if you forget about Moorgate and all that) is the express
service of the northeastern Piccadilly. The London, Tilbury and
Southend line is the express service of the eastern District. Other
lines don't have such close correspondence to LU lines, but often
serve overlapping areas at the edge of town, providing a quicker
service in.

And we in New York have the LIRR between Jamaica and Penn Station and
Metro-North between various points in the Bronx and Grand Central.
(Granted, the subway has substantially lower fares.)

Absolutely. I wasn't for a moment trying to imply that London had
something that New York didn't - perish the thought!

London has lots of things that New York doesn't!

Just that it
doesn't give a complete view to say that London has no expresses, as
this implies that wherever you are, you're looking at a
one-stop-each-and-every-500-metres ride into town.

Agreed completely.

Yes, yes, i'm not debating the superiority of the NYC system. Merely
making an observation about London!

I don't think NYC's system is necessarily superior in all ways. For
instance, it's been mentioned in this thread that NYC's route structure
can be quite confusing.

I really do wish we had the kind of robustness multi-tracking affords,
though. Even bidirectional signalling and a few more crossovers would be
something.

Yes, I certainly agree with that. It seems like whenever there's the
slightest problem anywhere along a line, the entire line breaks down.
(OK, I'm probably exaggerating a bit.)

But on the flip side, your system is MUCH better at publicizing
information regarding service outages.
--
David of Broadway
New York, NY, USA