On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 16:03:17 +0100
Ian Jelf wrote:
Such judgements are always subjective, of course. But I have always
been a firm believer in the fact that London's transport system as a
whole is one of the best in Europe.

Poor reliability and sky high prices. I wouldn't categorise it as anything
close to the best. I'll take frequent services and cheap tickets over tidy
stations any day. The NYC subway is a dump but the trains are fast, frequent,
air conditioned and it doesn't cost much.

networks, although I've not been to either. (Nor have I been to Moscow
but I've had a look at Gants Hill and I'm told it's much the
same.......)

Its the same in the way that primark is the same as harrods.

B2003

If they were to rate architecture and general impressiveness of
appearance - then Moscow Metro would probably win. But as a transport
service it certainly lags behind.

"Alex" wrote in message
...
If they were to rate architecture and general impressiveness of
appearance - then Moscow Metro would probably win. But as a transport
service it certainly lags behind.

Pyongyang is also pretty good in architecture and general impressiveness.
But it's a shame the only pictures we ever see are from just two stations,
so it might be hard to say.

In message
,
Alex writes
If they were to rate architecture and general impressiveness of
appearance - then Moscow Metro would probably win. But as a transport
service it certainly lags behind.
I found the Moscow Metro a curious setup, the trains seemed old but all
had rheostatic braking, and I didn't like the juice rail right under the
platform instead of furthest away. Paris has stations too close together
and their rubber tyre stock can throw you off balance when braking, like
Ligne 1 at Les Halles, the train brakes, enters the station then
accelerates then brakes suddenly to a halt.
New York, (where every car is both a power car and driving car) can be
confusing and has a habit of missing stations unless you're very
careful, I've had to walk back the full length of Central Park before
now. Outside of London I would vote BART as the best of the lot
especially as the trains do 75mph in the tunnels, more than double all
the rest. But for good coverage and a reasonably reliable service I
would vote for London.
--
Clive

On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:42:41 +0100
Clive wrote:
and their rubber tyre stock can throw you off balance when braking, like

I find that rubber tyred stock has a nasty bouncy characteristic when
going fast.

Ligne 1 at Les Halles, the train brakes, enters the station then
accelerates then brakes suddenly to a halt.

Sounds like the central line. The current crop of ATO systems seem pretty
braindead.

B2003

Clive wrote on 28 April 2009 16:42:41 ...
In message
,
Alex writes
If they were to rate architecture and general impressiveness of
appearance - then Moscow Metro would probably win. But as a transport
service it certainly lags behind.

I found the Moscow Metro a curious setup, the trains seemed old but all
had rheostatic braking, and I didn't like the juice rail right under the
platform instead of furthest away. Paris has stations too close together
and their rubber tyre stock can throw you off balance when braking, like
Ligne 1 at Les Halles, the train brakes, enters the station then
accelerates then brakes suddenly to a halt.

In my experience the acceleration/deceleration of the rubber-tyred
trains is no worse than the Central Line, and your description of
arriving at Les Halles (it's Line 4 by the way) sounds just like the
Victoria Line.

--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:42:41 +0100, Clive wrote:

New York, (where every car
is both a power car and driving car) can be confusing and has a habit of
missing stations unless you're very careful, I've had to walk back the
full length of Central Park before now.

You do realize that you could have just transferred to a local going back
in the other direction to reach your desired stop.

If you can figure out the Metropolitan line, New York's easy. At least
we give our locals and expresses different names (in most cases).

Incidentally, not every car is a driving car, if I understand your
terminology correctly. In the past, most of our rolling stock has
consisted of either single cars or married pairs, but the last of the
married pairs are in the process of retirement as we speak, and most of
the newer cars are linked into half-train-length units (four 60-foot
cars, four 75-foot cars, five 60-foot cars, or five 51-foot cars,
depending on the line). Except for the five-car R62/R62A units and the
four-car R68/R68A units, which were built as singles and "unitized" in
the 90's, only the end cars (called A cars) have cabs; it is impossible
to operate the train or the doors from the middle (B) cars. A handful of
R62A and R68 singles will remain, to handle a few special cases - the 7
train runs 11-car trains (generally one five-car unit plus six single
R62A's), the 42 St shuttle runs two 3-car trains and one 4-car train (all
R62A singles), and the the Franklin Av shuttle runs two 2-car trains of
R68's.

But that's enough New York car trivia for today.
--
David of Broadway
New York, NY, USA

In message ,
writes
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 16:03:17 +0100
Ian Jelf wrote:
Such judgements are always subjective, of course. But I have always
been a firm believer in the fact that London's transport system as a
whole is one of the best in Europe.

Poor reliability and sky high prices.

By European (but certainly not by UK) standards, London is expensive.

I seldom have any reason to complain about reliability in my fairly
extensive use of the Tube. Nor do I have problems with buses but
whenever I make such a point on here I always caution that I only really
use buses frequently in Central London. (Although whenever I've needed
them in suburbia I have no complaints and again the network compares
very well indeed with those in other parts of Britain.)

I wouldn't categorise it as anything
close to the best. I'll take frequent services and cheap tickets over tidy
stations any day. The NYC subway is a dump but the trains are fast, frequent,
air conditioned and it doesn't cost much.

Are they any more frequent than our Tube? I didn't get that impression
(I appreciate that they have express services superimposed.). I also
found it a much harder system to navigate.

networks, although I've not been to either. (Nor have I been to Moscow
but I've had a look at Gants Hill and I'm told it's much the
same.......)

Its the same in the way that primark is the same as harrods.

Well, they're both shops....... :-))
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 22:47:31 +0100
Ian Jelf wrote:
Are they any more frequent than our Tube? I didn't get that impression
(I appreciate that they have express services superimposed.). I also
found it a much harder system to navigate.

The frequency was about the same, but it always seemed reliable. There was
none of this 15 min wait in the rush hour ******** with yet another feeble
excuse over the tannoy. The only time I had a long wait was somewhere out
in the sticks waiting for a connection to Howard Beach.

B2003

In message , writes
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 22:47:31 +0100
Ian Jelf wrote:
Are they any more frequent than our Tube? I didn't get that impression
(I appreciate that they have express services superimposed.). I also
found it a much harder system to navigate.

The frequency was about the same, but it always seemed reliable. There was
none of this 15 min wait in the rush hour ********

Do you mean on the outer end of a branch like at Amersham or somewhere?
I don't think I've ever waited more than 6 or 7 minutes even in places
like Stanmore or Ruislip Gardens at 7.30am on a Sunday.
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk