London Underground Trains

[Tubeman]

Here’s all of the current Stocks of train operating on London Underground, in chronological order of introduction:

A60 or A-Stock dating back to 1960, in use on the Metropolitan Line (8 cars) and East London Line (4 cars) :

http://tube.tfl.gov.uk/content/faq/trains/a60_62.jpg

1967 Stock of the Victoria Line (8 cars), fully automatically driven from its inception:

http://tube.tfl.gov.uk/content/faq/trains/1967.jpg

C69/C77 Stocks (C-Stocks) of the Hammersmith & City and Circle Lines, and also the Edgware Road to Wimbledon District Line service (6 cars). Built in two batches in 1969 and 1977 with minimal differences between the two:

http://tube.tfl.gov.uk/content/faq/trains/c69_77.jpg

1972 Stock, Bakerloo Line (7 cars) :

http://tube.tfl.gov.uk/content/faq/trains/1972.jpg

1973 Stock, Piccadilly Line (6 cars) :

http://tube.tfl.gov.uk/content/faq/trains/1973.jpg

D78 Stock, District Line (6 cars). The Last stock of train to be refurbished, the first units are being delivered back by the end of this year. The bare aluminium body seen here is how all of the above stocks appeared before their refurbishment during the 1990’s :

http://tube.tfl.gov.uk/content/faq/trains/d.jpg

1992 Stock, Central Line (8 cars). Fully automatic, currently only the Victoria and Central Lines are (although all newer stocks have the capability, it’s the signalling that needs upgrading) :

http://tube.tfl.gov.uk/content/faq/trains/1992.jpg

1995 Stock, Northern Line (6 cars) :

http://tube.tfl.gov.uk/content/faq/trains/1995.jpg

1996 Stock, Jubilee Line (6 cars, soon to be 7) :

http://tube.tfl.gov.uk/content/faq/trains/1996.jpg

Source:

http://tube.tfl.gov.uk/content/faq/trains/astock.asp

[Tubeman]

Here's some older stocks which have graced London Underground...

1959 Stock which I used to drive up and down the Northern Line until they were finally replaced by the 1995 Stock in 1999:

http://www.squarewheels.org.uk/rly/stock/stockpics/59arrFCLp1.jpg

http://www.squarewheels.org.uk/rly/stock/stockpics/59BSPkNB.jpg

The gloomy interior:

http://www.squarewheels.org.uk/rly/stock/stockpics/59stock.interior.jpg

The Guard at the back of a 1959 stock waiting to close the doors and give the driver the Bell. This single train of 1959 stock was repainted in beautiful 1930's maroon and cream livery towards the end of its life... I have myself been Guard and Driver on this train several times:

http://www.squarewheels.org.uk/rly/stock/stockpics/CeruleanEGWguard.jpg

The repainted unit at my local station, Angel:

http://www.squarewheels.org.uk/rly/stock/stockpics/AGL-SBcerulean.jpg

Disappearing into the tunnel at Morden, not to re-appear for 17.5 miles!:

http://www.squarewheels.org.uk/rly/stock/stockpics/CeruleanMDNtnl.jpg

The Guards' Panel... It was at the front of the last carriage and as the Guard you just raised a bar across the gangway to protect yourself from the public:

http://www.squarewheels.org.uk/rly/stock/stockpics/59ts-guardpnl.jpg

Source:

http://www.squarewheels.org.uk/rly/stock/1959tubeStock.html

The beautifully designed R-Stock of the District Line, they survived until the early 1980's before being replaced by the D-Stock. These used to rattle past my house when I was a kid and probably are to blame for my love of the Tube and consequently my career choice!:

http://www.trainweb.org/tubeprune/Silver%20R%20stock.jpg

http://www.eavb.co.uk/video/images/atmh2.jpg

The CO/CP Stock which was basically an R-Stock painted red... they were withdrawn before the R-Stock, but I still just remember them. Look at the way the train "flares" out at the bottom of the cars at platform level... one of the many quirky little Art Deco touches that made these trains so beautiful:

http://www.vince-black.me.cz/Depot/UK/LUL/Lt_co_cp.jpg

1938 Stock, worked on numerous lines but ended its days on the Bakeloo Line where it survived until the 1980s. It was similar to the 1959 Stock with the obvious exception of it being bright red, but closer inspection reveals fine Art Deco detailing that was left off the 1959 stock:

http://www.ltmuseum.co.uk/learning/online_resources/ecobus_omnibus/image/0738.jpg

http://www.pendar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Tube/Misc/4_WatfordJnc.jpg

Its withdrawal from London Underground in the 1980s wasn't the end, though... It lives on on the Isle of Wight in the English Channel where it is the train of choice on their railway:

http://www.britishcountrytours.com/shanklin.jpg

[Vertigo]

Great thread! I remember that old stock on the Northern Line, it was indeed quite gloomy.

My favorite stock is the 1992 stock, with its large windows. Too bad they didn't keep that feature for the 1995/1996 stock.

[Tubeman]

My favorite stock is the 1992 stock, with its large windows. Too bad they didn't keep that feature for the 1995/1996 stock.

I agree... Apparently it was because Customer feedback on the 1992 Stock was that people disliked the "Hall of Mirrors" effect when looking at your reflection in the opposite window. Pretty daft if you ask me; it means you can't see much when above ground as the now flat windows are much smaller in height.

[superchan7]

The 1992 stock looks like Sci-fi. And the 1970s tube stock must've looked very impressive and futuristic back then. What a unique shape...too bad the ceiling height is so low! I kept hitting my head =(
London Underground has a lot of character, despite some of the cut/cover stock looking very old, like tin boxes (I have a thing against those New-York-style trains). Even though I'm more used to cutting-edge (bleeding edge?) systems like Hong Kong, I found myself wanting to ride the Underground as often as I could when I was in London this past summer.

Who makes the trains, by the way?

[Tubeman]

The different stocks were built by various companies; Cravens (in Gloucester I think) built the A60 Stock, most if not all of the other older stocks were built by Metro-Camell in Birmingham. The 1992 Stock was built by BREL (British Rail Engineering Ltd) in Yorkshire (either Doncaster or Sheffield, I forget) and the 1995 and 1996 stocks were built by GEC Alsthom in Birmingham, who bought Metro-Camell a few years back.

They were refurbished by various companies, some being transported as far as Scotland for refurbishment! The Refurbishment has made a huge difference to the trains, so much so that most customers assume them to be totally new trains... I'll try to hunt down some before/after photos of the interiors as before refirbishment the trains were grey and gloomy inside... pretty unpleasant.

One thing's for sure, none were built anywhere near London!

[Tubeman]

Ok a before and after... The Piccadilly Line 1973 Stock refurbished around 5 years ago by Bombardier in Doncaster...

Before... Grotty:

http://www.trainweb.org/tubeprune/73%20TS%20Interior%204%20orig.jpg

http://www.trainweb.org/tubeprune/73%20TS%20unref%20at%20HounE.jpg

After... Fabulous:

http://tube.tfl.gov.uk/content/faq/trains/1973.jpg

http://www.trainweb.org/tubeprune/73%20TS%20Interior%202.JPG

http://www.trainweb.org/tubeprune/73%20TS%20luggage%20space.JPG

http://www.trainweb.org/tubeprune/73%20TS%20UNDM%20end%20interior.jpg

The main innovations are cream (as opposed to battleship grey and canary yellow) interiors, Piccadilly Line Blue and bright yellow grabrails (as opposed to bare metal), windows cut into car ends for better security, scrolling dot matrix destination above each bank of seats, new luggage areas with padded "perch seats", new vinyl flooring (as opposed to old wooden slats), Digitised Voice Announcement (DVA), and an exterior paint job to corporate livery.

All other stocks have been refurbished to the same much more cheerful standards, except the D78 stock which is just about to start being delivered back to us refurbished.

[Tubeman]

the 1970s tube stock must've looked very impressive and futuristic back then.

The Victoria Line must have been astounding when it first opened; the first section opened in 1968 and has always been fully automatic. It reaches speeds of up to 100kmh and as you say the simple but futuristic design of the trains must have seemed really space-age in the late 1960's compared to the rattly old trains that were still clinging on from the 1920's and 30's.

How the 1967 Stock looked before refurbishment... Because they are unpainted aluminium when they were brand new they were really silvery so must have looked very futuristic:

http://www.trainweb.org/tubeprune/67%20TS%20old%20NPk.jpg

[cal_t]

Do the London automated stock run by SECAM/ATO? [The one that MTR (Hong Kong) runs on....

Could anyone enlighten me with the details of ATO vs ATP?

What are the costs involved in setting up a signalling system like that? Would it be too costly to setup in a sytem such as Melbourne or Sydney?

[Tubeman]

Do the London automated stock run by SECAM/ATO? [The one that MTR (Hong Kong) runs on....

Could anyone enlighten me with the details of ATO vs ATP?

What are the costs involved in setting up a signalling system like that? Would it be too costly to setup in a sytem such as Melbourne or Sydney?

I have no idea as to the ins and outs of the ATO system suffice to say I presume that the Victoria and Central Lines employ very different systems as one dates back to the 1960's and the other to the 1990's.

ATO = Automatic Train Operation
ATP = Automatic Train Protection

ATO is a complete system for automatically operating trains, which by definition includes ATP to prevent trains from driving into each other.

ATP would be found on lines which still are manually driven, but where human error is eradicated (virtually) by having the responsibility for responding to signals ultimately down to the ATP system... i.e. if the driver drives through a red signal, the train will automatically stops. With ATO the driver wouldn't have been driving the train in the first place.

In short, ATO lines have no visible signals to speak of as the drivers (if there are any) don't actually drive the trains. ATP lines have to have signals as the trains are manually driven, but they are associated with either signal or train (or both) borne equipment that stops the train in the event of it passing a red signal. All Metros worth their salt that aren't ATO must have ATP due to the frequency and spacing of trains... although criminally mainline railways in the UK have no ATP to speak of, causing several fatal crashes in recent years.

To totally overhaul the Melbourne Metro or Sydney Cityrail to make them ATO would cost an absolute bomb, but I think that all metros will one day be ATO. I suppose the logical way of doing it is line by line, coinciding with major track overhaul... this is the way that it is being done here in London.

The Victoria Line was built with ATO, the Central Line was converted a few years ago, and next it will be the Jubilee and Northern Lines as their trains are designed to run with ATO. The Bakerloo and Piccadilly Lines will follow when they get new trains (who knows when though?) and I presume the Sub-Surface Lines (District, Metropolitan, Circle etc Lines) will be at the back of the queue.

[Don Pacho]

Thank you for the pics. They bring me a lot of memories when I was living in London over 20 years ago. :)

[ignoramus]

After visiting the Transport For London's website, which is nicely designed IMO, I realized just how tight the Underground's Tunnels are. Sad, no air conditioning, but London doesn't get that hot right...

Which lines were built with bigger sized tunnels (modern day standards) and is there air conditioning in the trains running thru these tunnels? And will they have them in future?

Cause for the tighter tunnels it seems pretty unlikely from what I read that there will ever be air conditioning in the near future (10-20 years).

[Tubeman]

After visiting the Transport For London's website, which is nicely designed IMO, I realized just how tight the Underground's Tunnels are. Sad, no air conditioning, but London doesn't get that hot right...

Which lines were built with bigger sized tunnels (modern day standards) and is there air conditioning in the trains running thru these tunnels? And will they have them in future?

Cause for the tighter tunnels it seems pretty unlikely from what I read that there will ever be air conditioning in the near future (10-20 years).

Sadly London gets horrifically hot & humid every Summer without fail; there will always be spell or two / three of 30C+ (32 or 33C is typical) every year now, and Summer before last it reached 38C with very high humidity. Down on the un-airconditioned deep-level "tube" lines which are up to 80m below ground level it get ridiculously hot when its busy, you literally need a shower after getting off.

As you can tell from the photos in the first post, some trains are the size of normal overground trains (A, C and D Stocks) whilst the others are tiny in comparison (1967, 1972, 1973, 1992, 1995 & 1996 stocks)... I'll try and find a photo of two side by side to illustrate the huge difference.

The Metropolitan and District Lines were originally built as "proper" railways (they were steam-hauled) that happened to be largely in tunnel through central London. The Hammersmith & City, East London and Circle Lines are all essentially the product of these two companies (as well as the Metropolitan and District Lines, obviously). All five lines have tunnels large enough to accommodate mainline trains that lie just below street level; they were built by using the hugely disruptive "Cut and Cover" method where basically an enormous trench was dug for the railway which was then covered back up again (usually with a road). Therefore these trains are much larger than the "Tube" stocks and I personally see no good reason whatsoever why they can't have Air Conditioning installed as there are numerous gaps in the tunnel originally built to allow steam and smoke to escape from the steam engines... the heat from the Air Con units could escape here.

The "Tube" Lines came after the "Cut and Cover" Lines (from 1890 onwards) and are bored using a tunnelling machine (Greathead Shield), hence the round tunnels "Tubes" into which the trains pretty ingeniously fit. They have a tight diameter really just to minimise the amount of tunnelling required; excavating a bored tunnel to main line train dimensions would involve easily twice the volume of spoil. There are no ventilation shafts to speak of and the tunnels are hot enough as it is not to have trains running through with Air Con units belching out heat.

[MSPtoMKE]

Really interesting thread. What an interesting job you have. thanks!

[superchan7]

Yeah, those tube tunnels are quite small...the trains barely fit, and the trains aren't that big in cross-section by metro standards!

[Tubeman]

Here's a very unique and interesting photo that illustrates how tiny the Tube Stock trains are in comparison to normal trains:

http://www.trainweb.org/ukrailways/lu/photos/013.jpg

At Chiswick Park Eastbound in 1993 an unrefurbished Piccadilly Line 1973 Stock overtakes the historic electric Loco "Sarah Siddons" hauling a rake of coaches on the District line to celebrate the line's 125th birthday.

Sarah Siddons and other locos in her class hauled Metropolitan Line Trains into Buckinghamshire into the 1960's, Sarah Siddons is the only one preserved as far as I know.

[Vertigo]

LOL, nice pic.

[nick_taylor]

http://www.trainweb.org/tubeprune/Tube-surface-dwg2.gif

http://www.trainweb.org/tubeprune/A%20and%2073%20TS%20at%20Rayners%20Lane.JPG

[Tubeman]

That's exactly the sort of photo I was trying find but couldn't, well done Nick!

Westbound Metropolitan Line Train passes a Piccadilly Line Train reversing in the terminal siding at Rayner's Lane:

http://www.trainweb.org/tubeprune/A%20and%2073%20TS%20at%20Rayners%20Lane.JPG

The Metropolitan Line A-Stock feel bigger than the D-Stocks and C-Stocks even... I think the bodies are wider? The Metropolitan Railway was built to Great Western Railway Broad Gauge (7" as opposed to the standard 4'8"!) originally so the tunnels are significantly wider than those of the District Line.

[mad_nick]

I can understand why they were building tiny tunnels in the 1890's, but why did they continue to build small tunnels on lines built later when it was actually possible to build larger ones?
Also, why are London trains so short? According to what I've read, the 6 car trains on cut & cover lines are about 300ft and tube 6 car trains are about 350 ft.
Consider that New York's IRT platforms, which are the shortest in the system, are about 525 ft long. (BMT platforms are 615 ft and IND are 660 ft)

[ignoramus]

Thats TOO SMALL FOR COMFORT. So no average Brit can stand upright in the train carriages right, or even enter upright...

And with the rush hour crowd, it must be crazy riding the tube...

What if the train breaks down, passengers wont be able to evacuate the train cause the tunnels are so small and even if you opened the train doors there is no space for you to get out of the tunnels?

And since theres no ventilation in the tunnels even if one does get out one will not survive due to the lack of oxygen?

The carriages that have not been refurbished yet makes me feel claustrophobic. The newer ones look better and much more comfortable, tho they are still too tight for my comfort.

The Tube is so amazing and yet so scary IMO no offence.

Amazing because of the large system but so scary because everything is so small it just freaks you out. If something goes wrong....................

Thanks for all the pics btw. Very very nice pics. I like the Central Line 1992 trains the most. They look the most modern.

[superchan7]

If something goes wrong....................


But nothing goes wrong! It seems that the Tube and its trains continue to run rock-solid :lock: , with most problems being delays and minor glitches. London Underground foreverrrrrrrrr :horse:

I believe the trains have emergency exits at the front and rear ends of the train, through the driver cab (same with Hong Kong MTR). Besides that, any other safety measures?

[Tubeman]

Thats TOO SMALL FOR COMFORT. So no average Brit can stand upright in the train carriages right, or even enter upright...

And with the rush hour crowd, it must be crazy riding the tube...

What if the train breaks down, passengers wont be able to evacuate the train cause the tunnels are so small and even if you opened the train doors there is no space for you to get out of the tunnels?

And since theres no ventilation in the tunnels even if one does get out one will not survive due to the lack of oxygen?

The carriages that have not been refurbished yet makes me feel claustrophobic. The newer ones look better and much more comfortable, tho they are still too tight for my comfort.

The Tube is so amazing and yet so scary IMO no offence.

Amazing because of the large system but so scary because everything is so small it just freaks you out. If something goes wrong....................

Thanks for all the pics btw. Very very nice pics. I like the Central Line 1992 trains the most. They look the most modern.

The height of the door openings are in the region of 6'3" (2m?) so 99.5% of people don't need to stoop, once inside the highest point from floor to ceiling is about 6'7"... only freaks like my Stepbrother would have to stoop then.

I actually think that the Tube stocks are a marvel of economising place; the tops of the wheels come up far above the floor level, but are hidden under rows of seats. The clearance above the seats is minimal, but obviously you don't need much headroom if you're sat down. It must come as a shock walking onto the Piccadilly Line at Heathrow for the first time as to how small the trains are... and they are pretty claustrophobic when they're sardine-tin packed.

Air is circulated around by the trains, which is why they have flat fronts and aren't streamlined... this maximises the amount of air they push around the tunnels and therefore draw in from outside.

In emergencies passengers are detrained via the front end and down the track, there is only about a 20cm envelope between the train and the inside of the tunnel so that's the only option.

You have to undestand that the core of the central London Tube lines bar the Victoria and Jubilee Lines had all been built by 1908, back then things like safe detrainments and air conditioning weren't considerations... the most important thing was quick and cheap construction.

The Jubilee Line Extension has been built with a walkway alongside the train to assist with detrainment, and it has a much more sophisticated ventilation system.

[Vertigo]

@ignoramus: the Tube is certainly not up to modern safety standards in metros. But the network has historically grown this way, and shutting it down means shutting down London entirely. So that's no option.

And, don't forget... even though other metro networks are safer, the Tube is still a lot safer than car driving. Yet we still accept the risks of car driving.

[Tubeman]

I can understand why they were building tiny tunnels in the 1890's, but why did they continue to build small tunnels on lines built later when it was actually possible to build larger ones?
Also, why are London trains so short? According to what I've read, the 6 car trains on cut & cover lines are about 300ft and tube 6 car trains are about 350 ft.
Consider that New York's IRT platforms, which are the shortest in the system, are about 525 ft long. (BMT platforms are 615 ft and IND are 660 ft)

Regarding platform lengths, its a classic case of under-engineering. Bear in mind that the builders of the early Tube Lines couldn't have imagined in their wildest dreams how successful their creations were to become. Extending platforms is ludicrously expensive, but it has been done before on the Central Line and on the original part of the Northern Line.

Believe it or not, the first Tube Railway, the City & South London of 1890, had EVEN SMALLER diameter tunnels when first built. When it was absorbed by the Underground and extended the tunnels were expanded to the standard Tube bore diameter.

[Tubeman]

@ignoramus: the Tube is certainly not up to modern safety standards in metros. But the network has historically grown this way, and shutting it down means shutting down London entirely. So that's no option.

And, don't forget... even though other metro networks are safer, the Tube is still a lot safer than car driving. Yet we still accept the risks of car driving.

The Tube is one of the safest metro systems in the world statistically though :?

Since the King's Cross Fire of nearly 20 years ago I can't think of a single incident where a passenger has died through a fault on the Underground's part. Sure, people fall down the escalators drunk or trespass on the tracks and die but for the travelling public it is incredibly safe provided they aren't drunken or idiots.

[greg_christine]

I actually admire the efficiency of the packaging of the smaller size tube trains. I have to admit that I am significantly under 6' tall, so I've never been bothered by the low height of the door openings.

Smaller diameter tunnels should be cheaper to build; however, there rarely seems to be any attempt to optimize the train configuration to fit a smaller diameter tunnel. The following is a photo of a Portland MAX train emerging into a tunnel station:

http://www.lightrail.com/photos/portland/portland10.jpg

The Portland MAX trains use pantographs to pick up power from an overhead wire even in tunnel sections. The height of the raised pantograph drives the tunnel diameter. An alternative approach is used on the Blue Line in Boston. The Blue Line trains are equipped with both pantographs and third rail power pick-up shoes so that they can operate on overhead wire in the suburbs and third rail in the downtown tunnels.

[Vertigo]

The Tube is one of the safest metro systems in the world statistically though


Yes, sure. But it's hard to use statistics on metro safety: all systems are very very very very safe, so numbers of fatalities or injured are always very small. One nasty accident can turn the safest system into the one of the least safe systems in the satistics.

I'm not saying the Tube is unsafe. I only say that modern systems won't be built in such a way. As you indicated yourself, the extention of the Jubilee line was built to more modern standards...

[nick_taylor]

Yes but Vertigo the London Underground is for its size compared to say New York or Paris very safe.

Measurement is by taking the last 5 years and I believe your 5x more likely to be killed on the NY Subway and 6x more likely to be killed on the Paris Metro than on the London Underground :)

[Englishman]

I'm 6'3" and on the smaller trains I can only stand upright towards the centre (remeber to add 1 inch for shoes). The bigger trains are fine though.

[glickel]

I was shocked at how small the tube is. I'm 6'2", and not accustomed to ducking in any metro system, and I almost got my head taken off by the friggin door. While it may be the a "safe" metro, how many metro systems will cause severe head truama to any one over 6' if the aren't paying attention.

I know the system is old, but please stop making excuses for the cost cutting ways of a hundred years ago. All other metros (outside of Britian) at least made their cars square and with a little extra head room. The Paris metro is just as old, but I can fit comfortably inside.

[superchan7]

I'm 6'1" and my head got hit by a closing door =P

[greg_christine]

The trains on Glasgow's "Clockwork Orange" might actually be even smaller than those on the London Underground.

http://www.urbanrail.net/eu/gla/kelvinbridge1x.jpg http://www.urbanrail.net/eu/gla/kelvinbridge2x.jpg

The Glasgow tunnels are 3.4m in diameter. The track guage is 4 feet (1220mm). The cars are just 12m in length. The trains were originally cable-hauled.

For more information, see:

http://www.spt.co.uk/subway/facts01.html
http://dewi.ca/trains/g_subway/index.html
http://www.urbanrail.net/eu/gla/glasgow.htm

[ignoramus]

Glasgows looks like the people are travelling in sausages. haha. no offence. I cant imagine travelling in small trains the size of the tunnels cause it gets claustrophobic in there.

After all normally on metro lines you dont feel as if you are in a confined space. The train carriages are wide and tall and big, and you get this illusion that just outside the trains is just one big empty space, not this tight tunnel wrapping around the train.

Why are Boston's trains powered by third rail in tunnels and pantographs above ground, the tunnels are very small? Normally if the track runs above ground it is usually powered by third rail because pantographs are ugly.

I cant imagine them switching power from third rail to pantograph and vice versa. Do the lights flicker when they switch?

[greg_christine]

Why are Boston's trains powered by third rail in tunnels and pantographs above ground, the tunnels are very small? Normally if the track runs above ground it is usually powered by third rail because pantographs are ugly.

I cant imagine them switching power from third rail to pantograph and vice versa. Do the lights flicker when they switch?


On Boston's Blue Line, the switch between third rail and overhead wire occurs at Maverick Station. The lights and ventilation are cut for just a couple of seconds as the power switch is made. Overhead wire is used at the suburban end of the line because there are grade crossings. Of course, the transit authorities in Chicago have opted for third rail power even in areas where there are grade crossings. The third rail is interrupted where the line crosses an intersecting street and warning signs are posted regarding the electrocution hazard that exists for anyone who trespasses into the right of way.

For a photo tour of Boston's Blue Line, see:

http://world.nycsubway.org/us/boston/blue/index.html

[HasanB]

wow !! Glasgows are really a bit too small i think, the trains look a bit like toy ones :lol:

[ignoramus]

Why did the transport planners put tracks at grade anyways, doesnt it seem like just so wrong?

Any plans to ''unify'' the two power sources in the future?

[nick_taylor]

glickel - How is making any excuses for what is a 141 year old operating service. The Glasgow and Budapest Subways which are the world's 2nd (3rd if you count the 578m Istanbul subway with 2 stations built in 1875) oldest subways were opened in 1896 (33 years or over a generation later than the London Underground). Paris didn't get any underground lines until 1900 (37 years after the first lines on the London Underground) and the New York Subway until 1904 (41 years after the first lines on the London Underground).

I would say that 37 years difference between the London Underground and the Paris Metro (itself taking its name from the Metropolitan line on the London Underground!) does not suggest that they are as old as each other and a lot of technological improvements had been made since then. Just to put things into perspective - 40 years (the 40th anniversary this year) ago we never had Shinkansen high speed train sets on this planet!

Also how exactly were they cost cutting??? These were the first tunnels of their type on the planet - totally revolutionary using very dangerous precarious technology that could have quite easily caused a disaster - nothing of the sort has happened as the network nears its 150th year of operation. Basically it was because of technological constraints that meant that larger tunnels could be created. I take it though that your confusion in the dates of opening between the London and Paris networks suggests that this isn't your speciality ;)

I honestly can't see in this day of age how anyone would be able to totally re-do the deep level lines - it would be totally unfeasable. Anyways - it is what makes the London network unique and iconic. I don't know of any other networks that can claim to have "instant" recognition if you were to do a blind test.




ignoramus - I take it that you haven't rode the London Underground yet? Well I'm over 6' and its not that hard to fit in. Infact you'll be amazed at how much space you can generate from such limited conditions - a marvel of engineering it could be said :yes:

[ignoramus]

glickel - How is making any excuses for what is a 141 year old operating service. The Glasgow and Budapest Subways which are the world's 2nd (3rd if you count the 578m Istanbul subway with 2 stations built in 1875) oldest subways were opened in 1896 (33 years or over a generation later than the London Underground). Paris didn't get any underground lines until 1900 (37 years after the first lines on the London Underground) and the New York Subway until 1904 (41 years after the first lines on the London Underground).

I would say that 37 years difference between the London Underground and the Paris Metro (itself taking its name from the Metropolitan line on the London Underground!) does not suggest that they are as old as each other and a lot of technological improvements had been made since then. Just to put things into perspective - 40 years (the 40th anniversary this year) ago we never had Shinkansen high speed train sets on this planet!

Also how exactly were they cost cutting??? These were the first tunnels of their type on the planet - totally revolutionary using very dangerous precarious technology that could have quite easily caused a disaster - nothing of the sort has happened as the network nears its 150th year of operation. Basically it was because of technological constraints that meant that larger tunnels could be created. I take it though that your confusion in the dates of opening between the London and Paris networks suggests that this isn't your speciality ;)

I honestly can't see in this day of age how anyone would be able to totally re-do the deep level lines - it would be totally unfeasable. Anyways - it is what makes the London network unique and iconic. I don't know of any other networks that can claim to have "instant" recognition if you were to do a blind test.




ignoramus - I take it that you haven't rode the London Underground yet? Well I'm over 6' and its not that hard to fit in. Infact you'll be amazed at how much space you can generate from such limited conditions - a marvel of engineering it could be said :yes:

Of course I won't deny that its a marvel of engineering, a pioneer of the modern day subway system. I would a fool to deny anything. Just not used to such cramped conditions as according to my standard.

(This paragraph has been edited).
My friend who had been to London says that the Tube trains keep playing ''Please mind the gap'' and have posters about pickpockets everywhere and that you have to push a button to open the train doors. Is that true? (I meant this in the ''Oh is that true, and why?'' kind of way and not ''This is bad that is bad'', that didn't cross my mind).

Does London still use those paper magnetic combi tickets together with Oyster? I have some of them with me as my friend brought them back as a ''free'' souveneir.

[Justme]

^ woo, don't get too carried away here. Singapore, last I heard, just got their first subway system in 1990. That's some 130 years of so after London. It amazes us, that it took so long for Singapore to finally get a metro.

Obviously, when something is so new, and so small, it is alot easier to keep it modern.

Now, I think you are being a little picky with some of your points like ''Please mind the gap'' and posters about pickpockets are everywhere and that you have to push a button to open the train doors

* for the "mind the gap" statements. Some of the earlier lines had stations built with curved platforms. There is a gap then at some points between the train and the platform. It would be impossible now to retunnel the underground and get straight plaforms. But let's be thankful. Many of those platforms were built so long before Singapore even dreamed of a subway, let alone nice straight modern platforms.

* Year, there are pickpockets in London. One of the problems with having such a free country, is that there is crime. I know is Singapore, you can get whipped for chewing chewing gum, but these things don't happen, thankfully in London. The downside is petty crime.

* As for the doors, yes, like most of northern Europe, even the most modern of trains, you have a button to open the doors. The principle here is to keep the draft out on cold wintery days on the above ground stations which you don't have in Singapore. Why open the door and let the cold wind in, if no one is entering or exiting the car?

[ignoramus]

^ woo, don't get too carried away here. Singapore, last I heard, just got their first subway system in 1990. That's some 130 years of so after London. It amazes us, that it took so long for Singapore to finally get a metro.

Obviously, when something is so new, and so small, it is alot easier to keep it modern.

Now, I think you are being a little picky with some of your points like

* for the "mind the gap" statements. Some of the earlier lines had stations built with curved platforms. There is a gap then at some points between the train and the platform. It would be impossible now to retunnel the underground and get straight plaforms. But let's be thankful. Many of those platforms were built so long before Singapore even dreamed of a subway, let alone nice straight modern platforms.

* Year, there are pickpockets in London. One of the problems with having such a free country, is that there is crime. I know is Singapore, you can get whipped for chewing chewing gum, but these things don't happen, thankfully in London. The downside is petty crime.

* As for the doors, yes, like most of northern Europe, even the most modern of trains, you have a button to open the doors. The principle here is to keep the draft out on cold wintery days on the above ground stations which you don't have in Singapore. Why open the door and let the cold wind in, if no one is entering or exiting the car?

Hey I ain't against London's Underground or anything. Don't make it seem that way. I am only amazed by the London Underground, at such a complex system, that cannot be found anywhere in Asia because the systems are relatively younger. So don't treat my post as one which critisizes the Underground, and neither should your post. :)

Singapore was only a small town 130 years ago in 1874. Its population was too small to support any subway system, if we had built it then we must have been crazy cause we have other issues far more important like poverty and housing.

And don't forget, 130 years ago Singapore was colonised by the British, so if its anyone who decided not to put in a subway, its them. No point blaming us.

Obviously when a system is new and small (80 Stations in total, Heavy and light rail) and by Asia's standards and relative to our size, it isnt that small at all.

And Singapore's first section of its metro line was opened in 1987, not 1990.

I was not being ''picky'' with the mind your gap announcements. I didnt even say that it was annoying or anything. I mentioned it because my friend said it sounded nice!!!

I didn't even say London had a lot of pickpockets, all I said was that there were a lot of posters. Thats an interesting discovery. I didnt say that meant it had a lot of or any pickpockets. Culture shock.

FOR YOUR INFORMATION, YOU DO NOT GET WHIPPED FOR chewing gum. The govt only bans the selling of gum, you can chew it here and bring it in for personal consumption.

And Singapore is a free country may I add.

Please please dont be hostile. I didnt intend to insult the Underground or anyone. After all this is a forum, one gets to know more about another country's system thru a forum and discuss about such things right. Hope you now know more about how Singapore really is, and that WE DONT WHIP people for chewing gum! Just as I now know why the Underground has buttons on doors.

I meant no insult. Please do not get the wrong idea okay! :)

[nick_taylor]

ignoramus - I think you really ought to come to London to see for yourself. I think you'll be suprised of the difference between the MRT. If you don't go...you can't judge I say :yes:

The standards you speak of are also the standards that were started on the London Underground ;)

[ignoramus]

I am just feeling a sense of culture shock cause these kinda stuff you dont see in Asia at all.

Who ever said I didnt like the Underground. I love it cause its very very extensive, and Singapore had always been looking to London when designing its rail system maps and in planning new lines. We dont even look to NY or Seoul which have extensive subway lines cause London's is the most extensive and we want to learn from your experiences.

If anyone came to Singapore they would see signs such as ''No Durians allowed'' and they may feel its a weird country. But if you understood youd realize that durians are very pungent and if brought on the trains the smell would circulate throughout the train cars.

So arent I entitled to find out more about something which is new to me? And clarify my doubts rather than simply assuming that the buttons on the doors are there because the engineers forgot how to make auto doors. wouldnt that be worse?

[Justme]

no worries mate, it just sounded like you were picking it for the sake of it. Sometimes it's hard to see what people really mean when reading just text.

:cheers:

[ignoramus]

Okay everyone please forget whatever was typed in the previous 4 or so posts. Total misunderstanding. Cleared now! Thank god!

[ignoramus]

The only thing I have against London is the terrible exchange rate. Scary. 1 pound equals 3.8 Singapore Dollars. Thats even more expensive that going to the US (US$1 equals S$1.68).

Most of my posts in here will be of the ''Is this true?'' type. Like how my friend upon arriving at Heathrow got bad service. Of course I doubt everyone gets bad service but is Heathrow's service bad (not against London or anything, tho sg's airport service is good, the service provided by our retailers are one of the worst in Asia) cause reviews so far have told of otherwise. But then again, I want to find out from a Londoner. I know its congested...

[Justme]

The only thing I have against London is the terrible exchange rate. Scary. 1 pound equals 3.8 Singapore Dollars. Thats even more expensive that going to the US (US$1 equals S$1.68).

Most of my posts in here will be of the ''Is this true?'' type. Like how my friend upon arriving at Heathrow got bad service. Of course I doubt everyone gets bad service but is Heathrow's service bad cause reviews so far have told of otherwise. But then again, I want to find out from a Londoner. I know its congested...

The exchange rate is pretty high for the pound, which does indeed cause a few concerns for people from other country's. But as you can imagine, this doesn't affect the average British person in their every day life... unless they travel to another country, which in return, for them is quite a bargin.

Heathrow is a very old and cramp airport. The new terminal will improve on things, and yes, service can get difficult because it is so crowded and cramp. Singapore airport is so much more spacious and more relaxed, and it does seem to work like clockwork (in fact, from what I saw, a lot of things work like clockwork in Singapore). Stansted is a smaller airport and is usually more relaxed than Heathrow.

They do try hard though to keep things running smoothly at Heathrow. I remember once I turned up too late to make my flight (missed the checkin by about 5minutes) and was told I would have to buy a new ticket (one of the problems with flying on the low cost fares). I told the lady kindly at the BA desk, that the reason I just missed the checkin was that I was given directions to the wrong terminal, and Heathrow was "oh so complicated". She put me on the next flight free of charge (which was incidently 30minutes later).

The rule there is to always smile, thank the staff, give them credit for their hard work, and ask kindly if they can help, and they always do then. Usually people abuse them to no end for their own mistakes. They yell and scream at them for things that are not their fault and so they always like to help a nice friendly customer with problems.

There's a show on TV here called airport which is a "fly on the wall" doc, showing the problems they have, and there was one incident during the 9/11 tragedy when all air traffic into Britain was stopped. It obviously wasn't the fault of the airlines, but when they told their customers that their flight was cancelled because of an air traffic shutdown, they were yelled and abused by the passengers, all screaming and waving their fists. I mean, the flight staff told them it was because of the twin towers being destroyed, planes hyjacked and thousands dead, but all they could care about was their holiday in Ibiza.

Mad...

[glickel]

N-T. You really like your underground and I am glad I got you all fired-up. No question about the place and importance of the Tube in history and please avoid snid comments about my knowledge of subway systems. But why can't they widen the tunnels?

Answer:
The Tube is already at full capacity and cannot sustain a closure of main lines
"Prohitively" expensive or costs outweigh the benefits

This is all off the top of my head, But....
Why couldn't they widen the tunnels piece by piece. Close down a section for the weekends, send in the boring machines and have it cleaned up for the Monday commute. I don't know how the underground deals with construction, and my referecne is based on Boston, where people are bused past closed down stations and in NYC where they re-route lines around construction. Of course, this would propably take many years, but I just don't think it should be so easily dismissed, especially on a site that also hosts a thread concerning a possible transrapid from Berlin to Greece.

[Justme]

@glickel, I don't know for sure, but I would assume that there are just so many tunnels already of the smaller diameter, that it would cost a fortune (and I mean a real fortune) to do this. How far could you re-bore a tunnel on a weekend before having it all cleaned up and working again Monday morning (keeping in mind you would probably have to remove (or partially remove) the boring machine each Sunday and replace it each Saturday.

Weekends are also very busy times still on the underground.

It would also cost an enormous amount of money, for a little extra head room. Not really value for money. It would be better spent building entire new lines into and out of London. You would then double capacity and it would be done quicker.

As for the transrapid between Berlin & Greece, that was really just one of those dreams that would never happen, not in a million years.

[superchan7]

Every metro in Europe I've been on has buttons to open every single door. They don't open all the doors like they do in the trains in Asian metro systems.

[InitialD18]

agree but sorta disagree ... london tube is prob one of the best systems for its age and size ... its in my opinion much better maintained than new yorks ... from a tourist point of view the history and experience makes it a tourist attraction along with the routemasters and taxi ...

however in a commuter point of view i would pretty much preferred
the modern systems of like singapore or tokyo ...
which offers a great network for the size of the city
while being cleaner, more stable, newer and more efficient ...
those delay timetables at the tube can be quite annoying ...
It would be great if the LDN's tube, Par's metro can stopped to renovate
but that would pretty much to stop the two cities ...

[Tubeman]

This is all off the top of my head, But....
Why couldn't they widen the tunnels piece by piece. Close down a section for the weekends, send in the boring machines and have it cleaned up for the Monday commute. I don't know how the underground deals with construction, and my referecne is based on Boston, where people are bused past closed down stations and in NYC where they re-route lines around construction. Of course, this would propably take many years, but I just don't think it should be so easily dismissed, especially on a site that also hosts a thread concerning a possible transrapid from Berlin to Greece.

My question is... Why?

The Tube Lines (Victoria, Piccadilly, Northern, Jubilee, Central, Bakerloo, Waterloo & City) have functioned perfectly well for over 100 years in some cases... Why spend BILLIONS of pounds widening the tunnels because they feel a bit small to Tourists?

Of course if they were built today there'd be much wider tunnels, emergency walkways, ventilation shafts, air conditioning etc etc etc... but they weren't and ultimately they transport millions of passengers PER DAY without incident or accident. The busiest lines (Northern, Central) transport around 600,000 passengers EACH every day... to close the lines down in order to widen them for no real good reason would spew 600,000 people onto the buses and other lines every day.

Believe me, we aren't talking about shutting the line down on Friday Night and re-opening it on Monday morning... It would take MONTHS if not YEARS of continuous closure to re-bore each line; it would be easier to just build a new line to be honest.

[MSPtoMKE]

If it aint broke, don't fix it! :)

[Tubeman]

If it aint broke, don't fix it! :)

:yes:

[spsmiler]

Great thread! I remember that old stock on the Northern Line, it was indeed quite gloomy.

My favorite stock is the 1992 stock, with its large windows. Too bad they didn't keep that feature for the 1995/1996 stock.

I live on the central Line - the "old" trains you mention above were built in two batches - 1959 and 1962.

The 1959 batch went to the Piccadilly line, and after the 1975 trains were introduced were transfered to the Northern Line, although for a while they also worked on the Bakerloo Line.

The 1962 batch went to the Central Line. These were replaced by the 1992 trains, which are smoother & faster but have significantly fewer and less comfortable seats.

On outer sections of line where station distances are greater these trains take on a different character and really seem to fly - I understand they can exceed 60mph (approx 100kmh) - and yes, their higher speed is noticable (but in a good way as they ride well even at high speed). Its a shame that they can only really reach these speeds at a few locations.

One reason why they need to travel so fast is because the Epping branch is more akin to a country railway than an urban metro, and with the higher speeds they could shave 5 minutes off the timetable. Untill the late 1940's this route was operated by mainline steam trains, and even now beyond Debden you travel through green fields onto the country town of Epping, which, incidentally is well outside of the M25 Motorway ("freeway", in American English) which encircles London. Part of the Hainault loop also passes through green fields and if you happen to be looking at the right time you will even see a farm! Other views from the railway include people's back gardens - a few of which boast swimming pools. Especially the section between Roding Valley and Grange Hill.

Simon

[spsmiler]

The 1992 stock looks like Sci-fi. And the 1970s tube stock must've looked very impressive and futuristic back then. What a unique shape...too bad the ceiling height is so low! I kept hitting my head =(
London Underground has a lot of character, despite some of the cut/cover stock looking very old, like tin boxes (I have a thing against those New-York-style trains). Even though I'm more used to cutting-edge (bleeding edge?) systems like Hong Kong, I found myself wanting to ride the Underground as often as I could when I was in London this past summer.

Who makes the trains, by the way?


As a schoolboy travelling to school on the 1972 Mk1 and Mk11 trains on the Northern Line (these being more or less visually identical to the 1967 Victoria Line trains) I *very much* saw these trains as being *space age*. Even now they still retain that futuristic look. (in my eyes - I am 45)

I share your views on New York's Subway trains.

Simon

[spsmiler]

Sadly London gets horrifically hot & humid every Summer without fail; there will always be spell or two / three of 30C+ (32 or 33C is typical) every year now, and Summer before last it reached 38C with very high humidity. Down on the un-airconditioned deep-level "tube" lines which are up to 80m below ground level it get ridiculously hot when its busy, you literally need a shower after getting off.

As you can tell from the photos in the first post, some trains are the size of normal overground trains (A, C and D Stocks) whilst the others are tiny in comparison (1967, 1972, 1973, 1992, 1995 & 1996 stocks)... I'll try and find a photo of two side by side to illustrate the huge difference.

The Metropolitan and District Lines were originally built as "proper" railways (they were steam-hauled) that happened to be largely in tunnel through central London. The Hammersmith & City, East London and Circle Lines are all essentially the product of these two companies (as well as the Metropolitan and District Lines, obviously). All five lines have tunnels large enough to accommodate mainline trains that lie just below street level; they were built by using the hugely disruptive "Cut and Cover" method where basically an enormous trench was dug for the railway which was then covered back up again (usually with a road). Therefore these trains are much larger than the "Tube" stocks and I personally see no good reason whatsoever why they can't have Air Conditioning installed as there are numerous gaps in the tunnel originally built to allow steam and smoke to escape from the steam engines... the heat from the Air Con units could escape here.

The "Tube" Lines came after the "Cut and Cover" Lines (from 1890 onwards) and are bored using a tunnelling machine (Greathead Shield), hence the round tunnels "Tubes" into which the trains pretty ingeniously fit. They have a tight diameter really just to minimise the amount of tunnelling required; excavating a bored tunnel to main line train dimensions would involve easily twice the volume of spoil. There are no ventilation shafts to speak of and the tunnels are hot enough as it is not to have trains running through with Air Con units belching out heat.


Tubeman,

I agree with your comments regarding air conditioning. I wish the (air-con) situation could be otherwise! At times its so hot down there that if it were animals being carried (and not humans) then the transport operator would be prosecuted for cruelty!!!

The 1992 stock on Central Line have additional fans which blow air behind the seated passengers but oh! are they noisy!!! Also, many people leave discarded newspapers over them - blocking the airflow.

But, in the winter these trains can be cold, especially because of the (in my view) silly ruling that all doors must be opened by the driver at outdoor stations. These trains were built with passenger door controls (pdc) - both to open and close the doors - and it is a source of great annoyance that London Underground management have now arbitarily decreed that these pdc must not be used - at the pain of a driver loosing their job, I understand. Esepcially in weather such as we are experiencing right now (its a cold, frosty evening) passengers would benefit very much from not having a blast of icy cold air at every open air station. The situation at termini is even worse, as trains will stand in the platform with all doors open whilst the driver walks to the other end of the platform and then sits in the cab whilst awaiting the correct departure time.

Of course its not your fault that this is the situation and please dont take my strong views personally.

btw, I know about the "selective door opening" system fiited to many other trains, which means that only one (or 2?) doors per car is left open at terminal stations - its a shame that the 1992 stock does not appear to have this too.

Simon

[spsmiler]

I can understand why they were building tiny tunnels in the 1890's, but why did they continue to build small tunnels on lines built later when it was actually possible to build larger ones?
Also, why are London trains so short? According to what I've read, the 6 car trains on cut & cover lines are about 300ft and tube 6 car trains are about 350 ft.
Consider that New York's IRT platforms, which are the shortest in the system, are about 525 ft long. (BMT platforms are 615 ft and IND are 660 ft)

Nick,

you ask a very good question regarding tunnel sizes.

As you surmise, the smaller "tube" tunnels were originally built from the 1890's, onwards.

The Victoria Line *should* have been built for larger trains - the original plans which were drawn up in the 1940's (during the war) were for it to be built for "full size" trains. Its my understanding the the treasury wanted economies. As a nation we could have afforded the larger tunnels but were not prepared to pay for them. Subsequent overcrowding on the Victoria line proved that this was a false economy.

As for other lines, well the only other "new" sections of Underground railway have been extensions to existing services. 1975 Piccadily Line to Heathrow Airport and 1979 Jubilee line both include sections of pre-existing "tube" railway.

As for train lengths, the Northern Line extensions built in the 1930's were designed for 9-car underground trains, and although some such trains did run they meant that at stations in central London the last two cars on a train remained in the tunnel! Because of WW2 the 9-car scheme was suspended never fully implemented. Nevertheless some stations still retain the longer station platforms - especially those which are below ground.

As for the sub-surface lines, well at one time trains were even shorter than they are now! Especially the Circle Line which used to feature 5 car trains! Actually though, the main section of the District Line did use 8 car trains during the rush hours (6 car at other times) but I understand that at some stations the trains only just fitted the platforms. Nowadays the line may use 6 car trains but in length these 6 cars are roughly similar to 7 older, shorter cars.

I agree that longer trains would be a good idea, especially for the C stock trains which for most of their area of operation use stations which could easily accept 7 or even 8 car trains. BUT, there is a serious constraint. The western side of the Circle Line has three stations (Bayswater, Notting Hill Gate and Paddington) with shorter platforms, and here the maximum train length is 6 cars! Otherwise the trains probabaly would be longer... These stations are used by C stock trains running on the Circle Line and the District Line's Edgware Road - Wimbledon service. Similar trains also run on the hammersmith & City line between Hammersmith (Met) and Whitechapel / Barking via Baker Street.

Of course extending the station platforms would be the optimum solution - it would significantly benefit much of the routes served by the C stock trains - and probably if the money was available this would be done. As ever, money (or lack of) is the primary issue. Funding is a minefield of a topic, it could even be extended to include the Iraqi situation (the cost of our troops being out there) but its not a topic I intend to discuss in great detail here. Suffice to say that when money was more easily available the government put it into roads and when the local authority known as "The City of London" (it covers the square mile in the heart of the financial area) said it wanted to invest money to improve Bank station (it was in an appalling mess at the time) the national Government threatened severe financial sanctions - not only if they did this but even if they "went public" with that information.

Simon

(information source - a "Q&A" talk where a former Lord Mayor of London was the guest).

[Tubeman]

Tubeman,

I agree with your comments regarding air conditioning. I wish the (air-con) situation could be otherwise! At times its so hot down there that if it were animals being carried (and not humans) then the transport operator would be prosecuted for cruelty!!!

The 1992 stock on Central Line have additional fans which blow air behind the seated passengers but oh! are they noisy!!! Also, many people leave discarded newspapers over them - blocking the airflow.

But, in the winter these trains can be cold, especially because of the (in my view) silly ruling that all doors must be opened by the driver at outdoor stations. These trains were built with passenger door controls (pdc) - both to open and close the doors - and it is a source of great annoyance that London Underground management have now arbitarily decreed that these pdc must not be used - at the pain of a driver loosing their job, I understand. Esepcially in weather such as we are experiencing right now (its a cold, frosty evening) passengers would benefit very much from not having a blast of icy cold air at every open air station. The situation at termini is even worse, as trains will stand in the platform with all doors open whilst the driver walks to the other end of the platform and then sits in the cab whilst awaiting the correct departure time.

Of course its not your fault that this is the situation and please dont take my strong views personally.

btw, I know about the "selective door opening" system fiited to many other trains, which means that only one (or 2?) doors per car is left open at terminal stations - its a shame that the 1992 stock does not appear to have this too.

Simon

I personally don't know the logic behind removing passenger door control on stocks like the D Stock which spends much of its time above ground at lightly-used stations (e.g. the "Wild East" between Barking and Upminster)... I believe the Central Line was an issue because there were door close buttons inside the cars which people *hilariously* used to maliciously shut doors prematurely if someone was running for the train, for instance (resulting in Health & Safety concerns).

[Tubeman]

*Bump*

Because its a good thread :D

[ChrisCharlton]

There's a really good book summarising the trains of the London Underground called 'Underground Movement'. There's an idea put forward in it's closing chapter for new trains to use the existing small tube tunnels, but make increases in capacity and comfort. They were called 'space trains' and seemed to be based upon shifting the in-tunnel equipment around, to allow the trains to use the curviture of the tunnel on either side:

http://chris.charlton.net/tube/tube_space1.jpg

The extra standing space is achieved by pushing the seating into the curves of the tunnel, where the reduction in carriage height is less relevant. In addition to this the trains are articulated, like the Manchester Metrolink, BCN metro (and no doubt, lots of other metros!), adding further space and openness.

http://chris.charlton.net/tube/tube_space2.jpg

The only place I've ever seen or heared about what seems like a really good idea is however this book:

Moss, P: (2000), Underground Movement, Harrow Weald: Capital Transport Books

[centralized pandemonium]

Amazing thread.

[spsmiler]

Hi there,

I saw a model of these at the 1997 UITP exhibition, which in that year was in Toronto, Canada.

I thought that this would be a wonderful idea as it would significantly increase passenger capacity. The idea was that by using shorter carriages they could be wider - because there would be less "overhang" on curved track

They were also looking at installing platform doors at the stations and converting the line to overhead wire (!) instead of using the electric rails. With the Victoria Line this would be reasonably easy to accomplish because it is completely self contained (ie: it does not share its tracks with any other railway line - whether underground or mainline).

So, anyway what happend you ask? For a long time I wondered too.

It seems that because of privatisation the forward looking plans have been quietly dropped. The private company which iis now responsible (liable?) for the Victoria Line is planning to build a fleet of "conventional" tube trains, without articulation.

I think they want to play safe - developing and testing new trains always carries an element of risk in case there are severe teething (etc) problems. And of course nothing is worse than a failure a while after the fleet has been built which requires costly remedial work. (see below)

I would have been good if they had been able to build 2-3 trains first and test them for a year ot two. This has happened with other trains - and indeed every single train now on the Victoria Line was original tested before the Victoria Line opened on a small quiet branch of the Central Line. (Hainault - Woodford) This small branch was even converted (in the early 1960's) for "automatic" (computer-driven) trains, just to make sure that when the Victoria Line opened it would work - and be safe.

Nowadays this sort of thing would be much much more difficult. If not impossible.

I say this because nowadays each line's trains can only operate on its own line - many of the lines use their own signalling and control systems plus in some cases even the wheel profiles are slightly different.

Yes, at one time any train could travel on any line - but no thanks to the politicans this is not so any more.

-----------------------

A few years ago the entire Central Line was closed for many months because of problems with the trains and it was felt too dangerous to keep the trains in use. At the time the Government had to help out with the cost of repairs - i think the politicans wanted to make sure that if this happened again the private train builders would be forced to pay. So the train builders are "playing safe" and using proven succesful train designs.

Because of the closure many people found their journey times between 60-90 minutes longer - because they had to use buses, and the roads became very much more congested (as if they were empty in the first place).

Simon

[MSPtoMKE]

Interesting designs, but i am a little confused as to how they work. It looks like the floor has been dropped, but how can that be done ans still line up with platforms? Also, how does overhead wire help? Isn't the space between the tunnel and the top of the train very small as it is? How would it fit (or is it something about the Victoria line in particular)? Thanks!


(I *heart* the Underground) :)

[Tubeman]

Interesting designs, but i am a little confused as to how they work. It looks like the floor has been dropped, but how can that be done ans still line up with platforms? Also, how does overhead wire help? Isn't the space between the tunnel and the top of the train very small as it is? How would it fit (or is it something about the Victoria line in particular)? Thanks!


(I *heart* the Underground) :)

I don't really get the overhead wire thing myself; the only reason I can think of is to make detrainment down the tunnel less hazardous (i.e. no live rails to step on). There certainly isn't enough room in the tunnel for a traditional catenary / pantograph set-up... Although when it was being mooted I read that they were considering an overhead "rail" which I thought must have been a typo until I saw the Barcelona Metro which has an overhead power rail.

As the car floors are significantly lower, I can only assume all the platforms would be dropped in height which is obviously a mammoth task. Another option that just occurred to me is to raise the track level through stations, which would involve the tunnel sections either end of each platform having to be slightly enlarged to accommodate the change in track depth.

[Q-TIP]

Interesting stats on tube heights and platforms! Here, we have double decker commuter trains

[spsmiler]

I don't really get the overhead wire thing myself; the only reason I can think of is to make detrainment down the tunnel less hazardous (i.e. no live rails to step on). There certainly isn't enough room in the tunnel for a traditional catenary / pantograph set-up... Although when it was being mooted I read that they were considering an overhead "rail" which I thought must have been a typo until I saw the Barcelona Metro which has an overhead power rail..

Tubeman,

I think they were looking at maintenance costs - the four rail system is much more expensive to maintain and by dispensing with the two power rails the costs would come down.

I dont know if it would have increased the chances of problems with return current earth leakage.

Simon

[ChrisCharlton]

I'll post a few more pics in a bit which show the improved access for people with disabilities, with the space train. I hadn't considered the platform lowering. I thought that some refitting would be needed to move cables and other equipment from the side of the tunnel to the bottom (perhaps in a trough). It could be that such a move requires the space currently taken up by the four rails?

I'm sticking my finger in the air and taking a guess with this one, but are pantographs able to obtain the current with less friction? It seems to me that rubbing a shoe along a broad piece of rail would carry more friction than gently touching an overhead wire. Interested if anyone knows more on that.

I suppose pantographs can be designed such that they dont have a high profile. On the Manchester Metrolink the pantographs stretch almost the height of another tram in the city centre and then when on the 'railway' stretches of track, the overhead power is closer to the top of the vehicle and the pantograph is compressed to quite a degree. This is so that double decker buses can go under the tram lines in the city centre, but then the costs of catenery are reduced on the suburban sections.

Know what you mean about privatisation Simon. It's very frustrating - My Dad's worked for the railway for 25 years and seen how it's changed first hand.

Coming from Liverpool and being only 23 I'm totally astonished by projects such as Merseyrail and how they would *never* happen with today's politics. Just look at Metrolink Phase 3!

Chris

[ChrisCharlton]

As promised, colour pics of the insides (seems to be based on latest Jubilee line stock) and demonstration of disabled access:

http://chris.charlton.net/tube/tube_space3.JPG

http://chris.charlton.net/tube/tube_space4.JPG

Was thinking - in the initial diagram, the older train is labeled as being 1967 stock. Aren't they a bit higher off the platforms anyway? Am I right in thinking that the train floors have already got lower in the new Central/Northern/ and Jubilee vehicles?

[spsmiler]

I'll post a few more pics in a bit which show the improved access for people with disabilities, with the space train. I hadn't considered the platform lowering. I thought that some refitting would be needed to move cables and other equipment from the side of the tunnel to the bottom (perhaps in a trough). It could be that such a move requires the space currently taken up by the four rails?

I'm sticking my finger in the air and taking a guess with this one, but are pantographs able to obtain the current with less friction? It seems to me that rubbing a shoe along a broad piece of rail would carry more friction than gently touching an overhead wire. Interested if anyone knows more on that.

Know what you mean about privatisation Simon. It's very frustrating - My Dad's worked for the railway for 25 years and seen how it's changed first hand.

Coming from Liverpool and being only 23 I'm totally astonished by projects such as Merseyrail and how they would *never* happen with today's politics. Just look at Metrolink Phase 3!

Chris


Fascinating pics Chris. Thanks for posting them.

I dont know about floor heights having been changed on newer trains but the last time I used Northern line the train floors were waay about the platform heights - all I can say for sure is that new section of the Jublilee line was designed for wheelchair (etc) access so features level boarding.

I thought the sole reason for the pantographs on the Victoria Line was to reduce the costs of track maintenance.

What I would find to be *very* interesting would be how they would do this on the Piccadily and Bakerloo lines. Both of these use "tube" sized trains - in different places the Piccadily line shares tracks with District or Metropolitan lines (which use full sixe trains) and I think this would prove to be physically "exceptionally difficult" to arrange even of those other trains were converted to overhead wire operation too. As for the Bakerloo line, well, north of Queens Park it runs over mainline metals and whilst the class 313 trains which also use this route are already capable of taking power from overhead wires the voltage is 25,000 v ac - which would introduce even more complications... btw, recently some ex-Mersyrail 507's have been running on this route too - these of course are third rail 750v dc only.

Apparently if the present-day regulations had been in force back in the 1960's the Victoria Line would never have been built. As it is the bureaecrats forced its downgrading to a simple tube line - the original plans were for it to use full size trains, and in view of the severe over-crowding which it suffers at busy times the extra expense would have been money very well spent..

I am more than just a little frustrated by the anti-transport politics by our govt. Indeed govt's of many years - its not just Tony Blair's govt who have been villains in that respect. I think that after the next election there will be more severe pruning of our railway system - no matter who wins.

Because of my frustrations in I made (in 1995) a 75-minute video promoting better transports as a solution to traffic congestion and electric transports as a solution to air pollution. I am not a pro film-maker but i just bought a camcorder and started filming... I learnt the basics of film editing with super 8 cine holiday films from when I was a child and every year we went on family holidays & made 20-25 minute films.

More recently I have been busy on a website, which is nearly finished - the addy is www.citytransport.info

I have also been busy letter writing / campaigning with my local council, London's mayor, The Greater London Assembly, etc At present its better that I dont say too much about that - except that if I suddenly disappear then you should investigate "Transport For london" and our *loverly* (sic) Mayor. lol.

(or the govt. oil companies, etc because of what I say below...)


The only thing I can think of which would explain why our politicans are allowing so much to become so run down is that they are siphoning off funds for some "other" projects. It is often said that there are "other" underground transport systems - not just in Britain either. What may also have a bearing on this is that there is a large space body approaching this planet - coming from the direction of Antartica and as its devoid of natural light it cannot be seen - so maybe they have stopped caring about us (just do the minimum to keep us quiet and the stock market ticking over) whilst they prepare to save their hides. This space body has been known about for over 30 years - no its not going to hit mother earth - and indeed its partly the reason for climate change - not just on this planet either. Our burning of fossil fuels is also part of the problem but these politicans seem to not care about tomorrow or future generations, whilst despite having this knowledge I do.

I would also sugest that this is partly why so much money goes astray from the EU that its now 10 years since the auditors passed its finances.

Sorry, I've strayed off topic a little. But everything is connected - all we have to do is connect the dots to get the full picture.

Simon

[Tubeman]

Was thinking - in the initial diagram, the older train is labeled as being 1967 stock. Aren't they a bit higher off the platforms anyway? Am I right in thinking that the train floors have already got lower in the new Central/Northern/ and Jubilee vehicles?

The PTI (Platform-Train Interface) for the new Northern Line Trains appears worse than the old (i.e. the gap is bigger). It certainly appears that the car floors are not only higher than those of 1959 Stock, but also there is a wider gap between the platform edge and the doors.

Looking at the diagrams a little closer shows a feature of the floors of older stocks that I recall was quite marked in 1959 Stock; the floors sloped down towards the doors so that the middle of the cars / areas between the seating had higher floors (+10cm?) than by the doors. A similar arrangement could be implemented with any new stock to ensure a good PTI in the event of the car floors being lower (i.e. floors slope up towards the doors).

[Justme]

Interesting stats on tube heights and platforms! Here, we have double decker commuter trains

Double decker commuter trains are very common throughout the world. But on discussion here are metro systems, and as far as I know there are no double decker metro's in the world - which is quite expected as metro's just wouldn't work efficiently if double decker.

There were a couple of threads about them at SSC recently.

One on commuter trains which shows some of the DDT's can be found here:http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=180615

and one exclusivly on Double Decker trains can be found here. http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=184752

[Vertigo]

@Justme: well, according to some people, the RER should be considered a metro ;) and the RER has double deck cars. :clown:

[Justme]

@Justme: well, according to some people, the RER should be considered a metro ;) and the RER has double deck cars. :clown:

Yes, I am well versed with those at this forum that consider the RER a metro system. But the RER itself considers it a suburban commuter rail network, and that's good enough for me ;)

I have yet to see any rail website that considers the RER a metro, and whenever Paris is discussed regarding it's metro, it never includes the RER as part of it. It is often called a "Supermetro", which is a nice way of saying it's a

Just because a network goes underground in the city doesn't make it a metro. The Sydney commuter rail network (and there is no question that it is commuter rail) has a majority stock of double decker trains and also goes underground in the central area.

But anyway, it's been debated hotly on this forum for some reason which really baffles me as no rail forum debates this that I have seen, and I'd rather not resserect this again.

So, I stand by what I say, unless I am missing a network somewhere in the world, I don't know of any officially accepted metro network as having double decker trains, but yes, I know of plenty of commuter networks, including those like Paris which has some metro simularities in the central city that have double deckers.

[Vertigo]

@Justme: no need to make this argument, I totally agree with you. Just couldn't resist to make this remark.

[Justme]

@Justme: no need to make this argument, I totally agree with you. Just couldn't resist to make this remark.

You're right, I didn't want it to sound like an arguement, just came out that way.

It's just Monday, and that brings out the worst in me ;)

:cheers:

[Crusader]

If it aint broke, don't fix it! :)



it is broke and deserves to be fixed. Widening the tunnels for the Victoria, Bakerloo, Northern, Piccadilly, Jubilee lines is necessary. the stations on those lines need to up-graded and accessible for the disable. With the widen tunnels new modern bigger trains will be in operation.

the london underground badly needs to moderns or it will simply become too antiquated and useless.

[Bitxofo]

London Underground needs renewal!!
;)

[Peyre]

That's exactly the sort of photo I was trying find but couldn't, well done Nick!

Westbound Metropolitan Line Train passes a Piccadilly Line Train reversing in the terminal siding at Rayner's Lane:

http://www.trainweb.org/tubeprune/A%20and%2073%20TS%20at%20Rayners%20Lane.JPG

The Metropolitan Line A-Stock feel bigger than the D-Stocks and C-Stocks even... I think the bodies are wider? The Metropolitan Railway was built to Great Western Railway Broad Gauge (7" as opposed to the standard 4'8"!) originally so the tunnels are significantly wider than those of the District Line.

hehe a familiar site, its my local station, I get the Met Line trains which are incredibly comfy, reliable and roomy despite their age.

[Justme]

London Underground needs renewal!!
;)

Year, it does in parts, and it's getting it as well. I must admit though, since my visit to Barcelona a couple of weeks back (which I loved!), I found the central city metro stations to be in worse state to London's central city stations.

Passiag de Gracia was in shocking state, both the commuter rail section, which was like sitting in an oven, and the metro part. The tunnels between them were in worse state than anything I have seen in central London recently.

Also, Sants has nothing on the London central hubs, although it's not really the metro, it is fully underground. I wonder what the original station was like, was it a grand space like the other Barcelona stations and London's terminus'?

That said, it's still a wonderful network in barcelona, and some of the underground stations outside of the central area were wonderful. I saw some really lovely ones on the underground commuter rail I took to the Foster tower on the mountain (between the city and the funicular).

Someone should start a discussion thread on the Barcelona network.

[Tubeman]

Year, it does in parts, and it's getting it as well. I must admit though, since my visit to Barcelona a couple of weeks back (which I loved!), I found the central city metro stations to be in worse state to London's central city stations.

Passiag de Gracia was in shocking state, both the commuter rail section, which was like sitting in an oven, and the metro part. The tunnels between them were in worse state than anything I have seen in central London recently.

Also, Sants has nothing on the London central hubs, although it's not really the metro, it is fully underground. I wonder what the original station was like, was it a grand space like the other Barcelona stations and London's terminus'?

That said, it's still a wonderful network in barcelona, and some of the underground stations outside of the central area were wonderful. I saw some really lovely ones on the underground commuter rail I took to the Foster tower on the mountain (between the city and the funicular).

Someone should start a discussion thread on the Barcelona network.

Yes I liked the articulated walk-through train cars and they have great air con (like sitting in a fridge!).

[londonindyboy]

http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/9072/tube7kz.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[Justme]

Yes I liked the articulated walk-through train cars and they have great air con (like sitting in a fridge!).

Year, the trains are wonderfully airconditioned, but not the stations (at least not Passiag de Gracia, which is a big one in the city centre). It was unbelievably hot on the platform, very uncomfortable, but when the train arrived, it was a great refuge from the heat.

It was quite nice to see all the woman with their fans flapping them over their faces. ;)

http://static.zoovy.com/img/greatlookz/W150-H150-Bffffff/F/fan_blkwred

[ch1le]

Year, it does in parts, and it's getting it as well. I must admit though, since my visit to Barcelona a couple of weeks back (which I loved!), I found the central city metro stations to be in worse state to London's central city stations.

Passiag de Gracia was in shocking state, both the commuter rail section, which was like sitting in an oven, and the metro part. The tunnels between them were in worse state than anything I have seen in central London recently.

Also, Sants has nothing on the London central hubs, although it's not really the metro, it is fully underground. I wonder what the original station was like, was it a grand space like the other Barcelona stations and London's terminus'?

That said, it's still a wonderful network in barcelona, and some of the underground stations outside of the central area were wonderful. I saw some really lovely ones on the underground commuter rail I took to the Foster tower on the mountain (between the city and the funicular).

Someone should start a discussion thread on the Barcelona network.


oh, i love the Barca network :) The trains the metros yummie :) Barcelona was also a wonderful city in itself! :)

[Bitxofo]

Year, it does in parts, and it's getting it as well. I must admit though, since my visit to Barcelona a couple of weeks back (which I loved!), I found the central city metro stations to be in worse state to London's central city stations.

Passiag de Gracia was in shocking state, both the commuter rail section, which was like sitting in an oven, and the metro part. The tunnels between them were in worse state than anything I have seen in central London recently.

Also, Sants has nothing on the London central hubs, although it's not really the metro, it is fully underground. I wonder what the original station was like, was it a grand space like the other Barcelona stations and London's terminus'?

That said, it's still a wonderful network in barcelona, and some of the underground stations outside of the central area were wonderful. I saw some really lovely ones on the underground commuter rail I took to the Foster tower on the mountain (between the city and the funicular).

Someone should start a discussion thread on the Barcelona network.

Dear Justme,

Central metro stations in Barcelona are all right except 2 or 3, but they are going to be refurbished within 2 years. ;)
Passeig de Gràcia is a huge station for 3 metro lines and many trains lines. The station for line 2 is very nice, the station for line 3 is nice and the station for line 4 is not bad, but the tranfer corridor is horrible: the longest in our network: 300 metres! It was renewed 1 year ago, it was worse before that!
About Sants central railway station, it was built in the 70s and has always been under the ground. The old and beautiful terminus stations were Estació de França and Estació del Nord (this one is the central coach station now).
:)
Anyway, do not worry:
The whole trains network is being refurbished and improved for the arrival of high speed train lines in 2007. So now, it's your last chance to see the horrible transfer corridors of Passeig de Gràcia and Sants station...
Also in 2007, all metro, tramways and commuter trains system will be fully accessible for disabled people, now it's 70% accessible!
You will see all changes made by 2007-8.
:wink2:
@Justme:
We could meet in Barcelona...
:dunno:

[DaDvD]

Year, the trains are wonderfully airconditioned, but not the stations (at least not Passiag de Gracia, which is a big one in the city centre). It was unbelievably hot on the platform, very uncomfortable, but when the train arrived, it was a great refuge from the heat.

It was quite nice to see all the woman with their fans flapping them over their faces. ;)

http://static.zoovy.com/img/greatlookz/W150-H150-Bffffff/F/fan_blkwred
Totally agree, the waiting time for the subway in the station was HORRIBLE, much more than in Madrid (because of the humidity...!)

[londonindyboy]

Totally agree, the waiting time for the subway in the station was HORRIBLE, much more than in Madrid (because of the humidity...!)

you are absoloutely right.

[Bitxofo]

Totally agree, the waiting time for the subway in the station was HORRIBLE, much more than in Madrid (because of the humidity...!)
From 10pm to 2am there is a train every 5-8min. in Barcelona, but one train every 15min. in Madrid...
;)

[Justme]

Dear Justme,

@Justme:
We could meet in Barcelona...
:dunno:

Year, problem was time and being with my Mrs. If I was travelling alone I would have been able to fit it in and made contact. Would have been great to meet up, for one thing, you could have told me how to correctly pronounce the "Eixample" ;)

[Mojito]

Well, I'm back from a week in London, and I can say that I love the tube lines and their unique stocks. I'm talking about the deep-level lines, not the sub-surface lines. (the sub-surface lines are also interesting, but their rolling stocks have more similarities with other systems in the world)

And especially the Central Line's 1992 stock!

The reasons for this are simple. It was my first experience with the typical deep-level lines, and with the Underground. My train from Harwich (I took the boat from Holland) called at Stratford, and there I saw some Central Line trains running on the other tracks of the station.

At Liverpool Street, where I entered London, I took a Central Line train to my hotel and because it was my first experience with the tube, it will stay in my mind forever. The scent, the sounds and noise, the strong wind, when a train is approaching, the heat, the crowd... I love the Paris metro and Berlin U-Bahn very much, but they cannot beat the iconic atmosphere of the tube.

After travelling almost all other lines (except for the East London Line and Waterloo & City Line, which didn't fit in my scheme...after all, I was with my girlfriend and she wanted -quite logic- to see more than only the tube :)...and so did I...) I can say the 1992 stock is still my favourite. I love their spacious design, with the unique single big windows, (too bad that the majority of the passengers don't appreciate the mirror-effect), their wide doors with their continuous beep-signal when closing, and adore their accelerating and decelerating motor sounds.

A few years ago, when I saw the different types of rolling stocks for the first time in a book, I thought the 1992 stock was the most modern type of train in London, but I was surprised to find out that the more traditional looking 1995 and 1996 stocks of the Northern and Jubilee lines were a little younger.

And I had the feeling that it was much faster than the other tube lines (which are also faster than I've ever seen, while entering a station at full speed and starting to decelerate when the first carriages are in the station and along the platform already), but maybe it's a personal feeling.

I read somewhere on this forum the Victoria Line is one of the fastest in the world and certainly in London...but I couldn't help thinking the Central Line trains were running faster...

[Sitback]

I don't care how big the bloomin' tunnels are and how small the dimensions of the 'stocks' are just as long as they get me where I want to go. I can sit in the London underground in comfort the only thing I got against it i it gets far to hot in the Northern Line.

Sheesh.

[nick_taylor]

I think the fastest line is probably the Victoria line, but the fastest attained speed I think is something like the Central Line up by Epping - something like 100kph. Tubeman will be able to fill in the blanks and dot the i's though here ;)

[Mojito]

^^I haven't seen any tube section outside zones 1 and 2, unfortunately...(exept for the Richmond branch of the District Line, with an extension ticket, because we wanted to see the beautiful Kew Gardens) But when I look at the geographical tube map of Central London, I see the Central Line has got less curves than most of the other tube lines...Maybe that is an explanation for my feeling...

A six-zone travelcard is something for the next time I will visit London...!

[AmiDelf]

Oslo subway wagons specs:

http://www.tbane.no/images%5C1485.jpg http://www.tbane.no/images/1509.jpg
http://www.tbane.no/images%5C1509.jpg


Production company: Strømmens Verksted - EGA⁄AEG - NEBB - Høka
Cabnumber: 1001-1030, 1031-1090, 1091-1105, 1106-1135, 1136-1146
Type: T-I⁄2 (serie 1), T-II (serie 2), T-IV (serie 4)
Year of production: 1966, 1970, 1972, 1976, 1978,
Length: 17000
Height: 3650
Width: 3200
Max speed: 70km/h
Comfort: about 63 sitting places and about 117 non sitting space

http://www.tbane.no/images%5C1505.jpghttp://www.tbane.no/images%5C1507.jpg
Production company: Strømmens Verksted - EGA⁄AEG - NEBB
Cabnumber: 1301-1318, 1334-1343, 1344-1349
Type: T-V (serie 5), T-VII (serie 7), T-VIII (serie 8)
Year of production: 1978, 1986, 1987, 1989
Length: 17000
Height: 3650
Width: 3200
Max speed: 70km/h
Comfort: about 70 sitting places and about 110 non sitting space

http://www.tbane.no/images%5C1409.jpg
Production company: EB Strømmens Verksted - AEG
Cabnumber: 2001-2012
Type: T-2000
Year of production: 1993
Length: 8000+18000
Height: 3650
Width: 3300
Max speed: 100km/h
Comfort: about 60 sitting places and about 125 non sitting space


I think that none of the subway wagons in Oslo would ever fit into Londons tunnels. Half of the roof would fall off :) hehe

[Justme]

There are still a couple of stations with the original "Mind the Gap" announcement. There are a few different ones around, but the one that became so famous has a rather harsh, posh voice. I once found a website which had a sample, but they blocked the direct linking when I posted it here a long time ago. If anyone can find the original voice sample again, would be really cool...

[Tubeman]

I think the fastest line is probably the Victoria line, but the fastest attained speed I think is something like the Central Line up by Epping - something like 100kph. Tubeman will be able to fill in the blanks and dot the i's though here ;)

Technically the Metropolitan Line was the fastest, in the open sections coming down from the Chiltern Hills, but the maximum permitted speed has been cut back to 60mph (100kmh) from the former 70mph.

In deep-level tunnel, the Victoria Line reaches (officially) 57mph (just under 100kmh) between Seven Sisters and Finsbury Park, and the Jubilee reaches 60mph (100kmh) between Canada Water and Canary Wharf. The Central Line has very good braking capability and is fully automatic, although I think the top speeds are now retarded following the Chancery Lane derailment... The sensation of speed comes from the fact that the trains can enter the 8-car platforms at 40mph (60kmh) and still manage to stop, whereas 30mph is more typical for other lines.

Anyway, I'm glad you enjoyed the Tube Mojito :)

[Me_Simon]

my personal opinion;
London Underground = very nice clean stations, excellent coverage and train network; but the trains are so noisy!!!!
Paris Metro = disqusting stations, excellent coverage; and nice quiet smooth trains!

lol @ 'mind the gap' I don't normally pay attention to the annoucements (because I'm an Aussie tourist :P) but that was some gap in some of the stations :)

[Tubeman]

my personal opinion;
London Underground = very nice clean stations, excellent coverage and train network; but the trains are so noisy!!!!
Paris Metro = disqusting stations, excellent coverage; and nice quiet smooth trains!

lol @ 'mind the gap' I don't normally pay attention to the annoucements (because I'm an Aussie tourist :P) but that was some gap in some of the stations :)

Paris has rubber tyres, London is metal on metal

[Falubaz]

Paris has rubber tyres, London is metal on metal

Paris has only some rubber tyres lines and some traditional "metal on metal" lines

but the worst thing in that both systems is: it's too hot there!!!

[chris9]

Funny how some people complain about the tube, it was already operational at the time some cities still relied on horse drawn carriages or early electric surface trams. :)

[mr_storms]

92 stock is the best, got to love those massive windows and doors. I havent ridden either 95 or 96 though, i left before they were put into service :(. I really would have liked the new northern train, the 59 stock was pretty ugly.

[Metropolitan]

Yes, I am well versed with those at this forum that consider the RER a metro system. But the RER itself considers it a suburban commuter rail network, and that's good enough for me ;)

I have yet to see any rail website that considers the RER a metro, and whenever Paris is discussed regarding it's metro, it never includes the RER as part of it. It is often called a "Supermetro", which is a nice way of saying it's a

Just because a network goes underground in the city doesn't make it a metro. The Sydney commuter rail network (and there is no question that it is commuter rail) has a majority stock of double decker trains and also goes underground in the central area.

But anyway, it's been debated hotly on this forum for some reason which really baffles me as no rail forum debates this that I have seen, and I'd rather not resserect this again.

So, I stand by what I say, unless I am missing a network somewhere in the world, I don't know of any officially accepted metro network as having double decker trains, but yes, I know of plenty of commuter networks, including those like Paris which has some metro simularities in the central city that have double deckers.It's very weird but those considering the RER as a subway are actually those living in Paris. You've never thought that they consider it this way for the simple reason that they use it this way ? That's out of your way of thinking.

Of course transport authorities will tell you that the RER is a distinguished system from the métro ! One is an express metropolitan network when the other one is a proximity network. However both networks are mutually intertwined and complementary. You cannot think of Paris subway without the RER, this is purely impossible. If in your other subway forums they tell they consider Paris subway without the RER, then they are simply truncating the system in a way which is totally artificial. This is a unique system. One time in your life I hope you'll understand what it means.

[Justme]

It's very weird but those considering the RER as a subway are actually those living in Paris. You've never thought that they consider it this way for the simple reason that they use it this way ? That's out of your way of thinking.

Of course transport authorities will tell you that the RER is a distinguished system from the métro ! One is an express metropolitan network when the other one is a proximity network. However both networks are mutually intertwined and complementary. You cannot think of Paris subway without the RER, this is purely impossible. If in your other subway forums they tell they consider Paris subway without the RER, then they are simply truncating the system in a way which is totally artificial. This is a unique system. One time in your life I hope you'll understand what it means.

We've been through this time and time again. I have never seen any subway/metro guide, whether on the internet or in books that consider the RER a metro system.

When the concensus between those that study metro's consider it a metro, then it is likely to be a metro.

[Metropolitan]

We've been through this time and time again. I have never seen any subway/metro guide, whether on the internet or in books that consider the RER a metro system.Have you ever seen a Paris subway map picturing the métro without the RER ?

When the concensus between those that study metro's consider it a metro, then it is likely to be a metro.That's obvious. The métro is a specific local network specific to Paris downtown. The RER is another network which is different from the métro since it's been thought as an express metropolitan network. However, at the opposite of the lies you're always repeating, the RER can't by no mean be considered as commuter rails, like the "trains de banlieues" we can find in Paris.

Those are two very distinct networks which are even more apart than is the métro from the RER, once considering the frequencies of trains and the general organization of the system. While the RER and the métro are used by Parisians as a common system, the suburban rails are clearly considered as apart. To give you an exemple, the transit from metro lines to commuter rails aren't written in Paris subway. You just have a little symbol showing a big train to tell you it's a national rail station, like are also shown planes to symbolize the airports.

Now that this is said from a Paris point of view, let's try to get a larger point of view. Indeed, we can decently consider that what is called subway or métro in other cities are actually closer to what is called RER in Paris. And that question is also perfectly valid and you should ask it to your friends (who obviously aren't great thinkers).


The Central line in London has a length of 74 km for 49 stops. That makes an average distance of 1,510 m between each stop.

The RER B in Paris has a length of 80 km for 47 stops. That makes an average distance of 1,702 m between each stop.

If you check those statistics, you realize those lines are a lot more comparable than for instance the line 1 of Paris métro, which has a length of 17 km for 25 stops, making the average distance between stops at 664 m.

That's the only point.

[Tubeman]

My attitude is if its electric, frequent (i.e. at least a train every 10 minutes), and has distinct line identities serving a city and its suburbs then its a Metro.

This means I'd consider the RER a Metro, as I would the Sydney Cityrail and Melbourne Metro... even though the latter two are obviously conventional heavy rail which have a little bit of tunnel in the centre of town.

Being subterranean isn't the be all and end all either; the Chicago L and much of the NYC subway is elevated as well as numerous other metros.

London's suburban rail doesn't qualify as metro by my criteria despite the 'ON' branding and the increasing use of the word 'Metro'. Most lines have a 4tph frequency and where several different routes overlap to give a very frequent service (e.g. Clapham Junction to Waterloo) its spurious to brand it as a metro when you have a choice of 5 or 6 different platforms and have to have your wits about you to find the next London train! Thameslink falls short of my criteria because it extends so far outside London and runs fast for much of the route south of London... Its a frequent express route that happens to go under the middle of London in my opinion.

Its all conjecture, and I can see Justme's logic, but in my opinion RER = Metro

[Justme]

Have you ever seen a Paris subway map picturing the métro without the RER ?


To be honest, it only shows the central part of the network. Also, all German U-bahn maps include the S-bahn and the London Underground map also includes some National Rail lines. They are not metro's.


That's obvious. The métro is a specific local network specific to Paris downtown. The RER is another network which is different from the métro since it's been thought as an express metropolitan network. However, at the opposite of the lies you're always repeating, the RER can't by no mean be considered as commuter rails, like the "trains de banlieues" we can find in Paris.


All do respect, there is absolutely no need to resort to telling me I am "repeating lies". That sort of behavior will not get you any respect on this forum.

If you don't agree with my opinion, but don't resort to such allegations.

All I have said is that I have yet to find any rail source on the internet or in books that define the RER as a metro. Until the majority of them do, I will not accept that it is.

I have rights to that opinion.


Those are two very distinct networks which are even more apart than is the métro from the RER, once considering the frequencies of trains and the general organization of the system. While the RER and the métro are used by Parisians as a common system, the suburban rails are clearly considered as apart. To give you an example, the transit from metro lines to commuter rails aren't written in Paris subway. You just have a little symbol showing a big train to tell you it's a national rail station, like are also shown planes to symbolize the airports.

Now that this is said from a Paris point of view, let's try to get a larger point of view. Indeed, we can decently consider that what is called subway or métro in other cities are actually closer to what is called RER in Paris. And that question is also perfectly valid and you should ask it to your friends (who obviously aren't great thinkers).


Again, at the end you resort to insults. All because you have a different opinion. I hope for your sake you don't talk to people face to face like this.


The Central line in London has a length of 74 km for 49 stops. That makes an average distance of 1,510 m between each stop.

The RER B in Paris has a length of 80 km for 47 stops. That makes an average distance of 1,702 m between each stop.

If you check those statistics, you realize those lines are a lot more comparable than for instance the line 1 of Paris métro, which has a length of 17 km for 25 stops, making the average distance between stops at 664 m.

That's the only point.

That's fair enough points. But what are the frequencies, and station averages of the other lines?

You are welcome to your opinion, please respect others

[Justme]

My attitude is if its electric, frequent (i.e. at least a train every 10 minutes), and has distinct line identities serving a city and its suburbs then its a Metro.

This means I'd consider the RER a Metro, as I would the Sydney Cityrail and Melbourne Metro... even though the latter two are obviously conventional heavy rail which have a little bit of tunnel in the centre of town.

Being subterranean isn't the be all and end all either; the Chicago L and much of the NYC subway is elevated as well as numerous other metros.

London's suburban rail doesn't qualify as metro by my criteria despite the 'ON' branding and the increasing use of the word 'Metro'. Most lines have a 4tph frequency and where several different routes overlap to give a very