daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Subways and Urban Transport

Subways and Urban Transport Metros, subways, light rail, trams, buses and other local transport systems



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old November 27th, 2005, 07:06 PM   #241
redstone
Lurker
 
redstone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Singapore
Posts: 14,056
Likes (Received): 52

Can someone please enlighten me, how were the first underground lines/ stations in London built?

Like how did they manage to tunnel under buildings?
redstone no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old November 27th, 2005, 07:21 PM   #242
spsmiler
Registered User
 
spsmiler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: London
Posts: 160
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by redstone
Can someone please enlighten me, how were the first underground lines/ stations in London built?

Like how did they manage to tunnel under buildings?
They dug up a street with a deep tranch, and after building the tunnel side walls they covered it over, reinstating the street.

deep level tubes were built by tunnelling machine and installing a circle of cast iron metal pieces to keep the tunnels shape.

Since they were mostly digging through clay the tunnels would kep their shape betwen digging and installing the cast iron segments.

Hope this helps, sorry, itsd very brief but I must stop on the web for now - try asking Tubeman on his thread..

Simon
__________________
Citizen Of Planet Earth
Living In The British Isles.
spsmiler no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 27th, 2005, 08:03 PM   #243
hkskyline
Hong Kong
 
hkskyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 86,867
Likes (Received): 18139

Cut and cover is still a popular way of building subways today, over a hundred years after the first subways opened.
__________________
Hong Kong Photo Gallery - Click Here for the Hong Kong Galleries

World Photo Gallery - | St. Petersburg, Russia | Pyongyang | Tokyo | Istanbul | Dubai | Shanghai | Mumbai | Bangkok | Sydney

New York, London, Prague, Iceland, Rocky Mountains, Angkor Wat, Sri Lanka, Poland, Myanmar, and much more!
hkskyline no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 27th, 2005, 11:09 PM   #244
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3271

Quote:
Originally Posted by hkskyline
Cut and cover is still a popular way of building subways today, over a hundred years after the first subways opened.
Its possible in cities with broad streets like Paris or New York, but impossible in cities like London where virtually all roads are at best only 2 carriageways wide. It is by far the cheapest and quickest method of tunnelling.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 28th, 2005, 12:00 AM   #245
chris9
Virtute Fideque
 
chris9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: City of New York
Posts: 523
Likes (Received): 4

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.
chris9 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 28th, 2005, 04:33 AM   #246
mr_storms
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose/Pittsburgh
Posts: 1,321
Likes (Received): 4

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.
mr_storms no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 28th, 2005, 05:30 AM   #247
Metropolitan
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 3,360
Likes (Received): 11

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justme
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.
Metropolitan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 28th, 2005, 05:47 AM   #248
redstone
Lurker
 
redstone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Singapore
Posts: 14,056
Likes (Received): 52

So the very first tunnels were built under existing streets?
redstone no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 28th, 2005, 06:13 AM   #249
AG
Registered User
 
AG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 2,070
Likes (Received): 545

A lot of cut and cover tunnels were built to follow the streets, but sometimes buildings were torn down to make way for the shallow tunnels as they did in London. Buildings were then rebuilt above the shallow tunnels. Even more odd is that there are some facades around the city above these tunnels that have no building behind them. They simply cover up an above ground opening where the smoke from the steam trains escaped before electric trains were introduced.
AG no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 28th, 2005, 10:31 AM   #250
Justme
Gotta lite?
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester (Forecast: Rain)
Posts: 4,950
Likes (Received): 779

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metropolitan
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.
__________________
I'm doing my bit to save bandwidth by deleting my signature
Justme no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 28th, 2005, 11:25 AM   #251
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3271

Quote:
Originally Posted by AG
A lot of cut and cover tunnels were built to follow the streets, but sometimes buildings were torn down to make way for the shallow tunnels as they did in London. Buildings were then rebuilt above the shallow tunnels. Even more odd is that there are some facades around the city above these tunnels that have no building behind them. They simply cover up an above ground opening where the smoke from the steam trains escaped before electric trains were introduced.
Indeed, 23 / 24 Leinster Gardens in Bayswater has houses complete with painted on front doors and house numbers which is in fact just a wall with the railway behind!



You should be able to just about make out the uniformly grey painted windows


This is what you would find if you were to open the front door (if there was one!)



Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 28th, 2005, 11:35 AM   #252
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3271

Quote:
Originally Posted by redstone
So the very first tunnels were built under existing streets?
Mostly, but as AG said some of the 'Cut & Cover' lines had no choice but to charge through neighbourhoods destroying everything in their path.

Often, the construction of a line was tied in with a new roadway above instead of following an existing one. Examples of this is the ambitious project to reclaim part of the Thames foreshore and build The Embankment, in-filling the recalimed land behind. This accounted for the District & Circle Lines between Westminster and Blackfriars and the new roadway ('The Embankment') above. The Victorians were almost arrogant in their ambition... In an era of essentially pure navvy power the concept of pushing back the Thames and building a railway along the river bed wasn't alien to them, they just got on and built it.

Often the construction of a new 'Cut & Cover' railway was a good excuse for a bit of old-fashioned 'Slum Clearance'. Between King's Cross and Farringdon (Street) the Metropolitan railway was built largely along the course of the then exposed River Fleet. The River was home to some of the worst 'Dickensian' slums in London, with ramshackle shanty homes backing onto the foetid river which became an open sewer. The railway cut a swathe through the slums, culverted the river (such that there is now no trace of it) and then built a new roadway above (Farringdon Road) so that where once was a huge slum and open sewer there now is a roadway and underground railway.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 28th, 2005, 01:42 PM   #253
Justme
Gotta lite?
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester (Forecast: Rain)
Posts: 4,950
Likes (Received): 779

Apparently, 23 / 24 Leinster Gardens is a joke played to new postmen or couriers when they start the route. They are given something to deliver to the address, but when they get there, they can't find the letterbox, or no one answers the door.
__________________
I'm doing my bit to save bandwidth by deleting my signature
Justme no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 28th, 2005, 02:01 PM   #254
nick_taylor
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Portsmouth (term time); Bishop's Stortford (out of term time)
Posts: 1,818
Likes (Received): 9

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justme
Apparently, 23 / 24 Leinster Gardens is a joke played to new postmen or couriers when they start the route. They are given something to deliver to the address, but when they get there, they can't find the letterbox, or no one answers the door.
nick_taylor no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 28th, 2005, 08:51 PM   #255
Metropolitan
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 3,360
Likes (Received): 11

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justme
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 ?

Quote:
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.
Metropolitan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 28th, 2005, 09:17 PM   #256
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3271

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
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 28th, 2005, 09:29 PM   #257
Justme
Gotta lite?
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester (Forecast: Rain)
Posts: 4,950
Likes (Received): 779

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metropolitan
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metropolitan
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metropolitan
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metropolitan
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
__________________
I'm doing my bit to save bandwidth by deleting my signature
Justme no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 28th, 2005, 09:31 PM   #258
Justme
Gotta lite?
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester (Forecast: Rain)
Posts: 4,950
Likes (Received): 779

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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
On the note of Sydney's city rail. This travels from Wollongong to Newcastle. A tri-metro area covering 25,000km². Almost all of the line is suburban with the exception of a tiny fraction in the city center (and a great deal travels through large national parks including crossing the entire width of the Blue Mountains). It is clearly a suburban/commuter line, with S-bahn simularities in downtown and large regional lines in the outskirts. A metro is a very long shot there.
__________________
I'm doing my bit to save bandwidth by deleting my signature
Justme no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 28th, 2005, 09:54 PM   #259
Metropolitan
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 3,360
Likes (Received): 11

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justme
On the note of Sydney's city rail. This travels from Wollongong to Newcastle. A tri-metro area covering 25,000km². Almost all of the line is suburban with the exception of a tiny fraction in the city center (and a great deal travels through large national parks including crossing the entire width of the Blue Mountains). It is clearly a suburban/commuter line, with S-bahn simularities in downtown and large regional lines in the outskirts. A metro is a very long shot there.
For which reason do you compare cities which have nothing is common ? Paris and Sydney are not comparable by any mean ! Actually, as my brother lives in Australia I can know how much it's idiotic to compare those cities !

Sydney is an urban spreading, it has a microscopic center made of a skyscraper cluster and few brick flat buildings. There's absolutely nothing in common between Sydney and Paris !

I haven't taken public transports in Sydney (the city is very easy to cross by car), however I've used the transit in Melbourne. This is NOT an RER, it's clearly a commuter rail network. The network in Sydney is based in the same kind of structure. Your comparison is totally absurd for the simple reason that those cities have absolutely nothing in common. Okay, there's a rail belt around the center of Melbourne (which is even more microscopic than in Sydney) but it only connects railroad stations ! It's not about urban stations as you can find in any subway or in the RER. Hence, your comparison is simply pointless...

Of course I guess you didn't have the chance to go in Australia as I would be highly surprised your brother would live in that city (It would be an awesome common point between you and me). Hence I can forgive you, but anyone who has used the transit in Melbourne and the RER in Paris will tell you that you're comparing apples with oranges. The system in Melbourne, as much as the system in Sydney, are about commuter rail networks like the trains de banlieues in Paris which are also connecting railroad stations.
Metropolitan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 28th, 2005, 10:11 PM   #260
Justme
Gotta lite?
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester (Forecast: Rain)
Posts: 4,950
Likes (Received): 779

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metropolitan
For which reason do you compare cities which have nothing is common ? Paris and Sydney are not comparable by any mean ! Actually, as my brother lives in Australia I can know how much it's idiotic to compare those cities !
Please tone down your outbursts. You may have a problem comparing infrastructure between Paris and Sydney, but that doesn't mean everyone else lacks this ability.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metropolitan
I haven't taken public transports in Sydney (the city is very easy to cross by car), however I've used the transit in Melbourne. This is NOT an RER, it's clearly a commuter rail network. The network in Sydney is based in the same kind of structure. Your comparison is totally absurd for the simple reason that those cities have absolutely nothing in common. Okay, there's a rail belt around the center of Melbourne (which is even more microscopic than in Sydney) but it only connects railroad stations ! It's not about urban stations as you can find in any subway or in the RER. Hence, your comparison is simply pointless...
Bold remarks from someone who admits they have never travelled on Sydney's rail network.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metropolitan
Of course I guess you didn't have the chance to go in Australia as I would be highly surprised your brother would live in that city (It would be an awesome common point between you and me). Hence I can forgive you, but anyone who has used the transit in Melbourne and the RER in Paris will tell you that you're comparing apples with oranges. The system in Melbourne, as much as the system in Sydney, are about commuter rail networks like the trains de banlieues in Paris which are also connecting railroad stations.
Hmmm, this is where your outbursts and assumptions work against you. I am actually an Australian. You'd be surprised how much I know about the Sydney system having used it for a damn good deal of my life on a daily basis.

Oh, yes, Sydney was my home town.

Now, I didn't bring up Sydney, so don't blast me. But it's an interesting comparison. Sydney's network is a combined system with has parts like an RER in the city center, where suburban trains travel underground but where most are out in the suburbs over ground. It also operates as a suburban rail system, an express commuter system, and a regional rail system. Unfortunately all under a single entity and over the same lines which does hinder it a bit. In fact, another thing it has in common with some RER lines are the double decker trains - one thing you don't find on metro's because of the slow boarding and disembarking, somthing more suitable to suburban and commuter links.

Now please. Enough of the personal attacks. I'm not attacking you, I just have an opinion that is different from your's, which seems like something you can't tolerate.
__________________
I'm doing my bit to save bandwidth by deleting my signature
Justme no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
britain, emirates, london, underground

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 12:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium