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 15th, 2004, 08:17 PM   #21
ignoramus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,020
Likes (Received): 4

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.
ignoramus no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old November 15th, 2004, 08:22 PM   #22
superchan7
EOS 40D
 
superchan7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: San Jose, CA, USA / Hong Kong, China
Posts: 2,098
Likes (Received): 23

Quote:
Originally Posted by ignoramus
If something goes wrong....................
But nothing goes wrong! It seems that the Tube and its trains continue to run rock-solid , with most problems being delays and minor glitches. London Underground foreverrrrrrrrr

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?
__________________
I speak English / 我講中文 / Ich spreche deutsch / 3y3 5p34k L337
superchan7 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 15th, 2004, 09:23 PM   #23
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3271

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 15th, 2004, 09:23 PM   #24
Vertigo
Fan van de Neudeflat
 
Vertigo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Utrecht
Posts: 2,487
Likes (Received): 130

@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.
Vertigo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 15th, 2004, 09:29 PM   #25
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3271

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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)
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 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 15th, 2004, 09:33 PM   #26
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3271

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 16th, 2004, 01:55 AM   #27
greg_christine
Registered User
 
greg_christine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Smithfield, VA
Posts: 1,008
Likes (Received): 142

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:



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.

Last edited by greg_christine; November 16th, 2004 at 02:07 AM.
greg_christine no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 16th, 2004, 04:59 PM   #28
Vertigo
Fan van de Neudeflat
 
Vertigo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Utrecht
Posts: 2,487
Likes (Received): 130

Quote:
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...
Vertigo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 16th, 2004, 05:23 PM   #29
nick_taylor
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Portsmouth (term time); Bishop's Stortford (out of term time)
Posts: 1,818
Likes (Received): 9

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
nick_taylor no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 16th, 2004, 05:33 PM   #30
Englishman
Urge Desire Rest
 
Englishman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London
Posts: 2,400
Likes (Received): 96

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.
Englishman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 16th, 2004, 10:40 PM   #31
glickel
Da T
 
glickel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Boston
Posts: 19
Likes (Received): 1

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.
__________________
World Champion Boston Red Sox

Canadian Empire liked this post
glickel no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 17th, 2004, 12:27 AM   #32
superchan7
EOS 40D
 
superchan7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: San Jose, CA, USA / Hong Kong, China
Posts: 2,098
Likes (Received): 23

I'm 6'1" and my head got hit by a closing door =P
__________________
I speak English / 我講中文 / Ich spreche deutsch / 3y3 5p34k L337
superchan7 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 17th, 2004, 04:14 AM   #33
greg_christine
Registered User
 
greg_christine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Smithfield, VA
Posts: 1,008
Likes (Received): 142

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



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
greg_christine no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 17th, 2004, 12:30 PM   #34
ignoramus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,020
Likes (Received): 4

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?
ignoramus no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 17th, 2004, 02:06 PM   #35
greg_christine
Registered User
 
greg_christine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Smithfield, VA
Posts: 1,008
Likes (Received): 142

Quote:
Originally Posted by ignoramus
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
greg_christine no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 17th, 2004, 02:43 PM   #36
HasanB
Registered User
 
HasanB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: London, UK
Posts: 637
Likes (Received): 47

wow !! Glasgows are really a bit too small i think, the trains look a bit like toy ones
__________________
MEHFIL PAKISTAN

HasanB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 17th, 2004, 02:43 PM   #37
ignoramus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,020
Likes (Received): 4

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?
ignoramus no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 17th, 2004, 02:53 PM   #38
nick_taylor
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Portsmouth (term time); Bishop's Stortford (out of term time)
Posts: 1,818
Likes (Received): 9

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
nick_taylor no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 17th, 2004, 03:07 PM   #39
ignoramus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,020
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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
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.

Last edited by ignoramus; November 17th, 2004 at 04:50 PM.
ignoramus no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 17th, 2004, 04:03 PM   #40
Justme
Gotta lite?
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester (Forecast: Rain)
Posts: 4,952
Likes (Received): 780

^ 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
Quote:
''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?
__________________
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 05:35 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