LONDON | DLR, Underground, Tramlink

[sarflonlad]

Originally Posted by Acemcbuller

True but it helps the air circulate more into carriages while the train is moving.
That does cool people down because it carries heat away from them, just like if you stand in front of a fan. The fan doesn't cool the air it just creates windchill. But yes its not a solution to the actually problem of heat in the system.

Better ventilation - or fans - make substantial differences to the comfort of a ride. Beijing's line 1 has fans on the carriage ceilings that really help to cool you down.

Unfortunately I think our trains are too small to do this... that said, there are suppose to be fans on the Victoria and Pic lines - but I never feel anything from them on these trains

[Martin S]

Originally Posted by Acemcbuller

True but it helps the air circulate more into carriages while the train is moving.
That does cool people down because it carries heat away from them, just like if you stand in front of a fan. The fan doesn't cool the air it just creates windchill. But yes its not a solution to the actually problem of heat in the system.

I started using the tube again last summer after having not used it much at all for several years. It definitely seems much warmer than it was back in the late 90s. In the summer months, even when a train was not particularly crowded it could be uncomfortably hot on the Victoria Line.

Any increase in train length, frequency or just general passenger load is bound to increase the heat in the tunnels. In the medium to long term, an air conditioning solution will probably be the only answer coupled with extraction of hot tunnel air.

[Dan]

I used the tube a whole lot during my recent trip to London. My goodness, how it drove me insane! Trains keeping their doors open for forever when coming to a station, trains stopping all the time in tunnels, ghetto trains many of which can barely hold tall people, slow-moving trains, sometimes huge distances up and down stairs and walkways to connect between lines at what is called the same station, unreliable time estimates if there are even any, confusing use of platforms, rarely ever good service on all lines at once, short operation hours, frequent closures, handicap-unfriendly, stations that seem a bit useless given that they are only used during certain parts of the day or week... gahhh!!

Of course I understand that many of these problems is due to the fact that the London system is so old, and I doubt that the systems in places like New York and Chicago are much better. A lot could be fixed and improved, though. But even as just as a tourist for three days, these things were driving me insane and were virtually ruining the trip for me (given how much I had to use the tube). I've been too spoiled by the Stockholm system.

[sarflonlad]

Originally Posted by Dan1113

I used the tube a whole lot during my recent trip to London. My goodness, how it drove me insane! Trains keeping their doors open for forever when coming to a station, trains stopping all the time in tunnels, ghetto trains many of which can barely hold tall people, slow-moving trains, sometimes huge distances up and down stairs and walkways to connect between lines at what is called the same station, unreliable time estimates if there are even any, confusing use of platforms, rarely ever good service on all lines at once, short operation hours, frequent closures, handicap-unfriendly, stations that seem a bit useless given that they are only used during certain parts of the day or week... gahhh!!

Of course I understand that many of these problems is due to the fact that the London system is so old, and I doubt that the systems in places like New York and Chicago are much better. A lot could be fixed and improved, though. But even as just as a tourist for three days, these things were driving me insane and were virtually ruining the trip for me (given how much I had to use the tube). I've been too spoiled by the Stockholm system.

When it works, it works well. When it doesn't work, it goes tits up.

I'm sorry you had such a bad experience. Many tourists find the labyrinth and history of the tube a tourist attraction in its own right.

[iampuking]

Originally Posted by Dan1113

Trains keeping their doors open for forever when coming to a station, trains stopping all the time in tunnels

I take it you used the Circle/District lines a lot?

Originally Posted by Dan1113

sometimes huge distances up and down stairs and walkways to connect between lines at what is called the same station,

Where? It's never seemed particularly bad to me.

Originally Posted by Dan1113

confusing use of platforms

How can the use of platforms be confusing? Do you think it would be less confusing if there were no platforms or something?

Originally Posted by Dan1113

short operation hours

Doesn't seem different to any other metro IMO.

Originally Posted by Dan1113

frequent closures

That's to sort out all of the problems that you're whining about

Originally Posted by Dan1113

handicap-unfriendly

Same in practically all other big city metros.

Originally Posted by Dan1113

stations that seem a bit useless given that they are only used during certain parts of the day or week... gahhh!!

Which in Central London?

[Dan]

Comments in red.

Originally Posted by iampuking

I take it you used the Circle/District lines a lot?

Yes... my hotel was right near High Street Kensington, which is serviced by these two lines, so I used them the most. I tried virtually all the other lines at least a couple times though, particularly the Piccadilly line. I think I only didn't go on a couple. The District line in particular though seems to be pretty large, so I don't think it's ok for it to be like this on any line.


Where? It's never seemed particularly bad to me.

Charion's Cross comes to mind. Seemed like it was shorter to walk to the next station where the other line was then transferring there.

How can the use of platforms be confusing? Do you think it would be less confusing if there were no platforms or something?

Well, maybe it was just because of the problems on the district line a few days ago (I was there over the weekend), but there were pretty much no trains going to High Street Kensington from Earl's Court whereas there were plenty of other District lines going elsewhere... and to make things all the more confusing, the trains weren't really running from the platforms they were supposed to, so the one train that did go to HSK I missed. At least at Earl's Court, I found the signage about which trains leave from where to be pretty confusing.

Doesn't seem different to any other metro IMO.

Well my main experience at least is from the Stockholm metro. Open till 1 am, open till 3.30 am on weekends. Starting this summer it'll be going 24/7 on weekends -- which is the total opposite than the London one, which seems to go worse on weekends. I find this odd given the number of people who party on weekends and thus need a way to get home. I find it especially odd that I am able to get back home using the a commuter train line here later than one is able to take the tube home (my last train on weekdays is at 12.50, 1.20 on weekends with an extra departure to be added this summer). Given that Stockholm is very small compared to the London metro (and thus the amount of people that need to get around late at night), it just seemed really shocking to me. It limited how late I (and my friend from London) were able to stay out.

That's to sort out all of the problems that you're whining about

Touché. Doesn't seem to be improving too much though. New trains wouldn't hurt either...even the new trains that have been purchased seem a little ghetto, to be honest, but this is more of a personal opinion.

Same in practically all other big city metros.

Sure. IMO I find it a huge shame though, and I wish every metro fixed this. Here in Stockholm the whole system should be fully accessible by 2010 -- thankfully already now virtually all stations have both elevators and escalators, and the steps to the trains are pretty small. The same goes for the commuter trains.

Which in Central London?

None, but it seemed strange nonetheless. It would be a bit useless to me to have a metro station near where I live but one that I can only use on weekdays, or only during rush hours, etc.

Please don't get me wrong - I love London and have nothing against the city. It was just the underground that drove me a bit insane. I also admire that London was pretty much the first to get a metro system, so obviously given its age I fully understand many of the problems and the need to close to renovate/fix things a lot. A lot of it seems to be fixable/avoidable, though.

[sweek]

Indeed a lot of these problems rae worked on. New trains, signal upgrades etc. I can only think of one station with limited opening hours on the tube now, which is Cannon Street.

Also signage is the one thing I think the LU does better than any other system. Earl's Court is a bit of an exception with its heritage terminal boxes.

London also has what is possibly the biggest and most frequent night bus network in the world, which is a very good option after midnight. Night buses in Stockholm weren't too great in my experience.

[NothingBetterToDo]

Yes, fixable - but to make all stations accessible for disabled people, for example. would cost billions for relatively little gain (as harsh as that sounds). Then add to that all the other 'fixable' problems and it would be a never ending spiral of costs.

I think the balance the LU currently has is more than adequate, and things are slowly improving.



Also, i hear Stokholms metro network is indeed outstanding - but like a lot of newer Metro's it's not very extensive - i'm sure if it had as many lines as the tube it would start to experience some similar problems (long walks at interchanges, confusing layouts, close stops and so on).

I have experience of Copenhagens new system and its wonderful, clean, quick, efficient (i imagine its similar to Stockholms) - but it really didn't go to enough places i needed it to.

[sweek]

The t-Bana in Stockholim is indeed quite wonderful, and I've never really had any problems with it when I lived there. The Pendeltag (commuter trains) on the other hand are not as frequent and very prone to delays.

I also remember the walk at Centralen to be quite lon between red/green and blue.

[Justme]

Originally Posted by Dan1113

Comments in red.

Please don't get me wrong - I love London and have nothing against the city. It was just the underground that drove me a bit insane. I also admire that London was pretty much the first to get a metro system, so obviously given its age I fully understand many of the problems and the need to close to renovate/fix things a lot. A lot of it seems to be fixable/avoidable, though.

I understand your points and some are gripes I also have. But I believe the weekend service is as it is because they do a lot of maintenence on those two days.

As for the lack of a night service, I believe it is also due to maintenence. However, since London has possibly the world's largest night bus service (If there is a larger one I'd like to know) then it's not so much of a problem. Late at night there is little traffic problems on the streets and night buses can travel faster and closer to people's destinations. They often work better than metro's.

[flierfy]

Originally Posted by NothingBetterToDo

Also, i hear Stokholms metro network is indeed outstanding - but like a lot of newer Metro's it's not very extensive - i'm sure if it had as many lines as the tube it would start to experience some similar problems (long walks at interchanges, confusing layouts, close stops and so on).

Stockholm tunnelbanan is actually more extensive than London Underground if you take the size of the cities into the equation. London is roughly 10 times as big as Stockholm. Stockholm's network, however, has 100 station and 108 km system length while LU has just 269 station and 404 km.

The problem of inefficient interchanges has something to do with decentralised planning of the lines but not with age or extensiveness of the network. Most lines of LU were built by competing railway companies. They had little interest in creating an integrated network and built their station were it was most convenient for them. Londoners today pay the price for such a short-sightedness by walking more than necessary.

[sarflonlad]

Originally Posted by flierfy

Stockholm tunnelbanan is actually more extensive than London Underground if you take the size of the cities into the equation. London is roughly 10 times as big as Stockholm. Stockholm's network, however, has 100 station and 108 km system length while LU has just 269 station and 404 km.

Hmmmmm... but London Underground goes far beyond London so the distances between stations increases as you go through less populated areas. Different cities have different needs. Some London Underground lines function similarly to the Paris RER whilst other lines function as a typical metro line.

The problem of inefficient interchanges has something to do with decentralised planning of the lines but not with age or extensiveness of the network. Most lines of LU were built by competing railway companies. They had little interest in creating an integrated network and built their station were it was most convenient for them. Londoners today pay the price for such a short-sightedness by walking more than necessary.

The only real place that springs to mind where this is a big problem is the bank Bank/Monument interchange between 5 lines... but then the station is so big and complex it has 2 names. More lines interchanging = more complex particularly when you have a mix of deep level tubes, sub surface lines and light rail.

What you say about competing rail companies is however very true. Again this only happens in a few places e.g. Tott Court Road - even then it's not so bad (but expect it to get worse when they build Crossrail!)

[iampuking]

Originally Posted by Dan1113

Charion's Cross comes to mind. Seemed like it was shorter to walk to the next station where the other line was then transferring there.

Charing Cross and the interchange between the Central and W&C lines and the Circle and District lines are the only Central London interchanges which I think are long. The rest are fine.

Originally Posted by Dan1113

Well, maybe it was just because of the problems on the district line a few days ago (I was there over the weekend), but there were pretty much no trains going to High Street Kensington from Earl's Court whereas there were plenty of other District lines going elsewhere... and to make things all the more confusing, the trains weren't really running from the platforms they were supposed to, so the one train that did go to HSK I missed. At least at Earl's Court, I found the signage about which trains leave from where to be pretty confusing.

Earl's Court is one of the few confusing stations on LU, it is because of the junction layout, trains are only routed into a platform at last minute, therefore it is impossible for passengers to know which train will go where. You have to look at the old-fashioned train indicators. Tubeman will probably know more about this...

Originally Posted by Dan1113

Well my main experience at least is from the Stockholm metro. Open till 1 am, open till 3.30 am on weekends. Starting this summer it'll be going 24/7 on weekends -- which is the total opposite than the London one, which seems to go worse on weekends. I find this odd given the number of people who party on weekends and thus need a way to get home. I find it especially odd that I am able to get back home using the a commuter train line here later than one is able to take the tube home (my last train on weekdays is at 12.50, 1.20 on weekends with an extra departure to be added this summer). Given that Stockholm is very small compared to the London metro (and thus the amount of people that need to get around late at night), it just seemed really shocking to me. It limited how late I (and my friend from London) were able to stay out.

Stockholm is unusual then, some American and German cities are similar, but I can't think of any others. Plus, as has already been said, London's Night Bus system is more than sufficient.

Originally Posted by Dan1113

Touché. Doesn't seem to be improving too much though. New trains wouldn't hurt either...even the new trains that have been purchased seem a little ghetto, to be honest, but this is more of a personal opinion.

What's wrong with the current trains? Some date back from the sixties, sure, but they're well maintained and have been refurbished. Often the old trains work better than the new ones! And new trains have been purchased, what is so "ghetto" about them?

Originally Posted by Dan1113

Sure. IMO I find it a huge shame though, and I wish every metro fixed this. Here in Stockholm the whole system should be fully accessible by 2010 -- thankfully already now virtually all stations have both elevators and escalators, and the steps to the trains are pretty small. The same goes for the commuter trains.

Many stations are being upgraded to have step-free access. See here. I'm guessing that when Crossrail comes, which will have wheel-chair access, the Crossrail stations that have interchanges with LU will include step-free access from the LU stations too.

Originally Posted by Dan1113

None, but it seemed strange nonetheless. It would be a bit useless to me to have a metro station near where I live but one that I can only use on weekdays, or only during rush hours, etc.

It's a Victorian legacy, many old lines took over branches of existing overground railways, often built for much lower patronage. More recent lines have more passengers per station, for example the station with the lowest usage on the Victoria line is Blackhorse Road with over 5.312 million passengers per year..

[DarJoLe]

Stockholm's system is not all that. Yeah, nice new trains (similar to what we're getting on the subsurface lines in 2009) but the stations are still quite 1970s and not very bright.

[U Thant]

Originally Posted by Dan1113

Charion's Cross comes to mind. Seemed like it was shorter to walk to the next station where the other line was then transferring there.

Charing Cross was originally two separate stations (Trafalgar Square and Strand). They build a Jubilee Line station between them and provided connections at either end to each station, turning it into one complex. More recently, the Jubilee Line was extended on a new route and the platforms at Charing Cross closed, leaving the original two stations connected by a very long tunnel.

The lines run parallel for two more stops, so you can do the same interchange at Embankment or Waterloo. Can't remember which is easiest.

[U Thant]

Originally Posted by Dan1113

None, but it seemed strange nonetheless. It would be a bit useless to me to have a metro station near where I live but one that I can only use on weekdays, or only during rush hours, etc.

There aren't any that I can think of that have significantly shorter hours. There are several direct services that are limited hours, but only in places where there's an equivalent available

eg The District and Piccadilly run parallel for a stretch, with the Piccadilly as an express service. A few Piccadilly trains call at Turnham Green, but otherwise you have to get the District a couple of stops and change.

Similarly west of Rayner's Lane, the Piccadilly and Metropolitan Lines join up and run on the same tracks to Uxbridge. A lot of the time all Piccadilly Line trains terminate at Rayner's Lane, so you have to get off and wait for a Met.

There are also a couple that have special arrangements to deal with overcrowding.

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by U Thant

Charing Cross was originally two separate stations (Trafalgar Square and Strand). They build a Jubilee Line station between them and provided connections at either end to each station, turning it into one complex. More recently, the Jubilee Line was extended on a new route and the platforms at Charing Cross closed, leaving the original two stations connected by a very long tunnel.

The lines run parallel for two more stops, so you can do the same interchange at Embankment or Waterloo. Can't remember which is easiest.

I wonder if there's any prospect of re-using the Charing Cross Jubilee line platforms for another scheme in the future.

[sweek]

Originally Posted by Andrew

I wonder if there's any prospect of re-using the Charing Cross Jubilee line platforms for another scheme in the future.

Rumour has it the DLR might be extended there.

[sarflonlad]

Originally Posted by Andrew

I wonder if there's any prospect of re-using the Charing Cross Jubilee line platforms for another scheme in the future.

I think the still use it as a sidings.

Often this is the station they use for TV ads, films etc. It looks up to date and modern and obviously is still very functional.

[iampuking]

Heathrow T5 tube station video, shows the old stations first, a bit of the station and a bit of the terminal, with an some annoying voice overs thrown in for good measure.