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 12th, 2010, 03:40 PM   #1561
Minato ku
Moderator
 
Minato ku's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Paris, Montrouge
Posts: 16,757

Please Axelferis, could you stop it.
It annoys many people, including me. I wouldn't like to see someone in Paris metro thread almost writting that this network is shitty and without any good argument.
What prevents anyone to do this if a French forumer do the same on the London underground topic ? Nothing.

On theory it is true, London tube trains are larger than any Paris metro rolling stock.
The MF01 is not larger than a MF67.
It is maybe due at the design of the Tube train that Paris metro look spacier.
__________________
すみません !
J’aime Paris et je veux des tours !
Minato ku no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old November 12th, 2010, 03:42 PM   #1562
Teach
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 362
Likes (Received): 19

Quote:
Have you used one time in your life line 14?
Yes I have. It was nice. A bit like the JLE.

Quote:
Wider cars in london? False because compare the material used aka MF01 is larger, wider spacier i'm going to bRing specs later.
Don't bother, I've already found them:
MF01: 2.40 m wide, just like the MF67. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/MF_2000
1995 Tube Stock: 2.63 m wide, 23 cm more than MF01. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_...und_1995_Stock
2009 Tube Stock: 2.68 m wide, 28 cm more than MF01. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_...und_2009_Stock
S-Stock: 2.92 m wide, 52 cm (!) more than MF01. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_S_Stock

Once again: WHAT makes Line 14 better? You still haven't given an answer to that question. It's not the wider cars, because they're actually narrower, as I've shown once again. So what is it then?
Teach no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2010, 04:54 PM   #1563
Axelferis
Registered User
 
Axelferis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: A space between two worlds
Posts: 11,296
Likes (Received): 2253

Minato-> it's a just a discussion. I give my opinion on what is good and bad in LU.have you quote my sentences on positive points in london tube? No you mention only the negative ones. Irrelevant

Wider does't mean spacier because tube cars are incurved and it is. Hard to stand without knock your head in tube. It's not possible that tube cars are higher than parisian or barcelona ones. It's obvious!!!! I didn't dreamed. The tube gives the feeling to be In narrow cars.i'm not the only one thinking that. It will be more relevant to give specs of the real used inner space in a car. Do you have them? It's not a trolling attitude from me i love paris and london. But i love metro of the world and i need to be impartial and objective
__________________
W.A.O blog

Last edited by Axelferis; November 12th, 2010 at 05:00 PM.
Axelferis no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2010, 05:22 PM   #1564
Teach
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 362
Likes (Received): 19

Quote:
It's not possible that tube cars are higher than parisian or barcelona ones.
Nobody ever said they were. In fact, I said they were lower in my very first response. I said (and proved) they were wider, and have a higher capacity, contrary to your claims. Twice. And you still haven't said what makes the Line 14 better. I'm starting to get tired of this. It's time for you to either put up or shut up.
Teach no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2010, 05:49 PM   #1565
Axelferis
Registered User
 
Axelferis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: A space between two worlds
Posts: 11,296
Likes (Received): 2253

Please wait i'm at work. Soon be back home to deliver all facts you need.
__________________
W.A.O blog
Axelferis no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2010, 06:39 PM   #1566
coth
pride leader
 
coth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Moscow
Posts: 21,679
Likes (Received): 6998

Quote:
Originally Posted by Teach View Post
Why not?



Why?



Seriously, are you blind? Let me repeat for you:

Paris: 560 - 720 passengers per train
London: Up to 1448 passengers per train

Paris: cars 2.40m wide
London: cars 2.63m wide

In terms of reliability, capacity and intensity of service Moscow beats both of you. So your dispute is pointless
__________________
coth no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2010, 08:50 PM   #1567
PortoNuts
Registered User
 
PortoNuts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Porto
Posts: 24,098
Likes (Received): 7519

Quote:
Originally Posted by coth View Post
In terms of reliability, capacity and intensity of service Moscow beats both of you. So your dispute is pointless
If it wasn't for Moscow people wouldn't even know what's an underground railway system right?

I know a system that I find much better than Moscow's and no, it's not London nor Paris.
__________________
Got one head for money and one head for sin..
PortoNuts no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2010, 09:37 PM   #1568
Axelferis
Registered User
 
Axelferis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: A space between two worlds
Posts: 11,296
Likes (Received): 2253

Well i'm back!

1/Preliminary i want to clarify my intention: i'm not here to flood , troll or start metro wars! i'm impartial and objective ! i'm going to show several pics of another existing engines to shed the lights on this debate-> London cars engine don't suit to the beauty of LU stations (jubilee line essentially) I repeat it because some people here think i'm against london but it is false i LOVE London and just look the pics i took during my last visit two weeks ago

What i want to stress on is that the cars used in london are imo "outdated" when it compares to international new standards. i don't understand why london has not an equipment of the 21st century like paris , barcelona, shangai despite london is upgrading its underground network?!! I love the stations, logo, cleanliness, security wich are superior than Paris for example It already looks like a bit old

But when it comes to equipment it is a deception because even they are wider, the car don't give the same level of comfort than paris or barcelona!

Loo paris Mp 05 automatic voitures in paris outside and inner, the beauty of the cars suits the beautiful stations:


















My girlfriend said that didn't understand why a so big city like london has so small cars? But you said me it's larger but we don't have this feeling just because it is incurved and we have to down our head ->





2/ You 'll answer me that Meteor is a new line ok, but look MF2000 cars produced by Bombardier which statrt to run on regular line they look like spacier than narrow londonians counterparts no?:







It's true that london has more cars this why the number of passengers transported is bigger but in fact in a car i'm not sure London has more potential.

specs:

mf2000 caracteristiques

Train length: 75.75m
-Number of passengers (at peak times): 784
-Top speed: 70km/h
-Total width: 2.40 m
-Height above track: 3.444 m


And let me show you videos of what i called a 21st metro car:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsUK5M-kGgk

3/ But we talk about Paris ?! look for example new barcelona cars on automatic line wich looks like more futuristic:




Then don't be offended my forumers friends, it's not a war "my metro vs your metro"

I want just to give my opinion of i think a metro 21st should be and london equipment doesn't match this standards! And i don't understand because london is ahead of its competitors when you look urbanistic changes with several best projects like shard tower, o2 arena, wembley, Gherkin tower, Docklands in general.

Trust me i love london and i want they have a better equipment.
__________________
W.A.O blog

Last edited by Axelferis; November 12th, 2010 at 09:57 PM.
Axelferis no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2010, 10:00 PM   #1569
deasine
=)
 
deasine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,452
Likes (Received): 57

Axelferis, whether you love or hate the Underground, you still shouldn't be comparing two completely different metro networks together. While you don't intend to troll, by definition, your posts can be considered as trolling. Your posts have sparked the beginning of a war that shouldn't have started, whether or not you intend to do so. Minato Ku has already brought this up.

At the end of the day, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. You can bring up your opinion onto the discussion table, but there's a point where we should stop and let go. Even then, there's an art to debating that won't start flaming discussion wars. I feel we've crossed the line already; this will be the last post of the the Paris and London network debate.

And for the record, improvements to a metro network don't just happen over night. It's taken years for Paris to develop its network to the state it is in today, and likewise, it will be taking some time for London's transportation network to improve. London has been investing in many improvements such as Crossrail, new vehicles, etc.
deasine no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2010, 10:07 PM   #1570
Teach
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 362
Likes (Received): 19

Quote:
I want just to give my opinion of i think a metro 21st should be and london equipment doesn't match this standards!
Just exactly what 'standards' is it Tube cars don't match? The only thing you've pointed at, and keep pointing at, is the height of the Tube cars, and that's something that's never going to change (I mean, you DO know WHY they are that low, I hope?). Yes, Parisian trains are higher, but other than that, I don't see what makes them 'roomier'. On the contrary, the odd seating configuration on the Paris trains takes up a lot of unneccessary space, needlessly limiting their capacity.

Quote:
MF2000 cars produced by Bombardier which statrt to run on regular line they look like spacier than narrow londonians counterparts no?:
There you are with those 'narrow' London cars again: for the third time: the Parisian ones are narrower than those in London. And no, other than the height, I'm willing to bet the Parisian cars can take considerably fewer passengers than London Tube cars. And I'm talking per car, not per train.

Still haven't seen any objective facts as to why Line 14 is 'the best in the world' BTW.
Teach no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2010, 10:12 PM   #1571
deasine
=)
 
deasine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,452
Likes (Received): 57

^When I mean last post, I really mean last post with regards to the London vs. Paris debate.
deasine no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2010, 10:43 PM   #1572
Teach
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 362
Likes (Received): 19

Sorry, I was already writing my post when you made yours, so didn't see it.
Teach no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2010, 12:48 AM   #1573
geoking66
Registered User
 
geoking66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: London, New York
Posts: 3,269
Likes (Received): 7328

The 92, 95, 96, 09, and S stock are up to modern standards, unlike much of Paris' fleet. In all honestly, as much as Londoners complain about the Tube, it's one of the best systems in the world in terms of efficiency, throughput, and technology, even more incredible considering its age. Yes, it's got its problems, but every metro system in the world does. So instead of needlessly saying that some Tube trains are too small when they will never get bigger, it's more important to focus on upgrading old technology, Crossrail, and further integration with the National Rail network.
__________________
If I don't credit a photo, I took it.
geoking66 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2010, 02:07 AM   #1574
Axelferis
Registered User
 
Axelferis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: A space between two worlds
Posts: 11,296
Likes (Received): 2253

Could you explain the crossrail projects? it is a suburb train like we have RER in paris?

And please explain what is the s stock and others engines?

How are they classified? Which is the best and why? I don't know very well all details for LU

thank you
__________________
W.A.O blog
Axelferis no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2010, 04:57 AM   #1575
Pansori
planquadrat
 
Pansori's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: London - Vilnius
Posts: 9,973
Likes (Received): 6911

Quote:
Originally Posted by PortoNuts View Post
If it wasn't for Moscow people wouldn't even know what's an underground railway system right?

I know a system that I find much better than Moscow's and no, it's not London nor Paris.
It's Singapore! Then again, it's probably better than any other system in the world anyway.
Pansori no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2010, 06:28 AM   #1576
iampuking
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,414
Likes (Received): 43

Quote:
Originally Posted by PortoNuts View Post
If it wasn't for Moscow people wouldn't even know what's an underground railway system right?
I hope this is sarcasm... Everyone knows that LU is the first ever metro. Moscow is nearly half it's age. In fact, it would be pathetic if Moscow wasn't better than LU, considering it learnt all of LU's mistakes before the first tunnel was bored.
iampuking no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2010, 06:43 AM   #1577
iampuking
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,414
Likes (Received): 43

Quote:
Originally Posted by Axelferis View Post
Could you explain the crossrail projects? it is a suburb train like we have RER in paris?

And please explain what is the s stock and others engines?

How are they classified? Which is the best and why? I don't know very well all details for LU

thank you
1992 Stock (Central line)

image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


1995 Stock (Northern line)

image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


1996 Stock (Jubilee line)

image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


2009 Stock (Victoria line)

image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


S Stock (Metropolitan line)

image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


Ok so now we've established this:

1) LU has more capacious trains than the Paris Metro (wider and longer).
2) LU has just as many modern trains as the Paris Metro.
3) LU has just as modern stations as the Paris Metro.

What is your argument exactly? The deep level Tube lines are cramped? Well, this only applies to people who are at the edge by the doors, and is never going to change so isn't worth complaining about.
iampuking no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2010, 10:50 AM   #1578
Axelferis
Registered User
 
Axelferis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: A space between two worlds
Posts: 11,296
Likes (Received): 2253

if no worth complaining then we can say LU is everytime outdated no?
from a foreigner view i'm sorry but it is disappointing because Lu in peaks schedules is just exasperating!

Thank you for informations i didn't notice all those details! On central line i used those narrow cars! But when i look last ones on victoria i feel they are more spacier and modern than central ones! Am i wrong?

And they are not the same larger! Tell me which is the more larger and which is the less.

And on point 3/ you report, sorry but i've never critized the stations! You don't understand! I criticized cars!

in All your engines you have this single door at the end of car when it opens it's just ridiculous comparing with all passengers who want to get on the engine! I don't understand why Lu still produce cars with this single narrow door that is not enough for the traffic passenger
__________________
W.A.O blog

Last edited by Axelferis; November 13th, 2010 at 10:59 AM.
Axelferis no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2010, 11:54 AM   #1579
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3271

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dobbo View Post
I agree, but for an expansion/spur to take advantage of the extra capacity possibility on the Charing Cross Branch, the various junctions at Camden Town need to be sorted out so that CHX trains always go to Edgeware and Bank trains go to High Barnet/Mill Hill East.
Nothing needs to be done to the junctions; Edgware - Charing Cross and High Barnet - Bank can be segregated with the existing layout... Every movement is grade separated. In fact, it involves decommissioning points and tunnels, not building anything new, to remove the current Edgware - Bank and High Barnet - Charing Cross paths (this would be foolhardy however).

The issue at Camden is the expected large rise in customers moving between the two 'arms' of the station (the Edgware side and the High Barnet side), because whereas before a customer at Archway (for example) would likely let a Bank train go to wait for their desired Charing Cross train, now they'd have to catch the Bank train (because there'd be none other) and change at Camden, so there'd be a huge increase in southbound passengers having to change there through limited capacity cross-passages.

On the plus side, southbound passengers entering Camden Town station will know which southbound platform is which, because ex-Edgware = Charing Cross, and ex-Barnet = Bank so there won't be the current dashing between platforms witnessed.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2010, 04:11 PM   #1580
PortoNuts
Registered User
 
PortoNuts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Porto
Posts: 24,098
Likes (Received): 7519

Quote:
Originally Posted by iampuking View Post
I hope this is sarcasm... Everyone knows that LU is the first ever metro. Moscow is nearly half it's age. In fact, it would be pathetic if Moscow wasn't better than LU, considering it learnt all of LU's mistakes before the first tunnel was bored.
Of course it's sarcasm!

@Pansori: Perhaps it's Singapore in the world but I don't know nothing about it, I can't have an opinion. I was talking about Europe though.
__________________
Got one head for money and one head for sin..
PortoNuts 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 05:05 PM.


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