Re: Re: Worse than CityRail

["David Bennetts" <davibenn@ozemail.com.au>]

"David Johnson" <trainman@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
fd3dhtcfqp24ut28qus67shokvpoo5nhuk@4ax.com">news:fd3dhtcfqp24ut28qus67shokvpoo5nhuk@4ax.com...
> On 31 May 2001 07:45:11 -0700, bscaro@yahoo.com (Ben Scaro) wrote:
>
>
> >Yeah, the Tube has its problems.  But worse than Cityrail ?  No way.
> >
> >On my local line, the Victoria line, trains arrive on average every 3
> >minutes.  And that's typical of most of London, with the notable
> >exception of the East London line which admittedly is pretty
> >infrequent.  The only stations on Cityrail with that sort of frequency
> >are the City Loop and Redfern.
>
> Think about what you are comparing here.   You are comparing the tube
> to CityRail.  The Tube is basically a subway service from what I can
> make out, so you should compare our City Circle or Bondi Junction
> Lines to it.  On these lines, there are very frequent services
>
>
> David Johnson
> trainman@ozemail.com.au
> http://www.ozemail.com.au/~trainman/
> ------------------------------------
> These comments are made in a private
> capacity and do not represent the
> official view of State Rail.
> C.O.W.S. Page 11.

You're pretty close to the mark David.  In brief, London Underground
services mainly consist of two types of train (Docklands is a bit different
with a fair amount of elevated track) - there are the "sub-surface" lines
with conventional size rolling stock, this runs in the open out in the
suburban areas, but under the city is in "cut and cover", with a lot of air
spaces in between, this let the smoke out in the old steam days.  I didn't
say steam, because the locos employed condensing equipment which accounted
for most of the steam.  The Tube (many people use this term erroneously to
describe the whole of the Underground) itself is of deep construction under
the city area, but it also runs on the surface in suburban areas.
It's very difficult to compare it with CityRail, in an area the size of
Sydney you have over twice the population.

The tube isn't very extensive on the south side of the River Thames, most
services in the southern suburbs are operated on the surface, used to be BR
services, now Connex (yuk).

During my visits to London in the eighties and early nineties,  I found the
Underground to be crowded and very unreliable.  A lot of stations were in
pieces, trains were spasmodic in their operation, fares were (and still are)
probably the most expensive in the world.  There were frequent breakdowns of
escalators, etc.  Trains would often stop in between stations and sit for up
to five minutes at a time, then slowly move off again.

Even now, while trains on the Victoria line might run every three minutes,
they certainly don't across the system. There's currently a lot of
industrial unrest on the system, and safety is the issue rather than pay
rates.  The infrastructure is very ancient for the most part and it appears
to have been patched up piecemeal.  There have been some good reactions to
crises on the system, the Kings Cross escalator fire showed up so many
shortcomings.

regards

David Bennetts