Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford
Also, they aren't that similar. NY subway has far higher ridership, much more extensive rolling stock, far more employees, etc. I don't think they've had comparable ridership in at least a century. The tube covers a much larger geography, and is much more spaced out, reaching deep into the suburbs, almost like an S-Bahn. The NY subway runs through much denser geography, with closely spaced stations, usually express/local.
|
A few points.
- Ridership on the Subway is currently higher, but has been declining for several years, whilst that for the Underground has been growing most years. Consider the diverging population and investment trajectories of both cities and it isn’t inconceivable that there will be a convergence point in terms of ridership.
- The Subway has 49% more carriages than the Underground but the rolling stock in London is better maintained, more modern and better utilised through the application of digital signalling.
- 50,129 people work on the Subway compared to 20,903 on the Underground, which is a considerable difference. Even if you subtract the 3,155 train conductors, you’d still have double the headcount. Perhaps the difference id down to London having more automated modern processes and padding from unions in New York?
- There are two sections that run quite far afield, the Metropolitan out to Chesham and the Central out to Epping, but these are the exception. The bulk of the network is concentrated in north London.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMKeynes
That article is ridiculous. London's system is better because it charges way more. NY needs to charge way more, but radical socialists in NYC oppose that. As a result, the system suffers.
If NY ever charged the appropriate amount and fixed the system, it would be way better than London's due to the express trains, which London lacks.
|
It certainly does cost more and having the zone-fare model makes the system equitable in terms of longer journeys, akin to the system used on the LIRR.
London doesn’t have distinct local/express setups like New York, but there are numerous sections where the Tube and other National Rail lines run parallel (e.g. Chiltern Railways and Metropolitan Line, District Line and c2c, South Western Railways inner and outer commuters, etc…) and offer a similar local/express service. Stations in London are also further apart which enables faster running speeds. The rolling stock also typically has faster acceleration and deceleration, and the introduction of digital signalling enables headways of 100 seconds which is not found in New York.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
It's much easier to maintain a system that isn't 24 hours.
|
There is currently 24hr service (Fri, Sat + Sun) on 5 Underground and 1 Overground lines. The ambition is to expand this to other Underground lines, the DLR and Crossrail, and other nights of the week, with Thursday likely next.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quixote
I’d be curious to see how LIRR/Metro-North/NJ Transit compare to London’s sprawling, bread-and-butter commuter rail network of 1,000+ stations.
|
There are close to 20 train operating companies running out of London, but unlike North American operators there is more a blur in their operation. There isn’t a solitary intercity rail operator like Amtrak, and some operators serve other urban and rural areas as well as London (e.g. West Midlands Railway), so only the most London focused operators are included.
The largest is by a considerable margin is Govia Thameslink Railway which runs metro-like services in south London (where the Tube doesn’t operate) and inner and outer commuter services to the north and south of London.