Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2017 August 29

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 29

Why are train systems in large old cities like London and New York so complicated?

It's true that services from both Waterloo and Victoria funnel into Clapham Junction, which is the gateway to the south and the south west, but as I understand it services from the south east which do not terminate at London Bridge or Cannon Street stop at Waterloo (East) before reaching Charing Cross. Also, some Victoria services don't go anywhere near Clapham Junction and serve the south east. Indeed, I once made the mistake of boarding a train at London Bridge for Victoria only to find it took a circuitous route and didn't get there for over an hour. (The same journey can be done in the reverse direction). Passengers from Southend have a choice of two commuter routes, one into Fenchurch Street and one into Liverpool Street. Some trains on the Fenchurch Street line run into Liverpool Street. Passengers for Cambridge can travel from either King's Cross or Liverpool Street, for Oxford from Marylebone or Paddington, and for Reading from either Paddington or Waterloo. Do the train services of other countries' capital cities display this flexibility? Our article Clapham Junction says it is the busiest station in Europe. Are there others elsewhere which are busier, and if so, which are they? 92.8.219.206 (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're header asks about New York, but your question lists places in London. I'm not sure I follow. To answer in general, transport systems are generally a bit heirarchical: There are commuter rail systems that serve to get people mainly from the suburbs and exurbs to the central city, then there are public transportation options in the central city, like bus and subway and light rail which are designed to get around the central city. So you really have to consider what the purpose is: Are commuters trying to get from the outside of the city in to the city? Or are the commuters trying to get from one part of the city to another? Different purposes require different systems. Commuter rail can be diurnal: You basically need to deal with two rush hours, mostly everyone coming in in the morning, and everyone going out in the evening. Once in the city, there's much less directionality and timing, as people are going from anywhere to anywhere, so bus and subway routes will often keep regular schedules throughout the day. You don't want the same trains getting people into the city ALSO being used to move people around the city, because those are two different purposes. For example, a train from Brentwood, Essex into Liverpool Street station is basically running everyone in during the morning, and running everyone home again in the evening. That's a very different schedule than trying to get people between any two stations in central London, which are basically running everyone in all directions at all times. To keep the system efficient, you need two systems (in this case TfL Rail and the London Underground). TfL rail becomes inefficient if it also has to run people back and forth between local stops in London, and the Underground would not work well if they had to take time to run people all the way out to Brentwood every morning and evening. Of course, real systems are a bit messier, but in general, efficient public transportation doesn't run everything to all locations at all times. You need to understand who is traveling where and at what times and then design a system that gets them where they need to go efficiently. --Jayron32 19:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• I would like to add that are a lot of railway networks that do combine the two roles of linking suburbs to the city and connecting points within the city. There's not really a good English term for them, but transport nerds often use the German term and call them S-Bahns. Merseyrail is possibly the most extreme example of a "do everything" railway in an English-speaking country - it runs far out into the towns around Liverpool, but also forms a dense underground network in central Liverpool and Birkenhead. In terms of timetabling, a big spidery network can actually be quite efficient: the Merseyrail Wirral line for instance has four branches, which means that to get a train every 5 minutes around the central loop, each branch only needs a service every 20 minutes or so. Similarly, the Rhine-Main S-Bahn has 8 lines sharing the tunnels through central Frankfurt, with a train every 2-3 minutes - but each one takes a different branch once outside the city, and those only need a quarter-hourly or half-hourly service. Smurrayinchester 08:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Have you forgotten already that you (and others) answered the header question about New York a few days ago? It's now been archived, see [1]. For some reason best known to himself, the OP of the London question (who was one of the respondents to the New York question) has reused the New York heading for the London question, instead of making a new heading. --Viennese Waltz 07:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

You also need to remember that the British railway network was built by private, commercial companies who were in competition with each other for passenger and freight traffic. The current network has been simplified, but there are still quite a few duplicate routes which originate with that competition. It would have been even worse if each company had not needed an Act of Parliament to allow them to build a line. Wymspen (talk) 20:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Response to both above and below: New York and other American cities are not so different in that regard: The systems in many American cities were originally built by private companies, and only rationalized and made to work together when they became public companies and consolidated into a single system. New York has 3 separate commuter rail systems (Long Island Rail Road, NJ Transit Rail Operations, and the Metro-North Railroad, which itself consolidated about a half-dozen other rail systems) which use two different central hubs (Grand Central Terminal and Penn Station), while the New York Subway as it exists today is also three separate systems (the Brooklyn Rapid Transit Company, Interborough Rapid Transit Company, and Independent Subway System) which have been married into one system. You'll find that in most cities around the world with extensive public rail networks, it is only systems which started after about the middle 20th century (like the Washington Metro) which were centrally planned as a single public project from the beginning. --Jayron32 12:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• Our article on London station group explains why London's arrangement is somewhat unique - the railway companies weren't able to built right into the centre, or to create a cross-city network. That's why there are so many different terminals. Most other countries don't have this "flexibility" because they don't need it. For instance, Berlin Hauptbahnhof takes virtually all intercity trains - the station is shaped like a giant cross in the centre of the city, with both north-south and east-west lines. Smurrayinchester 08:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I assume that "busiest" in connection with Clapham Junction refers to the number of trains stopping at the station. Shinjuku station in Tokyo would be the busiest station in the world, at least in terms of passengers using the station. Gare du Nord in Paris is also referred to as the busiest in Europe, but again that would be in terms of passengers: Gare du Nord is a true terminus station, so every passenger has to get off or on a train there, whereas at Clapham Junction, a through station, many passenger would just remain on the train they're on. --Wrongfilter (talk) 07:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

In addition to what Wymspen said, List of early British railway companies gives an impression of the sheer number of railway companies who competed in building the British railway network. --Wrongfilter (talk) 08:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Railways are a British invention. After nationalisation there was British Railways and London Transport. After de - nationalisation Transport for London began taking over routes from the railway companies. The development of the railway was the responsibility of Network Rail. With the resurgence in rail travel the stakeholders looked at ways of making it more efficient. This is why although most of the routes acquired by TfL were consolidated into London Overground TfL Rail is operated independently prior to its rebranding as the Elizabeth Line. Those commuters from Brentford didn't see why they had to de - train at Liverpool Street and look for alternative means of continuing their journey. The Elizabeth Line is a response to public demand. The commuters love the Elizabeth Line trains. Their only grouse is that there are no lavatories on them - TfL expect them to get off, use the platform facilities on the station and catch a later train.

The radial bias of the railway system means that sometimes people are forced to travel into London, cross it and then travel out again to where they want to go. When there was a direct link from Oxford to Cambridge it was quicker to do this than take the direct train. Beeching cuts meant that cross - country freight had to be diverted hundreds of miles to travel through London because there was no other route. Cross - country services have since been improved. From the very beginnings of the system railway companies have seen the benefits of cross - London railways and have built accordingly. This is why there is a railway which runs from Richmond in the south west to Willesden in the north west and Stratford in the east. With one change passengers can get to Tottenham in the north, Walthamstow in the north east and Barking in the east. A circular route has been constructed linking Clapham Junction in the south west with Dalston in the north, Whitechapel in the east and Brixton in the south. To be quite honest, without these railways, given the state of the roads, suburban travel would grind to a standstill. Of course tube (subway) services have a part to play but they are incredibly slow compared to standard rail services. 92.8.219.206 (talk) 15:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

You ask about other capital cities. In many countries different railway companies built railways to their own terminus station in the capital. They could rarely agree on using a shared station even when approaching the city from the same direction, building a line right through the city was very expensive (often had to be underground or elevated) and lines to the capital were expected to be very profitable, so many were built. This even happened in countries were construction of railways was dominated by the government, as private construction was allowed. Later on, as governments took a more active role (somewhere between 1860 and 1960), these terminus stations could be connected. Brussels built an underground north-south link, Amsterdam an elevated east-west link and Berlin both, allowing all trains to reach the same central station. Amsterdam (well, the national government) later added bypasses (passengers only) along the south and west, serving the new business district in the south and providing access to the airport, so nowadays trains to Amsterdam serve either Central station or South station (or Sloterdijk station, for local trains from the north taking the west bypass to the airport).

Why is London different? Although not too different from Paris. When the first railways were constructed, London was already a large city. There were more terminus stations than in other capitals and farther away from each other, making it harder to connect them all together via cross-city links via a new central station – I think. With Thameslink and the Elizabeth Line, Farringdon gets a similar position in the network as Berlin Hbf in Berlin, but I doubt all intercity trains will go there. PiusImpavidus (talk) 19:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

In fact, London was the largest city in the world from 1825 to 1914 according to List of largest cities throughout history. It is still by far the largest in Western Europe, only Istanbul and Moscow are larger (List of European cities by population within city limits). Alansplodge (talk) 12:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

And at the time of the American Revolution, Philadelphia was the world's second largest city. That doesn't affect the fact that this thread was created by the banned User:Vote (X) for Change. μηδείς (talk) 00:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Philadelphia wasn't that big Paris in the 18th century

"At the time of the nation’s independence the total population in the U.S. was 2.5 million. Philadelphia was the largest city with 40,000 residents". [2]

In 1750: Amsterdam 229,000, Beijing 900,000, Berlin 90,000, Copenhagen 80,000, Istanbul 625,000, Kyoto 526,000, Naples 310,000, Osaka 400,000, Seoul 187,000 etc etc (see Historical urban community sizes). Alansplodge (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)