Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by hobbsyoyo, Dec 4, 2019.
There is, as usual, more to the story.
Chicago's is quite good, particularly the buses, notwithstanding the general (severely awful) problems with the constructed environment generally, namely, 1) the maleffects of the slum clearances and interstate highway construction, and 2) the historically, juridically imposed segregation. But those are problems literally every city in the US experiences. So, kinda moot - not good to acknowledge, but relatively moot.
It's certainly a helluvalot better than the Bay Area's transit structures (BART/Muni/VTA/Caltrain)
Union stations were called that because it was an amalgamation of the stations of multiple railways, back in the days when private railways ran passenger trains. For example, the St Paul Union Station handled trains for Great Northern, Northern Pacific, Soo Line, Milwaukee Road, Burlington Route, and some other smaller lines. The name Union Station has nothing to do with Union Pacific as the UP didn’t run trains to St Paul in those days.
In Chicago, I think Union Pacific used Dearborn Station, but I could be wrong.
I agree that it's racist, in the sense that virtually every US infrastructure project is racist. But I'm not sure it's more racist than say, New York or DC, as far as neglecting certain areas for racial reasons.
The UP uses the Ogilvie transportation center North of Union station now. It was different in the old days.
I work in the Union station complex, which makes a horrible commute not quite as bad.
Let's be honest, that's 75% of the reason transportation advocates love trains so much.
I stand corrected regarding how the word Union has been used regarding RR stations.
Stations named after and owned particular RR companies did have stations under their own name (ie B&O station). Union Pacific RR built many stations for use by trains on their routes, and those were typically call UP RR Depot/Yard/ station/Complex.
Oddly I never really had any fascination with trains as a kid but have really come to dig them as an adult.
Locomotives in front of modern passenger trains are quite rare. Even more so for metros.
Moscow is quite excellent, and a lot of other east European cities have limited but effective metro systems (e.g. Minsk - there are only two intersecting lines but they do the job well).
I also quite like the efficiency and co-ordination of the Munich U-Bahn. Most days I had to switch from one line to another, and the system was set up such that the two trains would arrive on adjacent platforms simultaneously and you'd just swap over. This happens in Sydney as well (though almost all of Sydney's rail network is an S-Bahn equivalent), but the timing isn't nearly as precise.
Tokyo manages to pull off the remarkable combination of being exceedingly busy and easy to use. My memory of Seoul is that it only managed the former.
London is excellent and for the most part fun to use, but looking at it objectively it would be horrendous if you were very unfamiliar with it and didn't have a strong grasp of English. The ticketing and labyrinthine stations are not easy to comprehend (e.g. the stations where you can either wait for a lift or take the fire stairs, or the Bank/Monument interchange). The carriages also also extremely small and cramped, and very much not designed for summer (with the exception of some of the newer, air-conditioned carriages).
I read that the London tube system is suffering from thermal soakback from the ground. The machines and people put underground by the tube system have been dumping heat into the ground for decades. It has now warmed up enough to have reached thermal equilibrium which has the net effect of turning the tubes into an oven. A/C cars will make the problem worse overall if they don't coordinate a system-wide response.
The entire underground (cars and tunnels) were quite warm during a cold rainy week in October.
Most of the time this works quite well. But during rush-hour, the system is at its limits and only one malfunction away from total chaos.
Yes, though that is less of an explanation for a) the portions of the Tube which are above ground, and b) the much newer lines.
I'm assuming it's a bigger problem in the US, but when I lived in Munich the heat was actually most noticeable on cold winter days, when you'd be entering the oven in layers. The Munich stations are relatively cavernous and not that old, so I'm not sure what the source of problem was (maybe actual heating systems?).
I don't think the problem is historic heat, because once you reach equilibrium historic heat doesn't matter any more - and I don't think that takes decades. Instead, the more heat is dissipated by the system (because of more trains and people), the higher the equilibrium temperature will rise.
In Munich, the stations and tunnels themselves do not have heating system (probably except for the shops in there), but the trains do - and those will heat the tunnels. But nothing is as brutal as a trains that has been standing in the sun for hours and has been recently put into service.
Frankfurt/Offenbach is literally perfect. On the other hand, I have never, ever, ever had the NY subway described in pleasant terms, so I heavily doubt the "consensus" presented in the opening post
it also helps to be an egotist without a conscience.
The heat in the tunnels is largely generated by the trains, with a small amount coming from station equipment and passengers. Around 79% is absorbed by the tunnels walls, 10% is removed by ventilation and the other 11% remains in the tunnels.
Temperatures on the Underground have slowly increased as the clay around the tunnels has warmed up; in the early days of the Underground it was advertised as a place to keep cool on hot days. However, over time the temperature has slowly risen as the heat sink formed by the clay has filled up. When the tunnels were built the clay temperature was around 14ºC; this has now risen to 19–26ºC and air temperatures in the tunnels now reach as high as 30ºC.
Edit: I guess if this doesn't quite answer if it is 'historic heat' as the cause of the higher temperatures. If the tube stopped running, would it cool off in a couple of days or years?
Sounds plausible enough to me
You can easily make some rough calculations.
Heat transfer through the earth goes rather slow. Do mind that the core of the earth is still high temperature fluid from the collissions of 5 billion years ago.
Those subways do not really need to heat up. They just need to be warm enough to stop the heat gradient between deeper layers of the earth and the on average cooler temperatures of the surface.
Really deep mines are very warm, not from the mining equipment, but from the geothermal heat.
What will take an influence is the composition of the earth at subwaystation spots. Thermal resistance does differ depending on earth composition.
Using some values for the thermal conductivity, specific heat capacity, and density of clay, assuming a depth of 50 m and making some very rough estimation, my answer would be: months.
Whenever Japanese trains are actually late, the train issue passagers a printed notice that it was their fault to take to work.
As its normally expected that trains arrive within 30secs of their expected time, train drivers are punished for being late and it is national embrassement when that happens.
The main problem is the massive overcrowding due to the lack of capasity of the train lines, people being packed like sardines.
I dont thiink train drivers should be punished for being late, but the entire timetable is designed to run like a machine as Trains timetable are extremely rigid again due to lack of capasity.
Japan also has the cool maglev bullet train, the speed gains arent that impressive to justify the cost though.
Separate names with a comma.