7 ms·

25% of the 13 minute journey from Whitechapel to Paddington is spent not moving

55 points by edward 3y ago

djtango 3y ago
The Elizabeth line (Lizzie line??) is a bit of a quandary for me... Was so excited about it opening and I still get excited about riding it. Although the tunnels are already notably less pristine, so I'm glad to have seen them when they almost sparkled. That all said, at least according to google maps and citymapper the Eline seems to be a little situational. For example, if you're on the Met line and want to go to Canary Wharf, it seems to not be worth changing at Farringdon to catch the Eline or even Liverpool Street, or even a cheeky Jubilee Switch at Finchley Road/Baker St then jump on at Bond Street. Instead they recommend just doing the boring hop onto the Jubilee line and riding out on those numerous stops. I tried manually calculating it and it seemed roughly correct, the long change times and less frequent journeys seem to mean it's still generally better to take the old routes. But if you're already on the Eline it really is a blast across the city. EDIT I suppose really the game changer was the connection to Paddington. I remember when Amazon moved from Slough to Holborn/Farringdon the transit was shockingly slow for the Reading crowd... the experience was bad enough people would Boris bike or Brompton it instead... I imagine it's even better now for any of the old Reading crowd who now work at Principal Place by Shoreditch
- clarkdave 3y ago
  Indeed, the interchanges can be quite arduous, as it tends to be very deep, and usually quite a trek from the other lines in that station. This also means it can take a good chunk of time to even get to or from the platform. For example, if you wanted to go from Farringdon to Liverpool St, Google Maps would suggest using the Elizabeth line, but, in practice, it's usually better to use the sub-surface lines (Metropolitan etc). The time taken for the extra stops will be cancelled out because the Elizabeth line takes significantly longer to get into/out of of as it's so much deeper. Add another couple of minutes if you happen to get on the wrong end of the train, because those platforms are long! That being said, it's a joy to ride and is the only air-conditioned train that runs through the central section of London.
  - benjaminwootton 3y ago
    It’s probably faster to walk from Farringdon to Liverpool Street!
    - djtango 3y ago
      Ha yes it does tickle me that the platform to "Farringdon" spans from Farringdon to Barbican!
  - leoedin 3y ago
    > only air-conditioned train that runs through the central section of London. What about the district, metropolitan, Hammersmith and city and circle lines? And Thameslink of course!
- namdnay 3y ago
  it's amazing for getting in from heathrow too...
- twic 3y ago
  I think the main point of Crossrail was fast access to central London for people living in east London. It does that quite well, and in doing so relieves the Central line. Crossrail might not be very useful for short, interchangey trips, but the Central line is, so this is still a win.
musicale 3y ago
Padding-ton indeed.
thih9 3y ago
The percentage alone doesn’t tell much, without knowing what’s the value for regular routes. Apparently a value below 20% is more acceptable. > it could do the journey in 12 minutes, knocking the percentage down below 20%, if only those dwell times were a bit closer to normal.
SeanLuke 3y ago
It's actually 33% per the end of his article. The 25% comes from his first tweet, which he states was in error.
- speps 3y ago
  It's not an error, it's 25% in one direction and 33% in the other. I think what he meant is that he should have tweeted the bigger number, for clickbait. He also gives a reasonable explanation of why, but nobody who read his original tweet is going to read it.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
switch007 3y ago
It’s hard not to think Londoners are entitled and ungrateful. No other part of the country has ever had so much spent on mass transit nor will it ever. They have the finest public transport in the entire UK, and always will. I bet you can’t regularly do 1-40 mile journeys at the same speed and cost regularly anywhere else in the UK. The media recently tried to make out the Elizabeth line was one of the worst services in the UK because it had the highest number of cancellations or something which is ridiculous because if the next train is 5 minutes away it doesn’t matter. Try living up North where hourly trains regularly get cancelled
- djtango 3y ago
  I fully appreciate where you're coming from and everything you've said is true. But I feel like your opinion may differ if you lived on the south end of the Northern line and had to commute during summer. Doubly so if you were slightly shorter and had to spend your daily commute with your face in someone else's sweaty armpit... The truth of many parts of London commuting is it's really quite unpleasant in many ways and so you're trained to really wish to spend as little time doing it as possible. If the heat, noise, air quality and congestion don't bother you there's also the threat of violence. A friend was assaulted (perp got GBH iirc) on the Victoria line and I've seen a fight break out on the escalators of Green Park at 9am... I'm sufficiently jaded by public transport in London that my preferred means of getting around if I'm on my own is a lime bike. Any journey under 5 miles will probably be faster and considerably more pleasant.
  - switch007 3y ago
    I do get it. While I haven’t commuted, I’ve travelled many, many times around London including rush hour. Have smelled many armpits on the tube and even worn earplugs on the central line. (I have commuted in another European city however) But London is a victim of its own success. It will always be hot busy and crowded. This is just like almost every other major city in the world - hot, crowded public transport at rush hour. What do you want? Every mode cooled to 17c and seats for everyone? Nobody is forced to live in London, especially the younger ones with no ties who moved there to climb the ladder. We really need to distribute the economic activity around the UK by properly investing in other towns and cities
barrkel 3y ago
Travelling by scooter in London, about half the time is spent waiting for traffic lights. I took videos of my commute for about a year, in case of interesting events. Traffic isn't a big deal on a scooter but traffic lights add up. Still a lot faster than the tube unless you have a direct connection and are close to a station for both ends.
- pif 3y ago
  > about half the time is spent waiting for traffic lights. I wonder if it is the same problem as in Geneva: in an effort to moderate congestion, they programmed the lights to slow the traffic towards the centre. In other words, they moved the problem a couple kilometres and they called it a day.
Theodores 3y ago
As a cyclist, familiar with riding from Paddington to an office, the comparative times are of great interest. I cycled ten miles from Paddington due north on the A5 Roman Road. The bicycle, naturally aspirated with no motor nonsense, was competitive going north, it took me to my destination quicker and more reliably. I just went into Google Maps and checked what the ride time would be going to Whitechapel. The bicycle would get there in 38 minutes, which is a lot more than the 16 minutes that Google says the tube would take. But would I leave the bike at home and take the tube? Well, no! It takes five minutes to get from the train to the platform, to wait for an underground train, which will be packed. At the other end, it will take me five minutes to get from the tube station to a nearby office. Then there is the need not to be late, so an added ten minutes would be needed - no rocking up at work at 8.59, I need that to be 8.50. Even though the journey from platform to platform might be 13 minutes, it is going to be half an hour. Now the 38 minutes of cycling time looks pretty good. Plus, once I have aced the route, I will cut that down to 30 minutes, with no reason excluding earthquakes or asteroid strikes to be delayed - bicycles always find a way and the timing is reliable. Tube trains mysteriously stop in tunnels to dwell there randomly, possibly even broken down. Then there is the cost. I have no idea what tube journeys cost nowadays, but say it was £4 or £20 expenditure a week to take the tube. Small change but there is opportunity cost with that - the bicycle is a mobile gym, and an hour a day of cycling at speed due to not wanting to be late would mean that I would not have to do stupid things such as pointlessly lifting weights in a gym so as to conform to society's workout expectations. So, how much does the gym cost? That would be ten hours a week, getting there, lifting objects pointlessly and poncing about having a shower. Oh yes, it might cost £5 to £10 too. By riding I would also be freeing a seat for the 70% of the population that are obese and effectively disabled as far as cycling is concerned. I would also be another cyclist on the road, therefore making it safer for others to cycle due to the safety in numbers effect. My eye health would be better too. If you have to look to the next set of lights and also the road in front of you or behind you, then that exercises the eye muscles - gyms don't do that and being in tin boxes and tunnels does not help with eye health either. There is also a physical buzz to cycling that you don't get from marching around tube stations. Hence, although the tube train sounds really good and sounds really fast, even with the lengthy dwell times, the bicycle is the far better option, just so long as you are not part of the 70% obese. Furthermore, the hour of sprinting across town with pedals getting actually pushed on, would mean that I would have no danger of getting obese. Plus I would never have to waste my life in those dark satanic mills known as gyms. Life hack number one for London - get a bike and ditch the tube.
benj111 3y ago
Is this a continuation of 'first world problems'? 'London problems' Oh no, my train waits it the station for nearly a full minute. The fact that there actually is a train, the train isn't a converted bus that was supposed to be a temporary measure 30 years ago, that's it's deemed viable to actually make a 13 minute train journey, the fact that presumably the train isn't 13 minutes late and in fact turned up, and the fact that in my experience, a 60 second stop is good would suggest to me that there's no need to complain. Edit: to the downvoters. London has by far the best public transport in the country. Nowhere else has an underground system with trains every 5 minutes. The complaint is about a train waiting at the station for generally less than 60 seconds. For the rest of the country that would be a compliment not a complaint.
- switch007 3y ago
  I bet people downvoting don’t even know about Pacers or how bad they were lol. Most Londoners are completely ignorant of the pain of public transport up North (hell, even outside of London)
  - benj111 3y ago
    There's a few comments about packed underground trains aswell, as if the once per hour train, ie the only one commuters can get isn't going to be packed, and it takes longer than a minute for everyone to get off and on, and it takes a lot longer than 13 minutes for the entire journey, and these are diesels so the acceleration is slow, and noisy. And this all assumes it isn't cancelled, or so delayed it makes you late for work. Getting to work an hour and 15 minutes early most mornings because you can't rely on the later train not to be 15 minutes late.
  - angled 3y ago
    The NSW FP1 is gorgeous. I had no idea they existed! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_South_Wales_FP_Paybuses https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_South_Wales_FP_Paybuses
- eesmith 3y ago
  > ... best public transport in the country. Nowhere else has an underground system with trains every 5 minutes. Glasgow? "There are trains every four minutes at peak times and every six-to-eight minutes during off-peak times." says https://www.spt.co.uk/subway/subway-timetables/ https://www.spt.co.uk/subway/subway-timetables/ .
petercooper 3y ago
I wonder if maintaining the advantage of the Heathrow Express has an impact on Elizabeth Line dwell times. They take the same route but the Elizabeth Line (stopping at six stations along the way) takes 35 minutes versus the HE's 15.
throwthrow5643 3y ago
New to London. London transport is good when it works. One thing I don't get, compared to my home country, is why when the train employees strike, they cancel services? Back home they just refuse to collect fares, and open the turnstyles. That way the unions don't offside the public.
- williamvds 3y ago
  Opening everything and making it free during strikes sounds like a great way to do it, but I don't think the power that be would allow it. I've never seen a barrier hopper stopped, but I'm sure the bobbies would be sent in if thry announced everyone would be doing it. There's also the problem of disconnected services - the purple line is Rail, so while they use the same stations, they can be on strike when the Underground isn't. So you could go through open barriers at a rail station but you'd find the barriers shut trying to leave from an Underground station.
- Symbiote 3y ago
  I've led a blind friend to London Underground stations, to the gate line, and he's asked "assistance please". Usually that would mean someone would lead him to the correct platform, but when the station staff are "working to rule", they'll refuse to do this as it isn't in their job description. Could they be more heartless? I was only with him once when this happened, and the station manager appeared and said I could lead him (without a ticket) and he'd let me out when I came back, which he did. My friend said it happened every month or two. Going alone meant he risked tripping on stairs, especially if it was busy and people jostled him.
- badcppdev 3y ago
  Many commuters have weekly, monthly, or even yearly passes and therefore would only be slightly annoyed by the 'unfairness'. But more importantly the wage negotiations are very complicated as 80% of the money ultimately comes from the government and therefore politicians needs to be motivated. Politicians are mostly motivated by annoyed voters (and campaign contributions obviously).
  - 3y ago

55 points by edward 3y ago

The Elizabeth line (Lizzie line??) is a bit of a quandary for me... Was so excited about it opening and I still get excited about riding it. Although the tunnels are already notably less pristine, so I'm glad to have seen them when they almost sparkled. That all said, at least according to google maps and citymapper the Eline seems to be a little situational. For example, if you're on the Met line and want to go to Canary Wharf, it seems to not be worth changing at Farringdon to catch the Eline or even Liverpool Street, or even a cheeky Jubilee Switch at Finchley Road/Baker St then jump on at Bond Street. Instead they recommend just doing the boring hop onto the Jubilee line and riding out on those numerous stops. I tried manually calculating it and it seemed roughly correct, the long change times and less frequent journeys seem to mean it's still generally better to take the old routes. But if you're already on the Eline it really is a blast across the city. EDIT I suppose really the game changer was the connection to Paddington. I remember when Amazon moved from Slough to Holborn/Farringdon the transit was shockingly slow for the Reading crowd... the experience was bad enough people would Boris bike or Brompton it instead... I imagine it's even better now for any of the old Reading crowd who now work at Principal Place by Shoreditch

clarkdave 3y ago
Indeed, the interchanges can be quite arduous, as it tends to be very deep, and usually quite a trek from the other lines in that station. This also means it can take a good chunk of time to even get to or from the platform. For example, if you wanted to go from Farringdon to Liverpool St, Google Maps would suggest using the Elizabeth line, but, in practice, it's usually better to use the sub-surface lines (Metropolitan etc). The time taken for the extra stops will be cancelled out because the Elizabeth line takes significantly longer to get into/out of of as it's so much deeper. Add another couple of minutes if you happen to get on the wrong end of the train, because those platforms are long! That being said, it's a joy to ride and is the only air-conditioned train that runs through the central section of London.
- benjaminwootton 3y ago
  It’s probably faster to walk from Farringdon to Liverpool Street!
  - djtango 3y ago
    Ha yes it does tickle me that the platform to "Farringdon" spans from Farringdon to Barbican!
- leoedin 3y ago
  > only air-conditioned train that runs through the central section of London. What about the district, metropolitan, Hammersmith and city and circle lines? And Thameslink of course!
namdnay 3y ago
it's amazing for getting in from heathrow too...
twic 3y ago
I think the main point of Crossrail was fast access to central London for people living in east London. It does that quite well, and in doing so relieves the Central line. Crossrail might not be very useful for short, interchangey trips, but the Central line is, so this is still a win.

musicale 3y ago

Padding-ton indeed.

thih9 3y ago

The percentage alone doesn’t tell much, without knowing what’s the value for regular routes. Apparently a value below 20% is more acceptable. > it could do the journey in 12 minutes, knocking the percentage down below 20%, if only those dwell times were a bit closer to normal.

SeanLuke 3y ago

It's actually 33% per the end of his article. The 25% comes from his first tweet, which he states was in error.

speps 3y ago
It's not an error, it's 25% in one direction and 33% in the other. I think what he meant is that he should have tweeted the bigger number, for clickbait. He also gives a reasonable explanation of why, but nobody who read his original tweet is going to read it.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

switch007 3y ago

It’s hard not to think Londoners are entitled and ungrateful. No other part of the country has ever had so much spent on mass transit nor will it ever. They have the finest public transport in the entire UK, and always will. I bet you can’t regularly do 1-40 mile journeys at the same speed and cost regularly anywhere else in the UK. The media recently tried to make out the Elizabeth line was one of the worst services in the UK because it had the highest number of cancellations or something which is ridiculous because if the next train is 5 minutes away it doesn’t matter. Try living up North where hourly trains regularly get cancelled

djtango 3y ago
I fully appreciate where you're coming from and everything you've said is true. But I feel like your opinion may differ if you lived on the south end of the Northern line and had to commute during summer. Doubly so if you were slightly shorter and had to spend your daily commute with your face in someone else's sweaty armpit... The truth of many parts of London commuting is it's really quite unpleasant in many ways and so you're trained to really wish to spend as little time doing it as possible. If the heat, noise, air quality and congestion don't bother you there's also the threat of violence. A friend was assaulted (perp got GBH iirc) on the Victoria line and I've seen a fight break out on the escalators of Green Park at 9am... I'm sufficiently jaded by public transport in London that my preferred means of getting around if I'm on my own is a lime bike. Any journey under 5 miles will probably be faster and considerably more pleasant.
- switch007 3y ago
  I do get it. While I haven’t commuted, I’ve travelled many, many times around London including rush hour. Have smelled many armpits on the tube and even worn earplugs on the central line. (I have commuted in another European city however) But London is a victim of its own success. It will always be hot busy and crowded. This is just like almost every other major city in the world - hot, crowded public transport at rush hour. What do you want? Every mode cooled to 17c and seats for everyone? Nobody is forced to live in London, especially the younger ones with no ties who moved there to climb the ladder. We really need to distribute the economic activity around the UK by properly investing in other towns and cities

barrkel 3y ago

Travelling by scooter in London, about half the time is spent waiting for traffic lights. I took videos of my commute for about a year, in case of interesting events. Traffic isn't a big deal on a scooter but traffic lights add up. Still a lot faster than the tube unless you have a direct connection and are close to a station for both ends.

pif 3y ago
> about half the time is spent waiting for traffic lights. I wonder if it is the same problem as in Geneva: in an effort to moderate congestion, they programmed the lights to slow the traffic towards the centre. In other words, they moved the problem a couple kilometres and they called it a day.

Theodores 3y ago

As a cyclist, familiar with riding from Paddington to an office, the comparative times are of great interest. I cycled ten miles from Paddington due north on the A5 Roman Road. The bicycle, naturally aspirated with no motor nonsense, was competitive going north, it took me to my destination quicker and more reliably. I just went into Google Maps and checked what the ride time would be going to Whitechapel. The bicycle would get there in 38 minutes, which is a lot more than the 16 minutes that Google says the tube would take. But would I leave the bike at home and take the tube? Well, no! It takes five minutes to get from the train to the platform, to wait for an underground train, which will be packed. At the other end, it will take me five minutes to get from the tube station to a nearby office. Then there is the need not to be late, so an added ten minutes would be needed - no rocking up at work at 8.59, I need that to be 8.50. Even though the journey from platform to platform might be 13 minutes, it is going to be half an hour. Now the 38 minutes of cycling time looks pretty good. Plus, once I have aced the route, I will cut that down to 30 minutes, with no reason excluding earthquakes or asteroid strikes to be delayed - bicycles always find a way and the timing is reliable. Tube trains mysteriously stop in tunnels to dwell there randomly, possibly even broken down. Then there is the cost. I have no idea what tube journeys cost nowadays, but say it was £4 or £20 expenditure a week to take the tube. Small change but there is opportunity cost with that - the bicycle is a mobile gym, and an hour a day of cycling at speed due to not wanting to be late would mean that I would not have to do stupid things such as pointlessly lifting weights in a gym so as to conform to society's workout expectations. So, how much does the gym cost? That would be ten hours a week, getting there, lifting objects pointlessly and poncing about having a shower. Oh yes, it might cost £5 to £10 too. By riding I would also be freeing a seat for the 70% of the population that are obese and effectively disabled as far as cycling is concerned. I would also be another cyclist on the road, therefore making it safer for others to cycle due to the safety in numbers effect. My eye health would be better too. If you have to look to the next set of lights and also the road in front of you or behind you, then that exercises the eye muscles - gyms don't do that and being in tin boxes and tunnels does not help with eye health either. There is also a physical buzz to cycling that you don't get from marching around tube stations. Hence, although the tube train sounds really good and sounds really fast, even with the lengthy dwell times, the bicycle is the far better option, just so long as you are not part of the 70% obese. Furthermore, the hour of sprinting across town with pedals getting actually pushed on, would mean that I would have no danger of getting obese. Plus I would never have to waste my life in those dark satanic mills known as gyms. Life hack number one for London - get a bike and ditch the tube.

benj111 3y ago

Is this a continuation of 'first world problems'? 'London problems' Oh no, my train waits it the station for nearly a full minute. The fact that there actually is a train, the train isn't a converted bus that was supposed to be a temporary measure 30 years ago, that's it's deemed viable to actually make a 13 minute train journey, the fact that presumably the train isn't 13 minutes late and in fact turned up, and the fact that in my experience, a 60 second stop is good would suggest to me that there's no need to complain. Edit: to the downvoters. London has by far the best public transport in the country. Nowhere else has an underground system with trains every 5 minutes. The complaint is about a train waiting at the station for generally less than 60 seconds. For the rest of the country that would be a compliment not a complaint.

switch007 3y ago
I bet people downvoting don’t even know about Pacers or how bad they were lol. Most Londoners are completely ignorant of the pain of public transport up North (hell, even outside of London)
- benj111 3y ago
  There's a few comments about packed underground trains aswell, as if the once per hour train, ie the only one commuters can get isn't going to be packed, and it takes longer than a minute for everyone to get off and on, and it takes a lot longer than 13 minutes for the entire journey, and these are diesels so the acceleration is slow, and noisy. And this all assumes it isn't cancelled, or so delayed it makes you late for work. Getting to work an hour and 15 minutes early most mornings because you can't rely on the later train not to be 15 minutes late.
- angled 3y ago
  The NSW FP1 is gorgeous. I had no idea they existed! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_South_Wales_FP_Paybuses https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_South_Wales_FP_Paybuses
eesmith 3y ago
> ... best public transport in the country. Nowhere else has an underground system with trains every 5 minutes. Glasgow? "There are trains every four minutes at peak times and every six-to-eight minutes during off-peak times." says https://www.spt.co.uk/subway/subway-timetables/ https://www.spt.co.uk/subway/subway-timetables/ .

petercooper 3y ago

I wonder if maintaining the advantage of the Heathrow Express has an impact on Elizabeth Line dwell times. They take the same route but the Elizabeth Line (stopping at six stations along the way) takes 35 minutes versus the HE's 15.

throwthrow5643 3y ago

New to London. London transport is good when it works. One thing I don't get, compared to my home country, is why when the train employees strike, they cancel services? Back home they just refuse to collect fares, and open the turnstyles. That way the unions don't offside the public.

williamvds 3y ago
Opening everything and making it free during strikes sounds like a great way to do it, but I don't think the power that be would allow it. I've never seen a barrier hopper stopped, but I'm sure the bobbies would be sent in if thry announced everyone would be doing it. There's also the problem of disconnected services - the purple line is Rail, so while they use the same stations, they can be on strike when the Underground isn't. So you could go through open barriers at a rail station but you'd find the barriers shut trying to leave from an Underground station.
Symbiote 3y ago
I've led a blind friend to London Underground stations, to the gate line, and he's asked "assistance please". Usually that would mean someone would lead him to the correct platform, but when the station staff are "working to rule", they'll refuse to do this as it isn't in their job description. Could they be more heartless? I was only with him once when this happened, and the station manager appeared and said I could lead him (without a ticket) and he'd let me out when I came back, which he did. My friend said it happened every month or two. Going alone meant he risked tripping on stairs, especially if it was busy and people jostled him.
badcppdev 3y ago
Many commuters have weekly, monthly, or even yearly passes and therefore would only be slightly annoyed by the 'unfairness'. But more importantly the wage negotiations are very complicated as 80% of the money ultimately comes from the government and therefore politicians needs to be motivated. Politicians are mostly motivated by annoyed voters (and campaign contributions obviously).
- 3y ago