Jesper Lauridsen

On 2004-07-26, Sjoerd <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Brussels is the best of these three. Frankfurt is also OK. Avoid CDG at all
    > costs. I just transfered twice at CDG (Air France to Air France, so nothing
    > complicated in theory), and it was a complete mess. No signs, I needed to
    > take a bus between two sections of the same terminal, I had to literally
    > climb over other people's bags to reach my gate, hot all over the place,
    > unfriendly, incompetent staff, etc.,etc. I travel internationally about 3
    > times / month, and there is no airport I hate as much as CDG.

When moving around CDG, you always have a feeling that there's a much
shorter route, if you just ignored all signs and directions.

Miguel Cruz

Jesper Lauridsen <[email protected]> wrote:
    > When moving around CDG, you always have a feeling that there's a much
    > shorter route, if you just ignored all signs and directions.

Which, by the way, is definitely true in a lot of London Underground
stations.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu

Sjoerd

"Jesper Lauridsen" <[email protected]> schreef in bericht
news:[email protected]...
    > When moving around CDG, you always have a feeling that there's a much
    > shorter route, if you just ignored all signs and directions.

Which signs?

Sjoerd

Terry Richards

--

"Sjoerd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > "Jesper Lauridsen" <[email protected]> schreef in bericht
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > When moving around CDG, you always have a feeling that there's a much
    > > shorter route, if you just ignored all signs and directions.
    > Which signs?
    > Sjoerd

They are posted inside the gentlemen's bathroom, on top of elevator cabins,
behind walls, and on the underneath of the mounds of lost luggage. But it
doesn't matter because they are wrong anyway

T.

Jesper Lauridsen

On 2004-08-02, Miguel Cruz <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Jesper Lauridsen <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> When moving around CDG, you always have a feeling that there's a much
    >> shorter route, if you just ignored all signs and directions.
    > Which, by the way, is definitely true in a lot of London Underground
    > stations.

You are aware that many of the corridors are one-way?

Most of the older metro systems (London, Paris, New Your, etc) could do
with a systematic rebuild of stations. Especially where two or more lines
cross. Transfers between lines in these old systems can at sometimes be
ridiculous.

Platforms should be _between_ the tracks and a transfer (in a 2-line
station) should be nothing more than going up or down a single flight
of stairs.

Ryan B

"Jesper Lauridsen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] ...
    > On 2004-08-02, Miguel Cruz <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > Jesper Lauridsen <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >> When moving around CDG, you always have a feeling that there's a much
    > >> shorter route, if you just ignored all signs and directions.
    > >
    > > Which, by the way, is definitely true in a lot of London Underground
    > > stations.
    > You are aware that many of the corridors are one-way?
    > Most of the older metro systems (London, Paris, New Your, etc) could do
    > with a systematic rebuild of stations. Especially where two or more lines
    > cross. Transfers between lines in these old systems can at sometimes be
    > ridiculous.
    > Platforms should be _between_ the tracks and a transfer (in a 2-line
    > station) should be nothing more than going up or down a single flight
    > of stairs.


Easy enough to do if you have unlimited money to spend and the public
doesn't mind high taxes and fares.

Ryan

Miguel Cruz

Jesper Lauridsen <[email protected]> wrote:
    > On 2004-08-02, Miguel Cruz <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> Jesper Lauridsen <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>> When moving around CDG, you always have a feeling that there's a much
    >>> shorter route, if you just ignored all signs and directions.
    >> Which, by the way, is definitely true in a lot of London Underground
    >> stations.
    > You are aware that many of the corridors are one-way?

I'm a foreigner. I can't be expected to read those signs.

    > Most of the older metro systems (London, Paris, New Your, etc) could do
    > with a systematic rebuild of stations. Especially where two or more lines
    > cross. Transfers between lines in these old systems can at sometimes be
    > ridiculous.
    > Platforms should be _between_ the tracks and a transfer (in a 2-line
    > station) should be nothing more than going up or down a single flight
    > of stairs.

The most efficient thing I've seen, for busy stations anyway, is having a
platform on either side of the track. The train stops, doors open on one
side to allow everyone to exit, then they open on the other side to allow
waiting passengers to board.

At uncrowded stations this just makes the stops take longer. But at crowded
stations it works wonders.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu

Keith Willshaw

"Jesper Lauridsen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] ...
    > On 2004-08-02, Miguel Cruz <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > Jesper Lauridsen <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >> When moving around CDG, you always have a feeling that there's a much
    > >> shorter route, if you just ignored all signs and directions.
    > >
    > > Which, by the way, is definitely true in a lot of London Underground
    > > stations.
    > You are aware that many of the corridors are one-way?
    > Most of the older metro systems (London, Paris, New Your, etc) could do
    > with a systematic rebuild of stations. Especially where two or more lines
    > cross. Transfers between lines in these old systems can at sometimes be
    > ridiculous.
    > Platforms should be _between_ the tracks and a transfer (in a 2-line
    > station) should be nothing more than going up or down a single flight
    > of stairs.

Kinda hard to do when several lines call at the same station
as at Kings Cross

Keith

Bubbles

"Miguel Cruz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Jesper Lauridsen <[email protected]> wrote:

    > > Platforms should be _between_ the tracks and a transfer (in a 2-line
    > > station) should be nothing more than going up or down a single flight
    > > of stairs.
    > The most efficient thing I've seen, for busy stations anyway, is having a
    > platform on either side of the track. The train stops, doors open on one
    > side to allow everyone to exit, then they open on the other side to allow
    > waiting passengers to board.
    > At uncrowded stations this just makes the stops take longer. But at
crowded
    > stations it works wonders.

Disagree - just make the platforms wide enough that people waiting for or
getting on off the other train at the same time also have space to move.
This is the case in Zurich and it works just great - and you have fewer
platforms to worry about.

Marianne

Bubbles

Answering in the "wrong place" as I had to Google to see the original
posting.

My first answer would be "none of the above" - go via Amsterdam Schipol. My
fav airport in Europe of those I have been to. Very well organized, you can
do some shopping and you can have a cuppa coffee close to your gate.

My second answer is NOT CDG!!! My lord what a boring disorganized place that
is! And if they move your gate, they don't necessarily tell you right away -
and they have chronic delays (at least with Air France).

I'll be trying out Frankfurt for the first time on Monday and I have never
been to Brussels airport, either - but I hate CDG and Heathrow (London).
Both are a real pain to get around in.

Marianne

Miguel Cruz

Bubbles <[email protected]> wrote:
    > "Miguel Cruz" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> The most efficient thing I've seen, for busy stations anyway, is having a
    >> platform on either side of the track. The train stops, doors open on one
    >> side to allow everyone to exit, then they open on the other side to allow
    >> waiting passengers to board.
    >> At uncrowded stations this just makes the stops take longer. But at
    >> crowded stations it works wonders.
    > Disagree - just make the platforms wide enough that people waiting for or
    > getting on off the other train at the same time also have space to move.
    > This is the case in Zurich and it works just great - and you have fewer
    > platforms to worry about.

I need to add another variable. In Zurich people follow the rules and stand
aside, so that exiting passengers can freely leave. Around these parts
people crowd in as soon as the door opens, pushing those who wanted to exit
way into the train, resulting in a long slog to get out.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu

Luca Logi

Miguel Cruz <[email protected]> wrote:

    > The problem with Frankfurt is that it's so boring you'll want to chew your
    > eyeballs out.

Well, I once waited three hourse at a Frankfurt airport meeting point,
just to realize that people were waiting for me on the following day.
Very boring indeed :-)

--
Luca Logi - Firenze - Italy e-mail: [email protected]
Home page: http://www.angelfire.com/ar/archivarius
(musicologia pratica)

Devil

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 07:18:30 +0200, Luca Logi wrote:

    > Miguel Cruz <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> The problem with Frankfurt is that it's so boring you'll want to chew your
    >> eyeballs out.
    >
    > Well, I once waited three hourse at a Frankfurt airport meeting point,
    > just to realize that people were waiting for me on the following day.
    > Very boring indeed :-)

Not good. At least we did this in the opposite way. We once went to the
airport to pick up our guests one day early.