Warning: this is not going to be interesting for anyone but people interested in trains underground. There's one more thing about the Tube I wanted to comment on, this time specifically about Northern Line.

In this funny video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4e-Al90tSs Central says that Northern is 'literally two different people'. And that is actually true.

When they made Northern, they merged two lines. One of them had narrower tunnels than the other one, so had to be widened when the lines were merged.

Now, we are left with a line which starts at Morden (southern-most Tube terminus), splits at Kennington to go via Charing Cross or via Bank, and then both rejoins and diverges at Camden Town, to go to Edgware or High Barnet (or sometimes to Mill Hill East).

And guess what. As probably each and every line in the world which splits, Northern is a huge pain in the ass for TfL.

I've heard stories about Line 13 in Paris - the light blue line which splits in a station called La Fourche (Fork) and goes to two different difficult suburbs, Clichy and St Denis. Well this direction (from the city centre to Clichy / St Denic) is not the main problem. The other one is. It's because the trains are supposed to meet at La Fourche and go alternately, one arrives from Clichy and goes to the city centre, then one from St Denis, then one from Clichy, etc. etc.

The problem is that it's not this smooth. Both suburbs are densely populated and not exactly rich. So problems happen. Every day. And trains get delayed as a result. Meaning that every time one half of the line gets stuck, the other one also gets stuck, because they are supposed to wait for the other train.

Same story apparently goes with Northern. But Northern is even more funny because it has Kennington and it has Camden Town, so there are two stations where the trains part. In Camden Town, if you want to change for a train going to the other branch than the train you are in, it's not that easy, you have to walk somewhere etc.

So what TfL did is that most of the trains go from Morden to alternate termini via the Bank branch. There are only few trains per hour to the Charing X branch.

Also, there apparently were plans to split Northern into two lines. But that would require rebuilding Camden Town, and for many reasons, this is not feasible.

The fun continues.

Speaking of Tube...:

Yesterday, when I arrived from Munich, and tried to travel from Gatwick to London, I had two mysterious experiences.

First. There were no trains to London Bridge any more, so I had to take a train to London Victoria. What happened was that we were stuck for about 13 minutes at Battersea Park (where the train was not even supposed to stop!). Reason? Our train was a 12 coach train, and they did not have any sufficiently long platform free for us at Victoria.

Like, seriously? The train was perfectly on time, and it's not that it's a random train which only runs once a year! It's every day the same thing, so how come they were surprised to the extent of having no platform ready for us? O_o

Second. From Victoria, I had to take Tube. Victoria Line to be precise. Those who read my stuff regularly know about my funny stories from Piccadilly and Central of a Friday night. Well, maybe it was because it was approx an hour earlier, but Victoria was not like that yesterday. The people were much less drunk and much more interesting than in Piccadlly / Central. They were apparently subculture people, few goths, some skinheads (not Nazi skinheads, ska skinheads), many hippies in colourful shirts, etc.

(I travelled from Victoria, southbound, if that's of any relevance.)

So, there are few things I wanted to say about the Tube.

Last Sunday, we paid a visit to disused parts of Euston Station. The visit itself was shorter than I would have liked, but the accompanying info was very interesting.

I have a theory which basically says that the metro / Tube / underground / subway is a true reflection of the life in a city. It is a condensed reality if you will, a mirror of social stratification, and so on, and so on. So I made a conclusion. But to explain, I have to first explain a bit about another city with an underground transport system of comparable complexity: Paris.

I have been to Paris few times, and I quite liked the Paris Métro. It was a bit like love at the first sight. I admire the system, I like the aesthetics of the stations, I like the concept - that it's quite obvious that the system is well planned, that someone was thinking when designing the lines.

Afaik in Paris, there are four abandoned stations, and one was shifted few hundred meters away and joined with another station. Another two or three were just shifted, and two or three were repurposed as training stations or depots. There are also two stations that never opened, and two stations which have not even been properly built.

Then you see the original planning: there are lines in all expected directions. One goes north-west to south-east, two go around (one making a northern arch, one making a southern arch), one goes north-east to south-west, and so on. All screams 'planning'. All tells you 'this is what we wanted'. 'We made this on purpose.'

Last Sunday, I discovered the consequences of the fact that in London, the careful planning just didn't happen. What happened was quite the opposite: the Tube lines were dug apparently randomly (in fact it was a wild competition and no regulation thing). Result: about 60 abandoned stations, including at least one whole line - which is still there, with tunnels and everything, it's just not used. During history, stations in London appeared and disappeared, track was installed, moved and removed, lines were shifted, blended, renamed and cancelled, all seemingly randomly.

Do you see careful diagonal, circular, north-to-south etc. lines in London? Do you see planning which would allow you to close down only few stations, do you see someone actually thinking and trying to create something big, a functional system?

Nope.

In London, things just happen randomly, without planning. There's nothing which would make the system anything else than a random network of random stations and lines, with poor / funny connections, with stations appearing and disappearing, with no easy, reliable and intelligent way of getting from one place to another.

We got chaos instead. Bakerloo was much longer but for some reason was split into two, and part of it became Overground. East London line, of few stations, became Overground as well (Overground which runs underground on substantial part of its length). Northern started as three different lines. Some lines were built with smaller (narrower) tunnels which had to be later widened, or have to use small trains. Jubilee Line started as Fleet Line, and was later renamed (and the grey was made lighter) - which allegedly cost millions of pounds. Entire line was almost built and later abandoned. And so on, and so on.

So, my conclusion. The national stereotype may say that the French are disorganized and messy, while the British are accurate and organized. This is bollocks. Just look at Métro and compare it to the Tube.
-------------
Side notes:

If anyone is interested in Paris Métro:
- The four abandoned stations are Croix Rouge, St Martin, Champs de Mars and Arsenal. They are still there, underground, faded but existing.
- The shifted station is Martin Nadaud, which is now 'blended into' Gambetta. Gambetta has exceptionally long platform for this reason. :)
- The unopened stations (which have no access other than track, no stairs or exit) are Porte de Molitor and Haxo.
- The not even built stations are La Défense - Michelet and Élysées La Défense. These two were originally planned, then a concrete box was put underground, and then the cost proved so high that the plans were abandoned, and instead of these, we got the RER A stations.
- For more info, start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_stations_of_the_Paris_M%C3%A9tro

This site is awesome: http://www.abandonedstations.org.uk/
This is also good: http://carto.metro.free.fr/cartes/metro-london/

(Next time I travel by Piccadilly Line I will be looking for York Road. (I always wondered why the travel time between King's X and Caledonian Road is twice as long as between any other two stations. Now I know.) Next time I travel Northern, I will be looking for City Road. And so on.)

Once again I find myself in Munich. It has become sort of my favourite city - every time I am here, I am here for nice / interesting / exciting things, so I just kinda like the city. :)

Anyway. They have snow here. Not a lot, but it's there. Exciting.

So, there are two things I've observed about Munich, and Europe in general.

1. It's not cold and damp in houses and flats (and hotel rooms). It's actually nice, warm and cosy in houses and flats (and hotel rooms).

We have boiler in our flat in London. We also have this Dyson oval thing which warms the air in the room. We have blankets and hot beverages. (We don't have candles because fire alarm but you get the idea.) But still our flat just does not feel quite right, quite as warm and DRY as it should.

2. The cold outside is colder (temperature-wise) but actually feels not that cold (feeling-cold-wise). I think it has to do with the humidity. In Manchester, I was freezing when it was below 5 degrees Celsius. It didn't have to be below zero or anything like that to feel totally, totally cold. Same thing in London! I even got myself the thickest Superdry Real Down coat, just to keep warm.

Here, it can be well below zero, and I am just not feeling that cold. It may be 10 degrees less than in London, and I am actually feeling too hot in my super thick coat.

Strange.