Diesel Chrysler Minivans in London

Just got back from the UK and my ride from London to Gatwick airport was a
2004 diesel Chrysler minivan. Driver bought it new. Had every option. It
seemed to accelerate like a gas car. His only complaint was the navigation
did not include hotels, which he thought was ridiculous because his handheld
one did and he had to bring that along for trips. He said he also owned an
E class which he bought used and was a year beyond warranty. That year had
cost him the equivalent of almost $5k dollars in repairs. By the way,
stopped in Harrod's and checked out their toy department. You could buy a
nice miniature Hummer for the kids to play with. Unfortunately, for the
same price you could just about buy a real one in the states. A fair number
of PTCruisers around. According to the driver, Chryslers did not hold their
value in England. Lexus is not either. You needed to buy a European car to
avoid big first year depreciation. Unfortunately, most required big
repairs, in his opinion.

 

Very sweet... an American abroad in Europe..

;-)

Of course (modern) diesels accelerate like petrol cars. In fact in
mid-range probably better. Can hardly hear them from the inside and offer
better fuel economy. Why do you think diesels are rising in popularity even
in anti-diesel Britain. In some European countries the share of new-car
diesel sales are greater than 50%. 'We' keep telling 'you guys' this but
the North American reaction is usually one of disdain. Perhaps its
understandable, given the history (bad experience) and even the present.
However, when low-sulfur fuel becomes available all over the US the
situation may change.

I don't know what your driver or you think "high" depreciation means, but
most cars lose 15% or more the second they are out of the showroom. You can
reckon on maybe 30% in the first year. In each country the exact percentage
will depend on the brand and model and other external factors. When the
Merc SLK first came out in the UK it was the slowest-depreciating (might
have been zero). For years the Mazda MX-5 (Miata) held its value resally
well. In the UK smaller-engined Mercs (say 2.2 litres and below) of the C
and E-Class probably don't depreciate more than about 15 - 20% per year, esp
the diesels. I don't know how they shape up in Germany.

Big saloons (sedans) always depreciate much faster because the after-market
is so small. Thus the tip always is, if insurance costs are not an issue,
buy a big car (e.g. BMW 7) maybe two to three years old.

DAS

 

Yeah, and he probably didn't bring his M16 or camouflage jammies!



--Geoff

 

Was stopped at security with the M16. LOL

 

Have you ever been to NY City? London tubes seem a lot deeper than NY
subways but I haven't been back to NY for 4 years so may be my imagination.
Sure seemed a long trip down to your trains. Any idea if they are unusually
deep?

 

Some London Underground ("Tube") stations are very deep, others not. One is
known as the deepest, but I can't remember which. Probably a couple of
questions directed at Prof Google will provide the answer...

Have been to NYC many times but don't often take the 'Subway'. Don't recall
anything special, except that they mostly go north-south

DAS
--
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

[............]

 

True story: I was on the tube in London. A very, very obvious American
stood staring at the station map for long minutes, then turned to me (I
was pretty obvious myself) and said "No matter what train I get on,
according to these maps they all run East-West! I need to go North!"

I couldn't help myself. I tried, but I couldn't. I said "Oh -- yeah, if
you want to go North or South you have to go up to the surface and catch a
bus or a taxi. The tube only runs East-West."

 

You were right about google. Instantly found a great site on London
Underground. Unfortunately, couldn't find anything comparable for NYC
subway system. Deepest station is over 136 feet below street level in inner
London. Don't think I was at that station.

http://tube.tfl.gov.uk/content/faq/facts.asp

 

Art, you prompted me to look at the TfL (Transport for London) site, which
is more famous for being a place at which to pay the f*************
Congestion Charge (sorry for swearing, normally never do online).

I was reminded that it's Hampstead on the Northern Line that is deepest
below ground. New to me is the one about the Jubilee Line platform at
Westminster being the furthest below sea level. Normally this type of
nugget of info is of not much use as it doesn't tell me how far below street
level it is, but it attracted my attention as it's quite new. Westminster
Station (next door to the Houses of Parliament) was closed for years as it
underwent substantial reconstruction when the Jubilee Line was built
through/under it.

In fact the lines do not run jsut run east-west. Just look at the map here:
http://tube.tfl.gov.uk/content/faq/artandpoems.asp

Scroll down till you till you see a section of Harry Beck's tube map and
click on it. This was published in 1931 and clearly shows the radial shape
of the system.

The current system is here:
http://tube.tfl.gov.uk/content/tubemap/default.asp

If looking at a central London cut-out it's possible to obtain the east-west
impression because of the Central Line drawn in bright, distinctive red,
which does go east-west through the centre. Furthermore, the yellow Circle
and green District Lines also run east-west across the centre, heightening
the impression. But the Circle Line actually goes in... well...a circle
(sort of, or "sorta" as you NA guys might say).

DAS

 

One thing I found interesting on the tubes was the lack of standardization.
In NY when they replace subways, they get a bunch of the same subways and
phase the old ones out. In London every line was different from what I
could see. One was very poorly designed with doors that angled into the
ceiling. Some one stepped into the train and it was clear to me that the
top of his head was not all the way in. I felt funny being in someone
elses's country but I warned him anyway to tuck in his head. He looked and
thanked me for the warning.

Also I was surprised by the lack of facilities for handicapped or even baby
strollers. I helped one woman with a stroller on 3 flights of stairs.
According to the subway maps, very few of the stations have anything for
handicapped or strollers. In this respect though I don't know what the
story in NY is these days. I might not have noticed the situation in London
except now my father uses a walker or powerchair to get around.

 

You are right that the train types vary across the lines. Well spotted!

I am curious as to why you think that having a door that angled into the
ceiling is poorly designed.

I think the main reason for differences is size/size of tunnel. Thus some
lines need trains of smaller cross-section.

What's more, renovation has been very spotty. A few years ago a study
showed that about 1.2 billion pounds sterling were needed to modernise the
system, money that no government authority could bring up. Thus a
partnership betwen private and public capital was born and the investment
has started. This is quite controversial because there are justifiable
fears that some of the mistakes in the privatisation of the railway are
being repeated.

Problem is, that parts of the Underground are from the 1880s... that makes
it the oldest underfround system in the world, AFAIK.

When we were students we used to have the ambition of setting records in
getting to as many stations as possible without repetition...


DAS

 

Because it almost cut the guys head off had I not warned him to duck.

 

NYC has two basic differences. Its older IRT line uses different cars than
the BMT and IND lines because of tighter turns. Thus shorter cars.

Also, because of the solid bedrock in NYC it is not practical to build the
lines very deep. Open trench was used in Manhattan for much of the
construction there.

Richard.