|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Dec 16, 2019 21:49:20 GMT
Chris L what is the purpose then? I thought it was to be a diagrammatic representation of TfL's rail transportation routes for route planning purposes. It fails in that respect by omitting certain important links - most notably Blackfriars/Farringdon. Private TOCs are now much better at showing other operators' connecting links, but TfL persists in their "not invented here" attitude. |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,762
|
Post by Chris M on Dec 16, 2019 21:58:43 GMT
Chris L what is the purpose then? I thought it was to be a diagrammatic representation of TfL's rail transportation routes for route planning purposes. It's now so crammed that it is very difficult to read at all, with a tiny typeface. It needs to be a larger size, There exist large print versions, which I agree should be more publicised, but for most people the current size is fine. Digital versions can also be scaled nearly infinitely. and would be far more useful if it also included NR London services, especially for South London. It fails in that respect by omitting certain important links - most notably Blackfriars/Farringdon. Private TOCs are now much better at showing other operators' connecting links, but TfL persists in their "not invented here" attitude. Those are not TfL routes and so they are not relevant to the purpose of showing TfL's routes. Yes showing certain other routes would be useful, but that would need a map with a different purpose to the current one and is not evidence of it failing its current purpose. |
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Dec 16, 2019 22:11:53 GMT
Could a map that showed Thameslink lead to reduced crowding on the Northern line?
|
|
|
|
Post by 35b on Dec 16, 2019 22:34:28 GMT
Chris L what is the purpose then? I thought it was to be a diagrammatic representation of TfL's rail transportation routes for route planning purposes. It's now so crammed that it is very difficult to read at all, with a tiny typeface. It needs to be a larger size, There exist large print versions, which I agree should be more publicised, but for most people the current size is fine. Digital versions can also be scaled nearly infinitely. and would be far more useful if it also included NR London services, especially for South London. It fails in that respect by omitting certain important links - most notably Blackfriars/Farringdon. Private TOCs are now much better at showing other operators' connecting links, but TfL persists in their "not invented here" attitude. Those are not TfL routes and so they are not relevant to the purpose of showing TfL's routes. Yes showing certain other routes would be useful, but that would need a map with a different purpose to the current one and is not evidence of it failing its current purpose. I’d suggest in the case of Thameslink, that assumes that it is legitimate for one public transport operator to try to define transport in terms of its own operations, but ignore others. When TfL shows “Overground” routes on the map, but ignores a key short link across the centre, something is wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris L on Dec 16, 2019 22:44:48 GMT
It's now so crammed that it is very difficult to read at all, with a tiny typeface. It needs to be a larger size, and would be far more useful if it also included NR London services, especially for South London. In my time there were two maps. The Tube map in the same size as now and London's Railways as a larger fold out. Both maps also appeared in poster form at the entrance to every platform. The larger format could be London's public transport nowadays. I did produce a larger print Tube map as an option for those who needed it. |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,762
|
Post by Chris M on Dec 16, 2019 22:46:53 GMT
I’d suggest in the case of Thameslink, that assumes that it is legitimate for one public transport operator to try to define transport in terms of its own operations, but ignore others. When TfL shows “Overground” routes on the map, but ignores a key short link across the centre, something is wrong. Why? Why would it not be legitimate for a transport operator to choose what they want to show on their own maps? Why would it not be legitimate for a transport operator to prioritise its own service over that of competitors? Why is a short link operated by someone else more valid than an extensive largely (but not exclusively) suburban network operated by the map producer? Why is the Underground more valid than the Overground? |
|
|
|
Post by Chris L on Dec 16, 2019 22:48:55 GMT
Chris L what is the purpose then? I thought it was to be a diagrammatic representation of TfL's rail transportation routes for route planning purposes. I feel it does this job rather well. It could do it better - the step-free symbols are misleading, the walklines are inconsistent and the riverboat piers more clutter than use on balance (in contrast to the riverboat interchange symbols, which are useful) and some parts could do with tweaking. Overall however, I disagree that it is "just a real mess". If however its purpose is to be a static piece of art, then you might have a point, but I suspect most users would opt for something that reflects the transport network as it is today over something that makes compromises to fit with a 21st century idea of 1930s aesthetics. I don't think river boats run on rails. They need specific local marketing to be successful. I frequently use them to and from Woolwich. Somebody will no doubt think that taxi ranks should be identified. |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,762
|
Post by Chris M on Dec 16, 2019 22:57:57 GMT
The river boats don't run in rails, but neither are they shown on the tube map so I'm not sure what that has to do with anything? I don't think showing the piers is worth the extra space vs the riverboat symbols, but that's a tweak not evidence it's failed its purpose. Would a symbol to note "this station has a taxi rank" be useful? Maybe, I don't really know, but again I'm not sure how its relevant to the current map?
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Dec 17, 2019 7:56:59 GMT
Those are not TfL routes and so they are not relevant to the purpose of showing TfL's routes. Other than corporate pride, what is the point of only showing TfL's routes? Look at Paris - all RER routes are shown on the Metro map, although most of them are run by SNCF, not RATP. In general, the public only want to know the best way of getting from A to B, and neither know nor care who operates the service. This is why all London buses, regardless of operator, are red. And why the bus maps show non-TfL stage services. |
|
brigham
Posts: 2,535 
Member is Online
|
Post by brigham on Dec 17, 2019 8:39:26 GMT
...And there you have it.
It's Ego first, passengers second.
There was a picture in the Co-op, when I was a kid. It showed donkeys pulling in all directions and achieving little. Underneath, it showed donkeys pulling together.
I understood it from the first time I saw it, even though I was too young to read the words.
It looks like transport planners in London don't shop at the Co-op.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigvern on Dec 17, 2019 8:43:34 GMT
National rail stil produce a form of the old Network South East map and on the reverse is a version of the London Rail map which has all the National Rail services,TFL and LU on it so map is available,
The pocket Tube map is becoming to cluttered in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by whistlekiller2000 on Dec 17, 2019 8:45:55 GMT
It's now so crammed that it is very difficult to read at all, with a tiny typeface. It needs to be a larger size, and would be far more useful if it also included NR London services, especially for South London. How big would you like to make this guide in order to add all the NR services to what you already state is "so crammed that it is very difficult to read at all"? I reckon you'd be up to A3 at least. In any case, there's already a London Connections type guide (admittedly, this is an old one) for those wanting to see NR services as well as TfL stuff. In these days of larger smart phones and better internet coverage, I think we're likely to see the eventual demise of the paper guide at some point, perhaps even in my lifetime.  |
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Dec 17, 2019 9:16:41 GMT
A pity that the Fulwell (to Strawberry Hill) chord is not shown.
The 3 trains each way per day are well used, and with imagination, more and better use could be made of it
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Dec 17, 2019 9:41:53 GMT
A pity that the Fulwell (to Strawberry Hill) chord is not shown. The 3 trains each way per day are well used, and with imagination, more and better use could be made of it Difficult to see how - the stretch between Barnes and Twickenham, which any trains using that chord they would have to use if coming from Waterloo, is already at full stretch. Links which it would be useful to show on a Tube map, to identify short cuts, would include the Thameslink core, the Northern City Line, Stratford - Tottenham Hale, London Bridge - Greenwich/Woolwich and New Cross/Lewisham, Waterloo - Clapham Junction - Wimbledon/Richmond, Victoria - Clapham Junction - Balham - Croydon, and West Ealing - Greenford. Thinner lines can be used, to indicate they are NR services and minimise clutter. |
|
|
|
Post by 35b on Dec 17, 2019 9:44:36 GMT
I’d suggest in the case of Thameslink, that assumes that it is legitimate for one public transport operator to try to define transport in terms of its own operations, but ignore others. When TfL shows “Overground” routes on the map, but ignores a key short link across the centre, something is wrong. Why? Why would it not be legitimate for a transport operator to choose what they want to show on their own maps? Why would it not be legitimate for a transport operator to prioritise its own service over that of competitors? Why is a short link operated by someone else more valid than an extensive largely (but not exclusively) suburban network operated by the map producer? Why is the Underground more valid than the Overground? It's entirely legitimate, but when that operator also functions as a regulator, their responsibilities are a tad wider. My issue is that as TfL add their bits of the "Overground" to the "Underground" map, they are building a more and more operator specific view that misses a key part of the central London network. From memory, this used to be shown on the Underground map without bringing in the wider "London Connections" level of detail - I still fail to understand why Kentish Town/Finsbury Park - City - London Bridge/Elephant & Castle can't be added. |
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Dec 17, 2019 9:59:53 GMT
And why the bus maps show non-TfL stage services. hehe, bus maps - in London?!? Last produced by TfL in 2016 |
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Dec 17, 2019 10:00:37 GMT
@ norbitonflyer
Yes, I understand that.
But the use it does get is at peak times, so that knocks a hole in the "line is already saturated" argument.
But I doubt that ANY imagination has been used in trying to think of alternative routings so something could be worked out.
We are no longer in the days where Southern Region wouldn't allow Western trains into Staines, forcing closure of the Staines West branch. This type of thinking was something that Gerard Fiennes had his problems with 50 years ago, and railway management was once riddled with it.
..................and that still doesn't answer the initial question as to why those peak-hour services using the chord, are not shown on the map
|
|
|
|
Post by billbedford on Dec 17, 2019 10:09:57 GMT
It's now so crammed that it is very difficult to read at all, with a tiny typeface. It needs to be a larger size, and would be far more useful if it also included NR London services, especially for South London. That's on a different map |
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Dec 17, 2019 10:15:08 GMT
@ billbedford
Yes, exactly
The Fulwell chord is shown there. Clearly there is room for it on the other map too
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Dec 17, 2019 11:03:35 GMT
And why the bus maps show non-TfL stage services. hehe, bus maps - in London?!? Last produced by TfL in 2016 The spider maps do still acknowledge them in the index, even though they are not depicted on the map itself content.tfl.gov.uk/bus-route-maps/kingston-a4.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Dec 17, 2019 11:41:52 GMT
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,762
|
Post by Chris M on Dec 17, 2019 12:54:10 GMT
Why? Why would it not be legitimate for a transport operator to choose what they want to show on their own maps? Why would it not be legitimate for a transport operator to prioritise its own service over that of competitors? Why is a short link operated by someone else more valid than an extensive largely (but not exclusively) suburban network operated by the map producer? Why is the Underground more valid than the Overground? It's entirely legitimate, but when that operator also functions as a regulator, their responsibilities are a tad wider. My issue is that as TfL add their bits of the "Overground" to the "Underground" map, they are building a more and more operator specific view that misses a key part of the central London network. From memory, this used to be shown on the Underground map without bringing in the wider "London Connections" level of detail - I still fail to understand why Kentish Town/Finsbury Park - City - London Bridge/Elephant & Castle can't be added. TfL the operator, is different to TfL the regulator. It is the former who produce the tube map, and anyway they have (almost) no regulatory functions regarding National Rail. The tube maps is operator specific, and as you acknowledge that this is a legitimate choice for an operator to make, I don't understand what you are complaining about? Especially as the complaints are simultaneously "there is too much information on the map" and "there is not enough information on the map" - you can't have it both ways. Either the map is an overcomplicated mess and extraneous routes need to be removed or the map should show additional links. Doing both is impossible. Yes, the tube map could show what you considerer to be "key part of the central London network" but that would make it more complicated, and I don't think any two people would agree on exactly which lines are "key" and which aren't. From my perspective the "key" lines within London are those shown below, anything outside that is not relevant to me more than about once or twice a year (excluding trainspotting/quiz work) and so should be punted to a full details map. So you can see that for me, including the DLR and Overground is far more useful than is the Victoria line or most of the Met or Picc. Yes, I've included a few NR lines that I use, but note that it's not the Thameslink and Northern City lines, which are the ones most people seem to be shouting loudest about.  |
|
|
|
Post by 35b on Dec 17, 2019 16:54:05 GMT
I believe that the problem lies with the incorporation of Overground services, and that this drives the inconsistency of which I complain.
The Tube map was weighted to central London, which saw non Underground links shown. The central bias has changed, and a less holistic view of central London given. That in my view is a retrograde step.
|
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Dec 17, 2019 18:43:14 GMT
Remember that the original Underground map was produced long before the days of integration with National Rail and the advent of things such as the DLR and Overground.
For me, it's a diagram of how to get from A to B, and it still serves that purpose. Even Beck's original map had geographical distortions. I also agree that it is getting a little crammed though.
MOD COMMENT: There are lots of interesting ideas for how the map could be improved and what should / should not be included, but this thread is specifically about the December 2019 version, so can we keep any discussion to that please. Feel free to start a new thread if you want to discuss ideas for changes.
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Dec 17, 2019 19:29:08 GMT
Even Beck's original map had geographical distortions. Pre 1933, the Combine's Tube map did include "foreign" companies - notably the Metropolitan. And early Beck maps did not show the outer extremities in detail, but simply with a box "to" all the outer limits. (The map showed detail roughly within the LCC area, approximately Zones 1-3.) |
|
brigham
Posts: 2,535
Member is Online
|
Post by brigham on Dec 18, 2019 8:42:51 GMT
The Tube railways weren't 'main lines' in Beck's day, They served people who wanted to travel within London.
People who arrived in London on the 'main lines' used the Underground to reach their destinations, much like you would use a cab.
A map needs to be produced to serve this purpose today.
|
|
londoner
thinking on '73 stock
Posts: 480
|
Post by londoner on Dec 21, 2019 20:18:32 GMT
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,762
|
Post by Chris M on Dec 21, 2019 20:38:46 GMT
That's page 15 of the PDF and it also shows the Battersea and Barking Riverside extensions.
|
|
|
|
Post by ijmad on Dec 21, 2019 22:58:10 GMT
I think I prefer it going North, just from a visual balance point of view. Interesting to see the DLR's eastern branches being orientated North-South instead of their usual diagonal.
|
|
|
|
Post by moquette on Dec 22, 2019 20:18:34 GMT
Hmm. It is a mess in my opinion and it was part of my working life for many years. It should do a job but that is no reason why it shouldn't do it properly - and its original purpose wasn't 1930s aesthetics but to show the lines, the order the stations appear in and where interchange between lines occurs and to do that in a visually efficient way. It is now very cluttered possibly trying to be be too many things to too many people.
I've long suspected it would be better taking the Zones off it (that is fares information not journey choice information) and it would help if some of the inconsistant design details that have crept in were sorted and treated consistantly. The blitz of symbols needs sorting. You could make the dimensions of the printed pocket version bigger but if it's already overcomplex making it simply bigger isn't actually going to sort out all the issues although it may help in some areas.
It could be that this diagram needs to be reconsidered and think about going back to "basics". I don't have the answers - especially as this has so many 'stakeholders' and requirements - but it seemed to me during endless debates that two properly designed diagrams, one 'pure tube' and the other an improved London "Connections" map, designed to have the same graphic basis as the 'tube' one could have been a starting point for proper consideration.
Thankfully here in the wilds of The North its all superbly academic now - we don't seem to have the same issues for some reason!
|
|
