Line Diagram (continued)

Colin, see Reply #8 for an explanation.

A nice example:
www.ltmcollection.org/images/webmax/~w/00003~w.jpg

And, not quite the same thing, but nice anyway:
www.ltmcollection.org/images/webmax/89/1701-89.jpg

Now I look at it, that does seem obvious. I'll give it a go.

You're quite right about Sherpherd's Bush. That is indeed an oversight.

For Shepherd's Bush, I believed Southern trains called at Willesden Junction. If they did, the next stations in either direction on either line would be the same, negating its status as an interchange. As Southerns don't stop there however, this is not the case.

For West Brompton, NOT showing an NR symbol is correct as it is shown at Ken Olympia and from there the lines are parallel as they go through W Brompton. However, the same logic doesn't hold for the District, because Olympia trains are a separate stub branch of the District Line and no trains join it up to the Wimbledon branch. In fact independently I had been thinking about this anyway and was going to add indications to the District interchange lozenges showing WHICH part of the District each interchange was for - otherwise it's not clear.

OK - I obviously have too much time on my hands! ;D

farm4.static.flickr.com/3472/3231837243_4d205d06d1_b.jpg

(And sorry Colin, the Victoria line is staying - It's my map, so you'll have to humour me I'm afraid!)

As the map designer that's your prerogative, naturally.

That looks great. I'll have a go at working that in sometime soonish.

Well, I suspect this will leave Colin fizzing so I will run for cover and wrap myself in an aluminium marathon blanket. I'm not sure whether this works or not - I can imagine what might be said, but I just wanted to try Chris's idea. I do think it's worthless showing District interchanges all over the shop if no detail is given as to which bit of the District Line is available at each interchange. Sadly, the simple fact is that the story isn't as simple as it is with the Victoria Line, so extending it to the District just seems to weaken the justification for the Vic.

Ah well - deep breath - here it is anyway.



farm4.static.flickr.com/3302/3235277408_76e20369ce_b.jpg
farm4.static.flickr.com/3257/3234427601_d3be6492f5.jpg

Whilst many of the elements I've used aren't mentioned in the current TfL Standards, I'd be interested to see a copy of a Style Guide from the Design Research Unit from the 1970s and see all the possible permutations of graphic objects permitted on maps.

What I've found with many companies is that they'll commission a Style Guide, which will contain (and therefore permit) all sorts of permutations of elements, but only a small number of these will make it into common usage, and this small number of permutations will become seen as the 'only acceptable standards'.

What I try to do is use elements in long-forgotten ways that the original Style Guide authors are likely to have laid down, irrespective of whether those methods became largely forgotten further down the line.

Too many times a Style Guide will give multiple options for tackling a certain display requirement, or will suffix the single option with a caveat enabling some licence to be taken where a situation genuinely warrants it - and then the reader of the Style Guide will just take the first option and refuse to consider the rest because 'it's not the standard' - or refuse to allow the application of the degree of licence that the Style Guide author him/herself would have found perfectly acceptable.

For instance - on all posters and the front cover of public-facing leaflets, it is mandated that the TfL/modal roundel ALWAYS has the text "Transport for London" to the left of it. Some people in TfL will have you believe this is the *de facto* standard at all times. It is not. For instance, you never found any contractors going around bolting placards reading "Transport for London" onto the left-hand-side of any totem-mounted roundels, or on station-name roundels, an indeed on letterheads the TfL and modal wording appears ranged left on the page, with the roundel ranged hard right.

Similarly, the idea of showing part of an interconnecting line on a platform VE panel line diagram in an abbreviated form, with arrows at either end to show where the line continues but is not shown, is a common interpretation of the standards, as was (but not now except on the DLR) the use of coloured arrows to denote interchanges on a station-by-station basis on in-car line diagrams. The reason why they were removed from in-car diagrams is because they didn't add anything. That's simply because the implementation of them became 'per station' instead of 'per interconnecting line' - only in the latter case does the inclusion of the coloured arrows actually impart additional useful information.

So what I did with the Vic line and latterly the District is marry the two already acceptable interpretation of the standards, but use an allowance usually found on VE panel diagrams* on an in-car one. Remember, there's no reason why it might not ever be expected that the same line diagram be applied to VE panels ASWELL as in-car.

* Example 1: at Euston station, the VE panel signs headed "Platform Finder" and showing how the Northern and Victoria Lines link together;

* Example 2: another example, any station that shows *part of* the Circle Line (e.g. Gloucester Road, Baker Street, Aldgate, Tower Hill) with the 'off-map' bit indicated by a truncated yellow line with a fluted arrowhead to show the continuation.

* Example 3: Timetable posters at combined District/H&C Line stations where only parts of the District Line are shown, again with truncated green line and fluted arrowhead to show the continuation.

* Example 4: Timetable posters at and leaflets regarding combined Metropolitan/Chiltern stations, where part of the Chiltern route is indicated using a parallel white-caged line, again truncated with fluted arrowhead. Also shown on any Engineering Work posters involving the Met line where the affected area crosses a combined Chiltern area (even if Chiltern is running when the Met isn't). To apply Colin's question here, "why show Chiltern when it's a Metropolitan Line map?" My answer: "because it's useful information".

Example 4 policy used to apply between Bakerloo and Silverlink, but seems to have disappeared since Silverlink became Overground.

The only problem with the District Line bit is making it clearer that there are other stations in-between Earl's Court and Turnham Green. A short dotted section in the middle ought to sort that out.

The terminating at Gunnersbury bit is for the same reason why Richmond and Kew Gardens aren't shown as District interchanges. To show the District continuing past Gunnersbury would be similarly superfluous - as with the Bakerloo from H&W to Willesden Jn.

OK - this is the last instalment for this particular project:

farm4.static.flickr.com/3520/3240518555_4b2a5a5717_b.jpg

It could be tweaked and tweaked forever, but since it's never going to get used, I think it's received more than its fair share of attention!

A few things to point out that I've 'corrected' however:

1. I lowered the Euston - Kensal Green line to line up with Clapham - Shep Bush, to make it look more balanced;

2. I removed Bakerloo interchange from Willesden Jn for the same reason it was removed from H&W;

3. I broke the District Line up between Earl's Court and Turnham Green to show there are stations not displayed;

4. I removed the NR symbol from the "100m walk" legend underneath West Hampstead. The reason for this is that having it there means the 100m walk only applies between LOG and the other NR service (i.e. FCC Thameslink). However there is a similar walk to the Jubilee Line. If however I'd only wanted to indicate a 100m walk to NR, then the NR symbol next to the station name should be removed instead. Any NR symbol should be in one place or the other - not both. (Hence why maps that show an NR symbol next to 'Tower Hill' (referring to Fenchurch Street) are wrong, because the NR symbol should only appear in the Fen St. 'lozenge'. Similar case on DLR maps having an NR symbol at Tower Gateway referring to Fen St (also wrong, as it's also shown in the Fen St. lozenge). Similar with Euston Square showing on some Circle Line maps an NR symbol next to the Station Name and in the lozenge.

Just a quick extra note for Colin - I know we're never going to agree on this - but I believe if interchanges are to be shown AT ALL (which they are), that where more than one station interchanging with the same line is shown, detail should be shown in-between where it is practicable to do so. Otherwise you could argue it's superfluous to show any interchange information at all! How would anyone otherwise know, for instance on LOG, that the three Victoria Line interchanges all provide access to the same stretch of Victoria Line, unlike the District - and how otherwise would you explain graphically that the three District Line interchanges do NOT provide access to the same stretch of District Line?

Re: My statement in Example 4 in Reply #47. above, I had cause to go to Kensal Green last night and I found that the statement is not true; the timetable posters at Bakerloo/Overground stations DO INDEED show the lines combined on the line diagram.

One more development:



farm4.static.flickr.com/3364/3244274574_393d125e25_b.jpg

If anyone would like the PDF of this for closer inspection, please PM me.

I have three slight issues with this

• the circle for Earl's Court shouldn't be orange - green would probably work best.
  
• at Euston, I'd make the Victoria line the one that extends through the circle rather than the Northern, this is just for balance.
  
• You need more space between the Ealing Broadway label and the British Rail label at Richmond
  

Otherwise this is the best yet.