Signs at St. James' Park
 

John Rowland wrote:
"umpston" wrote in message
m...

London Underground should be commended for
using both spellings at this station since, as this
thread has proved, there is not a generally accepted
'correct' usage - either spelling seems to be acceptable.

No, they should not be commended, because it is a mistake.
The station does not have two different names, and would
not even if the eponymous park did.


If there is no one "correct" spelling or punctuation specified for a given
name how can it be "wrong"?

(Blame Dr Johnson, it's all his fault!!)

Signs at St. James' Park
 

"John Rowland" wrote in message ...
"umpston" wrote in message
m...

London Underground should be commended for
using both spellings at this station since, as this
thread has proved, there is not a generally accepted
'correct' usage - either spelling seems to be acceptable.

No, they should not be commended, because it is a mistake. The station does
not have two different names, and would not even if the eponymous park did.

Incidentally, does one of the Ruislip Central lIne stations still have
roundels which use completely the wrong font?


Do you mean Rayners lane with old roundels?

Signs at St. James' Park
 

Cast_Iron wrote:
John Rowland wrote:
"umpston" wrote in message
m...

London Underground should be commended for
using both spellings at this station since, as this
thread has proved, there is not a generally accepted
'correct' usage - either spelling seems to be acceptable.

The fact that a few misguided individuals think so doesn't make their
version "generally acceptable".

No, they should not be commended, because it is a mistake.
The station does not have two different names, and would
not even if the eponymous park did.

If there is no one "correct" spelling or punctuation
specified for a given name how can it be "wrong"?

But there *is* one correct spelling, "St. James's Park".
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Signs at St. James' Park
 

Richard J. wrote:
Cast_Iron wrote:
John Rowland wrote:
"umpston" wrote in message
m...

London Underground should be commended for
using both spellings at this station since, as this
thread has proved, there is not a generally accepted
'correct' usage - either spelling seems to be acceptable.

The fact that a few misguided individuals think so doesn't
make their version "generally acceptable".

No, they should not be commended, because it is a mistake.
The station does not have two different names, and would
not even if the eponymous park did.

If there is no one "correct" spelling or punctuation
specified for a given name how can it be "wrong"?

But there *is* one correct spelling, "St. James's Park".

Quite obviously a number of people disagree with you.

Signs at St. James' Park
 

In message , John Rowland
writes
"umpston" wrote in message
om...

London Underground should be commended for
using both spellings at this station since, as this
thread has proved, there is not a generally accepted
'correct' usage - either spelling seems to be acceptable.

No, they should not be commended, because it is a mistake. The station does
not have two different names, and would not even if the eponymous park did.

It's an interesting English eccentricity and is as it should be....
--
Kat "bears" said the taxi driver "is sixpence extra,
sticky bears is ninepence"

Ruislip (was Signs at St. James' Park)
 

"Phil" wrote in message
m...
"John Rowland" wrote in message
...

Incidentally, does one of the Ruislip Central lIne stations
still have roundels which use completely the wrong font?

Do you mean Rayners lane with old roundels?

No.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

Signs at St. James' Park
 

Cast_Iron wrote:
Richard J. wrote:
Cast_Iron wrote:
John Rowland wrote:
"umpston" wrote in message
m...

London Underground should be commended for
using both spellings at this station since, as this
thread has proved, there is not a generally accepted
'correct' usage - either spelling seems to be acceptable.

The fact that a few misguided individuals think so doesn't
make their version "generally acceptable".

No, they should not be commended, because it is a mistake.
The station does not have two different names, and would
not even if the eponymous park did.

If there is no one "correct" spelling or punctuation
specified for a given name how can it be "wrong"?

But there *is* one correct spelling, "St. James's Park".

Quite obviously a number of people disagree with you.

Yeah, a guy who doesn't know when to put an apostrophe in "it's"; another
who goes on about the Queen's English but doesn't know how the Queen spells
the Court of St. James's; an expert on buses who also makes the same
mistake; and two others (including you) who are fooled into thinking this
is a matter for debate.

I refer you to the spelling adopted by The Royal Parks, Ordnance Survey,
other map producers such as Bartholomew, Transport for London, City of
Westminster, Fowler's Modern English Usage, and in respect of St. James's
Palace (after which the park was named) the royal web-site
www.royal.gov.uk. Can you provide *any* evidence, apart from the rogue
station sign, that any other spelling is generally accepted?
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Signs at St. James' Park
 

Richard J. wrote:
Cast_Iron wrote:
Richard J. wrote:
Cast_Iron wrote:
John Rowland wrote:
"umpston" wrote in message
m...

London Underground should be commended for
using both spellings at this station since, as this
thread has proved, there is not a generally accepted
'correct' usage - either spelling seems to be
acceptable.

The fact that a few misguided individuals think so doesn't
make their version "generally acceptable".

No, they should not be commended, because it is a
mistake.
The station does not have two different names, and would
not even if the eponymous park did.

If there is no one "correct" spelling or punctuation
specified for a given name how can it be "wrong"?

But there *is* one correct spelling, "St. James's Park".

Quite obviously a number of people disagree with you.

Yeah, a guy who doesn't know when to put an apostrophe in
"it's"; another who goes on about the Queen's English but
doesn't know how the Queen spells the Court of St. James's;
an expert on buses who also makes the same mistake; and two
others (including you) who are fooled into thinking this is
a matter for debate.

I refer you to the spelling adopted by The Royal Parks,
Ordnance Survey, other map producers such as Bartholomew,
Transport for London, City of Westminster, Fowler's Modern
English Usage, and in respect of St. James's Palace (after
which the park was named) the royal web-site
www.royal.gov.uk. Can you provide *any* evidence, apart
from the rogue station sign, that any other spelling is
generally accepted?

You obviously feel strongly about it, I couldn't really give a toss how
anything is spelt or punctuated as long as the meaning is clear.

Signs at St. James' Park
 

Richard J. wrote:

As you say, the apostrophe has a circular ball at the top, but the dot
under the T of "ST." is square. Also, several letters are narrower than
Johnston, and the E and K have subtly different proportions. Looks like an
amateur attempt to copy Johnston. I wonder why.

Because the real thing was hard to get hold of?

I've heard of one such font called SubwayLondon. Could it be that?

Signs at St. James' Park
 

Aidan Stanger wrote:
Richard J. wrote:

As you say, the apostrophe has a circular ball at the top, but the
dot under the T of "ST." is square. Also, several letters are
narrower than Johnston, and the E and K have subtly different
proportions. Looks like an amateur attempt to copy Johnston. I
wonder why.

Because the real thing was hard to get hold of?

Surely not at LU's HQ station?

I've heard of one such font called SubwayLondon. Could it be that?

I haven't managed to find a full character set of SubwayLondon. The name
suggests it's an unofficial American clone of Johnston.

I think it's more likely that the sign was put up in the 1970's when LU
were starting to redesign Johnston. It might contain some experimental
variations that were not adopted for New Johnston.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Signs at St. James' Park
 

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:11:23 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote:

I think it's more likely that the sign was put up in the 1970's when LU
were starting to redesign Johnston. It might contain some experimental
variations that were not adopted for New Johnston.

Whilst on the subject of New Johnston I'm surprised that nobody
has mentioned alternative characters, or at least dots.

Compare pages 4 and 7 of the Fares for 2004 leaflet. On the
Carnet advert the full stops and the dots on the "i"s do not
have straight sides; on the Oyster ad they do.

Signs at St. James' Park
 

Roger wrote the following in:
ildram.co.uk

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:11:23 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote:

I think it's more likely that the sign was put up in the 1970's
when LU were starting to redesign Johnston. It might contain some
experimental variations that were not adopted for New Johnston.

Whilst on the subject of New Johnston I'm surprised that nobody
has mentioned alternative characters, or at least dots.

Compare pages 4 and 7 of the Fares for 2004 leaflet. On the
Carnet advert the full stops and the dots on the "i"s do not
have straight sides; on the Oyster ad they do.

Ah yes. What is this typeface with the slightly concave sides on the
dots? Is it Johnston, or some dodgy copy?

--
message by Robin May, but you can call me Mr Smith.
Enjoy the Routemaster while you still can.

"Handlebar catch and nipple."

Signs at St. James' Park
 

Roger wrote:
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:11:23 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote:

I think it's more likely that the sign was put up in the 1970's when
LU were starting to redesign Johnston. It might contain some
experimental variations that were not adopted for New Johnston.

Whilst on the subject of New Johnston I'm surprised that nobody
has mentioned alternative characters, or at least dots.

Compare pages 4 and 7 of the Fares for 2004 leaflet. On the
Carnet advert the full stops and the dots on the "i"s do not
have straight sides; on the Oyster ad they do.

Well spotted! The dots on the Carnet advert have concave sides. This
appears to be a feature of the lighter weights of the typeface ("Book" and
"Light") whereas the heavier weights ("Medium" and "Bold") have retained
the straight-sided diamonds. If you download the Acrobat version of the
leaflet from
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/common/downloa...es-revised.pdf
and set the zoom level to 1600%, you will see that the general text in the
document, e.g. Ken Livingstone's message on page 2, also has these
concave-sided dots. It is probably done to emphasise the shape and make it
appear consistent in all versions of the typeface, though as you spotted,
it becomes rather too obvious in larger point sizes.

It seems to be a modification of the original New Johnston design, as it
doesn't appear in samples dating from 1988 shown in "Johnston's Underground
Type" by Justin Howes.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Signs at St. James' Park
 

In message , Robin May
writes

Roger wrote the following in:
news:lhtguvomgr0s2prih3vfb83li79afpu8cu@utgarthr. nildram.co.uk

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:11:23 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote:

Compare pages 4 and 7 of the Fares for 2004 leaflet. On the
Carnet advert the full stops and the dots on the "i"s do not
have straight sides; on the Oyster ad they do.

Ah yes. What is this typeface with the slightly concave sides on the
dots? Is it Johnston, or some dodgy copy?

Looking at the document in the full version of Acrobat (which identifies
embedded fonts) it seems that it uses a version of New Johnston made for
TFL, as the font name is NJTFL - it is used in four versions:

NJTFL-Book, which has the concave dots and is used for body text.
NJTFL-Medium, straight-sided dots (used for lighter headings).
NJTFL-Bold, straight-sided dots (used for stronger headings).
NJTFL-BookBold, concave dots (used for bold in tables).

The illustrations on pages 4 and 7, mentioned by Richard, are scanned
images but the originals were presumably produced using these variant
versions of Bold and BookBold respectively.

There is an illustration of the NJTFL-Medium character set (with some
other information about TFL signage typography) in TFL's document on
sign standards for River Services:

http://www.transportforlondon.gov.uk...nsStandard.pdf

--
Paul Terry

Signs at St. James' Park
 

"Paul Terry" wrote in message
...

NJTFL-Book, which has the concave dots and is used for body text.
NJTFL-Medium, straight-sided dots (used for lighter headings).
NJTFL-Bold, straight-sided dots (used for stronger headings).
NJTFL-BookBold, concave dots (used for bold in tables).

The fonts seem to all use complicated 'g's... didn't New Johnston use simple
'g's?

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

Signs at St. James' Park
 

In message , John Rowland
writes
"Paul Terry" wrote in message
...

NJTFL-Book, which has the concave dots and is used for body text.
NJTFL-Medium, straight-sided dots (used for lighter headings).
NJTFL-Bold, straight-sided dots (used for stronger headings).
NJTFL-BookBold, concave dots (used for bold in tables).

The fonts seem to all use complicated 'g's... didn't New Johnston use simple
'g's?

No.
--
Kat "A world without string is chaos"

Signs at St. James' Park
 

Paul Terry wrote:
In message , Robin
May writes

Roger wrote the following in:
ildram.co.uk

Compare pages 4 and 7 of the Fares for 2004 leaflet. On the
Carnet advert the full stops and the dots on the "i"s do not
have straight sides; on the Oyster ad they do.

Ah yes. What is this typeface with the slightly concave sides on
the dots? Is it Johnston, or some dodgy copy?

Looking at the document in the full version of Acrobat (which
identifies embedded fonts) it seems that it uses a version of New
Johnston made for TFL, as the font name is NJTFL - it is used in
four versions:

NJTFL-Book, which has the concave dots and is used for body text.
NJTFL-Medium, straight-sided dots (used for lighter headings).
NJTFL-Bold, straight-sided dots (used for stronger headings).
NJTFL-BookBold, concave dots (used for bold in tables).

Thanks for this, Paul.


I've now found the LU Desktop Publishing standards, at
http://www.transportforlondon.gov.uk...Publishing.pdf
which say that New Johnston Book "has been designed specifically for
clarity and legibility at 12pt or below. It should not be used larger than
this. At sizes above 12pt, New Johnston Light should be used instead."

The only reason that the concave dots are visible in the Carnet advert on
page 7 is that an original image in New Johnston Book, probably 12pt, has
been enlarged as a graphic to about 36pt. This is a violation of the
publishing standards.

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)