In article ,
(Ian Jelf) wrote:

In message ,
writes
In article ,
d ()
wrote:

On Wed, 5 Jan 2011 16:55:25 -0800 (PST)
MIG wrote:
But if the display was wrong, say, 10% of the time (not saying it
is), it would actually be 100% useless, wouldn't it?

Quite. If you have to check the destination indicators on the train
anyway there's little point having the platform ones except for a
countdown until the next train.

Well, old fashioned they may be, but the Earl's Court ones are pretty
reliable IME. I don't think I've seen them wrong.

Don't shoot the messenger but in my experience, the general public
find those **very** difficult to interpret.

Quite possibly. I fully accept that I am not a member of the general
public in relation to them, having known them since I was in short
trousers.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Getting back to the original point of the in-car line diagrams, would
this not simply come down to costs? Presumably it'd be cheaper to
order (say) 10000 maps, all printed East - West, rather than a batch
of 5000 E-W and 5000 W-E. Plus, they'd save the cost of someone
sitting down in front of a computer making the 'second' version of the
map.

Maybe.

M

In article
,
(M J Forbes) wrote:

Getting back to the original point of the in-car line diagrams, would
this not simply come down to costs? Presumably it'd be cheaper to
order (say) 10000 maps, all printed East - West, rather than a batch
of 5000 E-W and 5000 W-E. Plus, they'd save the cost of someone
sitting down in front of a computer making the 'second' version of the
map.

It would appear so. The Victoria Line had handed maps each side from
opening until a few years ago. Elsewhere East or North was at the
right-hand end of diagrams.

The only new bit being objected to when this thread started would seem to
be changing that general convention.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article ,
wrote:
It would appear so. The Victoria Line had handed maps each side from
opening until a few years ago. Elsewhere East or North was at the
right-hand end of diagrams.

I'm pretty sure that the Northern Line had north at the Left - am
I misremembering? It's been a while since I used the Northern Line
regularly...

The only new bit being objected to when this thread started would seem to
be changing that general convention.

Maybe the change is that the Vic was thought of as East/West, and is now thought of
as North/South...

--
Mike Bristow

On Jan 7, 2:17*pm, Mike Bristow wrote:
In article ,
* * * * wrote:

It would appear so. The Victoria Line had handed maps each side from
opening until a few years ago. Elsewhere East or North was at the
right-hand end of diagrams.

I'm pretty sure that the Northern Line had north at the Left - am
I misremembering? *It's been a while since I used the Northern Line
regularly...

Yes, I think that was a mistake. North is left. However, there
aren't many lines where that convention needs to be considered,
because the other lines have a sufficiently east-west trend to them.

I am pretty sure the East London Line had north to the left, but the
memory is fading ...



The only new bit being objected to when this thread started would seem to
be changing that general convention.

Maybe the change is that the Vic was thought of as East/West, and is now thought of
as North/South...

--
Mike Bristow * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *