Ben Nunn:
Indeed, as South Acton closed about 1959.

Yes, that's the earliest of the changes Charles mentioned, and it has
to be before that.

If the map has White City on the Central Line (as opposed to Wood Lane) then
it's post-1947. If Tooting Bec is no longer called Trinity Road, then it's
post-1950.

There were two significant service changes in the late 1950s that might
have been reflected on the map, but they weren't, so they doesn't help.
The Epping-Ongar service changed from BR steam trains to electric tube
trains -- but still without running trains through Epping -- in 1957, and
the Aldwych branch changed from full-time to rush-hour service in 1958.
But I'm looking at some 1950s maps in Garland's book right now, and as
I said, these changes aren't shown at all. The "rush hour" annotation
appeared on the map sometime later.

I'm curious whether this monochrome version is laid out the same as the
full-color version of that period. I would expect so, but let's see.

* Most lines are horizontal or vertical; the only diagonal sections are
the Central Line's West Ruislip branch, the Bakerloo south of Baker
Street, the Waterloo & City, and two sections of the Piccadilly.

* At the points where a line is shown as changing direction, it is
drawn as curved, except in some of the places (e.g. Rayners Lane,
Acton Town, Baker Street) where there is also an interchange there.

* Except for the Circle Line, where two lines share track -- e.g. the
branches to Uxbridge, Hounslow West, and Barking -- they are drawn
as if two separate lines, with station symbols on both, but only one
station name for the pair.

* Triple-circle interchange symbols are used at the following stations.
Laid out horizontally: Waterloo. In a triangle: Charing Cross, Holborn.
Vertical: Hammersmith, King's Cross St. Pancras, Mile End. Diagonal:
Moorgate. Vertical/diagonal combination: Paddington, Bank, Whitechapel.
(Charing Cross, of course, is the station now called Embankment.)

* 2 southern, 3 western, and 6 of the northern termini are all aligned
near the respective edges of the map, and the other 3 northern termini
(Stanmore, Edgware, Mill Hill East) are drawn aligned with each other.

Is that what it's like?
--
Mark Brader | "Do I look stupid?"
Toronto | "Yes, actually, a little. It's one of your
| greatest professional assets."
| -- Spider Robinson, "Lady Slings the Booze"

My text in this article is in the public domain.

Unless I'm very much mistaken, it was John Rowland
), in message
who said:
"Ben Nunn" wrote in message
...

If the map has White City on the Central Line (as opposed
to Wood Lane) then it's post-1947. If Tooting Bec is no
longer called Trinity Road, then it's post-1950.

Since there are maps currently sold which show Aldwych station and
Southwark station as both open, you would have to correlate a lot of
different bits of evidence before you could be reasonably certain of
the date of a historic map.


Indeed.

I suppose that realistically one cannot tell how old a map is, only how new
it is - e.g. it's newer than the most recent addition reflected on the map.

Thus a map sold now can show Aldwych as being open, but a map from when
Aldwych was open will never show Southwark - e.g. Southwark on a map means
it's newer than 1999, but Aldwych on a map doesn't necessarily mean it's old
than 1994.

In this case we can look for positive changes - White City, Trinity Road
etc. to determine that the map is newer than NNNN date, but cannot rely on
the negative changes - the presence of South Action.

BTN

Yes, that's a pretty accurate description.
The diagonal lines, apart from Central Line to West Ruislip, Bakerloo south of
Baker street and Picadilly after curving (as you describe) n. from Picadilly
Circus to Finsbury Park, are short links like the South Acton spur, the
Kensington Olympia, and New Cross. And yes, joint sections are shown as double
lines.

I (Mark Brader) wrote:
I'm curious whether this monochrome version is laid out the same as the
full-color version of that period. I would expect so, but let's see.

and gave a description. Charles Pottins replies:

Yes, that's a pretty accurate description.
The diagonal lines, apart from Central Line to West Ruislip, Bakerloo
south of Baker street and Picadilly after curving (as you describe)
n. from Picadilly Circus to Finsbury Park, are short links like the
South Acton spur, the Kensington Olympia, and New Cross. And yes,
joint sections are shown as double lines.

New Cross? Then this *isn't* what I was thinking of. Beck redrafted
the layout in 1954, and I was looking at the full-color maps from the
five years after that. On these maps, the junction south of Surrey
Docks (as it was then called) is symmetrical, the line curving to both
sides and then back southward to New Cross Gate and New Cross, like
a capital Y (in a font where its upper tips are vertical) inverted.
The junction at Finchley Central is drawn the same way.

Let me repeat my earlier description of the late 1950s maps:

* Most lines are horizontal or vertical; the only diagonal sections are
the Central Line's West Ruislip branch, the Bakerloo south of Baker
Street, the Waterloo & City, and two sections of the Piccadilly.

I should have listed the South Acton branch there as well. But on the
early 1950s maps there are more diagonal sections: the Richmond branch,
the New Cross branch (as noted), Camden Town to Highgate, Blackfriars
to Monument, Moorgate to Liverpool Street, and some other shorter bits
around Old Street, Paddington, and Gloucester Road.

Also, on the early 1950s maps the Thames has 5 diagonal sections; in the
late 1950s it has none.

* At the points where a line is shown as changing direction, it is
drawn as curved, except in some of the places (e.g. Rayners Lane,
Acton Town, Baker Street) where there is also an interchange there.

True in both versions.

* Except for the Circle Line, where two lines share track -- e.g. the
branches to Uxbridge, Hounslow West, and Barking -- they are drawn
as if two separate lines, with station symbols on both, but only one
station name for the pair.

True in both versions.

* Triple-circle interchange symbols are used at the following stations.
Laid out horizontally: Waterloo. In a triangle: Charing Cross, Holborn.
Vertical: Hammersmith, King's Cross St. Pancras, Mile End. Diagonal:
Moorgate. Vertical/diagonal combination: Paddington, Bank, Whitechapel.
(Charing Cross, of course, is the station now called Embankment.)

In the above, Monument is drawn as a separate station with an "escalator
connection" to Bank. In the early 1950s version, Bank/Monument is drawn
as one station with two names, using a quadruple circle linked with three
diagonals. Other differences in the early 1950s version: the Hammersmith
triple circle is a vertical/diagonal combination, and Whitechapel is only
a double circle.

* 2 southern, 3 western, and 6 of the northern termini are all aligned
near the respective edges of the map, and the other 3 northern termini
(Stanmore, Edgware, Mill Hill East) are drawn aligned with each other.

In the early 1950s version the Mill Hill East branch is drawn east-west,
not north-south, and Stanmore and Edgware are not drawn in alignment
either with Mill Hill East or with each other.

A further important difference is that on the early 1950s maps, the
District is drawn in a straight horizontal (east-west) line from
Hounslow West to Blackfriars, then diagonal as noted above, then
horizontal again from Monument to Barking. But at this point it runs
out of map, and ends with a green arrowhead; a subsidiary box is needed
to list the last 8 stations (as was also done on all earlier Beck maps).

On the late 1950s maps, the subsidiary box is gone. The District is a
straight horizontal (east-west) line from Hounslow West all the way to
Cannon Street, then jogs north for two stations (the whole Circle Line
is a rectangle with rounded corners), then east to Mile End, then *south*
to Barking, and in this way enough space is obtained to show the section
to Upminster horizontally in the normal manner.

Another change is that in the early 1950s map, the Northern Line is
drawn in a straight line from Edgware to Morden, with the two other
branches at Camden Town on the east side, whereas in the late 1950s
the layout at Camden Town is symmetrical and hence the long vertical
straight line of the earlier design is broken there.

So was this monochrome map like the early 1950s full-color maps?
--
Mark Brader "I can say nothing at this point."
Toronto "Well, you were wrong."
-- Monty Python's Flying Circus

My text in this article is in the public domain.

I (Mark Brader) asked Charles Pottins:
So was this monochrome map like the early 1950s full-color maps?

He replied by emailing me a scan of it. Thanks!

First, it's not only monochrome, but it doesn't distinguish the
various Underground lines at all. They are all drawn as a simple
black line, and there is no legend except for a tiny one just showing
the interchange symbol. (In places where the regular diagram of that
time illogically showed two separated colored lines for lines sharing
track, such as the Uxbridge branch, this one shows two separated
black lines.) Only the Waterloo & City, then the one non-Underground
line shown on Underground maps, is distinguished, as a hollow line.

This is quite different from the monochrome diagram in *my* A-Z, from
about 1970, which shows the Northern solid, the Circle hollow, the
District as a line of dots, the Metropolitan as a line of squares,
and uses harder-to-describe shapes similarly for the other lines.

Next, the general layout of Charles's map is indeed of the period
I asked about. Looking at "Mr Beck's Underground Map", I see that
the diagram was redrafted in 1946 and again in 1954; the general
layout of Charles's map is the one that applied in between those
dates. Also, up to 1949 the diagram showed dashed or dotted lines
for both the Central Line extension to Ongar (opened that year) and
the Northern Line extensions to Alexandra Palace and Bushey Heath
(never completed).

The next map in the book after 1949 is from 1952, and is described
as virtually identical to the 1951 version. It shows the Central
Line as open to Ongar and drops the Northern Line plans. Same with
Charles's map. This 1952 is also extremely similar in layout to
Charles's, the most similar of all the ones in the book -- but not
identical.

Specifically, the treatment of the Richmond branch and the Thames
is different from any map in the book. In the early days of Beck's
diagram the branch was drawn extending southwest while the river
ran first northeast and parallel to it, then southeast to cross it
at right angles. In 1941 when Beck began eliminating diagonals, he
drew the branch as running straight south and the river straight
east, so that Richmond was separated from the river. Some versions
in 1946-47 substituted a diagonal section between Turnham Green
and the river, but were otherwise the same, so Richmond was still
separated. Then in the 1951 and 1952 versions, the branch returned
to its original diagonal, and the river was now drawn running northeast
and then east, so the branch crossed it on a diagonal. In 1954 the
diagonals were removed, the branch again running southward and the
river now running north parallel to it, then east to cross at right
angles. Finally, after Beck was replaced by Hutchison in 1960, the
layout of 1951-52 was restored to this area, and I believe it has
remained so ever since.


But Charles's map is different again. It shows the river running
northeast and then east, as on the 1951-52 maps, but the branch goes
straight south, as on some of the other maps!

/ | / / | |
/ | / / | |
/\/ ----|---- ----|---- .-/---- .-|---- .-|----
/ /\ | | / / | | / |
/ * \ * * / * | * / *
1933 1941 1946 1951/modern 1954 Charles's

Also, Charles's map does *not* show two separated lines for the
District/Metropolitan section from Aldgate East to Barking, as I
implied above that it would, but only one line. There are also some
slight differences in the shape of things from the 1952 map, notably
the Mill Hill East branch, which is drawn longer and comes off the
main line more sharply.

So we still don't have an exact date for the thing, but it seems
to have been taken from an early 1950s color diagram, and probably
redrafted for the A-Z.
--
Mark Brader | "In a case like this, where the idiom is old and its wiring
Toronto | probably a mess, we tamper with nothing. There is always
| the danger it will blow up in your face." -- Matthew Hart

My text in this article is in the public domain.