On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, 1577+2260 wrote:

On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 00:22:00 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

That's one way of looking at it. My approach to a map like this would
to be try to erase superfluous distinctions; since i don't think the
difference between NR and LU lines is important per se (i think the
difference in service level is, but not the operator!), i wouldn't try
to display it.

I think the difference in service pattern is important, and so there
should be some distinction.

Absolutely - but the map should reflect the service pattern, not the
operator, so high-frequency mainlines should look similar to normal tube
lines, and low-frequency tubes should look similar to normal mainlines,
rather than having all mainlines look similar and all tube lines look
similar.

On LU one can be sure (ish!) of a frequent train,

Except on a few bits of the network (Mill Hill East, for example). That
said, even MHE gets 6 tph, which is fantastic by NR standards.

and the stopping patterns are fairly simple, Met excepted. On the main
lines, it would help at least to know it's an NR route, so that one can
expect varied stopping patterns, possible fast trains etc, and go to the
NR part of the station!

Within London, stopping patterns are mostly fairly simple, though. This is
particularly so if you're willing to see different classes of service on
the same tracks as different lines. For example, the West Anglia line
between Liverpool Street and Hackney has three stopping patterns: no stops
(outer suburban and intercity trains), stops at Bethnal Green and Hackney
(inner suburbans to Chingford) and all stops (inner suburbans to Enfield).
You could say this was complicated, but if you ignore the outer suburbans
(after all, this is a London map) and consider the other services as two
separate lines, it's pretty simple. In fact, it's directly analagous to
the Jubilee and Metropolitan lines between Finchley Road and Wembley Park.

I don't think individual TOCs need to be shown, because people will tend
to look for a train to their destination rather than the specific TOC.
OTOH I think it's important to indicate individual lines on LU, because
stations are set up for people to look for their train by the 'line'
that it's on.

I agree, and i think the line principle should be extended to the NR
network as far as possible, in the Overground Network style.

tom

--
SAWING CHASING CRUNCHING ROBOTIC DEMOLITION

On Wed, 8 Jun 2005, James Farrar wrote:

On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 00:22:00 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

It wasn't until Hutchison, in 1960, that interchanges went black:

About the only good feature of that abomination.

!

This is sensible, though, since it deals with the conundrum of which
line interchange stations should take their colour from. That said, i
really like Beck's pre-1960 maps, where interchanges consist of one
circle on each line (in the line's colour).

I think that in some locations (Charing Cross/Embankment springs to
mind) it looks absurdly crowded.

I don't. Compare the 1959 version, with separate circles:

http://www.ursasoft.com/maps/LURS/big/london-1959.gif

To the 2000, with joint ones:

http://www.ursasoft.com/maps/LURS/big/london-2000.gif

The 2000 map still needs multiple circles to capture Embankment / Charing
Cross, so the 1959 isn't substantially more complex.

That said, we can't see King's Cross or Euston on those maps!

There's another device i quite like on the 1909 map:

http://www.ursasoft.com/maps/LURS/extra/london-1909.gif

Interchanges are shown as solid dots, like normal stations, but one on top
of the other, with the one underneath a bit bigger, so it's visible as a
ring around the one on top. They form concentric circles, basically.
There's an echo of this in the way the 1959 map handles the Circle and
District lines together at Charing Cross.

Perhaps this would be a good way to show cross- or same-platform
interchange, using 1959-style linked circles for different-platform
interchanges, which would simplify big interchange stations, whilst also
giving more information. Alternatively, it could be used for all
interchanges (in which case the radial order could be used to indicate
depth below ground!), but several stations would basically look like
gobstoppers, which would be most unseemly.

Mad props to this excellent website on the history of interchange
symbology:

http://www.ursasoft.com/maps/LURS/

A lovely diversion for twenty minutes or so. I actually really like the
dot-in-circle for mainline interchanges.

I really don't like the look, but it is clever. If one were to use the
concentric rings, mainline interchange could be shown simply by having a
white core - a ring which isn't part of a line, but which echoes the white
design used for NR lines.

tom

--
SAWING CHASING CRUNCHING ROBOTIC DEMOLITION

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, 1577+2260 wrote:

On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 00:22:00 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

That's one way of looking at it. My approach to a map like this would
to be try to erase superfluous distinctions; since i don't think the
difference between NR and LU lines is important per se (i think the
difference in service level is, but not the operator!), i wouldn't
try to display it.


I think the difference in service pattern is important, and so there
should be some distinction.


Absolutely - but the map should reflect the service pattern, not the
operator, so high-frequency mainlines should look similar to normal tube
lines, and low-frequency tubes should look similar to normal mainlines,
rather than having all mainlines look similar and all tube lines look
similar.
(snip)

I disagree, for the moment; Tube and NR should be indicated separately
for now, mainly because of ticketing issues. I know you can use
Travelcards anywhere, but through tickets between LU and NR are a bit of
a pain at the moment, particularly for Oyster users.

Even if fares were integrated, there is then the issue that
low-frequency Tube routes are often equivalent to what would be
considered high frequency on NR. The only sections of NR that approach
Tube standards of high frequency are sections like Clapham Junction -
Victoria / Waterloo. 6tph is an average frequency on outer Tube routes,
but it could be considered quite high frequency for some NR routes (e.g.
trains via Forest Hill).


--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 17:22:02 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

I am absolutely positive that at some point, the new map was online. Maybe
i'm losing my mind.

It is available here
http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/downloads/LC_May_x05.pdf

--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

On Wed, 8 Jun 2005, Paul Corfield wrote:

On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 17:22:02 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

I am absolutely positive that at some point, the new map was online. Maybe
i'm losing my mind.

It is available here
http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/downloads/LC_May_x05.pdf

No, that's the ATOC map. I was referring to TfL's version of this -
specifically, the one which differentiates high- and low-frequency NR
services, not the plain London Connections one. And no, i don't mean the
Overground Network map either. Gah, too many maps!

tom

--
Remember when we said there was no future? Well, this is it.

St Pancras was only shown as having Thameslink services during the
blockade. |I've just checked and the pre-blockade London Connections
map (June 2004) shows St Pancras in the same manner as this new (May
2005) map, i.e. without any services running from it.

Yes, because no services departing from St Pancras stop at any of the
stations shown on the map.

Joe wrote:
St Pancras was only shown as having Thameslink services during the
blockade. |I've just checked and the pre-blockade London Connections
map (June 2004) shows St Pancras in the same manner as this new (May
2005) map, i.e. without any services running from it.

Yes, because no services departing from St Pancras stop at any of the
stations shown on the map.

I knew that! Track back and you'll see I was just emphasising your
explaination to gwr4090's point that St Pancras had no services shown
as running out from it. I was merely saying that the May 2005 treatment
of St Pancras was consistant with it's pre-blockade treatment on the
older editions of the London Connections maps.

When I get round to it I'll put the few recent PDF's I saved of the
London Connections map (and the London & South East map) up on a
website, and solicit others to send in what's missing.

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
.li...

Except on a few bits of the network (Mill Hill East,
for example). That said, even MHE gets 6 tph,

Really? I thought this single-track branch couldn't handle more than 5tph.

which is fantastic by NR standards.

--
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

MIG wrote:



I can never remember which runs which, but I know it reverses, ie
whichever operator runs it clockwise in the morning runs it
anticlockwise in the evening.


Thameslink seem to run both ways round in the evening peak, causing two
trains clockwise within 4 minutes, then a 26 minute gap.

I honestly feel the maze of lines in South London needs unravelling and
a simplified service pattern introduced. Even as someone who works in
the industry I often get confused with the direction and routing of trains!

Cheers,

Steve M

I honestly feel the maze of lines in South London needs unravelling and
a simplified service pattern introduced. Even as someone who works in
the industry I often get confused with the direction and routing of trains!

This isn't too far off the thread, but the main problem in the South
Central area is that services seem to close down evenings and Sundays,
such that while the off peak pattern shown in the diagrams may apply on
your way out, you can't always get home again. This is very
discouraging for leisure use of railways.

On South Eastern, most of the connections run all days and hours,
except those that stray across South Central, ie the Lewisham to
Victoria connection.