In message , at
14:36:40 on Tue, 8 May 2007, Tom Anderson
remarked:

Maybe needs a suitable symbol, rather than being completely missing.
Well, it is closed anyway - you can use it. So why show it?

So people can plan their future journeys for when it reopens,

?!?!

When it reopens, there'll be a new map showing it!

Can you guarantee you'll have the time to research the position of the
station, and upload a new map based on that? People's circumstances
change, and I'd rather I could see your map with Regents Park shown as
"closed" (and know it was open, but that you hadn't had the time to
update it), than have a void.

Do you anticipate people needing to plan journeys far enough in
advance that they need suhc a map now?

Yes. People have all sorts of reasons they want to know where stations
are - otherwise why are you engaging on this exercise at all???

and you don't have much to do, to update the map, when that happens.

That makes no sense at all. How does adding it now save effort over
adding it later?

Because all you have to do is change a symbol, rather then work out
where a new symbol has to go.

In the mean time it will help them pick the closest *open* station.

I don't think this makes sense either. Who deals with station closure
by picking the nearest open station? You look at a map to see which
surviving station is closest to your actual destination, and then go to
the tube map to work out how to get there.

If the people you are visiting have a website that doesn't keep up with
this week's station closures, they might very well say "Go to station X,
turn left and walk 100 yds".

In any case, this map isn't aimed at people wanting to plan journeys

Hmm, that seems to me to be a major target audience.

--
Roland Perry

"Mark Brader" wrote in message
...
John Salmon:
"Right-hand running on London Transport" was discussed in "The Why
and the Wherefore" section of The Railway Magazine in January 1968
(page 61), described as a reply to J. E. Salmon - probably the
first
time I saw my name in print in any railway magazine.

Did they explain the Northern Line's right-hand running around
London
Bridge? I have never seen a full explanation of that; "Rails
Through
the Clay", as I recall, says only that it is "related to the
original
intention to use cable traction".

Yes (and the area around White City (Central Line) which had been the
subject of my original query.)

"The unusual arrangement of the lines between Borough and Bank
stations is a legacy from the way in which the original tunnels of
the City & South London Railway were driven between the old City
terminus at King William Street, Monument and the Elephant & Castle.
J. H. Greathead, the engineer for the construction of the line,
designed the intermediate stations, where there were no crossover
roads, with the intention of reducing the amount of walking up and
down staircases to a minimum, and arranged the two lines side by side
in plan, but at a difference of level of 9 ft. 6 in. At Borough
Station, he decided to have the up line at the higher level, and
brought the two lines to a right-handed position there. He crossed
the lines over between Borough and Elephant & Castle, where there was
a crossover siding connection (until the line was reconstructed after
the 1914 war), and both lines had to be at the same level. At
Kennington and Oval, the double-level arrangement was again used. The
position of the tunnels at Borough made it necessary, when making the
extension to Moorgate Street, opened in February 1900, to keep the
two tracks in a right-handed position until north of Bank Station,
where they crossed over to arrive at the new terminus in the usual
manner. From the old King William Street Station, the lines fell
towards the river at different gradients, and were directly over each
other under Swan Lane."

Mark Brader:
Did they explain the Northern Line's right-hand running around
London Bridge? ...

John Salmon (quoting the Railway Magazine):
"The unusual arrangement of the lines between Borough and Bank
stations is a legacy from the way in which the original tunnels of
the City & South London Railway were driven between the old City
terminus at King William Street, Monument and the Elephant & Castle.
J. H. Greathead, the engineer for the construction of the line,
designed the intermediate stations, where there were no crossover
roads, with the intention of reducing the amount of walking up and
down staircases to a minimum, and arranged the two lines side by side
in plan, but at a difference of level of 9 ft. 6 in. At Borough
Station, he decided to have the up line at the higher level, and
brought the two lines to a right-handed position there..."

Yeah, this describes the layout, but it doesn't give a reason for it.
If the two lines were generally side by side in plan, putting the up
line at a higher level would not require crossing them over.

Thanks anyway.
--
Mark Brader "Computers get paid to extract relevant
Toronto information from files; people should not
have to do such mundane tasks." -- Ian Darwin

My text in this article is in the public domain.

On Tue, 8 May 2007, Clive D. W. Feather wrote:

In article , Tom Anderson
writes

I should mention that the tube data was lifted wholesale from CULG; i
really should have asked Clive permission before posting this.
Apologies Clive. I'll ask you properly, and add whatever attribution
you like, before i post it properly.

That's okay.

Thanks.

So long as there's a proper acknowledgement and link to CULG, that's fine.

Will do.

tom

--
The fundamental cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid
are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell

On Tue, 8 May 2007, John Rowland wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

How about having cross- or same-platform interchange shown by having
both lines go through a single circle, rather than having two joined
circles?

Bizarrely I came to the same conclusion less than a minute before reading
your post.

Not so bizarre - it's a pretty obvious thing to do. Indeed, it's what the
LU map generally does (well, it puts all lines through single circles when
it can), so it's actualy less bizarre than what Alex has done!

I also think that the Vic and Northern should go through their shared
circle in a north-south direction to make the direction of the
cross-platform interchange clear.

Good point.

This might make the map look a bit simpler, too. Or are you reserving
that for shared tracks only?

There is no reason for a passenger looking at a tube map to be told
which interchanges are shared-track and which are cross-platform.

This map is, AIUI, not for passengers.

tom

--
The fundamental cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid
are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell

On Tue, 8 May 2007, alex_t wrote:

How about having cross- or same-platform interchange shown by having
both lines go through a single circle, rather than having two joined
circles? This might make the map look a bit simpler, too. Or are you
reserving that for shared tracks only?

That's the major problem - if I will put cross-platform interchanges in
one circle, then how would I mark the stations which some line passes
through but does not stop (like Neasden for Metropolitan and Jubilee, or
Chiswick Pack for District and Piccadilly). I was thinking about
half-circles (to the side of the stopping line), but it looks somewhat
weird (especially 'cause it's only for 11 stations).

How about having the non-stop line go past the circle altogether? Like:

West
Hampstead
-------O----\ /----- Jubilee
-------------=O=------ Metropolitan
Finchley
Road

You can do this even when the two lines share tracks (eg Clapton on the
big railway - is there anywhere this happens on LU?).

Yes. this requires a little geographical deviation, but your map is a map
of lines, which are conceptual entities defined by service patterns of
trains, not a map of tracks, which are those long, thin bits of metal.

tom

--
The fundamental cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid
are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell

On Tue, 8 May 2007, John Rowland wrote:

Mr Thant wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/238mn2

Excellent!

Anyone else have a map of the tube et al they'd like to share? I propose
we collect them all together and have a MAP SHOWDOWN. Winner to receive
the Beck Cup and be crowned KING OF MAPS.

the interchange slobs

Is that an official term?

tom

--
The fundamental cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid
are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell

On Tue, 8 May 2007, Clive D. W. Feather wrote:

In article .com, alex_t
writes

Well west.

So it will go to: Euston - west of MC - Camden Town - ... -
Edgware?

At Euston the two branches of the Northern Line are approximately at
right angles. The CX branch runs along Eversholt Street,

Whereabouts does it head over to Tottenham Court Road, if i may ask?

while the Bank branch takes a large loop, converging with the CX branch
just south of Camden Town. There are then the complex junctions, after
which the two branches follow along the two main roads northwards.

idle-speculation

I was wondering, as i was sat on it this morning, whether it would be
possible to construct a connector between the Bank and CX branches around
about Euston, so that they could act as two arms of a loop, with trains
running Kennington - Bank - Euston - Charing Cross - Kennington and vice
versa. Based on what you say, perhaps not.

If so, though, it could be a useful way of focusing trains on the
termini-to-town section of the line, which i assume is the most heavily
loaded, either for extra trains during the peaks (which wouldn't need to
negotiate the delay-inducing Camden Town chicanery) or off-peak (when
demand to the suburbs is less). I don't know where you'd put the
platforms, how much worse the extra set of junctions would make the line's
reliability, or how confusing it would be for passengers.

Looking at tis map of Euston on John's site:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...9/lteuston.gif

.... it seems that it might be plausible. For the clockwise route, drive a
tunnel from the northbound Charing Cross branch some way south of the
platform, drop down to the level between the two branches, run along under
the branch, then dive to join the southbound Bank branch just 'north' of
the platform, perhaps exploiting the old northbound alignment. For the
anticlockwise route, start your tunnel from the northbound Bank branch at
what remains of the northbound alignment, and is now a reversing siding,
to the 'south' of the platforms; climb over the southbound Bank platform,
turn north, and loop round to join the southbound Charing Cross branch
just north of its platform. Provided there's as much vertical separation
between the branches as i hope there is, and provided there's nothing
awkward underground to the north of the Bank branch platforms (er, Euston
station itself?), this would avoid some of the major complaints - all
trains to Bank and Charing Cross would go from the same platform (IYSWIM),
and there would be enough track in 'limbo' between the main routes of the
branches to hold a train or two, so helping avoid head-of-line blocking -
rendering this idea merely bad, rather than terrible.

/idle-speculation

Hmm. That map implies that the northbound City track passes *under* the
Victoria line, whereas this cut-away drawing:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...9/lteusmod.jpg

Shows it passing *over* it. Anyone know which is right?

tom

--
The fundamental cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid
are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell

On Tue, 8 May 2007, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 14:36:40
on Tue, 8 May 2007, Tom Anderson remarked:

Maybe needs a suitable symbol, rather than being completely missing.
Well, it is closed anyway - you can use it. So why show it?

So people can plan their future journeys for when it reopens,

?!?!

When it reopens, there'll be a new map showing it!

Can you guarantee you'll

Just to point out that i'm not the OP, and it's not my map!

have the time to research the position of the station, and upload a new
map based on that? People's circumstances change, and I'd rather I could
see your map with Regents Park shown as "closed" (and know it was open,
but that you hadn't had the time to update it), than have a void.

I take your point. But equally, if you want to be able to see at a glance
where there are stations you can use, showing closed stations is
unhelpful. Anyway, both points are moot, since this map isn't aimed at
passengers.

Do you anticipate people needing to plan journeys far enough in advance
that they need suhc a map now?

Yes. People have all sorts of reasons they want to know where stations are -
otherwise why are you engaging on this exercise at all???

See below!

and you don't have much to do, to update the map, when that happens.

That makes no sense at all. How does adding it now save effort over adding
it later?

Because all you have to do is change a symbol, rather then work out
where a new symbol has to go.

Yebbut if he adds that symbol now, he has to do the working out step now.
The total work for your suggestion is working out location + drawing
closed symbol + changing symbol, whereas the alternative is merely working
out location + drawing symbol - a whole symbol change less!

In the mean time it will help them pick the closest *open* station.

I don't think this makes sense either. Who deals with station closure by
picking the nearest open station? You look at a map to see which surviving
station is closest to your actual destination, and then go to the tube map
to work out how to get there.

If the people you are visiting have a website that doesn't keep up with
this week's station closures, they might very well say "Go to station X,
turn left and walk 100 yds".

Ah yes, true. I have a strong personal dislike of directions, so tend to
just take the location and do the rest myself; i forget other people
aren't wired that way.

In any case, this map isn't aimed at people wanting to plan journeys

Hmm, that seems to me to be a major target audience.

Not for this map! For those people, there are the official maps on the TfL
website. This map is for Alex to use as a basis for showing variations on
the network, for the entertainment of people like us who are interested in
it for its own sake.

tom

--
The fundamental cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid
are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell

On Tue, 8 May 2007, Clive D. W. Feather wrote:

In article . com, MIG
writes

Victoria Line and City branch of the Northern Line do have cross-platform
interchange at Euston.
[...]
They probably did it that one on the assumption that someone was more
likely to want to change northbound - northbound (eg Green Park to
Tufnell Park) or southbound - southbound (eg Highbury to Angel
[dubious]).

Before the Victoria Line was built, the CX branch saw a *lot* more
traffic than the Bank branch, because of people from the north
travelling to the West End (the City wasn't such a big attractor of
commuters back then). Therefore the easy interchange to the Victoria
Line was put on the Bank branch to even out the flows, and the Warren
Street interchange on the CX branch is deliberately less convenient (it
nearly got omitted entirely).

*bangs head on desk*

Great bit of forward planning there!

tom

--
The fundamental cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid
are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell