The Akkurat (I can’t tell the difference between that and Brunel) on blue is by far the best looking of those options - simple and dignified
The article touches on why they favoured a bright colour, rather than a dark one, they even considered neon colours.
(Quote from this article.)
I read that but I don’t believe their fancy graphics really did a good job, for a start it’s going to merge colours so there would be less white background than there really is.
Interesting. I think there's a bit of a disparity then - despite officially being called London [name], on pretty much every map (at least National Rail level maps; I'm not sure about operator maps) there's no London in the name. This doesn't seem to be the case with other cities, strangely...
I agree in principle - however, the standard bus and tram pictograms can be hard to distinguish from each other from a distance, which is a problem at some stations where buses and trams are in a different place (e.g. Manchester Piccadilly)
I can't speak for anyone else but that particular era of the past is in my view preferable to the mess that came later. You knew who operated the trains and who was accountable. Once privatisation hit nobody seemed to know anything and when there was a problem trying to get answers was like wading through treacle. Worse, those of us south of the Thames had to deal with the likes of Connex SouthCentral and Southern. Something that I am glad to have now escaped from.
Absolutely. There are certain things that have come in that I approve of, TPWS fir instance. Let's not forget that 1983 was BR's nadir, the lowest its passenger numbers ever were. Then they rose from then to 1994 when the Thing happened.
You know that you're not getting any of this back, right?
And it's also unrelated to design/branding.
I am surprised this isn't being done, although perhaps it would need to be done in black on white to avoid branding clashes.
You might as well ask why the taxi and bus chosen as "typically British" were London-specific, and in the case of the bus a horrible mistake that's unlikely to be repeated anywhere else.
Indeed - though that might be an issue in the West Midlands where the only way the Metro differs from West Midlands Railway is in the logo colour! (a really stupid design decision if in my opinion)
Presumably you could just take the 'S' from the start of the wordmark and put it on signs, or something like that.
I think most people who haven't been there would think the Tyne and Wear Metro's logo belongs to a Morrisons.
Why on earth does that matter though? If you were visiting an area you'd work out the symbols soon enough, just as you do when traveling abroad.
Errr…..so you want clear signposting but it doesn’t matter whether people know what the symbols mean?
Put yourself in the position of somebody from out of the area getting the T&W Metro. If you've looked up times you will have been told to get the metro. The metro website or Google maps for that matter will have presented you with the logo. The name metro and the logo will be what you're looking for. The last thing you want to have to do is guess what form of transport the metro counts as, and then have to figure out which non-standard icon out of the rubbish set of weird British-rail-only icons is meant to represent that form of transport.
Why would people take note of a logo on a website if they just went there for times? Not that I would expect to need to know the times if it’s really a metro.
It’s near enough - the pictogram doesnt show a street does it?
I thought we were discussing pictograms in railway stations
