Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'London Underground' started by Ali.Carr, 14 Mar 2018.
We can't have that the W4 residents will be up in arms!
Do you not think that the Met line extension to Watford junction will have been completed by then?... If it happens at all....
I think the "if it happens at all" is the key bit. The fact that it's not mentioned at all in the Transport Strategy was my main reason for not including it - there doesn't seem to be a lot of appetite on the London/TfL end. But making these kinds of predictions is so tough, especially when there's so much politics involved.
I thought Old Oak would be seen as close , operationall close, to Willesden Junction. Fir passenger interchange as pedestrians.
Thus the whole complex to Rival Clapham Junction?
So better closer on map with a circle indicating this.
A bit crowded up there to effect though
This is all mega interesting.
It's interesting in a big way because the distance between Willesden Junction and North/East Acton is one of the biggest distortions on the Tube map:
They're not really that far apart!
The distortion goes all the way back to Harry Beck, but it never really mattered until you decide to stick this extremely important strategic interchange in the space between the stations. If you did want to emphasise the geographical proximity between OOC and Willesden Junction (which in an ideal world you ought to), you have to grapple with this distortion - especially since OOC interchanges with Crossrail (a stop away from Action Main Line).
Perhaps you'd need to do something radical - like put an extra bend in the Central line (after all, there is one - the sharpest bend on the Tube!) to bring Acton and Willesden Junction closer together.
But it might be that TfL regards Willesden Junction as too far from OOC to provide a proper interchange - this seems to be what motivated building the Overground stations at OOC.
"Although Willesden Junction station is 1.5km away from the new Old Oak Common Station, there is no convenient link between the stations which would make it difficult for passengers to interchange between HS2, Elizabeth line or London Overground services." (from link above)
So we might be spared the monstrous cartographical challenge!
I never really noticed that before, are there many other similar 'distortions'?
Other examples of stations very close in real life but far apart on the Tube map are Queensway-Bayswater, Wimbledon-South-Wimbledon and Watford-Watford Junction (of course, the Croxley Rail link would fix the latter distortion).
Barking's real-life proximity to the Thames was a problem when making the 2040 Tube map - since it makes Barking Riverside, which should actually be on the river, hard to place without drawing a stupidly long orange line.
I also had a smaller problem with King's Road Chelsea, because of how the Tube Map is distorted in that area: the Circle line is at 45 degrees between Victoria and Embankment and nearly vertical between Westminster and Embankment, but the Tube map shows it as horizontal.
Edit: Another distortion which the 2040 tube map does fix - Heathrow is nowhere near the Thames, but on the standard Tube map, Terminal 5 is on the riverside!
I suppose that's the trouble with using diagrammatic maps rather than geographic ones, it's difficult to imagine the latter though. It may be inaccurate in places but it's far easier to use.
Another distortion is Clapham Junction to Victoria and to Waterloo, close by train but not by map!
Having looked at the map, it is a significant difference between diagram and reality there.
The idea that Old Oak could at least initially be the HS2 terminal intrigued me. Especially since BoJo called it the Ryan Air option.
He is unaware that St Martins used to be in the Fields.
With a connection south to Clapham Junction. North to Watford. West to ,well everywhere West , and one or two trains through Olympia turn left to Waterloo , using drain thereafter. East via Crossrail to West End , Farringdon , City (Liverpool St ) Canary Wharf etc... I see it out ranking Euston as a useful spreading out point.
And interesting suggestion that Old Oak could potentially become more important than Euston, I had really considered that. It'll be interesting to see if that becomes the case.
How does this look, regarding extensions to Thamesmead?
I've dared go no further than Thamesmead (no Abbey Wood or Woolwich) since they're not mentioned in the Transport Strategy. The District Line now has a 90 degree bend, but at least it running east to Barking properly reflects geography.
I think you've managed to fit in everything quite well, I doubt it could do half as decent a job of it!
I'm not sure the tube map will show a connection between Woolwich Arsenal and the Crossrail Woolwich stations, as there's a reasonable distance between them (including a main road) and passengers from North Kent will be changing to Crossrail at Abbey Wood anyway
I guess it's a difficult thing to speculate on, but the Elizabeth-line-only map that TfL released did refer to an interchange between Woolwich Arsenal and Crossrail Woolwich:
But TfL have never quite been consistent about where they put their interchanges - I joined up South Tottenham and Seven Sisters on the 2040 Tube Map because I remember hearing complaints about the lack of interchange shown there on the standard tube map.
I agree, but like Paris, I bet they'll keep adding. I always thought the design from the London Connections map had East London drawn pretty well. The Beck design causes the Barking Riverside issue and the mess around the Lea Valley/Great Northern area. As for the Cross-London rail lines, I'd rather they did like Paris; not displaying the whole RER network on the Metro Map, but having just the central sections, with another map displaying the RER network and another showing everything.
As for Thameslink, TfL has said it won't be on the Tube Map which I think is ridiculous, the Standard even reported the criticism for that. Having said that, I also think it will appear eventually, especially before the Northern City Branch closes 117 days due to the Bank station upgrade in 2020. The Northern line is far too crowded during the peaks at the moment, TfL is just inflicting misery because they don't run Thameslink, yet they are the ones who talk about integrating London's transport network.
By the time it is 2040, I'd be surprised if Thameslink, Elizabeth and CR2 are not under one unified system brand like RER. London CrossRail - LCR anyone?
Edit: I'd also be surprised if Crossrail hasn't reached Staines by 2040
Might I ask what software that is?
I wonder what the chances of Thameslink coming fully/partly under TfL are? Can imagine the onboard service might not be all that great!
At the moment zero. TfL doesn't even include Thameslink as part of their aspirations map as the network goes too far out and splitting the suburban and interurban services into different operations isn't an option. I don't wish to make out like Paris has it all right, far from it, but there RER A and B are jointly operated by RATP and SNCF while RER C, D & E are solely SNCF operations. If the DfT and TfL agreed or the DfT forced it, a similar way could be applied here, seeing total integration without TfL actually operating the service.
That is what I had on mind, RER London-style.
I think that area needs the Thames straightening (bringing it northwards) and Elizabeth bringing southwards. Then the DLR can become more realistic, but it might involve east of Barking being made an inset to maintain proportions...
A realistic tube map? Whatever next!
But yes, I think a few tweaks here and there would probably not go amiss.
Once Thameslink is fully up and running, I'm sure public and especially Mayoral/London Assembly pressure will force TfL to include it. Including Cheshunt, Reading and Shenfield on the London Tube map, but not a major cross London service between St Pancras and London Bridge would make them look ridiculous...
Maybe it's just me, but I often thought Thameslink made more sense as part of TfL rather than separate from it.
The fact has already been on the map makes it even more ridiculous. I hope common sense prevails.
C'mon its a well-known fact TfL can't operate trains without longitudinal seating; it makes them too..."National Rail".
Or toilets for that matter!
This wouldn't work.
No other line is named very similar, so no confusion.
Could just change all the line names to letters or numbers such as many systems around the world have.
Why is it ridiculous?
I want an Underground map, not a map that shows me inner London lines...