2040 Tube Map

Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Ali.Carr

Member
Joined
17 Feb 2018
Messages
44
Strangely enough on the version shown at Londonist, Holland Park station appears to have disappeared! And indeed the Evening Standard one. Is this a versioning issue, perhaps?
Yes - it's all versioning. There are a few other small typos that made it into those versions as well. I'm just hoping as few people noticed as possible. ;)

A little niggle - Kings Cross St Pancras: lines should not change direction underneath a station blob. Can the Warren Street description not be moved to the left of its blob on a single line, bring Crossrail2 straight up and then bend parallel to the Victoria, stretch the Victoria blob northwards a bit to then fit in the Crossrail 2 bend?
Needless to say, getting that section right was a total nightmare - I tried about fifteen different versions before settling on this one, and there was a lot of discussion on another thread on this forum about it.

I've mocked up what your proposal might look like (hopefully this is what you had in mind):


The biggest problem is how now to connect the CR2 blob to King's Cross St Pancras. Linking it to the top KXSP blob as previously would break another rule - that lines shouldn't run under connector lines. Since the connector lines have to be at 45 degrees, linking the CR2 blob to the middle blob would mean dragging KXSP very far to the left (far enough left that the black outline of the CR2 blob overlaps the KXSP interchange line). Linking to the bottom blob creates even more overlapping black because of the presence of the Northern line.
I'd emphasise that the bend under Crossrail 2 under the Euston-King's-Cross-St-Pancras station blob isn't any more severe than the bend under the District/Circle lines at Paddington on the current standard tube map, so I'd be inclined to stick with the current version. But I don't think there will ever be unanimity on that! ;)
 

plymothian

Member
Joined
26 Sep 2010
Messages
651
Location
Plymouth
Thank you for having a go!
As a Mother Superior once said: "how do we solve a problem like Euston Kings Cross St Pancras?"

It looks like the whole area is going to need a redesign.
I might try fiddling about myself in Paint.
 

hexagon789

Established Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
8,401
Location
Glasgow
Yes - it's all versioning. There are a few other small typos that made it into those versions as well. I'm just hoping as few people noticed as possible. ;)


Needless to say, getting that section right was a total nightmare - I tried about fifteen different versions before settling on this one, and there was a lot of discussion on another thread on this forum about it.

I've mocked up what your proposal might look like (hopefully this is what you had in mind):


The biggest problem is how now to connect the CR2 blob to King's Cross St Pancras. Linking it to the top KXSP blob as previously would break another rule - that lines shouldn't run under connector lines. Since the connector lines have to be at 45 degrees, linking the CR2 blob to the middle blob would mean dragging KXSP very far to the left (far enough left that the black outline of the CR2 blob overlaps the KXSP interchange line). Linking to the bottom blob creates even more overlapping black because of the presence of the Northern line.
I'd emphasise that the bend under Crossrail 2 under the Euston-King's-Cross-St-Pancras station blob isn't any more severe than the bend under the District/Circle lines at Paddington on the current standard tube map, so I'd be inclined to stick with the current version. But I don't think there will ever be unanimity on that! ;)
Considering all the difficulties with it, I think you've made a very good go at it, it's very interesting to look over. :)
 
Joined
25 Apr 2017
Messages
185
I hope you don't mind me editing your pic and chipping in, but I think something like this would be a satisfactory compromise:



Maybe if the corners were smoothed out a little, a fudge of this sort might be the way to go forward?
 

plymothian

Member
Joined
26 Sep 2010
Messages
651
Location
Plymouth
I think I've done it, working off the whole map, as it soon became obvious that more is going to have to move to accommodate XR2.

XR2 blob links diagonally down and right to KXSP Northern blob and vertically to Vic line, this shifts the Vic line left and so too the whole of Euston Northern/Vic and in turn the Northern all the way up to Belsize Park; Warren Street has to become a double blob, and everything south of that has to go left and/or down a bit; and XR2 to the west of KXSP has to go north a bit.

This is the rough outline as I got frustrated very quickly!
 

Attachments

Last edited:

rebmcr

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2011
Messages
3,067
Location
Cambridge
I think I've done it, working off the whole map, as it soon became obvious that more is going to have to move to accommodate XR2.

XR2 blob links diagonally down and right to KGSP Northern blob and vertically to Vic line, this shifts the Vic line left and so too the whole of Euston Northern/Vic and in turn the Northern all the way up to Belsize Park; Warren Street has to become a double blob, and everything south of that has to go left and/or down a bit; and XR2 to the west of KGSP has to go north a bit.

This is the rough outline as I got frustrated very quickly!
That's a great bit of innovation, but I'm bothered by Euston-KX CR2 station being closer to StP than StP Victoria Station. :/

I've had my own idea about that, I'll try to mock it up today.
 

Ali.Carr

Member
Joined
17 Feb 2018
Messages
44
I think I've done it, working off the whole map, as it soon became obvious that more is going to have to move to accommodate XR2.
I like this a lot! I think Warren Street being a double-blob isn't too bad either - keeping the Warren Street label a little further down avoids it being confused for the label for the Euston Square blob. The CR2 blob being placed well within KXStP is a bit of a white lie, but again it's not unusual for the tube map to do that kind of thing.

Compare, for example, the way the current tube map puts Paddington's Cirlce/H&C platforms between Bakerloo and Circle/District, when in actuality the only direct interchange is between Bakerloo and Circle/District:

 

plymothian

Member
Joined
26 Sep 2010
Messages
651
Location
Plymouth
Thanks!

XR2 ending up being well within KXSP has niggled me but I cannot really see any way of placing it equidistant between the two and keeping the design rules with the map as it stands - I do think that the whole thing is going to need a radical overhaul at some point - but considering that Farringdon Elizabeth line XR1 looks closer to Barbican...

And (another crude mock up alert!), shifting things around has allowed for a more direct routing of XR2 through central London.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

axlrosen

Member
Joined
3 May 2018
Messages
16
How sacrilegious is it to suggest that it's time to allow non-45-degree angles?

That rule has its benefits, for sure, but it was created at a time when the system was vastly simpler. Perhaps it makes sense to selectively abandon this restriction now. A simple example that comes to mind: it might allow Crossrail 2 to not be so stair-step-y in the middle (with a bit of rearranging). And who knows what other improvements the added flexibility might allow?
 

Railguy1

Member
Joined
6 Apr 2016
Messages
88
There are various "fan-art" maps that do that very thing, but until TfL take the leap, the diagram is constricted to Beck's principles.
Yup. It would also be contentious for many reasons. Some would argue its a waste of money to do so, some would argue it doesn't need changing, some would argue the change isn't right etc. I don't think the general public are particularly bothered about the look of the map, hence I don't think TfL are particularly bothered to create negative publicity to change it - even if its with good intentions.
 

Ali.Carr

Member
Joined
17 Feb 2018
Messages
44
How sacrilegious is it to suggest that it's time to allow non-45-degree angles?

That rule has its benefits, for sure, but it was created at a time when the system was vastly simpler. Perhaps it makes sense to selectively abandon this restriction now. A simple example that comes to mind: it might allow Crossrail 2 to not be so stair-step-y in the middle (with a bit of rearranging). And who knows what other improvements the added flexibility might allow?
I think one of the most interesting examples of a map that deviates from the 45-degree rule is the UK-wide National Rail map, where lines have to be (mostly) straight but can be at any angle.

Myself, I don't think I'd be talented enough to make a map based on whole new design principles, and there's a sense in which the constraints/restrictions make the process especially fun. I think that if I were to do away with any rules or principles, the first thing I'd do is change how the interchange blobs work. They're big, they're clunky, and they don't distinguish between all the different ways interchanges can work (particularly underground versus surface-only interchanges).
 

plymothian

Member
Joined
26 Sep 2010
Messages
651
Location
Plymouth
Yup. It would also be contentious for many reasons. Some would argue its a waste of money to do so, some would argue it doesn't need changing, some would argue the change isn't right etc. I don't think the general public are particularly bothered about the look of the map, hence I don't think TfL are particularly bothered to create negative publicity to change it - even if its with good intentions.
Look at all the fuss when they got rid of the Thames!

But, just like when Beck struck out against the norm, there has to come a point when the status-quo becomes untenable.
 

bramling

Established Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
8,135
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
I'd go for the Bank Line and the Charing Line myself to reflect the two present names used for the middle sections.
The Bank branch service I would imagine would quite likely be called the “City Line”. As well as being historically sympathetic to the original name of the railway, that would also be very appropriate.

The Charing Cross side would be more difficult as there’s nothing immediately obvious which springs to mind.
 

Busaholic

Established Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
9,288
The Bank branch service I would imagine would quite likely be called the “City Line”. As well as being historically sympathetic to the original name of the railway, that would also be very appropriate.

The Charing Cross side would be more difficult as there’s nothing immediately obvious which springs to mind.
It may be a while back, but when London Transport ran it the line from Moorgate out to Drayton Park was officially known as the Northern City, but there shouldn't be any confusion I admit.
 

David Emmott

Member
Joined
26 Nov 2015
Messages
866
The Bank branch service I would imagine would quite likely be called the “City Line”. As well as being historically sympathetic to the original name of the railway, that would also be very appropriate.

The Charing Cross side would be more difficult as there’s nothing immediately obvious which springs to mind.
City Line and Northern Line would do fine. Then you only need to rename the District the Wirral Line and you replicate Merseyrail in the capital.
 

rebmcr

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2011
Messages
3,067
Location
Cambridge
The Bank branch service I would imagine would quite likely be called the “City Line”. As well as being historically sympathetic to the original name of the railway, that would also be very appropriate.
It would not be at all appropriate to have a line's name replicated entirely within the name of another line, and especially not two other lines.
 

Mikey C

Established Member
Joined
11 Feb 2013
Messages
3,320
With the obsequious way these things tend to be done in this country, the 2 branches will probably be called the Charles and William lines...
 

BartTheAnorak

Member
Joined
27 Jul 2012
Messages
20
With the obsequious way these things tend to be done in this country, the 2 branches will probably be called the Charles and William lines...
Doubt it. The Victoria, Jubilee and Elizabeth names were/are principally coined to apply to new stretches of track. They wouldn't give a royal's name to something principally second hand.
 

rebmcr

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2011
Messages
3,067
Location
Cambridge
Doubt it. The Victoria, Jubilee and Elizabeth names were/are principally coined to apply to new stretches of track. They wouldn't give a royal's name to something principally second hand.
More than half of the current Jubilee line (and the vast majority upon naming) is third-hand — from Bakerloo, to Fleet, to Jubilee. Parts are even fourth-hand, having been Metropolitan before Bakerloo.
 

BartTheAnorak

Member
Joined
27 Jul 2012
Messages
20
More than half of the current Jubilee line (and the vast majority upon naming) is third-hand — from Bakerloo, to Fleet, to Jubilee. Parts are even fourth-hand, having been Metropolitan before Bakerloo.
I didn't realise Stanmore-Baker Street constituted more than half. Also I don't count Fleet among the 'hands' as it was a working name for the Jubilee rather than a line anything actually ran under the name of. I just mean a large portion is original in terms of being run under the Jubilee line name. If you stuck royal names on a devolved Northern line you'd be renaming an old line in their honour rather than dedicating a new groundbreaking connection to them. The spur to Battersea would be a very small exception to this.
 

172006

Member
Joined
29 May 2019
Messages
53
How would it work to split the Northern line? Trains go:
Edgware – Bank – Morden,
Edgware – Charing Cross – Kennington,
High Barnet – Morden (via Bank) and
High Barnet - Kennington (via Charing Cross).
 

higthomas

Member
Joined
27 Nov 2012
Messages
955
How would it work to split the Northern line? Trains go:
Edgware – Bank – Morden,
Edgware – Charing Cross – Kennington,
High Barnet – Morden (via Bank) and
High Barnet - Kennington (via Charing Cross).
Well after splitting they wouldn't any more. One branch would always go to Kennington (Battersea) via Charing Cross, the other would always go to Morden via Bank.
I don't know which way around it is but I think due to something at Camden Town one of the branches has to be the Bank one and vice versa.

Edit: This article suggests that the split would have to be Edgware-Battersea and Barnet-Morden due to depot locations.
 

Top