Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'London Underground' started by Ali.Carr, 14 Mar 2018.
Northern Line and Western Line maybe?
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!
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.
Could you put the Victoria above crossrail and move the turn up if necessary?
Considering all the difficulties with it, I think you've made a very good go at it, it's very interesting to look over.
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?
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!
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.
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:
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.
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?
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.
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).
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.
All of the straight lines there are in 15° increments, and all of the curves are perfect circle segments.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Really don’t see why that should be a problem.
Before it was extended, the East London Line would have been perfect for the Willi line!
OK, how about the Charles and Camilla lines.
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.
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.