backontrack
Established Member
Northern Line and Western Line maybe?Or even the Mornet (Morden - High Barnet) and Batware (Battersea - Edgware) Lines.
Northern Line and Western Line maybe?Or even the Mornet (Morden - High Barnet) and Batware (Battersea - Edgware) Lines.
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.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?
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.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?
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!
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!
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.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.
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.
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.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?
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.
Northern Line and Western Line maybe?
I'd go for the Bank Line and the Charing Line myself to reflect the two present names used for the middle sections.
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.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.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.
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.
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.
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.
Before it was extended, the East London Line would have been perfect for the Willi line!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...
OK, how about the Charles and Camilla 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.
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).