|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Sept 23, 2021 9:42:41 GMT
|
|
londoner
thinking on '73 stock
Posts: 480 
|
Post by londoner on Sept 23, 2021 10:56:29 GMT
The diagram, as shown above, would be immeasurably improved, simply by toning down the grey of the fare zones. I have tried this. It looks much better, even with the added clutter. I imagine there is probably some middle ground here, with toning it to improve the contrast but perhaps not going too far (as some have already suggested here) to distract from the more important elements of the map. Note that the digital form of the map already has a poor contrast ratio. When I view the background with my problematic eye it looks almost white. If TFL designed the rest of their website like this, it would probably fail some of the web content accessibility standards. The following tool can be used to give some indication of what is a good contrast ratio and what is not a good ratio: webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker/ |
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,746
|
Post by class411 on Sept 23, 2021 11:13:17 GMT
The diagram, as shown above, would be immeasurably improved, simply by toning down the grey of the fare zones. I have tried this. It looks much better, even with the added clutter. I imagine there is probably some middle ground here, with toning it to improve the contrast but perhaps not going too far (as some have already suggested here) to distract from the more important elements of the map. Note that the digital form of the map already has a poor contrast ratio. When I view the background with my problematic eye it looks almost white. If TFL designed the rest of their website like this, it would probably fail some of the web content accessibility standards. The following tool can be used to give some indication of what is a good contrast ratio and what is not a good ratio: webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker/I'm a little confused, here. What are you finding hard to read because the background appears nearly white? The only thing that I can see that could be worse with a lighter background are the actual zone numbers. It would probably be better to get rid of the zones from the diagram altogether, and have a list of stations/zones by paper ticket issuing machines. |
|
londoner
thinking on '73 stock
Posts: 480
|
Post by londoner on Sept 23, 2021 11:19:29 GMT
I'm a little confused, here. What are you finding hard to read because the background appears nearly white? The only thing that I can see that could be worse with a lighter background are the actual zone numbers. It would probably be better to get rid of the zones from the diagram altogether, and have a list of stations/zones by paper ticket issuing machines. - The contrast ratio between the light grey coloured zones and the white coloured zones.
- The text which indicates the zone numbers (either light grey text on white background or white text on a light grey background).
With the poor contrast ratio for both these items, the digital form of the map looks like it has a completely white background. |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,773
|
Post by Chris M on Sept 23, 2021 11:26:29 GMT
Zones are actually very useful information to travellers unfamiliar with the system. Not only do they show how much a journey will cost, they give an approximation of distance. Embankment to Tottenham Court Road and Harrow & Wealdstone to Watford Junction are essentially the exact same length on the digital tube map, but the latter is a much, much longer journey.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris L on Sept 23, 2021 20:31:33 GMT
Zones are actually very useful information to travellers unfamiliar with the system. Not only do they show how much a journey will cost, they give an approximation of distance. Embankment to Tottenham Court Road and Harrow & Wealdstone to Watford Junction are essentially the exact same length on the digital tube map, but the latter is a much, much longer journey. Real distances have never been a function of the so called Tube map. It is a diagram of lines. Zones are much more important than piers. Some of the interchanges are getting far too complicated. Using wheelchair circles at non interchanges is the tail wagging the dog. |
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Sept 24, 2021 7:47:40 GMT
That's what the old 'London Connections' map was for - is it even produced these days? Now called London's Railways. Poster version at stations and on line. has been called "London's Rail & Tube services" map for a couple of years, after being 'London Connections'. London's Rail & Tube services |
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,746
|
Post by class411 on Sept 24, 2021 8:07:43 GMT
Zones are actually very useful information to travellers unfamiliar with the system. Not only do they show how much a journey will cost, they give an approximation of distance. Embankment to Tottenham Court Road and Harrow & Wealdstone to Watford Junction are essentially the exact same length on the digital tube map, but the latter is a much, much longer journey. Real distances have never been a function of the so called Tube map. It is a diagram of lines. Zones are much more important that piers. Some of the interchanges are getting far too complicated. Using wheelchair circles at non interchanges is the tail wagging the dog. I can't work out the underlined typo 'than ? ? ? ?'. The fact that the zone information is essential - for working out fares if nothing else - isn't in dispute. I was suggesting that a great deal of clutter could be removed from the diagram by separating the lines and stations from the ancillary information. If you look here you can see that page two contains all the required information about stations. So you could remove it from the diagram and end up with a far superior graphic. One problem I can see with that is that you would lose the ability to see if your route took you through a zone that neither source nor destination stations were in. But, quite honestly, I'm doubtful that the few people using paper tickets are even aware that that should be checked for. |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,773
|
Post by Chris M on Sept 24, 2021 9:11:29 GMT
Chris L meant to say "Zones are much more important than piers.", and I agree. The pier circles and walk-lines can go, the boat symbol is sufficient.
I disagree about the zone shading, that is by far the easiest and clearest way to show that information and is not clutter.
Step-free symbols I've ranted about before, but they should go - they oversimplify the situation to the point of being misleading in places by giving the impression that step-free access or interchange doesn't exist where it does, does exist where it doesn't and completely ignores things like walking distance. Restrict circles to denoting interchanges, and minimise the number of them (e.g. Victoria only needs 1 circle not 2)
|
|
|
|
Post by quex on Sept 24, 2021 9:16:23 GMT
Step-free symbols I've ranted about before, but they should go - they oversimplify the situation to the point of being misleading in places by giving the impression that step-free access or interchange doesn't exist where it does, does exist where it doesn't and completely ignores things like walking distance. Restrict circles to denoting interchanges, and minimise the number of them (e.g. Victoria only needs 1 circle not 2) I was drafting up a post making a similar point but you've taken the words right out my mouth. The breathing space I think removing step-free information provides would be not inconsiderable. I would just like to add that the Step-free tube maps, which do go much (but not all) of the way to providing the information you need to plan a step-free journey, should be brought further into view and made more easily accessible. It's very rare to see them on racks at stations for example - why?! |
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,746
|
Post by class411 on Sept 24, 2021 9:33:04 GMT
Chris L meant to say "Zones are much more important than piers." LOL, so 'piers' was correct', I'd never even noticed them. The problem seems to be that if you make the shading too light, people with sight difficulties can't see it. (I've modified diagrams to make it just visible and they look much clearer.) When they are as dark as on the diagrams in this thread the do, if not cause, then certainly exacerbate, the appearance of clutter. |
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Sept 24, 2021 12:27:02 GMT
Good to see the Greenford - West Ealing line included
It doesn't make the map look any more crowded
|
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Sept 24, 2021 13:13:15 GMT
Good to see the Greenford - West Ealing line included It doesn't make the map look any more crowded Maybe because it will soon be using former Underground trains? Or to boost patronage by showing that it exists? |
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,746
|
Post by class411 on Sept 24, 2021 14:08:02 GMT
Good to see the Greenford - West Ealing line included It doesn't make the map look any more crowded Maybe because it will soon be using former Underground trains? Or to boost patronage by showing that it exists? Has it been electrified? |
|
|
|
Post by A60stock on Sept 24, 2021 14:37:04 GMT
where is greenford to west ealing shown? I dont see it on the standard tube map?
Its always been on the expanded map which shows all the national rail lines though
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,773
|
Post by Chris M on Sept 24, 2021 14:40:34 GMT
Maybe because it will soon be using former Underground trains? Or to boost patronage by showing that it exists? Has it been electrified? There will be a trial of battery-powered trains on the line at some point, D trains are one possibility for this but as far as I remember the decision on which stock will be used has not been made yet. |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Sept 24, 2021 15:19:01 GMT
There’s no issue with DLR going on there. It’s mainline rail services which is one of the things causing excess clutter. The simple reality is there’s only so much room on the piece of paper, and we’re pretty much at the point where the page is full. There is no way something like SE or SW suburban would be able to fit if they ever go Overground. On the contrary, the Tube Map is highly misleading by omitting high-frequency NR services in Zones 1 and 2, especially where they provide a quicker or more direct route than TfL do. I would suggest, as a minimum, - the Northern City Line, - Thameslink between West Hampstead and Elephant/Greenwich (only) - possibly Woolwich - Ealing/Greenford, - Victoria to Clapham Junction (possibly on to Balham, Crystal Place and West Croydon), - Waterloo to Clapham Junction (and probably Wimbledon and Richmond), - Charing Cross/Cannon Street to Greenwich/Lewisham (possibly Woolwich) - and London Bridge to New Cross Gate. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris L on Sept 24, 2021 16:33:40 GMT
There’s no issue with DLR going on there. It’s mainline rail services which is one of the things causing excess clutter. The simple reality is there’s only so much room on the piece of paper, and we’re pretty much at the point where the page is full. There is no way something like SE or SW suburban would be able to fit if they ever go Overground. On the contrary, the Tube Map is highly misleading by omitting high-frequency NR services in Zones 1 and 2, especially where they provide a quicker or more direct route than TfL do. I would suggest, as a minimum, - the Northern City Line, - Thameslink between West Hampstead and Elephant/Greenwich (only) - possibly Woolwich - Ealing/Greenford, - Victoria to Clapham Junction (possibly on to Balham, Crystal Place and West Croydon), - Waterloo to Clapham Junction (and probably Wimbledon and Richmond), - Charing Cross/Cannon Street to Greenwich/Lewisham (possibly Woolwich) - and London Bridge to New Cross Gate. Thameslink is already on the Tube map. The others are on the Rail and Tube map. |
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,197
|
Post by Tom on Sept 24, 2021 18:49:01 GMT
On the contrary, the Tube Map is highly misleading by omitting high-frequency NR services in Zones 1 and 2, especially where they provide a quicker or more direct route than TfL do. I would suggest, as a minimum, (snip) - Ealing/Greenford Anyone sensible who wants to go between the town centres of Ealing and Greenford gets a bus rather a train. There are 5 bus routes, all at greater frequency than the train, all more direct, and all do the journey in less time. The only advantage by taking the train is if you want to go to the area around Greenford station itself. |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Sept 24, 2021 20:58:26 GMT
On the contrary, the Tube Map is highly misleading by omitting high-frequency NR services in Zones 1 and 2, especially where they provide a quicker or more direct route than TfL do. I would suggest, as a minimum, (snip) - Ealing/Greenford Anyone sensible who wants to go between the town centres of Ealing and Greenford gets a bus rather a train. It's not about local journeys. It's about connections with Crossrail at one end and the Central Line at the other. And I know all the NR lines I mentioned are on the "London Connections" map, but that is not as widely known or distributed. Tourists wanting to visit Greenwich or Richmond, for example, should not be put off by a map that appears to show them at the end of a tedious and (depending on their starting point) possibly circuitous journey when they are both just three stops from Waterloo. The omission of NR services in inner London is no more logical than it would be for RATP's Paris metro map to omit those RER lines run by SNCF (the whole of lines C, D and E, and parts of the other two). It is supposed to be a guide for the traveller, not an exercise in corporate flag-waving. |
|
|
|
Post by johnlinford on Sept 24, 2021 21:42:10 GMT
It's not about local journeys. It's about connections I wonder if a better approach is the more detailed - but show eg Zones 1&2, or 1-3 showing where they go as the original Beck map did; then a Zones 4-9 with central London no longer over-sized and only key interchange stops named. |
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Sept 25, 2021 3:11:47 GMT
There’s no issue with DLR going on there. It’s mainline rail services which is one of the things causing excess clutter. The simple reality is there’s only so much room on the piece of paper, and we’re pretty much at the point where the page is full. There is no way something like SE or SW suburban would be able to fit if they ever go Overground. On the contrary, the Tube Map is highly misleading by omitting high-frequency NR services in Zones 1 and 2, especially where they provide a quicker or more direct route than TfL do. I would suggest, as a minimum, - the Northern City Line, - Thameslink between West Hampstead and Elephant/Greenwich (only) - possibly Woolwich - Ealing/Greenford, - Victoria to Clapham Junction (possibly on to Balham, Crystal Place and West Croydon), - Waterloo to Clapham Junction (and probably Wimbledon and Richmond), - Charing Cross/Cannon Street to Greenwich/Lewisham (possibly Woolwich) - and London Bridge to New Cross Gate. So you show Thameslink south of West Hampstead, and someone wishing to travel to Mill Hill will end up going down to Kentish Town and then using the Northern Line to Mill Hill East, rather than three stops on a northbound Thameslink service, which has exactly the same frequency as going south? This makes no sense to me at all. If we’re having a map which includes *all* London rail services then fine - this is the “London Connections” map some people here have mentioned. Picking selected services based on very arbitrary criteria in my view is utterly unhelpful, as it simply leads to confusion as to what services actually exist. Meanwhile no one has really addressed the point that the map is now running out of space in its current form - there simply isn’t space to include all these rail services people are talking about. Just putting Thameslink on there has caused a mess. LU is a mode, and in my view the map should reflect this. There’s a case to include DLR (and as it happens this area of the map has plenty of room to accommodate it). That’s as far as I’d go. Even Crossrail IMO needs some thought - I’d on balance probably include Ealing to Abbey Wood and Stratford, but that’s about as far as I’d go. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris L on Sept 25, 2021 9:56:26 GMT
Anyone sensible who wants to go between the town centres of Ealing and Greenford gets a bus rather a train. It's not about local journeys. It's about connections with Crossrail at one end and the Central Line at the other. And I know all the NR lines I mentioned are on the "London Connections" map, but that is not as widely known or distributed. Tourists wanting to visit Greenwich or Richmond, for example, should not be put off by a map that appears to show them at the end of a tedious and (depending on their starting point) possibly circuitous journey when they are both just three stops from Waterloo. The omission of NR services in inner London is no more logical than it would be for RATP's Paris metro map to omit those RER lines run by SNCF (the whole of lines C, D and E, and parts of the other two). It is supposed to be a guide for the traveller, not an exercise in corporate flag-waving. Let's use your suggestion of Greenwich as an example of why it can't be added to the Tube map. There are no trains from Charing Cross/Waterloo East. There is a fairly frequent service from Cannon Street (but there is a much more interesting service for tourists on the DLR from nearby Bank). Pre COVID it was every 10/20 minutes to allow for the 2 trains an hour on Thameslink which is shown on the map. Which station do you head for? Not a simple message. |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Sept 25, 2021 11:34:28 GMT
Let's use your suggestion of Greenwich as an example of why it can't be added to the Tube map. There are no trains from Charing Cross/Waterloo East. There is a fairly frequent service from Cannon Street (but there is a much more interesting service for tourists on the DLR from nearby Bank). Pre COVID it was every 10/20 minutes to allow for the 2 trains an hour on Thameslink which is shown on the map. Which station do you head for? Not a simple message. So you show and Charing Cross to Lewisham, and Cannon Street to Greenwich - the latter very simple to add since the line from London Bridge to Greenwich is already shown, and there should be no need to differentiate between operators as it will all be GBR soon anyway. And the message is "take the first train to London Bridge and change if necessary" A message seen (with different interchanges) all over the Tube. The main thing that needs to be shown is where NR provides a short cut with a reasonable frequency between stations on the Tube map on different lines, for example Moorgate to Finsbury Park, Clapham Junction to Wimbledon or, as has just been added, Kings Cross to Blackfriars. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris L on Sept 25, 2021 17:50:37 GMT
Let's use your suggestion of Greenwich as an example of why it can't be added to the Tube map. There are no trains from Charing Cross/Waterloo East. There is a fairly frequent service from Cannon Street (but there is a much more interesting service for tourists on the DLR from nearby Bank). Pre COVID it was every 10/20 minutes to allow for the 2 trains an hour on Thameslink which is shown on the map. Which station do you head for? Not a simple message. So you show and Charing Cross to Lewisham, and Cannon Street to Greenwich - the latter very simple to add since the line from London Bridge to Greenwich is already shown, and there should be no need to differentiate between operators as it will all be GBR soon anyway. And the message is "take the first train to London Bridge and change if necessary" A message seen (with different interchanges) all over the Tube. The main thing that needs to be shown is where NR provides a short cut with a reasonable frequency between stations on the Tube map on different lines, for example Moorgate to Finsbury Park, Clapham Junction to Wimbledon or, as has just been added, Kings Cross to Blackfriars. Would you like to see any white paper on the pocket Tube map? You can't fit more lines and names in the central area.You have to have some to make it readable. The London Network map is in poster form on stations and available on the TfL website. You do need to see the different operators to understand where the trains go. I'm sure you don't advocate all GBR lines should be shown in one colour. If you use the journey planner it will give you the alternative options and show you the journey times. |
|
|
|
Post by Jerome H on Sept 27, 2021 13:42:14 GMT
How long has the connection at Finsbury Park been shown with no separation? Thought the design intent was that touching lines were for lines that shared track.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Sept 27, 2021 14:41:45 GMT
How long has the connection at Finsbury Park been shown with no separation? Thought the design intent was that touching lines were for lines that shared track. From the December 2020 edition. |
|
|
|
Post by t697 on Sept 27, 2021 17:26:50 GMT
How long has the connection at Finsbury Park been shown with no separation? Thought the design intent was that touching lines were for lines that shared track. From the December 2020 edition. Doesn't seem any consistency on this point. Across to the west, the District and Picc are shown separated at Ealing Common and the Met and Picc separated from Rayners Lane to Uxbridge. At all these they share the same track and platforms. Just found a December 2018 copy that has them touching in these areas. |
|
londoner
thinking on '73 stock
Posts: 480
|
Post by londoner on Sept 28, 2021 10:45:24 GMT
From what I can tell by browsing through the archives, the following combined rail and tube maps have existed since ~2002:
yyyy-mm-dd
2002-10 - London Connections
2003-05 - London Connections
2004-01 - London Connections
2004-02 - High-frequency National Rail services in south London
2004-12 - High-frequency National Rail services in south London
2005-01 - London Connections
2005-05 - London Connections
2006-01 - London Connections
2006-06 - London Connections
2006-09 - London Connections
2007-01 - London Connections
2007-01 - High Frequency Services
2007-11 - Travelcard Zones
2007-11 - High Frequency Services
2008-01 - High Frequency Services
2008-01 - Travelcard Zones
2008-03 - High Frequency Services
2008-03 - Travelcard Zones
2008-06 - High Frequency Services
2008-06 - Travelcard Zones
2008-10 - Travelcard Zones
2009-01 - High Frequency Services
2009-01 - Travelcard Zones
2009-03 - Travelcard Zones
2009-09 - High Frequency Services
2009-09 - Travelcard Zones
2010-01 - Oyster rail services in London
2010-05 - Oyster rail services in London
2011-03 - Oyster rail services in London
2011-04 - Oyster rail services in London
2011-08 - London’s Rail & Tube services
2012-02 - London’s Rail & Tube services
2012-06 - London’s Rail & Tube services
2012-12 - London’s Rail & Tube services
2013-05 - London’s Rail & Tube services
2013-12 - London’s Rail & Tube services
2014-05 - London’s Rail & Tube services
2014-12 - London’s Rail & Tube services
2015-05 - London’s Rail & Tube services
2015-08 - London’s Rail & Tube services
2016-01 - London’s Rail & Tube services
2016-05 - London’s Rail & Tube services
2016-12 - London’s Rail & Tube services
2017-05 - London’s Rail & Tube services
2017-12 - London’s Rail & Tube services
2018-05 - London’s Rail & Tube services
2018-12 - London’s Rail & Tube services
2019-02 - London’s Rail & Tube services
2019-04 - London’s Rail & Tube services
2019-05 - London’s Rail & Tube services
2019-08 - London’s Rail & Tube services
2019-12 - London’s Rail & Tube services
Other:
2018-05-20 - Oyster PAYG
2018-11-22 - Oyster PAYG
2019-05-19 - Oyster PAYG
2019-10-22 - Oyster PAYG
2003-04-dd - DLR Rail Connections
2005-11-03 - DLR Rail Connections
2007-11-22 - DLR Rail Connections
2009-01-07 - DLR Rail Connections
2009-12-07 - DLR Rail Connections
2010-10-15 - DLR Rail Connections
2011-07-21 - DLR Rail Connections
2012-10-30 - DLR Rail Connections
Please note that these were maps I was able to locate (up until about 2020) and not necessarily a complete list of maps made public.
The London Connections and Travelcard Zones map are essentially the same. From a quick skim through of these two particular maps, only the map dated 2002-10 was explicitly named "London Connections".
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Sept 28, 2021 13:29:38 GMT
Mantion of the "High Frequency" maps is topical, as SWR seem to be hell-bent on removing half of the stations that currently meet that criterion (minimum 4tph off-peak) leaving only the lines to Motspur Park, Teddington via Kingston, and Hounslow via Brentford, plus outposts at Richmond, Twickenham and Surbiton where outer suburban services call. Seven stations (Ewell West, Mortlake, North Sheen, St Margarest, Stoneleigh, Whitton, Worcester Park), would drop from 4tph to 2tph, two more (Barnes and Mostpur Park) from 6 to 4, and three more (Putney, Richmond and Twickenham) from 8 to 6.
|
|
