New Metropolitan car line diagrams (CLD)

[t697]

And yet more inconsistency with CLDs.  I noticed the following about the new Met line in car diagrams;
- Step-free access symbol has been added for Amersham and Harrow as 'platform to street' but for an S stock train there is actually step-free access from train to street and shown as such at Chalfont and Chorleywood which are also served by Chiltern which have a step into the train. So, inconsistent at best.
- London Overground has disappeared from the Liverpool Street interchanges list but does appear in the new H&C diagram in S7 trains.
- The small Met line diagrams over doorways in every car except Driving Motors haven't been updated and are still faded ones dated 2012. They might have missed a previous update too I suspect.  Their Liverpool St overlay sticker still shows London Overground (good) and TfL Rail (out of date).
- The Central Area maps haven't been updated for Elizabeth line. Perhaps they come later.

Sorry, it was someone else's thread that got me looking!

[cudsn15]

Incredible to think they had years and years to get this right.

Years to proof check and correlate with each iteration being introduced on all lines...

...and yet...

[t697]

I noted today the small Met line diagrams have started being replaced by new ones that have the same anomalies listed earlier in the thread. Bye bye London Overground at Liverpool Street.

[gantshill]

I noticed the new Met line diagrams too. They seem to have the same thickness of line as the full width line diagrams, so that stations feel very crowded together. This is unlike the Circle & H&C and the District line small line diagrams, which have a thinner line than the full-width diagrams. (Not that it would work for those lines).

[Chris M]

Jun 17, 2022 8:46:37 GMT cudsn15 said:

Incredible to think they had years and years to get this right.

Years to proof check and correlate with each iteration being introduced on all lines...

...and yet...

One of the things that seems to have gone in all the rounds of successive cost cutting is proof checking.
When I worked at Defra making maps of farms, the process for turning a draft map from the field officer with notes and scribbles involved at least four checks
Stage 1 was to make the map. The person making it check it against the draft themselves, noting any errors. If there were lots of discrepancies you repeated this step
Stage 2 someone else looked at the map and compared it to the draft and other information sources, marking any changes needed.
Stage 3 it went back to person 1 to make the changes. They then checked their work themselves, again marking any errors. If there were any (not unusual with very large or complex farms) it would go back to stage 2, if there weren't it would go on to stage 4.
Stage 4 a third person checked the map against the draft map and the stage 2 map. If they spotted any changes needed it went back to stage 3, only when it was all good did it go out the door.

I can't believe anything as rigorous is happening to the current diagrams being produced, almost certainly because the team is understaffed, underfunded and/or overworked.

[cudsn15]

Jun 24, 2022 20:22:11 GMT Chris M said:

Jun 17, 2022 8:46:37 GMT cudsn15 said:

Incredible to think they had years and years to get this right.

Years to proof check and correlate with each iteration being introduced on all lines...

...and yet...

One of the things that seems to have gone in all the rounds of successive cost cutting is proof checking.
When I worked at Defra making maps of farms, the process for turning a draft map from the field officer with notes and scribbles involved at least four checks
Stage 1 was to make the map. The person making it check it against the draft themselves, noting any errors. If there were lots of discrepancies you repeated this step
Stage 2 someone else looked at the map and compared it to the draft and other information sources, marking any changes needed.
Stage 3 it went back to person 1 to make the changes. They then checked their work themselves, again marking any errors. If there were any (not unusual with very large or complex farms) it would go back to stage 2, if there weren't it would go on to stage 4.
Stage 4 a third person checked the map against the draft map and the stage 2 map. If they spotted any changes needed it went back to stage 3, only when it was all good did it go out the door.

I can't believe anything as rigorous is happening to the current diagrams being produced, almost certainly because the team is understaffed, underfunded and/or overworked.

either that or whomever is doing it just doesn't care about consistency - has no sense of value in their work - or was asked to do it ad hoc on top of the mountain of other work they normally have to deal with perhaps and consequently did a hash job of it.... pity.