# What do you reckon to this new tubemap?



## teuchter (Aug 16, 2011)

http://www.london-tubemap.com/

My first reaction was that to abandon the Beck design is heresy, but they make a good argument for doing so and they seem to have done a good job of producing something that is more geographically accurate but still clear. What do you reckon?



> Harry Beck’s original Underground map was a brilliant piece of information design but it has not been looked after. I doubt if Beck would want to put his name to the current version. If he were to start from scratch today, would he have used the same approach? There are twice as many lines, with London Overground and the DLR moving the emphasis away from the Circle line loop. Also, the map will increasingly be viewed on screen so we are not constrained by the limitations of the printed page.
> And this is not intended as a replacement to the official version, it is simply another way to look at it. We all think differently so you can decide which fits best with your way of thinking. For the first time there is a usable alternative.



(Mods please delete if there's already a thread on this...couldn't find one)


----------



## spanglechick (Aug 16, 2011)

regarding the orangey overground bit - why have they selected those particular overground sections?


----------



## 19sixtysix (Aug 16, 2011)

spanglechick said:


> regarding the orangey overground bit - why have they selected those particular overground sections?



Those are the proper railways under TFL's control.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 16, 2011)

My knowledge of London locations is completely fucked up, because on moving to London, I thought the tube map represented geographical locations, and that's now how I see London - totally wrong.  Not a good thing when you've no sense of direction anyway


----------



## scifisam (Aug 16, 2011)

It looks relatively OK. Most of the geographical maps (of any underground system) that I've seen have been confusing than the made-up ones.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Aug 16, 2011)

it's quite nice.

though  to my eyes  it's more of an adaptation than a new map


----------



## joevsimp (Aug 16, 2011)

It keeps to some of the spirit of the Beck map, just adds more options in terms of angles and tries to compromise between the Beck map and the actual locations.  and thanks to google maps, more people are familiar with the geographic version

I'm not opposed to it, but I don't like it, and south london has been really distorted to fit the tram in


----------



## Kanda (Aug 16, 2011)

Don't like it.

Interesting for a resident but I think more confusing for tourists, which is where the Beck map excels.


----------



## Badgers (Aug 16, 2011)

Kanda said:


> Don't like it.
> 
> Interesting for a resident but I think more confusing for tourists, which is where the Beck map excels.



This is pretty much right. I prefer it but have to send the tube map to visiting foreign types and this new layout is a bit confusing. Will test it on someone outside the UK and see what they say.


----------



## dessiato (Aug 16, 2011)

I like it, I don't think it will cause problems for visitors. The classic design is unlikely to disappear as it has become such a London icon.


----------



## joustmaster (Aug 16, 2011)

It looks like down the back of my tele


----------



## trashpony (Aug 16, 2011)

This is a bit more how the tube map used to look before Beck got his hands on it isn't it? It's not actually *that* geographically accurate - it is in some places but not in others because of lack of room. So it's a bit pointless as far as I can see


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 16, 2011)

I don't particularly want a transport map to be geographically accurate. Every other map does that. I'd like this map to make as clear as possible how everyone from me to first-day tourists get from here to there.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Aug 16, 2011)

trashpony said:


> This is a bit more how the tube map used to look before Beck got his hands on it isn't it? It's not actually *that* geographically accurate - it is in some places but not in others because of lack of room. So it's a bit pointless as far as I can see



I Agree, a little twist here and there. Probably the most confusing thing about the current tube map (and I don't think this is a problem anyway) is the distances involved and this really does nothing to address that.

Harry Beck did come up with the original coloured map but it was often updated without his blessing and he was kicked to the curb when he tried submitting his own updates. The map we see today is not the Beck map, just Beck inspired. Right up until his death he 'corrected' the map but was always rejected. A lot of what beck wanted to change about the new maps was to make some sections slightly more geographically correct, or at least not going in the opposite direction.


----------



## Greebo (Aug 16, 2011)

Vile and too visually cluttered - v difficult for me to read without using a finger to trace the lines.

One of the things I like about the Beck map is that it bears little relation to where things are on the surface but gives you a good idea how long it'll take you to get there by tube (approx 5 mins per station).  Lovely little quirks like the way that two tube stations more or less on the same road take quite a complicated journey to join up underground.


----------



## bi0boy (Aug 16, 2011)

Looks fine but they should have tried fitting crossrail on there.


----------



## bi0boy (Aug 16, 2011)

Actually KingsX to Paddington is a bit of a mess and would easily confuse most tourists.


----------



## 19sixtysix (Aug 16, 2011)

I quite like this map containing all (<Anorak> non preserved) UK lines. Its zoomable and interesting in london for the geographic representation.


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 16, 2011)

bi0boy said:


> Looks fine but they should have tried fitting crossrail on there.



That's part of the issue though; with this kind of map, you'll inevitably have the central area completely cluttered with lines. Besides which, neither Crossrail or Thameslink is part of the tube system even though they will be highly integrated


----------



## kabbes (Aug 16, 2011)

It's much easier for us all to take in information presented in a grid-like fashion.  We like to move our eyes left-right and up-down.  This is what is so great about the original map -- it presents as much as possible in a grid-like fashion and where it diverges from this standard, it does so with neat 45-degree lines.

This new one is a spaghetti-style mess.  It's really hard to absorb it in a glance, and to follow routes with your eyes.  It's a nice touch for locals, who already basically know where they are looking and what they are looking for.  But for noobs, it's a disaster.


----------



## marty21 (Aug 16, 2011)

I want a tram in North and East London - I have never got a tram in London - and seeing it on the map in South London - angers me


----------



## kabbes (Aug 16, 2011)

Oh yeah.  A shitty tram really makes up for the North's dense network of underground lines.


----------



## marty21 (Aug 16, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Oh yeah. A shitty tram really makes up for the North's dense network of underground lines.


I'd still like to go on a shitty tram, but I'm not going to schlep down south


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Aug 16, 2011)

trashpony said:


> This is a bit more how the tube map used to look before Beck got his hands on it isn't it? It's not actually *that* geographically accurate - it is in some places but not in others because of lack of room. So it's a bit pointless as far as I can see



I agree with this. It's interesting but as it is no that geograohically accurate  I don't really see the point of it and munch prefer the clarity of the current map.


----------



## bromley (Aug 16, 2011)

Is the dotted orange line actually under construction? Obviously they can't stop at Brixton because the aqueduct is too high, unless they want to reopen East Brixton Station?

I prefer it, although it's still not an accurate representation of the stations locations, it's far better than the current one. I've had friends/outsiders come over who have gotten confused with distances on the tube map.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 16, 2011)

The extension of the Underground Overground line from Clapham to Canada Water has to be the most pointless thing ever.  People _already_ find it completely impossible to join the Jubilee at Canada Water, owing to the fact that every single train has already packed itself out with those joining at Waterloo and London Bridge.  Once that Overground extension is open, anybody taking it can expect to wait for about 30 minutes and 15 trains before they even get a sniff of joining at Canda Water.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Aug 16, 2011)

bi0boy said:


> Actually KingsX to Paddington is a bit of a mess and would easily confuse most tourists.


It confuses me tbf, which is partly why I get the bus or walk from Paddington to Great Portland Street


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 16, 2011)

Is the East London line now overground?


----------



## 19sixtysix (Aug 16, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Oh yeah. A shitty tram really makes up for the North's dense network of underground lines.



I rather travel by South London's proper trains and trams and even the bus any day over the hell that is a tube train.


----------



## Greebo (Aug 16, 2011)

The tram's a bit to far south to be much use as all IMHO. Not to mention the way the rails for it are yet another hazard for anyone on two wheels.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 16, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> Is the East London line now overground?



"Overgroud" is the name of a train operating company (like Virgin or First Great Western) that is run by TFL and operates the North, West and East London Lines, plus Gospel Oak - Barking and the Watford line to Euston. They're attaching the South London Line onto the East London Line, so you can go from Clapham Junction to Canonbury on one train.

The ELL is still in tunnel from Whitechapel to Surrey Quays.


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 16, 2011)

Crispy said:


> "Overgroud" is the name of a train operating company (like Virgin or First Great Western) that is run by TFL and operates the North, West and East London Lines, plus Gospel Oak - Barking and the Watford line to Euston. They're attaching the South London Line onto the East London Line, so you can go from Clapham Junction to Canonbury on one train.
> 
> The ELL is still in tunnel from Whitechapel to Surrey Quays.



I see, cheers Crispy.


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 16, 2011)

kabbes said:


> The extension of the Underground Overground line from Clapham to Canada Water has to be the most pointless thing ever. People _already_ find it completely impossible to join the Jubilee at Canada Water, owing to the fact that every single train has already packed itself out with those joining at Waterloo and London Bridge. Once that Overground extension is open, anybody taking it can expect to wait for about 30 minutes and 15 trains before they even get a sniff of joining at Canda Water.


It completes the cirlce of London which, although you may ned to sometimes change, is really very helpful. Plus, it continues the primary policy of taking pressure of Zone One where possible, esp. but not only the huge bottleneck of London Bridge.

Canada Water is going to have to wait for Crossrail....


----------



## Greebo (Aug 16, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> It completes the cirlce of London which, although you may ned to sometimes change, is really very helpful.<snip>


More helpful if they did something about the large gaps between train & platform which can be found a lot of the stepfree overground stations. While I don't expect a complete absence of gaps, it'd be nice if something was done to at least make them small enough to be able to easily get a pushchair up & down, or to cross without needing to ask for somebody's arm. IME the slow section out of Euston is particularly bad. I say bad, I mean I'm not fucking using it again!


----------



## teuchter (Aug 16, 2011)

kabbes said:


> The extension of the Underground Overground line from Clapham to Canada Water has to be the most pointless thing ever. People _already_ find it completely impossible to join the Jubilee at Canada Water, owing to the fact that every single train has already packed itself out with those joining at Waterloo and London Bridge. Once that Overground extension is open, anybody taking it can expect to wait for about 30 minutes and 15 trains before they even get a sniff of joining at Canda Water.


 The extension to Clapham is going to be very useful for me and lots of other south Londoners so I don't care about the bankers on the Jubilee line.

Who gets on at Canada Water anyway and where are they going?


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 16, 2011)

Home, usually.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Aug 16, 2011)

Greebo said:


> The tram's a bit to far south to be much use as all IMHO. Not to mention the way the rails for it are yet another hazard for anyone on two wheels.



The tram is too far south to be of much use at all? It's pretty damn packed in the morning so someone must seem to find it useful.
I agree the rails are a pain for cycling, but not so much that it has ever really bothered me most of the tram runs along areas that are off road. In Croydon certainly there are about a million cycling issues that need sorting before tram lines.
I'm not sure why they wanted tram rails anyway, surely an electric trollybus would have made more sense financially, plus they can go off track if need be.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 16, 2011)

teuchter said:


> The extension to Clapham is going to be very useful for me and lots of other south Londoners so I don't care about the bankers on the Jubilee line.
> 
> Who gets on at Canada Water anyway and where are they going?


If it really is going to be useful to you then fair enough.

People get on at Canada Water because they have taken the Overground from where they live to Canada Water.  Then they have to change to the Jubilee in order to get to Canary Wharf.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 16, 2011)

That totally sucks dead dog cock.


----------



## Greebo (Aug 16, 2011)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> The tram is too far south to be of much use at all? It's pretty damn packed in the morning so someone must seem to find it useful.<snip>


What I meant is that IMHO it's too far to the south - it doesn't join up with the edge of the tube network.  So, between the two areas, you've got a choice between slow (relatively cheap) buses and expensive overground.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Aug 16, 2011)

Greebo said:


> What I meant is that IMHO it's too far to the south - it doesn't join up with the edge of the tube network. So, between the two areas, you've got a choice between slow (relatively cheap) buses and expensive overground.


Too far south for what? Plus it does join up with the tube network and the Oyster prices on the overground trains are as per the tube.

I have a tram stop at the end of my road but hardly ever use it. Maybe for Ikea or going to Wimbledon.
The Trains are very good when it is not rush hour. The new east london line extension, which I thought was going to be really handy, seems to add 30 minutes to any trip to north london (as opposed to just going from East Croydon on the Train) and is certainly no better than the trains that used to run on that line at West Croydon. I suppose the new trains look nicer though, and it looks 'nice' on the tube map.


----------



## Greebo (Aug 16, 2011)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Too far south for what? Plus it does join up with the tube network and the Oyster prices on the overground trains are as per the tube.


Oh you mean tram and tube join up at Wimbledon - whoop de feckin doo - that's roughly an hour away (with no direct route at weekends etc, seeing as it's dependant on the whim of Thameslink) if lucky!

Oyster overground the same price as the tube? Like I said, relatively expensive, seeing as it more or less doubles the maximum which my Oyster card can be charged on any given day (compared to using nothing but the bus). And again, there's the issue of accessibility.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 16, 2011)

kabbes said:


> If it really is going to be useful to you then fair enough.
> 
> People get on at Canada Water because they have taken the Overground from where they live to Canada Water. Then they have to change to the Jubilee in order to get to Canary Wharf.


If the ELL extension is going to deliver a large number of commuters from places like Clapham, Denmark Hill and Peckham onto the Jubilee line, then they are most likely getting on the Jubilee line at London Bridge at present anyway. So I don't see that it's likely to have a large impact really.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 16, 2011)

Well... one of the major impacts of any change to transportation infrastructure is that people change their habits and change the areas they will consider living in order to work in a particular place. People who would currently use the interchange are likely to already be arriving on the network via Waterloo or London Bridge. But after the change, who knows what extra commuters it might bring?

Anyway, we'll see what happens, I guess. My first reaction was a  but maybe I'm underestimating the need of people in South-East London to get to Clapham Junction.


----------



## Greebo (Aug 16, 2011)

kabbes said:


> <snip> maybe I'm underestimating the need of people in South-East London to get to Clapham Junction.


One of my least favourite stations, with some of the very worst gaps IME.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 16, 2011)

Yeah, the distance from the train to the platform at Clapham Junction can even cause me some awkward manoeuvrings, and I'm a fairly young guy without any mobility problems.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Aug 16, 2011)

Greebo said:


> Oh you mean tram and tube join up at Wimbledon - whoop de feckin doo - that's roughly an hour away (with no direct route at weekends etc, seeing as it's dependant on the whim of Thameslink) if lucky!
> 
> Oyster overground the same price as the tube? Like I said, relatively expensive, seeing as it more or less doubles the maximum which my Oyster card can be charged on any given day (compared to using nothing but the bus). And again, there's the issue of accessibility.



An hour away from what? You? You didn't say its 'Not much use to you', you said 'it's not much use in my opinion'.
If you are dissing the tram for being useless to you alone then if you don't need to go in it then yeah it's not very useful to you. I could say the same of the North London overground or anything much more north of the centre.

You didn't say relatively expensive anything. you said there was no underground which only left expensive overground (implying there was a price difference) or relatively cheap but slow buses.

I don't think I was really being that much of a pendant to say it joined the tube (which it does at three places) when you said that it didn't even join up with the tube network at all.

As I said, the tram isn't even that useful to me even with it at the end of my road, but it is useful to a lot of people.
Why do you even care about the tram if it's not in an area you go to. I don't care about Manchesters trams.

Did you even mention accesiblity before my post?
BTW all tram stops have disabled access.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Aug 16, 2011)

+WHOOPS+


----------



## Greebo (Aug 16, 2011)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> An hour away from what?<snip>


For clarity's sake, I'm between Brixton Tube, Herne Hill station, Tulse Hill Station, and Streatham Hill Station, but none of them usually take less than 15 mins (for me) to reach. Hence the nearest point of the tram network isn't useful (to me, again, I grant you) because it takes too long (through s--l--o--w traffic) to get there from here. It's a long and indirect journey at the best of times.

No local underground which I could reach without using a bus etc. Even with crossing Brockwell Park, it's still uncomfortably far to walk,

AFAIK the tram doesn't join up with any of the underground which I could reach within 45 mins - happy now?

Here's a clue. It bothers me because people assume that a pitifully small tram network compensates for a lack of underground. It doesn't. There are parts of London I'd go to far more often if it took less than an hour to get there!

FWIW Accessibility of the tram isn't helpful if the trains you need to take to reach the tram aren't really accessible. I refer my learned urb to post number 34 on this thread, where I mentioned the small matter of not very small gaps between platform and overground trains.

BTW I believe you meant to say "pedant" instead of "pendant", but I'll happily think of you hanging from somewhere if you prefer.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Aug 16, 2011)

Greebo said:


> BTW I believe you meant to say "pedant" instead of "pendant", but I'll happily think of you hanging from somewhere if you prefer.


Ha ha of course. Oop.


----------



## Greebo (Aug 16, 2011)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Ha ha of course. Oop.


Accidental or not, brightened my afternoon.  Oh well bus crush here I come.  Again.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Aug 16, 2011)

Greebo said:


> Here's a clue. It bothers me because people assume that a pitifully small tram network compensates for a lack of underground. It doesn't. There are parts of London I'd go to far more often if it took less than an hour to get there!



Well you can't build a tube in south london so there is not much choice. The tube (which is really a train) that runs in south London is way slower than the train. I have no idea what your disabled / accessibility problems are so I cannot comment on that but Brixton is less that 30 minutes door to door for me even if I don't get on the tram to the station (and I have to go to Victoria and back again).

For me the trains do a great job, but I am right by East Croydon anyway.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 16, 2011)

With modern tunneling tech, they could build new tunnels in South London. Most likely candidate (which has already been studied by TFL) is extending the Bakerloo South-East, via Camberwell, Peckham Rye, Honor Oak, Catford and then take over the railway to Hayes







(shown as two phases of construction)


----------



## kabbes (Aug 16, 2011)

Dunno if it's true, but I once heard that if the tube network extended as far south as it does north then we would have an underground station in Leatherhead.


----------



## TruXta (Aug 16, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Dunno if it's true, but I once heard that if the tube network extended as far south as it does north then we would have an underground station in Leatherhead.



Wouldn't surprise me. FFS, you can get the Metropolitan line to Watford!


----------



## Bungle73 (Aug 16, 2011)

The Met used to go all the way to Aylesbury....and beyond!  There was a branch from Quainton Road sation to Brill, and another to Verney Junction on the Oxford-Cambridge line.


----------



## paolo (Aug 16, 2011)

Bungle73 said:


> The Met used to go all the way to Aylesbury....and beyond!  There was a branch from Quainton Road sation to Brill, and another to Verney Junction on the Oxford-Cambridge line.



The ambition IIR was to take the Met up to Birmingham, and achieve mainline status.


----------



## spanglechick (Aug 16, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Dunno if it's true, but I once heard that if the tube network extended as far south as it does north then we would have an underground station in Leatherhead.


and to Tunbridge Wells. (although only to bexleyheath for some reason in that direction.)

The upside down tube map.
(link via ex-urb skim on fb yesterday)


----------



## teuchter (Aug 16, 2011)

kabbes said:


> My first reaction was a  but maybe I'm underestimating the need of people in South-East London to get to Clapham Junction.



It has long been quite difficult to get back and forth sideways across south London. The current South London Line service that shuttles between Victoria and London Bridge can get you from Clapham High Street to Denmark Hill to Peckham but if you want to go any further west than Clapham High Street you end up having to go all the way into Victoria and then back out again (or sometimes you can change at Battersea Park). To get to the East End from somewhere like Camberwell you generally have to get a bus and then the tube through central London. Or to get onto the tube system generally you have to loop round to London Bridge or Victoria.

Once the ELL extension is running, getting straight to Clapham Junction will be very useful for getting to West London and indeed anywhere outside of London served by either Waterloo or Victoria (ie a lot of places). At the moment to pick up a Waterloo service starting from say Camberwell or Peckham, you generally have to go all the way into Waterloo on a bus, or get the train to Victoria then to Clapham Junction.

Unfortunately introducing the ELL services means the London Bridge - Victoria shuttle will cease, and there has been some protest about that but it's not a very heavily used service and some efforts have been made to fill in the gap with other services.

None of this really makes it easier to get from central Brixton to points east or west because the south London Line doesn't have a station there, but as I now live closer to Denmark Hill station than Brixton Tube, I don't care.


----------



## TruXta (Aug 16, 2011)

It's ridiculous how long it takes to get from certain places east-west in South London.


----------



## Me76 (Aug 16, 2011)

teuchter said:


> Unfortunately introducing the ELL services means the London Bridge - Victoria shuttle will cease, and there has been some protest about that but it's not a very heavily used service and some efforts have been made to fill in the gap with other services.



I use it all the time


----------



## teuchter (Aug 16, 2011)

Me76 said:


> I use it all the time



From where to where?


----------



## Tankus (Aug 16, 2011)

I rather like it


----------



## Greebo (Aug 16, 2011)

TruXta said:


> It's ridiculous how long it takes to get from certain places east-west in South London.


Agreed


----------



## teuchter (Aug 16, 2011)

Greebo said:


> One of my least favourite stations, with some of the very worst gaps IME.



There's not too much that can be done about that without pretty much rebuilding the station. Geometry is geometry.


----------



## Me76 (Aug 16, 2011)

teuchter said:


> From where to where?



I live in West Norwood, work in Clapham Junction, use both Victoria and Balham to connect to the tube and London Bridge for other connections.


----------



## _pH_ (Aug 16, 2011)

Me76 said:


> I live in West Norwood, work in Clapham Junction, use both Victoria and Balham to connect to the tube and London Bridge for other connections.



that's not the one that's going though. Vic to London Bridge via the Palace (aka rounders) will still run, it's Vic to London Bridge via Denmark Hill (aka South Londons) that's going. I don't think South Londons should go though, very busy services especially in the peak.


----------



## davesgcr (Aug 16, 2011)

Yes they are ..and some serious headscratching is needed - the ELL extensions have really changed the dynamics of SL travel ....need to get some ridership details is the answer.

Was a 2 car peak only service not that long ago.


----------



## Me76 (Aug 16, 2011)

_pH_ said:


> that's not the one that's going though. Vic to London Bridge via the Palace (aka rounders) will still run, it's Vic to London Bridge via Denmark Hill (aka South Londons) that's going. I don't think South Londons should go though, very busy services especially in the peak.



oh.  That's ok then.  For me, anyway.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 17, 2011)

davesgcr said:


> Yes they are ..and some serious headscratching is needed - the ELL extensions have really changed the dynamics of SL travel ....need to get some ridership details is the answer.
> 
> Was a 2 car peak only service not that long ago.


Do you mean the existing extension has changed stuff? Would be interesting to know more.


----------



## davesgcr (Aug 17, 2011)

Basically the ELL trains are now very heavily loaded from as far back as Norwood Junction - stripping off loadings on the Southern services to London Bridge . There seem to be moves also of people travelling between the suburbs and  LB and Victoria terminii , due to the ELL and the interchange potential on that route. Course there a series of detailed counts to take place in Sept - plus data downloaded off the trains themselves.

Someone will sit down with a strong coffee and analyse this.


----------



## 19sixtysix (Aug 18, 2011)

Crispy said:


> With modern tunneling tech, they could build new tunnels in South London. Most likely candidate (which has already been studied by TFL) is extending the Bakerloo South-East, via Camberwell, Peckham Rye, Honor Oak, Catford and then take over the railway to Hayes
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What a naff idea turning proper trains into tiny sardine cans. I doubt anyone using beyond Catford would actually thank you for that route into town.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 18, 2011)

It wouldn't be the first mainline turned into tube. The central line was extended east and west by running on former mainlines. The new DLR route from Stratford to Canning Town used to be part of the North London Line.

Instead of 8/4 trains an hour (peak/off peak), the Hayes line would get the Bakerloo's 23/15 (even more after the upgrade, which will be in the same timeframe). Those 8/4 paths on the mainline north of Lewisham would be freed up for other services (and the Southeastern services to Kent are badly in need of extra capacity). Journey time would be very similar (40 minutes on the current line, also 40 minutes from zone 5 to zone 1 on the other long tube lines). Nothing but benefit, all for the cost of slightly smaller seats.


----------



## Bungle73 (Aug 18, 2011)

Crispy said:


> It wouldn't be the first mainline turned into tube. The central line was extended east and west by running on former mainlines. The new DLR route from Stratford to Canning Town used to be part of the North London Line.
> 
> Instead of 8/4 trains an hour (peak/off peak), the Hayes line would get the Bakerloo's 23/15 (even more after the upgrade, which will be in the same timeframe). Those 8/4 paths on the mainline north of Lewisham would be freed up for other services (and the Southeastern services to Kent are badly in need of extra capacity). Journey time would be very similar (40 minutes on the current line, also 40 minutes from zone 5 to zone 1 on the other long tube lines). Nothing but benefit, all for the cost of slightly smaller seats.


The northern parts of the Northern Line used to be mainline railways too. Google "New Works Programme". 

That Bakerloo Line extension would have suited me down to the ground when I lived in London because I lived near Peckham Rye, travelled to the Elephant frequenly and would have appreciated easy access to the Tube.


----------



## 19sixtysix (Aug 18, 2011)

Crispy said:


> It wouldn't be the first mainline turned into tube. The central line was extended east and west by running on former mainlines. The new DLR route from Stratford to Canning Town used to be part of the North London Line.
> 
> Instead of 8/4 trains an hour (peak/off peak), the Hayes line would get the Bakerloo's 23/15 (even more after the upgrade, which will be in the same timeframe). Those 8/4 paths on the mainline north of Lewisham would be freed up for other services (and the Southeastern services to Kent are badly in need of extra capacity). Journey time would be very similar (40 minutes on the current line, also 40 minutes from zone 5 to zone 1 on the other long tube lines). Nothing but benefit, all for the cost of slightly smaller seats.



I look at northern line and central lines that are too long and consequently too full at stations on the inner sections. I'd welcome it being extended to intersect with proper trains but not take over the lines. I use Catford bridge every so often and a tube train instead is not my idea of a pleasant commute.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 18, 2011)

Bear in mind that the Bakerloo extension would run in tunnel to Catford Bridge and only take over the mainline on the branch ie. Lower Sydenham to Hayes. Your Catford Bridge train would still run, and would start at that station so you'd have more chance of a seat.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 18, 2011)

I'm not sure why turning something into a tube line suddenly means you can run eleventy billion trains an hour on it instead of 1 but, by golly, it works.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 18, 2011)

kabbes said:


> I'm not sure why turning something into a tube line suddenly means you can run eleventy billion trains an hour on it instead of 1 but, by golly, it works.


Operational simplicity. The mainline railways are all interconnected with loads of different train types and service patterns. The timetables have to take account of fast trains, stopping trains, freight trains, trains on other routes that intersect, potential delays on other parts of the network etc. etc. Tube lines are end-to-end, with one type of train that stops at every station. If you engineer out the conflicts, you can run lots of mainline trains (thameslink and crossrail will manage this). But the Kent lines are horribly, horribly laid out and so are limited to a rather low TPH.


----------



## davesgcr (Aug 19, 2011)

it instead of 1 but, by golly, it works.Operational simplicity. The mainline railways are all interconnected with loads of different train types and service patterns. The timetables have to take account of fast trains, stopping trains, freight trains, trains on other routes that intersect, potential delays on other parts of the network etc. etc. Tube lines are end-to-end, with one type of train that stops at every station. If you engineer out the conflicts, you can run lots of mainline trains (thameslink and crossrail will manage this). But the Kent lines are horribly, horribly laid out and so are limited to a rather low TPH.

sounds and feels like you have the qualifications for a Network rail / TFL planner without going through the interview process.

Simple end to end , high capacity lines are a relative doddle to plan - the real skill comes in optimising the commercial and operational requirements of main line , mixed traffic railways.


----------



## camouflage (Aug 22, 2011)

teuchter said:


> http://www.london-tubemap.com/
> 
> My first reaction was that to abandon the Beck design is heresy, but they make a good argument for doing so and they seem to have done a good job of producing something that is more geographically accurate but still clear. What do you reckon?
> 
> (Mods please delete if there's already a thread on this...couldn't find one)



My first thought was that it had been drawn by a spider on caffeine or something.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 22, 2011)

davesgcr said:


> sounds and feels like you have the qualifications for a Network rail / TFL planner without going through the interview process.


Yeah, but when I get the job, I'd be all "Grade separate all these junctions with great big flyovers. Quad-track these routes. Put this line in a tunnel. Rebuild this station." ... "What do you mean, you can't afford it? What you hire me for?"


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 22, 2011)

davesgcr said:


> Basically the ELL trains are now very heavily loaded from as far back as Norwood Junction - stripping off loadings on the Southern services to London Bridge . There seem to be moves also of people travelling between the suburbs and LB and Victoria terminii , due to the ELL and the interchange potential on that route. Course there a series of detailed counts to take place in Sept - plus data downloaded off the trains themselves.
> 
> Someone will sit down with a strong coffee and analyse this.


So it's a far bigger success than anticipated, and double quickly, as well?

IIRC, the hope was to take 7-10% off London Bridge at peak....


----------



## twentythreedom (Aug 23, 2011)

Tankus said:


> I rather like it



It made me feel queasy and I had to tilt my head a bit to get my bearings. My house is about 5 miles away going by that ridiculous bunch of graphic designer's wankestry.

Fail. Beck FTW. If it ain't broke etc...


----------



## teuchter (Aug 23, 2011)

twentythreedom said:


> It made me feel queasy and I had to tilt my head a bit to get my bearings. My house is about 5 miles away going by that ridiculous bunch of graphic designer's wankestry.
> 
> Fail. Beck FTW. If it ain't broke etc...


5 miles away from where?


----------



## Crispy (Aug 23, 2011)

I don't mind the layout of the current map. What bugs me about it is the indistinct routing information. The district line runs to Wimbledon, but what are my realistic destinations from that station? The DLR and overground are even worse.


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 23, 2011)

That's outside the ambit of TfL though, you want National Rail at that point. For example, options from Wimbledon look fine on this map:

http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/passenger_services/maps/London_Connections.pdf

Those maps are around the walls of relevant stations.

What's nice about that map ( ^ ), to my mind, is it extends the design principles of the tube map into proper commuter land and beyond. It really helps understand the scope of, say, Thameslink.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 23, 2011)

Ok, Wimbledon's a bad example. But you wouldn't know from the map that you have to change at Poplar to get to Canary Wharf from Tower Gateway, for example, or which branch of the Northern line you're likely to go down


----------



## twentythreedom (Aug 23, 2011)

teuchter said:


> 5 miles away from where?



from here, where it actually is (well, there iyswim)


----------



## RedDragon (Mar 27, 2013)

teuchter said:


> http://www.london-tubemap.com/
> 
> My first reaction was that to abandon the Beck design is heresy, but they make a good argument for doing so and they seem to have done a good job of producing something that is more geographically accurate but still clear. What do you reckon?


 
I'm liking this circular one on flickr


----------



## Crispy (Mar 27, 2013)

How cute! It looks like the roundel!
Terrible map, though.


----------



## Pgd (Mar 27, 2013)

Crispy said:


> How cute! It looks like the roundel!
> Terrible map, though.


 
Agreed.  Beautiful piece of art, but sadly impractical as an actual map.

Returning to the map in the OP (which somehow I've never stumbled on before despite being a massive London transport geek) -- the best thing about it IMO is the tabs at the top which allow you to turn on or off extraneous info such as zones, step-free access etc.  Something like that ought to be on TfL's main page.


----------



## Roadkill (Mar 27, 2013)

I quite like this one:


----------



## Roadkill (Mar 27, 2013)

This one would have suited me quite well when I lived in London too:


----------

