London Rail Maps
It came to my attention that the GLA has recommended adding the central section of Thameslink to the Tube Map (in fact a map of all TfL's rail services). This makes no sense, so I contact Caroline Pidgeon (a GLA Member who's on the relevant committee) to find out why and what the thinking is behind putting a section of one non-TfL railway line on a map of TfL only railway lines, when that lime, like all railway lines in London, is shown on the 'London's Tube and Rail Services' map - what used to be called the London Connections Map.
CP argued that "the overall objective of the Tube map and indeed of TfL [should be] to effectively serve as many Londoners and visitors to London as is possible in making journeys."
To serve as many of these travellers as is possible must surely require a map of all London's railway lines. What justification is there for omitting most non-TfL ones?
She mentioned in response to one of my points “the importance of the Barking to Gospel Oak line and benefits that were brought about by including it on the ‘Tube map’", but she had misunderstood: I clarified:
"My point about the Barking – Gospel Oak line was not that it was a good idea to put it on the tube map but that people think the tube map shows all London’s Railways and that is why people thought it was a new line when it was added to the tube map."
I reinforced this point with respect to the new Thameslink proposal:
"Adding some (or part of one) but not all non-TfL lines to the tube map adds to this confusion – the map is not just of the tube or even all TfL services, because – look – here is Thameslink – that must be another new line."
Another point was "it charges fares on the same tariff as the London Underground”.
Me: "That is true, but so do several other lines – for instance Fenchurch Street – Upminster (C2C currently) fares are interchangeable with Tower Hill – Upminster (LU) fares and have been for decades. A map of all rail lines that charge LU fares would maybe make sense, but the tube map is not such a map."
Then CP tried:“the central section offers fully accessible and frequent rail journeys”
Me: "That’s true. I’m afraid I’m unaware of which lines offer a fully accessible service, but certainly the true tube lines don’t, so the map has a messy definition – all TfL services plus one non TfL service which is fully accessible (etc). A map of all rail lines that are fully accessible may make sense, but the tube map is not such a map. The same can probably be said of ‘frequent’ services."
(There was a short-lived map that showed all 'frequent' rail services in London. I can't remember the criterion for being classed as frequent.)
CP: “raising awareness of the availability of this service would open up a significant part of the transport network for everyone".
Me: "Exactly, but why not raise awareness of all London’s railways for everyone? This is palpably not done by missing a lot of them off the most widely available / known map."
The name 'tube map' is a misnomer, but at least we can say succinctly that it is a map of all TfL's rail services - until we anomalously add a section of Thameslink. We then can't say clearly or succinctly what the map is of.
Contrast this with the 'London's Tube and Rail Services' map. Very clear and fairly concise. It handles the ambiguity about whether 'rail' refers just to non tube services, or to all rail based services by including both terms.
There is a problem with this map on paper as currently designed - it (probably) can't fit on a handy-sized piece of paper whilst remaining clear enough to read. This is where the little folding 'tube map' leaflet wins out. There is this map, though: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/version-i-central-rail-tube-dec-2017.pdf which addresses this problem by covering the central area only. I think they could squeeze on a bit more without much loss of clarity. I suppose TfL wouldn't want to distribute a map that doesn't show their whole network but I still think an all lines map is a better option.
CP argued that "the overall objective of the Tube map and indeed of TfL [should be] to effectively serve as many Londoners and visitors to London as is possible in making journeys."
To serve as many of these travellers as is possible must surely require a map of all London's railway lines. What justification is there for omitting most non-TfL ones?
She mentioned in response to one of my points “the importance of the Barking to Gospel Oak line and benefits that were brought about by including it on the ‘Tube map’", but she had misunderstood: I clarified:
"My point about the Barking – Gospel Oak line was not that it was a good idea to put it on the tube map but that people think the tube map shows all London’s Railways and that is why people thought it was a new line when it was added to the tube map."
I reinforced this point with respect to the new Thameslink proposal:
"Adding some (or part of one) but not all non-TfL lines to the tube map adds to this confusion – the map is not just of the tube or even all TfL services, because – look – here is Thameslink – that must be another new line."
Another point was "it charges fares on the same tariff as the London Underground”.
Me: "That is true, but so do several other lines – for instance Fenchurch Street – Upminster (C2C currently) fares are interchangeable with Tower Hill – Upminster (LU) fares and have been for decades. A map of all rail lines that charge LU fares would maybe make sense, but the tube map is not such a map."
Then CP tried:“the central section offers fully accessible and frequent rail journeys”
Me: "That’s true. I’m afraid I’m unaware of which lines offer a fully accessible service, but certainly the true tube lines don’t, so the map has a messy definition – all TfL services plus one non TfL service which is fully accessible (etc). A map of all rail lines that are fully accessible may make sense, but the tube map is not such a map. The same can probably be said of ‘frequent’ services."
(There was a short-lived map that showed all 'frequent' rail services in London. I can't remember the criterion for being classed as frequent.)
CP: “raising awareness of the availability of this service would open up a significant part of the transport network for everyone".
Me: "Exactly, but why not raise awareness of all London’s railways for everyone? This is palpably not done by missing a lot of them off the most widely available / known map."
The name 'tube map' is a misnomer, but at least we can say succinctly that it is a map of all TfL's rail services - until we anomalously add a section of Thameslink. We then can't say clearly or succinctly what the map is of.
Contrast this with the 'London's Tube and Rail Services' map. Very clear and fairly concise. It handles the ambiguity about whether 'rail' refers just to non tube services, or to all rail based services by including both terms.
There is a problem with this map on paper as currently designed - it (probably) can't fit on a handy-sized piece of paper whilst remaining clear enough to read. This is where the little folding 'tube map' leaflet wins out. There is this map, though: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/version-i-central-rail-tube-dec-2017.pdf which addresses this problem by covering the central area only. I think they could squeeze on a bit more without much loss of clarity. I suppose TfL wouldn't want to distribute a map that doesn't show their whole network but I still think an all lines map is a better option.
Comments
Post a Comment