Fantasy/Extended Underground Map | London | Vision

uk-highspeed · September 8th, 2009, 09:34 PM

With a few threads at the moment about "if only" new tube lines, etc, I thought I'd have a go myself. The map you see below includes various proposals and ideas from the forum, real proposals, and from my own imagination. (Click the image for a PDF* - views best around 200%.)

I'm not saying this is a definitive solution, or that all my ideas are good ones - but please do comment and give me more ideas and your own suggestions. I will no doubt keep tinkering with the map, and will probably update it several times more.

Click for full map*:

The essential additions/changes from the existing tube map are:

Chelsey & Hackney 'large-size' tube line - partly based on the real proposed route, but also divided to encompass additional routes at either end of the core, taking over from existing tube/rail lines in some cases.
Crossrail 2 - my own route, taking over the existing Finsbury Park-Moorgate branch, and relieving Liverpool Street and Waterloo, as well as partly integrating the Waterloo-side of Airtrack. (I'm not particularly happy/finished with the routes to the south-west of Waterloo. As they would use existing track, I need to think about service patterns.)
Crossrail 3 - the north part based on an early Crossrail 1 proposal, taking over from the Metropolitan in parts, then joining to the Dartford lines to the south-east, plus a new line through Thamesmead. (Again, service patterns need considering, but possible.)
Overground - a few changes here and there, mainly better interchanges, plus allowing the Bakerloo to fully take-over the Watford DC line.
Northern - split route & extension to Camberwell, not Battersea, plus branch extension to Mill Hill Broadway on former trackbed.
Piccadilly - branch extension to Highgate & Ally Pally, i.e. 'Northern Heights', using former trackbed.
Metropolitan - extension to Watford, as proposed, plus giving up Amersham/Chesham services to Crossrail 3.
District - changes to accommodate C&H line, plus Romford shuttle taking over from rail.
Circle - tea-cup, as proposed.
Bakerloo - major south extension to Lewisham & Hayes, plus north extension to Watford, as proposed.
Central - changes to accommodate C&H, plus take over Greenford branch from rail.
Jubilee - extension to original Charing X branch to Bank.
Victoria - short extension to Herne Hill.
DLR / Tramlink - various extensions, some proposed, some not.
Across the network I've also added a few extra stations and interchanges.

A quick note about High Speed Rail: this isn't the map to discuss the merits or otherwise of HSR to Heathrow (despite my inclusion of Arup's 'Heathrow Hub' idea), or the location of a possible London terminal... (although, I've assumed it to be Euston...)

(Disclaimer: This map is not intended to infringe any copyright. It's purely fictional and produced for fun. No part should be relied on as fact, and please do not distribute/link outside of this forum.)

Enjoy!

(Edit) * - The PDF will always link to my most recent version. See later postings.

CroydonDave · September 8th, 2009, 10:26 PM

Love it. Great to see London Trams on it! Perhaps lost a bit of its usability though?

WatcherZero · September 8th, 2009, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CroydonDave

Love it. Great to see London Trams on it! Perhaps lost a bit of its usability though?

More like a street map than a transport map

flare · September 9th, 2009, 12:30 AM

blimney, love it. Two immediate comments:

- capacity of the Chelsea - Hackney would be really limited running both spurs through Kings Cross to Dalson Junction
- not sure of the point of Crossrail 3 but would be handy for me in Clapham!

Leeds No.1 · September 9th, 2009, 12:47 AM

I think it's good. I don't think it's lost its usability. I'd make sure to use the New Johnston typeface though.

I also don't like the use of the disabled symbol on Tube maps. Why not just produce a separate map with disabled symbols on and with full details of each station. You know that the disabled symbol actually only represents step free street-platform access anyway, not platform-train access (where there might be a gap or a drop/step onto the train).

I also would avoid having station names on colour blocks; not good for those who are colourblind plus it affects the clarity and strength of the type.

mr_jrt · September 9th, 2009, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leeds No.1

I think it's good. I don't think it's lost its usability. I'd make sure to use the New Johnston typeface though.

I also don't like the use of the disabled symbol on Tube maps. Why not just produce a separate map with disabled symbols on and with full details of each station. You know that the disabled symbol actually only represents step free street-platform access anyway, not platform-train access (where there might be a gap or a drop/step onto the train).

I also would avoid having station names on colour blocks; not good for those who are colourblind plus it affects the clarity and strength of the type.

That's an excellent point....

The tube map, as is, is mostly useless for a disabled passenger as there are so many stations and interchanges that aren't step-free, forcing them to search for stations they can use. Why not produce a much simpler step-free map that only considers the step-free stations and interchanges? You can then leave the symbols off the main map.

Garth38 · September 9th, 2009, 11:22 AM

Quick question what does the romford shuttle entail?

uk-highspeed · September 9th, 2009, 11:38 AM

Romford Shuttle is currently a 2tph shuttle between Romford and Upminster, operated by NXEA. I have simply suggested converting to District operation to provide a more frequent shuttle service. However, in reality, not particularly likely, given that it's not a priority and there would be little point ripping out OLE in favour of LU 4th rail.

Re the map comments: yes, good point about the typeface - I haven't found New Johnstone to download anywhere? Likewise, good point about the colour blocks - I was trying to find a clearer way to show termination points, but clarity is more important. I may also scrap the 'step free' markers as I agree that they don't indicate much.

flare- yes, that's the problem with my version of C&H, as if we assume 30tph through the central bit, that only leaves 15tph on each spur. Might have a re-think! (Unless we get really out-of-the-box and build the centre bit as two parallel twin-tubes, making 4 running lines?!?!)

CroydonDave - what do you mean about usability? Does it need separate route lines for Tramlink? Same problem with DLR...

Garth38 · September 9th, 2009, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uk-highspeed

Romford Shuttle is currently a 2tph shuttle between Romford and Upminster, operated by NXEA. I have simply suggested converting to District operation to provide a more frequent shuttle service. However, in reality, not particularly likely, given that it's not a priority and there would be little point ripping out OLE in favour of LU 4th rail.

I grew up in Upminster so I know how shocking the service is.

Ideally if money was not an issue I’d build a light railway similar to the DLR and add a few stations to the route. Eventually I’d extend the service down to Cranham and hopefully run at least 6 tph. However as you mention the chances of this happening are very remote. I can’t see TfL or NR funding a upgrade of the line and Havering Council wouldn’t know where to start. Any increase in frequency on the line would massively reduce traffic on the roads especially in school/college time.

In general your map is very impressive and I agree with most of it.

However personally wouldn’t include Chingford in Chelney because the current metro service to L-Pool St is very handy for City. And generally I would build a lot more new routes as tube lines and not NR.

If possible I would like to see the Victoria, Northern, Jubilee, H&C along with the Bakerloo all extended further into South London to take over NR lines. I still think the best way of serving a local journeys as well as commutes in London is through a mixture of tube and NR on the same route similar to the current link between C2C and the District Line.

sweek · September 9th, 2009, 12:11 PM

I'd change the zone colours... they're pretty horrible to be honest! And maybe change the line thickness for some the non-tube stuff to make it all a little more clear.

flare · September 9th, 2009, 12:35 PM

Keep tubes a solid colour and change heavy rail to only a coloured border with a white inner, although not sure that will be feasibile or help. Am thinking along the lines of the current map: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...-zones-map.pdf

Leeds No.1 · September 9th, 2009, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Re the map comments: yes, good point about the typeface - I haven't found New Johnstone to download anywhere? Likewise, good point about the colour blocks - I was trying to find a clearer way to show termination points, but clarity is more important. I may also scrap the 'step free' markers as I agree that they don't indicate much.

Unless someone has tried to recreate it somewhere, you probably won't find it to download. I'm sure that TfL are quite strict on who else uses it so they maintain their strong brand identity.

I don't think there is any need to show a terminus with the station name because the user can see that line terminates there anyway.

Quote:

That's an excellent point....

The tube map, as is, is mostly useless for a disabled passenger as there are so many stations and interchanges that aren't step-free, forcing them to search for stations they can use. Why not produce a much simpler step-free map that only considers the step-free stations and interchanges? You can then leave the symbols off the main map.

Yes it is pretty useless to show the wheelchair symbols- not to mention the fact that very few people using the map need to know that information. For the huge majority of people, all that symbol does is degrade the integrity of the tube map. As you mention, a separate step free map with all the necessary details can be produced for those who need to know.

We have to remember what made the Tube Map good in the first place- what made the Tube such an easy transport system to use? It's probably down to the fact it set new standards in design, with simplicity taken to a new level. Although London's transport network is expanding, TfL should consider how lines any symbols are added to the map much more carefully to maintain the usability of the map.

flare · September 9th, 2009, 12:57 PM

Definitely agree with the above. Will be interesting how they add Crossrail, i.e. if it will have the same colouring as Thameslink. I think this may 'under-sell' Crossrail though but I'm not sure they could give it its own colour.

ruvjet · September 9th, 2009, 01:35 PM

I also agree about the Wheelchair symbols.

Alex Gollner wrote a whole piece on it here.

Here is his take on the map, I personally think TFL should admit defeat and give him a job.

Garth38 · September 9th, 2009, 03:16 PM

One other thing I’d change is the Met Line to Watford.

Watford isn’t even in a London Borough so why should TfL fund a Met Line extension there? Especially when its also planning on sending the Bakerloo there too.

Considering there are vast areas of London that are crying out for a tube service it does take the pi*s just slightly.

cle · September 9th, 2009, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garth38

One other thing I’d change is the Met Line to Watford.

Watford isn’t even in a London Borough so why should TfL fund a Met Line extension there? Especially when its also planning on sending the Bakerloo there too.

Considering there are vast areas of London that are crying out for a tube service it does take the pi*s just slightly.

In principle you're right, but it's cheap as chips in comparison to tunnelling through Camberwell etc... and it's mainly about 'righting a wrong' - in that the current Watford branch ends in a residential area, and doesn't realise its potential as a connector. It's a short link and there isn't that much new engineering required.

It's not a London borough, but it's still a main centre for a lot of outer Northwest London, and the proposed link from Rickmansworth for example, could clear a lot of cars from the road. It links Central Harrow and other areas with Central Watford, and all the rail connections at Watford Junction.

johnb78 · September 9th, 2009, 05:38 PM

1) Hertfordshire County Council are taking the lead on funding the Croxley Met project

2) TfL are putting some money into the project because Watford is an important workplace for many people living in outer north-west London - not everyone commutes into the City...

cle · September 9th, 2009, 06:12 PM

Most of North London go there for CostCo also! It's like Hampstead in there sometimes!

Also has the amazing Top Golf.

CroydonDave · September 9th, 2009, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uk-highspeed

Romford Shuttle is currently a 2tph shuttle between Romford and Upminster, operated by NXEA. I have simply suggested converting to District operation to provide a more frequent shuttle service. However, in reality, not particularly likely, given that it's not a priority and there would be little point ripping out OLE in favour of LU 4th rail.

Re the map comments: yes, good point about the typeface - I haven't found New Johnstone to download anywhere? Likewise, good point about the colour blocks - I was trying to find a clearer way to show termination points, but clarity is more important. I may also scrap the 'step free' markers as I agree that they don't indicate much.

flare- yes, that's the problem with my version of C&H, as if we assume 30tph through the central bit, that only leaves 15tph on each spur. Might have a re-think! (Unless we get really out-of-the-box and build the centre bit as two parallel twin-tubes, making 4 running lines?!?!)

CroydonDave - what do you mean about usability? Does it need separate route lines for Tramlink? Same problem with DLR...

Not criticizing, I just find that too much info can be confusing. Tram is indicated perfectly

Jon10 · September 10th, 2009, 03:22 PM

I humbly suggest just alternating white and light-grey to indicate the oyster zones.

You can easily download a free typeface from http://www.fontspace.com/jonathan-paterson/london-tube. It would be good to do a Search-and-Replace-All, otherwise you are going to be very busy.

Care to include the Dudding Hill line, or even http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nwllr ?

September 8th, 2009, 09:34 PM	#1
uk-highspeed High Speed Rail Fan Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Cambridge, UK Posts: 94 Likes (Received): 0	Fantasy/Extended Underground Map \| London \| Vision With a few threads at the moment about "if only" new tube lines, etc, I thought I'd have a go myself. The map you see below includes various proposals and ideas from the forum, real proposals, and from my own imagination. *(Click the image for a PDF - views best around 200%.)** I'm not saying this is a definitive solution, or that all my ideas are good ones - but please do comment and give me more ideas and your own suggestions. I will no doubt keep tinkering with the map, and will probably update it several times more. Click for full map: The essential additions/changes from the existing tube map are: Chelsey & Hackney 'large-size' tube line - partly based on the real proposed route, but also divided to encompass additional routes at either end of the core, taking over from existing tube/rail lines in some cases. Crossrail 2 - my own route, taking over the existing Finsbury Park-Moorgate branch, and relieving Liverpool Street and Waterloo, as well as partly integrating the Waterloo-side of Airtrack. (I'm not particularly happy/finished with the routes to the south-west of Waterloo. As they would use existing track, I need to think about service patterns.) Crossrail 3 - the north part based on an early Crossrail 1 proposal, taking over from the Metropolitan in parts, then joining to the Dartford lines to the south-east, plus a new line through Thamesmead. (Again, service patterns need considering, but possible.) Overground - a few changes here and there, mainly better interchanges, plus allowing the Bakerloo to fully take-over the Watford DC line. Northern - split route & extension to Camberwell, not Battersea, plus branch extension to Mill Hill Broadway on former trackbed. Piccadilly - branch extension to Highgate & Ally Pally, i.e. 'Northern Heights', using former trackbed. Metropolitan - extension to Watford, as proposed, plus giving up Amersham/Chesham services to Crossrail 3. District - changes to accommodate C&H line, plus Romford shuttle taking over from rail. Circle - tea-cup, as proposed. Bakerloo - major south extension to Lewisham & Hayes, plus north extension to Watford, as proposed. Central - changes to accommodate C&H, plus take over Greenford branch from rail. Jubilee - extension to original Charing X branch to Bank. Victoria - short extension to Herne Hill. DLR / Tramlink - various extensions, some proposed, some not. Across the network I've also added a few extra stations and interchanges. A quick note about High Speed Rail: this isn't the map to discuss the merits or otherwise of HSR to Heathrow (despite my inclusion of Arup's 'Heathrow Hub' idea), or the location of a possible London terminal... (although, I've assumed it to be Euston...) (Disclaimer: This map is not intended to infringe any copyright. It's purely fictional and produced for fun. No part should be relied on as fact, and please do not distribute/link outside of this forum.) Enjoy! (Edit) - The PDF will always link to my most recent version. See later postings. Last edited by uk-highspeed; October 4th, 2009 at 02:17 PM. Reason: PDF links to latest version.

September 9th, 2009, 12:47 AM	#5
Leeds No.1 Registered User Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Leeds, EU Posts: 22,444 Likes (Received): 123	I think it's good. I don't think it's lost its usability. I'd make sure to use the New Johnston typeface though. I also don't like the use of the disabled symbol on Tube maps. Why not just produce a separate map with disabled symbols on and with full details of each station. You know that the disabled symbol actually only represents step free street-platform access anyway, not platform-train access (where there might be a gap or a drop/step onto the train). I also would avoid having station names on colour blocks; not good for those who are colourblind plus it affects the clarity and strength of the type. __________________ "Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure, It is our light not our darkness, that frightens us"

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

September 8th, 2009, 10:26 PM	#2
CroydonDave Registered User Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Greater London Posts: 107 Likes (Received): 0	Love it. Great to see London Trams on it! Perhaps lost a bit of its usability though?

September 9th, 2009, 12:30 AM	#4
flare Registered User Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: North London Posts: 1,170 Likes (Received): 4	blimney, love it. Two immediate comments: - capacity of the Chelsea - Hackney would be really limited running both spurs through Kings Cross to Dalson Junction - not sure of the point of Crossrail 3 but would be handy for me in Clapham!

September 9th, 2009, 11:22 AM	#7
Garth38 Registered User Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 142 Likes (Received): 0	Quick question what does the romford shuttle entail?

September 9th, 2009, 11:38 AM	#8
uk-highspeed High Speed Rail Fan Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Cambridge, UK Posts: 94 Likes (Received): 0	Romford Shuttle is currently a 2tph shuttle between Romford and Upminster, operated by NXEA. I have simply suggested converting to District operation to provide a more frequent shuttle service. However, in reality, not particularly likely, given that it's not a priority and there would be little point ripping out OLE in favour of LU 4th rail. Re the map comments: yes, good point about the typeface - I haven't found New Johnstone to download anywhere? Likewise, good point about the colour blocks - I was trying to find a clearer way to show termination points, but clarity is more important. I may also scrap the 'step free' markers as I agree that they don't indicate much. flare- yes, that's the problem with my version of C&H, as if we assume 30tph through the central bit, that only leaves 15tph on each spur. Might have a re-think! (Unless we get really out-of-the-box and build the centre bit as two parallel twin-tubes, making 4 running lines?!?!) CroydonDave - what do you mean about usability? Does it need separate route lines for Tramlink? Same problem with DLR...

September 9th, 2009, 12:11 PM	#10
sweek Registered User Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: London NW1 Posts: 1,727 Likes (Received): 0	I'd change the zone colours... they're pretty horrible to be honest! And maybe change the line thickness for some the non-tube stuff to make it all a little more clear.

September 9th, 2009, 12:35 PM	#11
flare Registered User Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: North London Posts: 1,170 Likes (Received): 4	Keep tubes a solid colour and change heavy rail to only a coloured border with a white inner, although not sure that will be feasibile or help. Am thinking along the lines of the current map: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...-zones-map.pdf

September 9th, 2009, 12:57 PM	#13
flare Registered User Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: North London Posts: 1,170 Likes (Received): 4	Definitely agree with the above. Will be interesting how they add Crossrail, i.e. if it will have the same colouring as Thameslink. I think this may 'under-sell' Crossrail though but I'm not sure they could give it its own colour.

September 9th, 2009, 01:35 PM	#14
ruvjet Registered User Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 49 Likes (Received): 0	I also agree about the Wheelchair symbols. Alex Gollner wrote a whole piece on it here. Here is his take on the map, I personally think TFL should admit defeat and give him a job.

September 9th, 2009, 03:16 PM	#15
Garth38 Registered User Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 142 Likes (Received): 0	One other thing I’d change is the Met Line to Watford. Watford isn’t even in a London Borough so why should TfL fund a Met Line extension there? Especially when its also planning on sending the Bakerloo there too. Considering there are vast areas of London that are crying out for a tube service it does take the pi*s just slightly.

September 9th, 2009, 05:38 PM	#17
johnb78 Registered User Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 380 Likes (Received): 4	1) Hertfordshire County Council are taking the lead on funding the Croxley Met project 2) TfL are putting some money into the project because Watford is an important workplace for many people living in outer north-west London - not everyone commutes into the City...

September 9th, 2009, 06:12 PM	#18
cle Registered User Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,039 Likes (Received): 45	Most of North London go there for CostCo also! It's like Hampstead in there sometimes! Also has the amazing Top Golf.

September 10th, 2009, 03:22 PM	#20
Jon10 Registered User Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 1,331 Likes (Received): 38	I humbly suggest just alternating white and light-grey to indicate the oyster zones. You can easily download a free typeface from http://www.fontspace.com/jonathan-paterson/london-tube. It would be good to do a Search-and-Replace-All, otherwise you are going to be very busy. Care to include the Dudding Hill line, or even http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nwllr ?