In September 2009, TfL did the unthinkable: they made the Thames disappear! What strange alchemy was this? Find out in today's Tale from the Tube! Ko-Fi: ko-fi.com/jago... Patreon: / jagohazzard
If you’re looking for a station on the map, the river allows, at a glance, for you to discard looking at one half of the map and find something a little quicker. It’s a UI thing. I like it being there.
Whilst not, perhaps, as useful for a Londoner that uses the tube every day, and knows London and the tube map well, I think the river being a feature on the map is an invaluable orientation tool for visitors who aren't already used to the tube map. An example being, if you know where your destination is in relation to the river, you can use it to locate the station on the map without needing to use an index and grid references. Alternatively, if somebody said 'meet me at Brixton tube station' and you as a visitor didn't necessarily know where Brixton is in London, you'd know from a glance at the tube map that it was south of the river, and it would allow you to get your bearings in relation to the rest of London as a whole.
That, indeed, was the case on my first visit 40 years ago. And still the bends in that mother of man's understanding the concept of river helps me find my way above as well as below ground. Even on google maps I find it useful.
This precise point. I've been to London a few times as a tourist and the river is an important feature to navigate by, especially since many of the historical buildings and attractions are close to it. Reading the map without the river it took me significantly more time to find a specific station as my reference for it's position above groud is the river.
I agree that having the River Thames on the map is a good idea for visitors. I've been to London twice and used both the Underground and DLR - knowing where I was in relation to the River helped quite a bit.
I have friends from college who went on to do theatre in New York City. By their account the pushback against the abstract maps in the 60s, 70s, and 80s was due to safety. Gang violence and violent crime were a lot more common in the city then, and locals and tourists alike wanted to know what neighborhood they would be entering when they left the subway station. So the most important information on the map was the geography above the subway line itself.
I've got to call poo-poo on this. I suggest readers refer to this: *Project: New York Subway Map in the Style of the London Tube Diagram* [...] [The other thing to note is that - in true Tube Map style - service patterns generally aren’t shown. This, of course, makes this map next to useless for actually navigating the subway - there’s literally no distinction made on the map between the J and the Z, for example - but that’s the way things roll in London! I did make one tiny concession to New York’s complexity by adding route designation bullets at the terminus stations of each service, but you’re completely on your own after that. Express services, turnbacks, skipping stations at certain times: these are all trifling details that London does not even attempt to convey - so neither does this map.] [...] Reader comment: [...] [In 1972, the MTA issued a completely revamped map, also in the “London Tube” style, but with a much brighter, “Peter Max” color scheme: www.nycsubway.org/perl/caption.pl?/img/maps/system_1972.jpg The 1972 version is the map I remember best from growing up-logically enough, since I was 13 years old when it was issued and versions of it remained the standard until 1979 (when I was 20 and about to graduate from Columbia University), at which time it was superseded by a more traditional approach that combined elements of the “London Tube” style with a more geographically conforming approach: transitmap.net/post/119479413215/new-york-1979 Incidentally, I mean no criticism…but it’s astonishing that apparently an entire era in MTA map-making has been lost to the knowledge of men.] transitmap.net/new-york-london-tube-map/
As someone who isn't a Londoner, I Found the river being on the map actually very useful. I admit I have only visited London 3 times, and as such only have a somewhat vague idea of where some places actually are. The river allowed me some geographical context to the place names when trying to decide which area to explore next. Without it I might very easily got off on the wrong side of the river, as I enjoyed getting off a stop or two early and exploring the streets to my destination. Being a rural Scottish lad London to me is a rather large and bewildering maze and the river is a fixed line through everything. Edit; I see scrolling through the comments that MANY others who are not native to London have said much the same, that the river gives an obvious orientation to the map. I guess Jago being local doesn't really need this reference?
I have lived in London all my life. It can be confusing, but the river is always a good locator. If you are set up to your knees check you have not stepped into the river, if your head and shoulders are wet it is raining (again).
@@bigbadjohn10 this comment is bloody brilliant LeL Coming from a non-Londoner that has watched way to many videos about TFL and there train networks!!
Funnily enough, you may very well be right. The story I heard was that by the late 1970s, street crime in NY had become such an issue that passengers on the Subway needed to be keenly aware not only of which exact part of town they would be emerging into but also of exactly how far they would need to walk once they did, since having to walk 8 blocks instead of 4 meant your chances of being mugged roughly doubled.
@@GorgeDawes It's time for you to post a reference on that George. I call BS. There's no way either the pictorial or schematic map indicated such. For some odd reason, crime density stats weren't published on any NYC transit maps.
There was a suggestion that Johnson arranged for the river to be removed from the map just so that he could Save The Day™ by *ordering* TfL to reinstate it. (He definitely stole this idea from Jim Hacker). Part of the reason why I like seeing the river on the map is that it makes it definitively London. You look at the map, you see the familiar blue squiggle of the -Eastenders opening scene- Thames and you know straight away that it's the London Underground.
The "impoverished students" line took me back decades. London and its tube network was truly a wonderland for me when I was a student. I'd always be curious as to how deep or far those UndergrounD rabbit holes would go! I cherish the memories.
On the few times I've been to London the river was useful as a recognizable feature to orientate myself as I visited Westminster and the various tourist spots. Removing it from the map would just make that harder. Edit. Fix grammer.
Adding onto this, a river or other major body of water is its own attraction of sorts. People want those views across the river, or a stroll along a few miles of its length, which is dotted with several points of interest for tourists.
There’s that infamous distorted picture of New York and environs and more that regularly appears as a cover of the New Yorker magazine: “important” parts of NYC are shown in detail and fairly accurately, “unimportant” parts less so, most of America far less so. It captures the New York mindset pretty well, for us Americans outside New York. I think it’s less offensive to New Yorkers than that stylized subway map!
There is similar map of the world that shows the USA in detail and the rest of the planet as compressed into obscurity. That captures the mindset of Americans pretty well.
You are thinking of the work by Saul Steinberg called "View of the World from 9th Avenue," which was the cover for The New Yorker for the March 29th, 1976 edition.
It sounds as though the British equivalent of this would be the Tory Atlas of the World, created in19i85 by the satirical TV show Spitting Image: mapsontheweb.zoom-maps.com/post/168641015987/the-tory-atlas-of-the-world-via-reddit-more
@@richardmcgowan6383 that's a pretty cool one. I'm a German, and "bullet-headed krauts" makes me smile... In 1986 I was shown one of those maps by a Canadian friend, depicting the world from Ronald Reagan's eyes. It still had the USSR as "Godless liars and spies" and Canada as "friendly but slightly retarded northern neighbor". I wonder whether there's an analogous map depicting how the "average" German perceives the world...
As a tourist to London, I think big landmarks/natural features such as the River are essential in a map. It helps orient visitors especially when many attractions are around a body of water e.g. Parliament and the London Eye. I can also think of an example of a tourist getting off at one station and planning to get on at another after seeing an attraction and not being impeded by a mountain or something. I also want to add that the old map with above ground feature, like the NY, one really does look much nicer. Great episode this one!
I think NY is a very special case: the city map doesn't need simplying - it's just about impossible to get lost, owing to the Avenue and Street numbering system. The only intricacy really occurs at the south end of Manhattan, where the street pattern gets a bit fancy, and there is the additional complication of having e.g. 7th Avenue South - as well as 7th Avenue. Enjoyable video - thanks!
Yup, both Manhattan and the outer boroughs are (mostly) a series of grids at various angles. Major streets tend to be long and straight and continuous, with subway lines mostly running under or over these streets, or on embankments nearby. Many of the outer boroughs' stations aren't all _that_ much farther apart than Manhattan's. And the subway doesn't go to suburbs outside the city limits. So the map doesn't need as much distortion or simplification to stay comprehensible And there aren't a lot of other interconnected services either to fill up the map. Bus routes and regional/commuter rail are on their own maps (much like in London), as is the PATH system.* There's no Overground-like service on surface rail.** And there's no through-the-city service like Thameslink or CrossElizPurplerail. * a separate subway network that connects a few places in Manhattan to suburbs across the river in New Jersey, and from there to downtown Newark NJ. It's run by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, rather than NYC's MTA. ** though there are proposals for one to better connect the outer boroughs to each other, so you don't have to take the subway into Manhattan and back out.
What happens when you end up in Brooklyn? The numbers start over. I'd never heard of De Kalb, but I went there and then tried to get back to places that I had heard of. I survived and I am here to tell the tail.
Ah, Brooklyn, where there's a 1st Street, a North 1st Street, a South 1st Street, a Plumb 1st Street but no East 1st Street (though there are East 2nd Street through East 108th Street); street grids that abut one another at random angles, and where numbered streets turn into named streets because someone thought it would raise property values (to be fair, this also happened on the Upper West Side of Manhattan). The DeKalb Avenue station on the B Division (former BMT) is its own separate hell, because it's an express stop on the Brighton Line but a local stop on all the others; there are six tracks, but the inner two bypass the station (no platforms). And don't get me started on Queens, where 78th Avenue might be followed by 78th Road and then by 78th Drive before you get to 79th Avenue, and similarly for 69th Street, 69th Place and 69th Lane. Or upper Manhattan and the Bronx, where things get three-dimensional. The presence of numbered streets is no guarantee of rationality. Even after seventy years of living and/or working in New York City, there are places I can still get lost, though at least I've never had to carry an A to Z as Londoners used to do before we all had GPS receivers on our phones.
I think that removing the river is a bad idea because the river is very useful for remembering where specific stations are, since the various bends of the river offer handy reference points. It also feels more like a map with the river included.
I might hazard a guess that, though it may never have been said, that the river being on the map gives people a familiar reference point to what is otherwise an abstract view of the city. I will say that having visited London twice in the past...and used the Underground extensively...I found the map without the river to be a little jarring at first glance. It somehow just didn't look right or complete. Here in Chicago, I suppose it's not much of an issue, because our rapid transit map is both geographically accurate as well as being diagramatic, owing to the routes following the rectangular grid pattern of the streets. The diagramatic New York map, on the other hand, looked more confusing than the geographical map. They say that humans can adapt to anything, so I wonder...if TFL had stuck it out and kept the river off of the map, would people today even miss it?
In Paris having the river on the map saved my butt. As an outsider I don't know the relative location of almost any other landmarks. They need to maintain some basic geographic markers so that people unfamiliar have something to lean on.
@ it sounds like you are using the underground regularly, that means you have at minnium a basic understanding of the relative location of things. You need to pretend like you are an alien and this is the first time you've been introduced to the map. With no prior knowledge you should be able to navigate, not including the river is a substantial detriment to that.
Fun fact: in Germany, the London-inspired, minimalist and schematic route maps are usually called "Netzspinne", which can be translated to "network spiderweb". This seems a quite apt naming choice, especially when taking the 1930s network map of the Berlin S-Bahn (a London-Overground-style and 3rd-rail-powered urban railway network established in 1928) into consideration. That 30s version is also the *_aesthetically_* most pleasing version, where the S-Bahn circle line was drawn as an actual circle, rather than the currently elongated shape. The current route map is, while still being rather schematical, somehow more oriented towards the geographical reality, but it also integrates regional and mainline train routes as well as the U-Bahn / underground, while omitting the rivers and canals.
The thing with the Thames is that when one is planning a route around the city it is quite important to know which side of it one is. Failure to plan such can lead to very difficult circumstances where the club you want is very close but somewhat inconvenienced by a large body of water in the way.
It's interesting that New York rejected the Beck style diagram when it's been embraced practically everywhere else with a substantial transit network. The Vienna U-Bahn uses it, and the Tokyo Metro has had to devise a multi-level diagram because of how dense their system has grown. The Kyoto map is very useful for showing the nearest connections to and from its arterial circle line.
maybe new york does not have a centre as such, the main places are on the left of the map, and its quite portrait orientated. The landscape of London left to right flows mentally better.
I hate the new transit map of my city (Frankfurt Germany). While I appreciate that they added some high frequency bus-lines to the S, U-Bahn, Streetcar Map. The way how they than altered the whole map makes no sense. We don't have that many lines on the map. 9 S-Bahn, 9 U-Bahn, 10 Streetcar and maybe 10 High frequency bus lines on the map. It's not that cluttered. S-Bahns are all light green in a single green line. That's fine because they all travel through downtown on a single corridor. But... On the previous map, every U-Bahn and Streetcar hat it's own color, this was useful. Now every U-Bahn Line has a slightly different shade of blue. And it not like all 9 lines have the same downtown core section, we have 3 different core sections. If you have multiple colors why would you choose only slightly different shades of blue. The same it true for streetcars, just that it's shades of orange and high frequency busses with shades of Magenta. And in addition they seemingly could not decide how geographically accurate the map shall be. The High frequency bus line M36 is making a wierd kink in which could have been a perfect 1/4 of a circle. Yes the bus is taking this kink in reality, but it completely useless on the map. There or other odds which also make no sense. I really dislike the map, it remove useful information and adds useless information.
Talking of Vienna ... the Rapid Transit Map of Vienna including U-Bahn (underground) and S-Bahn (local trains) does show the various branches of the Danube, but in a very pale blue to avoid confusion with the S-Bahn which is traditionally shown in darker blue.
If it makes sense for your commute, I highly recommend the river bus, it has to be the most relaxing way into work. I always found it very reliable. Until covid, I used it daily from Cadogan Pier to Canary Wharf. You always get a seat, and, shock, regulars actually pass the time of day with each other. And, of course on the way home, what better than a gin & tonic or two?
Like you said, you don't know London well. :-) The map doesn't represent distances at at all. The map only helps you get to a tube station, not your destination. And there is very little actual underground south of the river so the risk of being on the wrong side by a single station is not that great. In any case, if it happens, walking back across one of the many bridges (especially Waterloo) is one of the most amazing sites in London.
For someone visiting London rather than lives there, the river in the map is usual as you’ll know whether or not you’ll need to cross the river if you miss a stop or if you know you want a station that’s closer to the river but don’t know what those stations are. I’ve lived in west London all my life (I’m 40) and I still find it useful as I don’t have the best memory for station names. So when going into town to places near the river seeing the map with it on really does help. I at least know I’m in the right area even if the map isn’t to scale and geographically correct. At least it has the river as a guide. I can see why people that know there way around don’t need it. But for people with bad memories, or tourists I’m sure it’s more useful to keep it. Either way, another great video Jago. Today’s was the perfect length for making my tea and sorting my desk out with haha. 😎
The NY Subway really does need to show where stations are in some kind of reality. For example, there are four 125 St stations, quite widely spaced and with no interchange between them, so you need an idea of where they are.
It is far worse than that. These 4 125th Street stations are at least all on the same street. There are, however, two 36th Street station in the network, which are located in completely different areas.
@@Mainline421 Untill the added Market to one of them there were 3 separate Shepherd's Bush stations. It was about a 10 minutes walk between the furthest apart.
@@flierfy And different parts of the outer boroughs may have North, East, West, un-directioned, Bay, and Beach versions of the same number -- all of them different streets.
I liked seeing the river on the map, I have always moaned that its a very under-utilised resource and have visions of one day us haveing an equivalent of the Vaporetto in Venice, where I can cling on for dear life whilst wafting across the waterway…..
As a New Yorker and a train nerd myself, I know the Vingelli map is something that die-hard enthusiasts are split over. While it was unpopular with riders, it still has a vocal minority of enthusiasts who like the maps simplicity which I could understand to a degree. My gripe is the use of the route colors. They didn’t make much sense in my book except for the dark-light pattern on the trunk lines. About a few years ago they created an updated map for the opening of the Second Ave Subway using the current colors and I think that one works better.
Absolutely - the original Vignelli map is pretty hard to decipher, but change the rather random colours up to be one trunk=similar colours/same colour like other NYC maps and it's suddenly coherent and much more understandable.
In Munich stations the information boards have a "Beck" map with the U-bahn and S-bahn lines, and also a geographic map which also includes the tram and bus routes.
Montreal has the exact same thing, stylized maps showing the Metro lines (and interconnections to commuter rail) are everywhere but every station has at least a few highly detailed street maps of the whole island showing both bus routes and the actual street positions of the stations themselves.
I lived in New York from 1970-1991, so over the period when the subway map was drawn and redrawn. I'm not a native New Yorker (I'm from Massachusetts), but I liked the Vignelli map. I think the reason most New Yorkers disliked it was its complexity. Many lines ran in the same tracks for a period of time before branching out in the Bronx or Brooklyn. Each subway line had a separate line on the map, so Manhattan and parts of Brooklyn looked a bit crowded. Great tale from the tube, BTW. Thanks.
As someone who orienteers their way around cities by the big landmarks, the Thames is the best way of finding your way to a part of the city you've never visited, so I think it's a useful addition to the map. I was never good at geography at school so knowing where the biggest feature of London is can be very helpful in finding the way be it on the tube, bus or cab.
@Capt Shiny so far as the map goes: marking which stations allow access to ferries etc. is probably important. Knowing when you can't just walk back if you miss your stop might also be relevant. In broader terms? A lot of significant engineering factors when building the thing, and related maintenance issues, mostly.
@Capt Shiny It can be useful for planning a journey. If you want to get to a station that you know is just north or south of the river it can make it quicker to find it on the map and then work out how to get there, where to change etc. There are people who have a decent knowledge of overall London geography but don't have an encyclopaedic knowledge of the tube.
The new york map has the problem of the duplicated lines which a placed on the diagram adjacent, with no space, while this is done in London there are really only two lines at a time running together (ok 3 at Edyyygware Road) but they relate to one another. The New York diagram reminds me of Eastborne Corporation in about 1984, where the bus map became confusing. The other diagram I found difficult was/is the Greater Manchester Bus Map , which I think had the similar demented rainbow style
As a German visiting London occasionally I find it very useful to have the river on the map. As you say, the Thames is a bit of an obstacle between stations, and it's really useful to know whether it's a short walk between two stations or whether it would require finding the nearest bridge and walking up the embankment on one side and down again on the other. I've stayed in hotels on both sides on the river, and it's really a help. I am really looking forward to my next visit. Only my friendly many-tentacled spaghetti monster knows when this will be though. *sigh*
Well, Mr H, yet another superb delivery. I confess that, as a some-time Sarf-Londoner I hadn't realised that sin was focussed there, but I'm very happy to take your word for that, being as how you are correct about absolutely everything else. Super. Great. (Touch of the CJ's there!) Thanks, Simon T
I remember discussing Vignelli's 1970s NYC subway map in one of the classes I took for my graphic design minor in college. Part of the problem, according to my professor (who was working on Madison Avenue at the time), is that the map was tangled up in the larger controversy over the re-signing of the New York transit system that Vignelli's company was undertaking at the time. A lot of people were resistant to the new visual identity that they felt was being forced on the city by the change, and although their efforts to stop it ultimately failed (the Unimark signage system is still in use today), they did manage to get the map retracted. I guess it was just, if you'll pardon the expression, a bridge too far.
One has to remember that it is a big system to get it all on one map! Especially if you add all the Overground, ropeways and boats on it (it is railway 'map', why are there boats on it? There aren't any buses on it and they're Tfl overseen). Diaries used to be produced with a central map and a complete map (and A-Zs did too) but I suspect the use of phones has put an end to those. The NY MTA map seemed to have a over-bearance of parallel lines running NW-SE which made any geographic reference inaccurate and somewhat irrelevant.
The map is indeed too busy, but that's because TfL have turned it into a "TfL" map instead of an Underground Map, meaning it goes way outside London to places like Reading and Cheshunt now - it's worth noting that Beck didn't include the outer reaches of the Underground such as the distant Metropolitan line extensions.
Bromley-by-Bow was likewise too far for Beck! That's because the tracks there were owned by the LNER, not the LPTB. The Met line boundary on Beck's early maps was Rickmansworth - at the limit of electrification. But from the late 30s they had found room for Aylesbury (when that had become the NW terminus of the Met). On the other side of London, almost every map until the mid 50s had an arrow east of Bow Road (some got to West Ham, Plaistow or Barking) despite the District line to Upminster being an electric service on dedicated tracks. The tube map deciding what is and isn't included, based on operations and ownership rather than geography, has long been the case. It wasn't invented by TfL - the devolutions of services to them just made it more obvious. And, if Cheshunt is too far, then Epping is too (similar distance outside M25. Epping a lot further beyond the Greater London boundary) but to take Epping off the tube map would cause an outcry.
I wonder if social attitudes had something to do with it. I can't help but feel if the Tube Map was dramatically changed now, even to improve it, there would be uproar. That may not have been the case in 1933 London.
Actually, now that I think about it, New Yorkers and Londoners embracing their respective maps make perfect sense. New Yorkers love the boroughs and knowing exactly how long it is going to take to get from Washington Square to the Flatiron and why you wouldn't want to go to either. They want maps that prove it. Londoners love knowing the fact that you'd never get on the tube from Tottenham Court to Covent, and laughing at outsiders who do. They want maps that never reveal the secrets.
Whenever I see that NYC Subway map, its pretty clear that New Yorkers likewise want maps that don't reveal the secrets. The map could prove a lot, but you can't just point at it a couple of times and expect anyone not familiar with it to understand - it takes excessive explanation to decipher it if unfamiliar. It's very much a map for New Yorkers. At least the London secrets aren't "working out what line I need, what change I need to make, how many stops is each leg of the journey".
As a Londoner, I find having the Thames on the Underground map to be an extremely valuable orientation feature. Back in the 90s, on my one and only trip to Canada, I used the subways of Montreal and Toronto. Their corresponding maps were similar to our Harry Beck-type tube maps. I found them to be functional and easy to use. Not sure how the locals felt about them, though.
Having only been on holiday to London in January 2020, I fell in love with the tube, the tube maps, the people, the food… Thank you Jago for keeping my love alive. Also new mic is amazing. So clear! You’re in my ear like a doctor with a fetish.
London has grown up on the flood plane of the Thames, the railways just like the roads because of this tend to honour the Thames. I generally found the River a good way to orient myself with respect to the tube map when looking for a station. I would suggest actually putting the River Lea on the map as well given how many stations are in its floodplain.
Video suggestion... 2021 will see the release of the restored 1968, Dr Who series 'Web of Fear' set on the London Underground. Covent Garden tube station (or what purported to be CGTS) saw most of the action. Cheesy it might be but when will you ever have the opportunity again to feature Yetis on the Tube?
I think there's a reason so many metro maps worldwide include bodies of water... they can really ground the map geographically even while all the other details don't conform.
When I went to hardcore punk rock gigs in the 1980s there would be gigs in North London and in South London and there were weirdly few people who overlapped and went to both. I lived outside London but I heard some folks say "I waited for them to come south of the river" which seemed so parochial.
Back in the day when a place called a cinema showed films, North London got the films a week earlier than South London (because there weren't enough copies of the film to go around!)
@@highpath4776 In the post Roman period there were the Middle Saxons and the East Saxons on the north bank (hence Middlesex and Essex) with Jutes and Britons on the south in what is now Kent and Surrey. I'd hesitate to accept that as an authoritative explanation. :-)
The best argument I've heard about the dislike for the Vignelli map is that the NY Subway is less interlinked than the London Underground. With the Tube, going to the closest station to where you currently are, making a change or two and getting off at the station closest to where you want to go is a effective navigation strategy. With the NY Subway, because changes are harder (there's relatively little east/west linking in Manhattan, for example), it's often better to start at a station that's further from where you begin, in order to do it without changes. This makes seeing where the lines are geographically more important.
In Austin, we have a fairly strong South Austin vs North Austin rivalry, or at least we did, I don't know how the massive influx of people over the last 10 years has affected it. Historically, Austin has been very neighbourhood-centric, which is one reason the public infrastructure has never kept up with the growth, but I digress. Any major river in a city should be on its mass transit map, and especially in a place like London. I understand why the tube map is diagrammatic; it has to be, given the sheer number of lines, stations, zones, and miles. Being a map person, I love the NYC metro map, because it shows exactly where you are. When in London, I constantly had to bring up Google maps to find the streets, etc where I was going--but again, there's no way they could have an NYC-type map, it would either be ENORMOUS, or unreadable. :-D
There could be a few reasons (I've been in NYC btw), conservatism or the simple fact that the NY subwaysystem is kinda small (AND underfunded) compared to many major cities in the world. So when the number of lines isn't too great than a geographically correct map still works (personally I like this). But when the number of lines exceeds a certain arbitrary treshold than it's not possible anymore to have it geographically correct.
@@johnsamu [the NY subwaysystem is kinda small] Huh? [The New York City Subway is the largest rapid transit system in the world by number of stations, with 472 stations in operation[16] (424 if stations connected by transfers are counted as single stations).[1]] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Subway I guess anything can be small when looked at through tiny eyes.
Excellent! I was one of those people who complained about the removal of the Thames! As for New York I don't know why the Beck style map didn't work. As when I visited the Big Apple I took copies of both and I preferred the Beck style map.
London tube map without the River Thames depicted gives me the feeling of “being up the preverbial waterway with out a mode of propulsion.” In the video it was stated that the river does provide a means of travel today as well as historically. It also gives a reference to the locations of certain places of interest and relevant stations. The Harry Beck style of map is the best in my view being from a electronic and electromechanical background, as was Harry Beck.
I live in DC and we have a Beck-style map for the Metro. It quite prominently shows the two rivers that run through the city/metro area. It gives a good reference for where you are in the city and helps you to correlate the somewhat abstract map to the physical geography.
I grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area and I've always liked the BART map. Very simple and easy to read. It's got more going on now then when I lived there but it's still very easy to understand.
Thank you! In Moscow the rivers first appeared in 2003 when schematic map was replaced by some more geographic, inspired by urbanrail.net site; the map was a failure, it was replaced same year, but the rivers still exist on maps - however, just Moskva River, Vodootvodny Canal and Yauza River are shown, but not the quite large Khimki Reservoir.
It’s good to know whereabouts the river is in relation to the stations. I’m not a Londoner and whenever I do go to London I’d like to know whereabouts I am
Being a former Green badge holder, trips south of the river were extremely rare due to the good train service that exists to there. No idea where that quote came from but as I live there, I wished more punters would have gone there.
the Bech-style map for Copenhagen is somewhat geographically accurate, but the outline of the coasts of both islands is an essential part of it as many, especially tourists (national and foreign), don't know where the stations are relative to anything else otherwise. Zones are also an essential part as it further helps to indicate which stations are in the inner city, and which are the outer rim, and so on. As our zone system works by concentric circles, zone 1 is the very centre of city, 2 and 3 are the surrounding central zones, and in the next ring the zones are all 30-something, further out they're 40-something and thus you can use the zone numbers to estimate how far out of the city the stations are
I live in Washington DC and our Metro map is much more like the simplified, angular version in London than the geographic one in NYC. I like that it's easy to understand, but that's why it's important to include the Potomac River. That gives you at least one solid reference point when all other relationships to above ground have been simplified away. Also, all the lines go above ground to cross the Potomac. So when you end up on the bridge over the river, that's represented on the map and really helps tell you where you are. I can't imagine if the map hadn't warned me the first time lol
I think the river should stay. The main reason why is branding. You can get Tube maps printed on T-shirts, and the graphic design of the map is imitated in thousands of other products. The Underground map isn't just a simple diagram, it's as much a representative image of London as the Elizabeth Tower & Big Ben and it's globally recognised. As the River Thames is an integral part of the London cityscape, it should be represented on the map which showcases the city to the world and it's a key anchor-point of specific detail that confirms that this plate of rainbow spaghetti is indeed London.
I think it's a matter of habit. When the Harry Beck map was first published, the concept of a tube map was fairly recent, so the Londoners were more eager to accept something completely new and revolutionary. Whereas New Yorkers had many, many years to become so emotionally attached to their own Subway map, that they were reluctant to any big changes to the way it looked.
When I did Further Maths at school we had to do certain things on polar coordinates. Then as a student we used ternary diagrams (three sided with little triangles instead of squares). If you imagine the river as an axis of the tube map, comparing the real bends of the river with its representation gives you a sort of index of distortion, and improves your idea of how stations actually relate to one another on the ground. Clutching at straws? Possibly.
I lived in New York for a couple of years, and a few other big cities in the US. I think navigating NYC tends to involve a lot more of a *mix* of transport methods - subway, walking, and occasionally other miscellaneous things. So having the subway map embedded in the real world makes that easier. Whereas in most other cities, I know that I need to get from station A to station B and all I need the map for is to figure out how to do that; so it doesn't matter how abstract it is.
Weirdly people nowadays prefer the Vignelli style map for NYC. It has gotten so popular they made it the official map for the Weekends when service patterns are skewed to allow for construction. So because of this, it easier to follow with your finger where a certain line is going.
As someone who has lived in North London, but more often visited it from elsewhere in the UK I always saw the river on the map as a reference point, as you point out its more a diagram than a map and having that reference point is really useful.
Before retirement I used to have many meetings in London, from Birmingham, and used the tube map to plan my journey. One day, when all the 'just-in-case' allowances for connections and late trains had handed me a spare 20 minutes I decided to walk to the destination from Euston, and discovered that it took me half the time that the tube normally took. After that, walking became my preferred means of transport in London - and it meant I discovered several delightful taverns, many of which I attended following several hours of tedious meetings.
Putting aside the 'rediscovery' of the river as another line, I think the objections to its omission were psychological ones - it's an instantly recognisable positioning aid, and the map seems strange without it. Now marking the stops on the river again, it makes perfect sense to include it too. It's the same story with Moscow Metro maps, and I am sure many others.
Omitting the river Thames is like omitting the Seine in Paris. It's the main way to orientate the map and make it make sense for most people, since tube maps are diagrams. It's like having a metro map of a coastal city without the coast. It's literally the most prominent natural barrier, which shapes the city. Even on a regular map, if you remove rivers and coasts, most people won't recognize their own city, at least not immediately. Funny thing, in Paris we both have diagrams and "geographically accurate" maps. Since metro stations are really close to each other (sometimes only 200m apart) and Paris is a really touristy place, we need maps that are accurate to go around the city.
@@michaelcampin1464 Amongst our Cities are London, Westminster, Lambeth and Southwark and these natty red robes. Ha! I bet you weren't expecting the Spanish Inquisition!
The river tells me the orientation of the map without words or cardinal symbols and makes the map more approachable. Sure, if you know the map, you mentally fill in the river, but not having it is a barrier for people to navigate the city. Plus, it makes locals happy.
Harry Beck got the idea for the tube map from looking at a circuit diagram. It is sometimes the case that the circuit diagram bears little relation to what you can physically see of the electronic components! The difficulty for anyone designing a topographic map of the London Underground is that there are more stations in Central London than there are in the suburbs. This means the size of the central area must be exaggerated and it gives the impression that distances between stations are quite long whereas, in fact, an adjacent station may only be within walking distance in reality! You might like to make a video exploring this theme, as the map does cause people to make tube journeys that they could easily walk. I think that's how the Tube makes a lot of its money, by deliberately publishing a deceptive map!
Indeed! "Schematics"...I'm a tech, and I live by them, but they're not the answer for everything. Sometimes a 'pictorial' actually shows the layout of the wiring...extremely important in many instances , especially high-impedance audio circuits.
Delighted to have discovered your informative - and entertaining - videos on the London Tubes. This one was particularly fascinating to me, being fairly familiar with the New York Subway system as well as a great admirer of the extensiveness and complexity of London's rail lines, whether Underground, Overground, or the various railways. As you asked for opinions, I'm definitely in favor of inclusion of both Thames and NYC rivers on these maps. As George Bratley pointed out, their inclusion is a huge help in determining where actually the stations are relative to one's location if not in the system proper. I'm a subscriber with "Bell" activated, so always welcome to get a head-up that you've added a new production. Do keep them coming - looks like there is no danger of your running out of stations or topics, considering the complexity and extent of the system! Cheers!
Having lived in London and NY, l get the difference. Since Manhattan is surrounded on three side by water and the boroughs being geographically more distinct than London boroughs, it helps to get a better sense of where you are with the NY style map. London being roughly circular, with Charing Cross at the centre, it’s pretty easy to get a sense of where you are with the London style map. The inclusion of the Thames does help in giving a greater sense of placement however. I can’t imagine how a London style map would work out for visitors to NY, who are not familiar with the city.
Great video Jago. I’d say this was TFL’s ‘New Coke’ moment! I managed to get my hands on quite a few riverless maps at the time, hopefully they’ll be collectors’ items one day…
Years ago, I was at Queensway tube and needed to go to Bayswater. I looked at the map and it appeared the obvious way was the Central Line to Notting Hill Gate and change for Bayswater. So down underground I went. When I came back to the surface it all looked strangely familiar. I had only gone down Queensway about 200 metres. The Underground map has its quirks!
This example is one of the greatest arguments *against* the simplistic topological map: it ignores the fact that there are very often much quicker and cheaper ways to go other than via the network.
Tfl remove it "based on customer feedback" - they remove it - customers outraged. Tfl forgot to mention the only "customer" consulted was the map designer.
The river is such an important part of London's cultural identity that a tube map without it looks funny. Paris would be much the same if they left the Seine off their map. Here in Canada Toronto and Montreal's subway/metro maps are pure diagrams, while Vancouver's is more like New York. Whether Calgary and Edmonton's maps are diagrams or geographically accurate would be a sensitive discussion. 😛
I'm in Toronto. The Lake appears on all Toronto maps. The rivers on some: ttc.ca/PDF/Maps/TTC_SystemMap.pdf For Montreal? Almost every map I'm looking at shows all the rivers. www.stm.info/en/info/networks/maps
To say nothing of how the Seine also runs through the logo of the Paris Transit Authority... which you can see on the front of the London buses whose routes they have bought up and now operate.
