Submitted by Kenneth, who says:
Hi Cameron,
Well, I finally went and made a map after all the years berating other maps. So I throw it to you for amusement/ridicule, etc. I’m deliberately not going to explain my design decisions in detail because I think it best to get feedback without colouring your judgement. I’ll be writing a blog on my thinking in the next week or two but I wanted to simplify and de-clutter more than anything. I’ve massively reduced vertices and changes in direction. Managed to get a diamond motif going that’s a little nod to Mr Beck’s original interchange symbol. I think a lot of station detail (accessibility, etc.) is better served in a list of stations rather than having everything on the map. This is also stage 1 of a 2 map process. I’m currently making a 3D version as a bit of an experiment. Please go gently (or not)…
Transit Maps says:
Of all the tasks a transit map maker can set themselves, I think that redesigning the London Underground diagram has to be the most thankless of all. It really doesn’t matter how good the new version might be, people are going to grumble and complain about it – purely because the original thing is so ubiquitous that anything else just looks wrong.
And to be honest, that was my first gut reaction to this map. Where’s the comforting “thermos flask” shape? What’s that giant hump doing on the Circle Line? Diamonds?? So it took me a while to settle down and analyse the map in a more detached manner, and to appreciate its qualities.
The hump that I initially found so odd is actually more reflective of the real world arrangement of the stations at that point than the real Tube Map is, and the northern ends of the Jubilee Line and the Northern Line branches are also rather neatly arranged. Mornington Crescent is in the right place! The myriad diamond shapes are a nice repeating design element, though perhaps a little contrived in a couple of places – flipping Cheshunt back down to line up with Chingford is more than a little cheaty!
I really like the “walking feet” icon Ken uses to indicate a short walk between stations (“Out of Station Interchanges” in TfL parlance). It’s cheeky, informal and relaxed – all of which makes the walk look like the easiest thing in the world to do. I’m not so convinced by his symbol to indicate connections to National Rail stations. While it’s meant to symbolise railway tracks, it’s not a particularly punchy or memorable icon and also gets applied at lots of different angles, making it a bit visually inconsistent. At Euston, the icon gets laid over the Overground line simply because there’s nowhere else for it to go! A more immediately recognisable device like a stylised silhouette of a train (even an anachronistic Monopoly-like steam train for “main line service”) could work better here. Ken said he was reluctant to use the official National Rail icon, but I really think that icon would be almost instantly identifiable to just about anyone in the UK, explanation in the map’s legend or not!
Ken uses an interesting device at terminus stations where one line folds in on another, allowing a single station dot to be used for all the lines. Some good examples can be found at Hammersmith and Ealing Broadway. It’s rather lovely and quite unique, but it doesn’t seem to be applied consistently across the map. Why use it at Hammersmith but not at Richmond, for example? There may be a rationale behind this, but I’m not seeing it at the moment.
Some of the spacing and alignment of elements towards the outer edges gets a little weird because of Ken’s desire to straighten everything as much as possible. A totally straight Central Line seems like a good idea (and very much in line with Beck’s own design principles) but it pulls Uxbridge too far south, creating some really big gaps in the northwest quadrant. Harrow-on-the-Hill and Preston Road on the Metropolitan Line are very lonely indeed, while Watford and Watford Junction (less than a mile apart in real life) are now separated by a vast chasm of empty white space. And while this is a diagram, having Reading shown as being further east than Uxbridge is just jarring.
A few spatial errors from the actual Tube Map are repeated here – Acton Main Line should sit in the middle of all the other assorted Actons, and South Tottenham should be to the south of Seven Sisters, not north. This relationship becomes important if you’re implying a walking path and bearing between them on your map because – diagram or not – you just know that some users are going to interpret it as an actual map and try to use it for general wayfinding.
Ken’s treatment of the Elizabeth Line at Farringdon and Barbican is interesting, as it implies that the line will call at both stations in turn. In reality, there’ll be a new Elizabeth Line complex halfway between the two stations, but reachable from both of them… a “Barbingdon” station, if you will. Ken’s treatment isn’t wrong, as you can get to an Elizabeth Line train from either station, but it’s not really right, either.
One thing that the official Tube Map doesn’t get much credit for is how darn legible it is. Even at the small print size of the pocket journey planner, the station labels are always quite readable. A lot of redesigned maps – this one included – have much smaller type in comparison, and this limits their real-world application to large format posters and zoomable digital formats. Reproduced at the same dimensions as the on-line TfL Tube Map, Ken’s labels are about half the size, which is pretty hard on the old eyeballs.
Our rating: I know it seems like I’m being pretty harsh on this map, but I do actually like a lot of the ideas contained within it. It’s got a good graphic style and underlying design principles which could perhaps be applied a little more consistently. Spacing and spatial arrangement of elements towards the edges could also be refined somewhat. What I really do appreciate is the willingness and boldness to try something completely different (apart from Johnston Sans, Ken doesn’t use any of TfL’s design language at all) and put it out there for everyone to see (and grumble about). And there’s obviously a deep understanding of – and affection for – this venerable design icon, as reflected in the wry note at the bottom of the map, almost exactly echoing the words on Beck’s original edition in 1933:
Another new design for an old map by Kenneth Field. We should welcome your comments.
Check out the process and design notes for this map here.
Did you enjoy this post? Do you visit Transit Maps regularly? Consider supporting the site with a small monthly donation via Patreon. Your support makes it possible for me to continue bringing you great content!
Become a Patron!