|
The Northern and TPE tender invitations have gone out, and in particular the Northern tender precludes D-stock and Pacer refurbishment. 
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 15:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 06:40 |
|
|
TinTower posted:The Northern and TPE tender invitations have gone out, and in particular the Northern tender precludes D-stock and Pacer refurbishment. Thank gently caress. Get rid of those bloody things!
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
Does anyone know what it is about the 379s that makes my nose go mental the moment I step onboard one of them? It only seems to happen once my hayfever has kicked in for the year, but goddamn is it annoying (for me, and anyone sitting/standing near me).
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
kingturnip posted:Does anyone know what it is about the 379s that makes my nose go mental the moment I step onboard one of them? Never had any problems like that on the 379s myself that I recall. Until I bought a car again early last year I used the WAML to get to London and back every day. I do recall the conditioned air being noticeably different though; I'd guess you're probably more sensitive to it that I am?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
Another resounding endorsement of privatisation:Graun posted:Transport for London chief: commuter trains into capital are 'poo poo'
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
That article is lol because the engineering work at London Bridge are to give it more capacity. Complaining about no capacity while there are works to increase capacity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
'gestapo' is hyperbolic and quite insulting to people who've really suffered under that sort of regieme, rather than just got a £50 for the wrong ticket. but lol quote:A Southeastern spokesman said: “We are really proud of our frontline teams and the work they do every day, helping hundreds of thousands of passengers. It is disappointing that Peter Hendy’s comments do not reflect their dedication and hard work.”
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
Bozza posted:That article is lol because the engineering work at London Bridge are to give it more capacity. I think that's a quote from some normal civilian though? Also I'm greatly enjoying the signs at London Victoria that say "97% of your fare goes back into maintaining/upgrading/whatever the railway" and then you walk into the underground station and there's signs saying "100% of your fare is spent by TfL on maintaining/upgrading services". imo private companies: suck a dick
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
What an almighty mess http://www.tfl.gov.uk/maps/track/tube
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 11:16
|
|
|
Trainchat - The failure of nationalisation in map design. Seriously though they should just give LO the Southern and Southeastern metro services, or at the very least Thameslink's Wimbledon loop to Blackfriars.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 12:12
|
|
|
My favourite thing is the lack of an out of station join between the two Bethnal Green stations.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 12:27
|
|
|
TfL tried to take control of Southeastern in the last parliament but Kent County Council objected. Wimbledon loop would be my prime candidate as well but the DfT have guaranteed that services won't terminate at Blackfriars. I guess when the Thameslink franchise ends in 2018 they could conveniently forget that.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 12:30
|
|
|
I know Mornington Crescent isn't a real game but I imagine people may end up playing it anyway trying to use that map.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 13:06
|
|
|
I don't know what you're talking about, of course it's real.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 13:07
|
|
|
Metrication posted:What an almighty mess more than half the problem is the use of a circle for both handicap access and interchange stations
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
Look, at least we have a unified tube system unlike Tokyo, Osaka and the likes who have about 3 each (at least you can get a cross usable railcard) and the Seoul metro map looks like this: https://www.smrt.co.kr/program/cyberStation/main2.jsp?lang=e
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 13:48
|
|
|
Cerv posted:My favourite thing is the lack of an out of station join between the two Bethnal Green stations. They should probably have just renamed one of the stations back when they had the chance, they're miles apart (well not miles, but much further away than, say, Warren Street and Euston Square). Bethnal Green tube is probably closer to (and certainly easier to get to from) Cambridge Heath station, for that matter. Besides if yo think the current Tube map looks a mess just look at what it would look like without Harry Beck: http://carto.metro.free.fr/cartes/metro-tram-london/
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 14:13
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:They should probably have just renamed one of the stations back when they had the chance, they're miles apart (well not miles, but much further away than, say, Warren Street and Euston Square). Bethnal Green tube is probably closer to (and certainly easier to get to from) Cambridge Heath station, for that matter. But renaming stations would be confusing for passengers! Now excuse me while I take a hundred thou to advertise some water on the Jubilee line for one day.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:They should probably have just renamed one of the stations back when they had the chance, they're miles apart (well not miles, but much further away than, say, Warren Street and Euston Square). Bethnal Green tube is probably closer to (and certainly easier to get to from) Cambridge Heath station, for that matter. not that it matters as contrary to my earlier post there is not currently an OSI allowed between the two Bethnal Greens (or Cambridge Heath for that matter). apologies if anyone's just been charged for two journeys cos I've hosed that up! nor is Euston Sq to Warren St; you have to go to Euston instead.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:
I sincerely doubt the alternative would be a comprehensive track and platform map laid perfectly geographically accurate, unless you meant to link something else.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
A logical map makes more sense for a system where you don't have any control over your direction or exactly where you enter and exit. Knowing the precise layout of the underground, and where the stations are, is less important than knowing what line you get on to go where, what happens between the stations is black box, so you don't need to model it beyond what may aid with reading comprehension. The complete tube map is horrible but far more readable than a geographically accurate one. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:43 on May 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
The alternative is the NYC subway map (which is absolutely terrible). London's may be very crowded now but it is at least readable. My favourite part 
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
Metrication posted:The alternative is the NYC subway map (which is absolutely terrible). London's may be very crowded now but it is at least readable. I don't see what's terrible about that. The geography's already greatly distorted to make things clear when lines are running less than a few hundred feet apart in places. Here's how it looks when perfectly geographically accurate: 
Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 20:51 on May 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
Because the geography is irrelevant, you can simply portray the lines as being of arbitrary length and position, and separate them entirely for the purposes of clarity. The outer edges of the LU map are a good example, it's a single line with a series of stops, doesn't need to be any more than that.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Because the geography is irrelevant, you can simply portray the lines as being of arbitrary length and position, and separate them entirely for the purposes of clarity. No, the geography is very relevant when you're trying to get around. There's simply no way to sanely untangle the actual tangle of lines and stations in the core of lower Manhattan and downtown Brooklyn. They've already been scaled up to cover massively more map space for every so much actual space as the rest of the city: http://web.mta.info/maps/images/subway_2400x2671.jpg Compare that to:  And I think you'll see there's already been plenty of distortion done for clarity without going into the demanded absurdity. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 21:06 on May 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
The geography is relevant if you're on the surface, but you can use a different map for that. The point of an underground map is to show you how to navigate the underground lines, to figure out what station you want to go to you would provide a different map with the stations picked out and what colour lines stop at them, you find which station you want and then look at the underground map to find how to get to it. Trying to jam both into one map makes both less readable. I don't give a buggery how the train gets there so much as I need to know what train stops at what station. Same reason a bus timetable doesn't have a map on it, the information would impede the readability of the timetable. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 21:11 on May 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The geography is relevant if you're on the surface, but you can use a different map for that. The point of an underground map is to show you how to navigate the underground lines, to figure out what station you want to go to you would provide a different map with the stations picked out and what color lines stop at them, you find which station you want and then look at the underground map to find how to get to it. Yes and the actual map handles that just fine? You realize these maps are like mounted on huge panels in the stations and on the trains right? Like I really don't understand what you're asking for them to change here, it's already super blown up and there's no point in making the lines go off at random angles just to be 0.02% more readable. You aren't even underground at all for more than half of the system's length. Do you want there to just be one map that has lines with no labels and another that labels all the stations? The London maps label every station... There's also that nearly all of London's lines and routes are physically separate, while most of New York's route lines merge and split ont he same physical tracks multiple times, especially around the direct crossings to Brooklyn. A map design that widely separates things that are actually joined just confuses navigation. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 21:19 on May 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
A tube map (or any other system map where you get on and off at discrete points and don't control the direction) is best modeled like a circuit diagram, which is how the LU map works, sort of. You draw circuit diagrams in loops and squares, which usually bear zero relation to the actual physical appearance of the circuit because the specifics of the wires aren't relevant, what matters is what components are connected in what order and by which wires. Similarly on a train map, you can't get off the train halfway between stations, so where the stations are and where the lines are doesn't matter very much. What matters is being able to figure out what connects your station to your destination station which is best accomplished by completely ignoring the geography, and showing the logical view of the network. You need to know which station you want, so a map specifically of stations as they are positioned in the city is a good idea, but trying to use that to also show the network layout is just going to make the network harder to understand, especially given that I would imagine the majority of users already know what station they want because they know where they want to go, and need to know what train to get on to get there. You don't generally draw network diagrams overlaid onto a blueprint of the building, because that doesn't matter, you're showing the links, not the actual physical run. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 21:23 on May 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:A tube map (or any other system map where you get on and off at discrete points and don't control the direction) is best modeled like a circuit diagram, which is how the LU map works, sort of. I'm not seeing the real difference between the London design and the NYC design. The NYC design merely has to display nearly double the stations with the lines a lot denser in many places than they get in London. The NYC subway map is a logical view of the network, that also takes care to clearly separate things across rivers. It employs extreme magnification of complicated areas and severe de-emphasization of outlying areas. Again: I ask you to examine the google maps showing the physical geographically accurate routes and compare them to how they're represented on the actual subway map. You'll see that what you ask for is already there!
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
It's semi-logical, you could improve its readability by getting rid of the background and the untidy arcs of line going up and down the map to fit into a rough geographical shape. As well as cutting out a lot of the space between stations where the line crosses the river.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It's semi-logical, you could improve its readability by getting rid of the background and the untidy arcs of line going up and down the map to fit into a rough geographical shape. As well as cutting out a lot of the space between stations where the line crosses the river. You need to indicate the river's there because it's a huge deal if you got off on the wrong side of the rivers whereas if you get off on the same side as where you meant to go you can just walk easily. The tube map indicates the Thames after all!
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:You need to indicate the river's there because it's a huge deal if you got off on the wrong side of the rivers whereas if you get off on the same side as where you meant to go you can just walk easily. The tube map indicates the Thames after all! Draw a dotted line across the logical map lines where they would cross a river. Move (and delete) the river line where it would interfere with the map readability, rather than moving the stations and lines so they fit around the river. This would probably improve the london map slightly as well though as it's quite interconnected and the Thames does meander around like it's ten drinks under, it fits a little better.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Draw a dotted line across the logical map lines where they would cross a river. Move (and delete) the river line where it would interfere with the map readability, rather than moving the stations and lines so they fit around the river. This would probably improve the london map slightly as well though as it's quite interconnected and the Thames does meander around like it's ten drinks under, it fits a little better. But the stations and lines aren't moved "to fit around the river"? They're drawn roughly where they are, when magnified and straightened out! Seriously, again, it follows the London map principles, it merely does so with a lot more stations needing to be be depicted and a lot more liens needing to be depicted at once close together at parts. The NYC map also significantly straightens out the rivers depicted compared to reality, while the London map includes most of the bends.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
I get that it isn't a 1:1 geographic map, but stuff where you have half a dozen lines curving across the river at uneven intervals just hurts readability. The section posted could be better represented as a more or less linear plan, with two clusters of stations either side of a plain line denoting the river, and with the lines running parallel and cleanly separated where possible. This would be even more helpful if it's a section of a bigger map because then the bigger map would better show that section as what it is, a small arc in a larger loop.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I get that it isn't a 1:1 geographic map, but stuff where you have half a dozen lines curving across the river just hurts readability. The lines are drawn between the stations on either side, which are drawn in their own exaggerated and magnified style to enhance readability. The fact that 6 independent bridges/tunnels cross in the same few miles means it's always going to look busy. They're also more widely separated than they "really" are at the scale the lines are drawn for. Plus they're ALREADY drawn parallel except when actual station locations require them to not be, which is pretty much just the F's tunnel and the ones that cross on bridges on a sidifferent bend of the river. I really don't understand what you think would look better. The only thing that can be realistically done to make it less complicated is to omit half the stations and lines, which then makes it useless for finding where ya need to go. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 22:25 on May 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
Like I said, ignore where the stations are geographically, it doesn't matter for the purpose of navigating between them via the trains. Whether there are six tunnels or one doesn't make a difference to the map, what matters is the number of separate lines running through them. You can draw all the lines which cross the river converging and then split them off again on the other side, and the spaces between stations can be entirely redrawn so that the map looks neat. That's the difference between a physical and logical map, the physical map is less readable because it's trying to fit to geography, whereas the logical map is just a series of neatly spaced nodes and their links, and is more readable for it. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 22:43 on May 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Like I said, ignore where the stations are geographically, it doesn't matter for the purpose of navigating between them via the trains. It does though? They're already abstracted about as much as possible. There are 15 lines running through 7 bridges and tunnels just on that one map segment, and 4 additional lines in the same segment that don't cross the river. Also many of those stations are connected by hallways and passages but in quite physically distinct actual locations and that needs to be represented to know where you connect and how. It seems at this point that you're just upset that there's slight curves on the line instead of having all straight lines all the time to satisfy some sort of urge?? You should really take a look at the entire system map: http://web.mta.info/nyct/maps/subwaymap.pdf And notice that it's meant to be displayed at nearly 2 feet by 2 feet, at that. OwlFancier posted:
This IS a logical map, it has severe differences from a geographically accurate map! You seem to be confused by the fact that for the most part the London Underground really is a haphazard mesh of lines that can be easily slightly straightened out to fit a rectangle, the NYC subway simply isn't that. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 22:51 on May 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
Then that would be better represented as fifteen straight lines running left/right across the map with stations at even intervals, with branch lines being just that, branches from their parent lines. Other connections between stations can be drawn in in lighter lines where necessary. You may need to move stations around slightly to optimise the amount of visual clutter but the end goal should look more like this: http://www.mike-barker.com/subway-and-metro-maps/ or this:  It will obviously be somewhat more complex than that but you see the difference?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
This is why you don't argue with fishmech.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 06:40 |
|
|
Apologies to all who look at the post count and think Full Rail Nationalism was announced.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 22:57
|
|