Slightly tangential to my usual posts, but cool nonetheless. The Metrobits.org website showcases around 170 Metro logos (and other train systems as well – Sydney’s CityRail is most decidedly not a Metro, but is shown) all one page. As you might expect, there’s a lot of variations on the letter “M”!
Having had a look at Madrid’s current map (2.5 stars), I thought we’d delve into the past and see what came before it. The first thing to notice is how much smaller the system was in 1981: only 10 Metro lines instead of 12 — and many of those are much shorter than now, and no light rail lines.
Have we been there? No.
What we like: A paragon of clean, functional transit map design. There’s great flow in this map, especially compared to the staccato, rigid, 90-degree matrix of the current map. Even without a legend, everything on this map is perfectly clear.
What we don’t like: Some minor station placement and labelling issues. Some route colours look similar (the 2 and 7, and the 9 and 10), but I think this is more to do with the age of the map that has been scanned than an issue with the design of the map itself.
Our rating: What can I say? I’m a sucker for simple, clean, well-designed maps. Four stars.
Source: Mikeyashworth/Flickr
Just how influential was the original Harry Beck London Underground diagram of 1933? Certainly enough for Sydney, Australia to issue this nearly identical vision of its own suburban rail system in 1939, right down to its own version of the London Underground roundel. I’ve never been able to find out whether this map was authorised or licensed from the London Underground, or whether Sydney just thought, “that looks like a good idea, let’s do that!”
The prominent usage of the Underground icon is actually somewhat deceptive, as Sydney at the time had a grand total of four underground stations, all in the city – Town Hall, Wynyard, St James and Museum. Service levels in Sydney have also never matched those of a true Metro/Underground/Subway system, preferring to run large capacity trains with longer headways (commuter rail). However, it’s certainly clever to evoke images of the Mother Country’s glorious train system when you’re promoting your own, right?
Have we been there? Yes, just not in 1939.
What we like: Great early example of how Beck’s principles could be applied to other rail systems. Interesting view of the older Sydney system, with some stations shown that no longer exist (the ANZAC Rifle Range), and others that have changed their name (the lovely “Herne Bay” is now just boring old “Riverwood”, while the spectacularly named “Dumbleton” is now just “Beverly Hills”). Nice indication of the ongoing electrification of the system: the electrified lines are shown in bright, new colours, while the steam powered lines are plain black.
What we don’t like: Some confusing labelling of the stations between Central and Strathfield. I’m not entirely sure whether the colouring of the route lines actually matches up to service patterns of the day, making me wonder whether the map designer truly understood how diagrammatic maps are actually meant to work. A strange need to indicate long-distance train services on a suburban rail network map. Broken Hill? Albury? Brisbane?!
Our rating: Fascinating example of an early adopter of the Beck style of transit map, even if it’s not quite up to the same standard of draftsmanship. Three-and-a-half stars.
I sell prints of a digitally-recreated version of this map in my online store.
Source: Mikeyashworth/Flickr
Now this is the transit map of my youth. Sydney’s CityRail map went through a few different looks in the mid-80s and early-90s, but this is the one that sticks in my memory the most.
This map shows both the first growth in the system for a number of years with the extension of the East Hills line to Glenfield, but also the last remnants of the old with the vestigial Pippita branch still in existence. The Carlingford line has also yet to be assigned its now-distinctive navy blue colour, the Cumberland line doesn’t exist yet, the Airport line is still in early planning, and the Epping-Chatswood line hasn’t even begun to be thought of.
Have we been there? Home from age 5 to 35!
What we like: Ridiculous amounts of nostalgia. Clear and easy to follow – although the simplistic radial nature of the system (with all lines passing through Central station) also has something to do with this.
What we don’t like: Some uneven spacing of station names – the stations along the Richmond line in particular seem unnecessarily cramped, while the station names along the Carlingford line are oddly placed at a 45-degree angle when there’s plenty of room to fit them in horizontally.
There’s also some weird design idiosyncrasies that don’t reflect the service patterns offered at the time. The Richmond, Carlingford and Cronulla Lines are all shown as if they are spur lines, terminating where they join onto their respective main lines. In reality, all of these lines offered service that continued all the way into the city.
Strangest of all is the right-angle split of the Northern Line (Red) just south of Hornsby which gives absolutely no indication of which direction trains go in if they’re coming from Epping. North? South? Into a brick wall?
Our rating: Pleasantly nostalgic, but not as brilliant as I remember it when viewed in the cold light of day. Three stars.
Source: NSWrail.webs.net Map Archive – link no longer active
This map is at the request of an anonymous follower, who wrote this about this map:
Truly terrible transit map that deserves a lashing: the AirTrain JFK. Way too complicated for something that should be fairly simple. Even worse are the TV screens in the stations showing information about where the train at each platform is going, which completely obscure the most important information.
Now, I can’t comment on the info screens, as I’ve never used the AirTrain, but I do have some thoughts about the map. People movers like this at major airports are a form of transit, albeit in a very small, closed system. Some just shuttle between terminals, but the JFK AirTrain also connects passengers to car rentals, long term parking, and (perhaps most importantly), the New York Subway and the Long Island Railroad, so its scope is bigger than some systems of this type.
Have we been there? I’ve spent long afternoons at JFK waiting between flights (and paying prohibitive prices for drinks at the bar!), but I’ve never used the AirTrain, either to transfer between terminals or head into New York.
What we like: Nowhere near as bad as my anonymous friend says it is. Conveys a lot of useful information – especially for visitors who have never been to New York before – in a relatively clean fashion. The inclusion of all potential costs for patrons is especially handy, and the destinations of the connecting MTA services couldn’t be made clearer. Direction of travel is well indicated, which is good if you’re trying to jump between terminals in a hurry – sometimes it might be quicker to jump on a Howard Beach or Jamaica train instead of the dedicated Terminal Shuttle!
What we don’t like: The drop shadows behind the station name boxes are unnecessary and ugly, as is the stacked treatment of the terminal station names. These would look far better if the boxes that contain the word “Terminal” simply lined up horizontally with the subsequent numbered boxes. Also not entirely sure that we need to see the exact outlines of all the terminals… I don’t know what extra insights a traveler is meant to get from that. I’m guessing that the map is not actually to scale, so it’s not like you can tell how far it is to your gate from the AirTrain station!
Our rating: Functional and chock-full of handy information for visitors to New York. A little fussy and over-designed. 3 stars.
Source: Port Authority of New York and New Jersey – AirTrain web page
In general, I hold European transit maps in better regard than maps from other parts of the world. Crisp, clear European graphic design and transit maps just seem to be made for each other! Of course, there’s always exceptions to the rule, and this map from the Compagnie des Transports Strasbourgeois (CTS) in Strasbourg, France is one of those exceptions.
Have we been there? Yes, in December 2003. I found the trams pretty easy to navigate at the time.
What we like: Not a lot. Seriously, this thing hurts my eyes.
What we don’t like: Ugly, ugly, ugly. Black edges on all the route lines makes the map look very heavy, despite its light yellow background.
The typography is extremely poor – the main typeface used is Helvetica Neue, but it has been horizontally scaled to create a faux condensed version, instead of using the actual Helvetica Neue Condensed font. Even worse, the amount of scaling it has been given varies from place to place across the map, depending on how much text the designers need to squeeze in. And squeeze it in they must, because the centre of the map is absolutely jam-packed with routes, station names and icons. Not helping this cramped feeling are the enormous boxed-in route terminus names and the biggest (and possibly ugliest) Park-and-Ride icons I’ve ever seen.
There’s also an error in the legend: Stops that only serve one direction should be shown as a dot with a black arrow pointing in the direction of travel, but the legend shows no station marker at all.
Our rating: Yuck. One-and-a-half stars.
Source: Official CTS website
Wow. Just wow. These amazing transit maps of early 20th Century Berlin are just a few samples of the maps that can be found at the BerlinerVerkehr website – an absolute treasure trove that transit geeks like me can easily lose hours to. Five stars for this collection, obviously!
All of these maps are of interest, but there’s a few things that really stand out:
Nicely done — even if some of the letters are a bit of a stretch — but Animals on the Underground is more fun.
Source: Tim Fishlock
Porto, Portugal’s Metro light rail system is only ten years old, but is already a comprehensive and far-reaching network. With such a modern transit system, it’s important to have a map to match, and in most respects, this one certainly fits the bill. But does everything have to be so small?
Have we been there? No.
What we like: Some beautifully crafted elements, especially the bespoke icons for connecting services (bus, train, airport, etc.) Too many maps use the standard and dated ESRI icons for these, but these match the light, airy feel of the map perfectly.
The curves in the route lines are also beautifully executed, being wide and flowing throughout. I especially like the little s-curve from the Aeroporto station at the north end of the “E” (purple) line through to Verdes station.
What we don’t like: While beautifully designed, at anything but the actual poster size of 48×68 cm (around 19×27 inches), many of the elements are just too small. The route lines become very lightweight and spindly, while the “superscripted” parking symbol becomes almost invisible. As the map is downloadable as a PDF from the agency’s website, I feel better thought has to be given as to how the map displays on screen.
Our rating: A stylish and modern map to match a stylish and modern light rail system. Let down slightly by the smallness of some elements. Three-and-a-half stars.
Source: Metro de Porto website
