One of my all-time favourite pieces of London Tube art. So cleverly done and executed perfectly. By David Booth (no relation!) of The Fine White Line Design, 1986.
“Tate Gallery By Tube” by David Booth
Historical Map: “Hutchison” London Tube Map, 1960
Requested by: My dad (whose love of transit maps I have inherited)
The London Tube Map is so synonymous with the name Harry Beck that I feel sure many people think he’s still holed up in a studio somewhere working on the maps even now (he died in 1974). In actuality, Beck’s last published Tube map was released in 1959: in 1960 it was replaced by this new version, ostensibly made by London Transport’s own Publicity Officer, Harold Hutchison (although he was not known as a designer).
Beck was horrified, believing he had an agreement with LT that “all future work on the diagram was to be carried out or edited by me”. However, if there was an agreement to this effect, it was verbal only and Beck got nowhere with his protestations. For better or worse, the diagram he had worked over 25 years on had passed on to new hands.
Have we been there? Yes
What we like: The first Tube Map to use lower-case for station names. This has two positives: it makes the diagram easier to read as a whole, and also allows the all-caps interchange stations to become more visually important.
What we don’t like: An absolute lack of curves where routes change direction make this diagram very stilted and angular, lacking the grace and flow of the best Beck diagrams. The strange jog in the Central Line at White City (where the Central Line crosses the Metropolitan) is very visually unappealing. The map gets very cramped around Bank and Monument, leading to “Aldgate” having to be broken up on either side of route lines to fit. Square stations markers for British Railways connections also disrupt the flow of the routes.
Our rating: Reviled by some as the map that was stolen from Beck, it’s not a patch on what came before it. Aesthetically, I don’t feel it is up with the best versions of the Tube Map – the sharp diagonals give a jagged, staccato feeling to the whole thing, and it’s all rather obvious that Hutchinson wasn’t much of a designer. Two stars.
Source: The London Tube Map Archive – link no longer active
Unofficial Map: Integrated Transit Map of Kiev, Ukraine by Igor Skliarevsky
Yes, I know I said I wasn’t going to post until the New Year, but I couldn’t wait to show this exciting new map of transit in Kiev, Ukraine.
This beautiful diagram was designed by Igor Skliarevsky in his own time, simply because he was frustrated with the limitations and design of the official map. As he says on his website (pardon the Google Translate from Ukrainian), “As a designer, I find it difficult to put up with inconvenience and ugliness of things that surround me.” As this was the main reason I designed my integrated transit map of Portland, Oregon, I definitely agree with Igor on that front.
Have we been there? No.
What we like: Lovely minimalist transit map design with a very elegant flowing feel. I particularly like the curved lines that join different transit modes and the subtle gradients between the coloured circles at transit stations. Fantastic hierarchy: the Metro is most important/largest, then light rail, then commuter rail. Yellow informational icons stand out well – an advantage of a system that doesn’t use every colour for its route lines! Plenty of lovely white space, even though all text is duplicated (in Ukrainian and a transliteration).
What we don’t like: A few tiny errors here and there. “Ploscha” is capitalised in Kontraktova Ploscha, but Poshtova ploscha – directly underneath – is not. Type on the commuter rail lines seems a little too small in comparison to the Metro lines. I feel that the terminus cap where the T2 and T1 lines end should be purple, so each of the three light rail lines gets to be a terminal cap colour – at the moment, orange is used twice (also at the T1/T3 terminal). The QR code may be useful, but boy, does it ruin the minimalist aesthetics of the map!
Our rating: Igor is certainly to be commended for this excellent effort, a gorgeous map indeed. Four-and-a-half stars!
Source: Wayfinding Kiev website – link no longer active
Project: U.S. Routes as a Subway Map
At long last, I present the latest in my series of transit map-styled designs. This time, we have the U.S. Highway system (that’s U.S. Routes, not to be confused with the newer Interstate Highway system – which as most of you well know, I have already mapped). View the map below, or click here for a full screen experience.
I have to say that without a doubt, this is the most complex network that I have yet attempted. Not only are there far more numbered routes than in the Interstate system, but there are also historical extensions and branches of many routes to consider. In some cases, numbers that were used once were reused in different parts of the country (see U.S. 48, which has been used for three completely separate roads!). I have attempted to show these historical roads as thinner route lines “behind” the main network, including the most famous U.S. highway of all – Route 66, which gets special treatment, being solid black in colour.
Like the Interstate system, the U.S. Routes (mainly) conform to a numbered grid system. Evenly numbered highways run from west to east, with low numbers in the north (U.S. 2 is the lowest) rising to the highest numbers in the south (U.S. 98 in Florida). Numbers ending in a “0” are considered “major” routes and are given their own unique colour on the map. Odd-numbered highways run from north to south, with low numbers to the east (U.S. 1) rising to high numbers in the west (U.S. 101 along the Pacific Coast). Numbers ending in “1” are the “major” routes.
Interestingly, this numbering system is the mirror of the Interstate system, which numbers from I-90 in the north to I-4 in the south, and I-95 in the east to I-5 in the west. This was done intentionally to prevent the occurrence of like-numbered U.S. highways and Interstates in the same areas. It’s also why there is no I-50 or I-60, as they would cross much the same terrain as U.S. 50 and U.S. 60.
However, being an older road system, cobbled together in the mid-1920s from a scraggly collection of road trails, the U.S. highway system sticks to its grid far more loosely, with many routes starting or ending well out of their ordained position. This map has taken me well over a year to complete (between other projects) and I restarted my work on three separate occasions, each time almost convinced that this map was impossible. This last time, I started at the most complex intersection of roads on the map – Memphis, Tennessee – and solved it first. Once that resolved itself, clues were revealed as to how to approach the rest of the map and things got a lot easier. So much so, that in the end, I was even able to add some of the longer “child” three-digit routes, some of which are actually longer than their so-called “parent” route. U.S. 191 runs from Canada to Mexico, while U.S. 91 has been cut back down over the decades to a very short stretch between Idaho Falls, ID and Brigham City, UT.
Huge thanks should be given here to the ridiculously comprehensive website, usends.com, which helped me sort out the tangled web these roads make, especially with historical routes.
As always, comments and suggestions are most welcome!
Art: “Paris” by Paula Scher
The detail in this is nothing short of amazing. The subway map as art, indeed.
Official Map: St. Louis MetroLink Light Rail, 2011
Not every transit map has the multiple lines and complex interchanges of the London Underground, Paris Metro or New York Subway. Many systems have but a few lines which interact with each other in very simple ways: either crossing at a central point, or – as in this map’s case – sharing a common alignment for most of their length. But just because the map is simple doesn’t mean the designer shouldn’t pay attention to the small details. If anything, they should pay more attention, as the errors become easier to spot!
Have we been there? No.
What we like: Clean design, nice and airy. I’ll never be totally convinced by Gill Sans on transit maps – it’s too idiosyncratic, and it looks worse the bolder it gets – but it does a passable job here.
What we don’t like: Attention to those small details! For some reason, the distance between station names and their dots on the route lines varies quite a lot. To illustrate, compare “East Riverfront” and “Emerson Park” stations. The latter’s name is much higher above the route line for no discernible reason. That they are only separated by one other station just makes the difference more obvious.
The logic behind using a smaller type size for the second line in a station name is questionable. It works well when there’s an obvious subtitle in the name, such as UM-ST. LOUIS (North), but ARCH-LACLEDE’S (Landing) makes no sense, while RICHMOND (Heights) is just weird. And is it just me, or is the size of the subtitle font inconsistent?
Finally, I find the inclusion of the “P” in the icon for “Primary Transfer Station” brings some ambiguity to it. Does the “P” stand for “Parking” (as it does elsewhere), or does it mean “Primary” in this instance? Good information design should remove ambiguity, not introduce it – even if it is a minor instance like this.
Our rating: Clear and easy to understand, but let down by a lack of attention to detail. Three stars.
Source: Official Metro Transit website
Art: Tube Map Made from Straws by Kyle Bean
File this under “A” for “awesome”!
Here’s Zone 1 of the London Underground map made entirely from drinking straws. I particularly like the use of striped straws to simulate the double-stroked DLR and Overground lines from the real map. Clever work from artist Kyle Bean, who has heaps of amazing work on his website.
Source: Kyle Bean
Historical Map: George Dow Diagram of LNER Great Northern Suburban Services, 1929
Almost everyone credits Harry Beck with “inventing” the diagrammatic transit map in 1933 with his iconic London Underground map. But the diagram form had already been in use for a number of years before that, as shown in this delightful 1929 diagram for LNER suburban services out of London’s Kings Cross station to points north. It was designed by George Dow, who created many such diagrams for the LNER. His son, Andrew Dow, wrote a book about his father’s work, aptly titled, “Telling The Passenger Where To Get Off” – which is exactly what a transit map is all about.
Have we been there? I have caught the train from Kings Cross to Stevenage, but the modern trains have little of the style and charm of 1920s LNER steam trains.
What we like: All the elements of modern transit design are on show in this diagram — straightened route lines, clear labels, interchange station symbols (here charmingly called “exchange stations”), and a complete absence of geography. This diagram is all about connections — where to get on and where to get off – nothing more. That it looks elegant and sophisticated, full of 1920s style, makes it all the better. The typography is particularly nice, especially the little dots under the “T” in St. Albans.
What we don’t like: In reality, Stevenage is almost due north of London, so one supposes the curious slant of the routes to the north west is because of space limitations (I believe this map was used in train carriages themselves). A little rough around the edges in parts, but this almost adds to its charm.
Our rating: A fantastic look at the early days of diagrammatic transit maps, and one that shows that Harry Beck was not quite the lone pioneer that many people laud him as. Four-and-a-half stars.
Source: George Rose’s website
Official Map: Copenhagen S-Tog Map, 2011
Some transit maps are geographically based, others are diagrams. But what happens when you get a map with too much diagram? That’s what we have with Copenhagen’s S-Tog (S-Train) map: it looks gorgeous, but at what cost to usability?
Have we been there? Yes, but I didn’t use the S-Tog system. I arrived and left by long-distance trains from/to Berlin, and caught a regional train out to Roskilde to visit the Viking Ship Museum ( an absolute must-see!)
What we like: Stunningly slick European design. A lovely distinctive typeface (the PDF tells me it is called “Via Office”). The DSB logo at bottom right – a modern reworking of a winged wheel by the look of things – is gorgeous.
What we don’t like: The stark diagrammatic network on a simple grey background may look fantastic, but I feel it has gone too far. There’s absolutely no reference points to guide someone unfamiliar with the city – Copenhagen is made up of canals, rivers and islands, but none of them are visible. Even the main railway station – the hub of the network – doesn’t stand out: it looks exactly like very other station. No reference is made to connections to the Metro service out to the airport. The numbers on the map, which refer to Denmark’s convoluted zone system, make absolutely no sense to those unfamiliar with it.
Our rating: Looks great, but sacrifices context and valuable location information to achieve it. Glossy but lacking in substance. Three stars.
Source: DSB S-Tog site
Fantasy Map: Deutsche Bahn ICE Network as a U-Bahn Map
Clever work here from the German office of Ogilvy Advertising, taking the familiar iconography of a typical German-styled U-Bahn map and applying it — and its associated promises of rapid, frequent service — to the Germany-wide ICE (high-speed train) network.
My only problem with this work is that the shape of the network bears little resemblance to Germany itself, probably because of the landscape format of the bilboard.
Source: Viralbuzz.de and Design Made in Germany