Over on Twitter, Peter Lloyd – the doyen of new York Subway experts – has been showcasing the many maps of Arthur Weindorf (1885–1979), a perhaps unsung contributor to the rich transit mapping history of that city. Weindorf was something of an artistic Renaissance Man – he was a cartoonist, fine art painter, and architectural engineer for the New York Public Service Commission. As well as his many drawings and maps of the subway, he created three-dimensional models of the system that were displayed at the 1939–1940 World’s Fair.
Of all the maps that Peter has posted, this hand-drawn preliminary version of an ultimately unpublished IND Division map really caught may eye. It’s simplified, diagrammatic and surprisingly elegant in its execution, with colour-coded lines to bundle like routes together and a clear visual distinction between express (solid lines) and local/shuttle (pecked lines) services.
One oddity of the system as shown is the short-lived Court Street station in Brooklyn, now better known as the home of the New York Transit Museum. Opened in 1936 with plans to be the northern terminus of the HH Fulton Street Local and with possible future extension into Manhattan, it closed just ten years later with service only ever being provided by a one-stop shuttle to the nearby Hoyt-Schermerhorn station.
Despite being drawn two years after the unification of the three divisions of the subway, the map still only shows IND lines, with the few free transfers to the BMT and IRT indicated by large callouts. From 1943, the New York Board of Transportation started using Hagstrom maps that showed the entire network, which might explain why this map was never actually published – the last remnant of the “old way” of depicting the subway.
The NJ Transit rail map has basically looked the same – and has retained most of its faults – since I reviewed it back in the very early days of the blog [November 2011, 1.5 stars], so it came as a surprise when I discovered that that diagram has been replaced with a new geographical map this month. NJ Transit has been down this path before, with similar maps used around 20 years ago, though this design is considerably cleaner than that very muddy execution.
One of the main problems with the previous diagram is that it simultaneously had to show a sprawling statewide network as well as local services like PATH, and the Hudson-Bergen light rail. Obviously, these are at very different levels of scale and detail, and the diagram struggled because of it, unsatisfactorily compressing the considerable detail around Newark/New York into a very small part of the diagram.
The solution chosen here – a statewide geographical map supplemented with local area insets where needed – isn’t groundbreaking, but it is effective and a massive improvement. The cleverest part is the way the bottom third of the map gets rotated 45 degrees counter-clockwise to save massive amounts of space: the Atlantic City Line runs neatly across the bottom of the map instead of having to drop towards the southeast. The map’s border does a lot of good work here, clearly separating the two parts of the map, while making it clear that there’s continuity between the sections at Bordentown.
The diagrammatic insets are neatly drawn with a minimum of fuss, though the colours used for some of the light rail lines could perhaps be better differentiated: it’s a little hard to tell PATH’s grey apart from the dull brown of the Hudson-Bergen light rail, for example. I also like it when the background colours used in an inset are subtly different to those used on the main map, just to help set them above and apart. A leading line or arrow linking the insets to the part of the main map that they’re magnifying would also be handy.
Our final word: One of those rare occasions where a geographical rail map is superior to a diagram. It’s not perfect, but I think it’s definitely a step in the right direction.
My apologies for the glare in the photo [No problem! I also straightened the image for publication – Cam]. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this 1982 Montreal Metro map. I found it in a preserved MR-63 subway car at Exporail, a railway museum outside Montreal. The map shows the three Metro lines open at the time with white stations, as well as the under-construction Blue Line and Du Collège extension of the Orange Line.
While the font may not win any awards for legibility, I think it fits beautifully with the map’s design aesthetic. There are a few station names that have changed since 1982 — I find the change from Vincent-d’Indy to the current Édouard-Montpetit particularly interesting. Lastly, I’m sure the makers of this map could never have imagined that the “Métro régional projeté” (given only a small mention in the legend) would be realized before the Blue Line to Anjou.
Transit Maps says:
What a fantastically chunky iteration of the Montreal Metro map! Everything is thick and oversized, and it’s just wonderful. The crowning glory is the use of ITC Bauhaus Black as the typeface throughout: it really shouldn’t work at all, and yet it somehow contrasts against and softens the blockiness of the map to balance it out nicely. Legibility is reduced slightly where the white text crosses the yellow Line 4, but it only affects a few stations.
Other nice touches are the line number bullets at the termini of each line: a square that continues in the direction of the line, but rotates the line number to remain horizontal; and the use of black station dots to denote planned future stations. The fact that Line 5 is only in its planning stage at this point in time helps to explain some of the station name changes: Vincent-d’Indy was an early placeholder name, but the station opened as Édouard-Montpetit in 1988.
Later versions of the map, like this one from 2012, made the waterways more geographical in mature, but I think the level of stylization on this version matches the chunky, diagrammatic nature of the route lines much better. It’s interesting to see how many of the elements that make the Montreal map unique – the black background and the rotated rectilinear form especially – have remained constant, which helps maintain a consistency in design language (crazy display typefaces not withstanding!) over the years.
Our final word: Chunky, bold and with a crazy font choice that somehow works: this is just great, and such a product of its time.
An attractive bird’s-eye panoramic map of the lines of the Peninsular Railway (1900–1934), affectionately known as “the Pin” by locals. The railway was founded as a subsidiary of the Southern Pacific Railroad to provide connecting electric interurban service through the Santa Clara Valley from San Jose.
The map itself is a fairly typical example of the genre, though the curved labels for locality names along the lines are an unusual and effective device for enclosing the area relative to the rail line.
It’s been a few years since the last time you checked out what was happening in Santiago de Chile [I last reviewed the official map in 2017 – Cam]. Well, times haven’t been too kind to us down here, but I don’t want to go into details about our current and future “troubles”. They’re too complicated, so anyways…
For me, the resemblance of this new official map to Laura’s diagram is only superficial: really only apparent because the official map has become more diagrammatic, losing the busy street grid that used to be such a feature. This is not nearly as schematic as Laura’s diagram, with lots of pseudo-geographical changes in direction still apparent. Though the form of the map has changed, it still uses a lot of the same design language as the 2017 map – note the distinctive terminus station markers – which is nice to see from a continuity point of view.
I do feel that the top part of the map seems a little cramped in comparison with the bottom half… some more care with the vertical spacing of stations from top to bottom using a grid could have helped here.
Very strangely, the map layers the river on top of the lines that cross it. While this is technically correct (the lines run in tunnels under the river), it’s simply not an important or useful piece of information and makes the route lines look disjointed and discontinuous.
Speaking of the river itself, while I appreciate the effort, I don’t think that the wave pattern texture used is particularly effective or aesthetically pleasing. A little more craftsmanship here might have resulted in something a bit better.
Our final word: A shift to a more diagrammatic representation of a growing network results in something that’s perhaps just slightly better than what came before it.
A very handsome map of transportation services in the greater Kansas City area from 1941. A nicely subdued olive street grid is overlaid by the route lines – colour-coded by mode (black for streetcars, blue and red for bus lines, and a lovely aqua for trolleybuses). Areas of interest are called out in bright yellow, so this looks like a six-colour print job – quite a luxury in 1941!
There’s also a great downtown inset, a great ornate compass rose incorporating the logo of the Kansas City Public Service Co., and some fantastic 1940s typography throughout. What’s not to love?
Side note: Copy on the reverse of the map notes that the transportation company of 1941 “operates a fleet of 413 electric cars, 234 motor busses and 86 trolley busses, supplying service on 251 miles of street car routes, 191 miles of motor bus routes and 51 miles of trolley bus routes.”
I would like to share with you the new Metrovalencia’s network map, whose design has been updated with the opening of the new Line 10 this year. The main reason why the transit operator decided to redesign it from scratch instead of just adding the new line layout is because they wanted to start avoiding using diagonal-axis labels on it, as they think horizontal labels are more accessible for people with intellectual disability.
But there are more differences:
Tram services now are represented again with solid lines, as it was in the previous map before the 2015’s redesign, ending with the differentiation from the “metro” ones. This could be because the new Line 10 is such a mix, operated with tramway units but with underground stations in the city center. But maybe this rule could have been maintained using the two-toned line for the street-runing sections and the solid line style for traffic segregated sections, for example.
They’ve included some spatial references, such as the curves of the subway tunnel between Àngel Guimerà and Xàtiva or Ayora and Marítim, or the Pont de Fusta loop, which before they were in a straight line.
As almost all the city center stations are shared by different lines, now all of them are officially transfer stations. The map also points when in the same station different lines stop in different platforms (e.g. Alameda). The old transfer icon now represents intermodal stations where the users can change from subway to tramway lines or vice versa (except in Bailén/Alacant, maybe because they consider they’re different stations?).
It’s drawn the future underground moving walkway which will be built to connect Xàtiva and Alacant stations as the project to extend the line some meters more with a new station for Line 10 built in Xàtiva was cancelled. Now, this connection just can be done walking on the street as the woman icon pretends to explain.
In this new map version, it’s represented the stations where some routes can end when they run as partial routes, with the line icon near its label.
The transit operator decided to reduce the number of fare zones from 4 to just 2 (plus the Airport fare zone), so now there are some stations that belong to both zones represented by this background color overlap.
A similar design has been created also for the TRAM of Alicante, which is run by the same transit operator, so now both cities shares the same map style (but with different typeface: Titillium for Metrovalencia and Rotis for TRAM).
I would appreciate if you could check this version and tell us your opinion about if all these changes and new additions have been really an improvement or just unnecessary with the previous map design [from 2015; review here – Cam] as a reference.
Transit Maps says:
There’s some things I really like about this diagram and there are others I’m not so fond of… so let’s start with the good!
Metrovalencia is a bit of an odd system in that it freely combines street-running trams, a full metro including subways, and commuter rail that runs far out into the surrounding countryside, all under one umbrella. So I really don’t mind that there’s no attempt made at mode differentiation here – these lines are all part of Metrovalencia, and are all treated equally. What I really do like is that the central Zone A is presented with a good degree of spatial accuracy, and the map then gets progressively more diagrammatic the further out it gets. This condenses those far-flung lines (especially Line 1 to the south) rather wonderfully. Presumably, the way that stops are grouped along those lines reflects the different built-up urban areas along each route – though it does perhaps just end up looking a bit haphazard. I’d be interested in seeing an alternative where the stops are always evenly spaced: it might just look a little more harmonious.
The overlapping zones are drawn about as neatly as they can be, though I do think they could be a bit lighter in tone. As it stands, it seems like some of the route colours have had to be strengthened quite a lot to compete with the background – Line 1 is more of a dull gold than its previous goldenrod yellow, for example. It’s also unfortunate that the dark gold outline for Zone A passes right through the middle of the map’s legend!
The new interchange markers are definitely an improvement over the previous version, clearly indicating when passenger movement between platforms or modes is required. The weakest interchange design is at Empalme, where Line 1 takes a 90-degree turn underneath the marker, which is generally regarded as bad design practice.
Finally, it’s interesting to note that this diagram takes the approach of using a crossed-out wheelchair icon to indicate the one and only non-accessible station at Valencia Sud, which is fair enough.
Our final word: A definite improvement in my eyes, though still not truly outstanding. By my reckoning, this is at least the third totally different design for the Metrovalencia diagram since 2009 (when I visited the city and rode the network), which is fairly rapid turnover and doesn’t really speak to a consistent design language for the network.
Hi Cameron, thanks for the amazing work you do on this site! I just noticed that one of the maps that I see the most often in real life has not been featured here (as far as I can tell): the regional train network map of Schleswig-Holstein, Germany’s northernmost state. It can be found here [PDF link].
Looking at it after perusing your site for a while, it is easy for me to see the flaws – first of all, the map seems very messy, even if that is somewhat understandable since it covers a big area. Particularly the area covering Hamburg (which is not part of Schleswig-Holstein but still a major transport hub for the area) is confusing. I have to say that I like the way that multi-line stations indicate which train will stop and which won’t – the system itself is pretty confusing in that regard and I regularly see passengers on RE7 or RE70 that have no clue whether their train will take them to their destination or not, but at least the map is pretty straightforward on that. Other than that, I’d be curious about your thoughts!
Transit Maps says:
I pretty much agree with Jan’s assessment here in that the overall appearance of the map is a bit messy, but there are some nice design touches as well. The messiness seems to have two main contributing factors: the afore-mentioned problems with cramping (especially around Hamburg) created by the geographical layout of the map; and the uninspired labels for stations.
Lots of different angles are deployed to fit station names into the layout, and the service icons don’t really relate that well to the labels they’re attached to – perhaps being a little too large and clumsy. Worst of all is the white box around the labels when they’re on a grey background: it just looks amateur – almost like someone literally pasted them on top of the artwork. It’s been done because the type would have poor contrast against the dark grey water background, but could have been avoided if a light blue background had been used instead.
Overall, I think the routes could be simplified a little more – we don’t need to see every twist and turn the lines make on their way – and this could allow for a little more flexibility for expanding the crowded parts of the map and taking up the slack in the less dense areas.
On the plus side, the distinctive station markers where more than one service stops are – as Jan says – quite delightful, and the list of services to the right of the map are comprehensive and easy to understand.
Our final word: Could use some simplification and polishing to make it easier to use, but it’s not terrible by any means. Based on the PDF, this is meant to be printed as an A3-sized poster, a size it would work quite well at, I think.
A major factor is that Wales has a a distinctive and recognisable shape that aids in locating major towns, while the Grand Est region is very indistinct and blobby. The simplified shape used on the diagram isn’t actually much like the real world, so it’s not that useful for locating places. Highlighting major destinations like Strasbourg, Metz, Nancy and Mulhouse would help a lot, as they’re somewhat lost in a sea of identical labels. Contrast and emphasis to guide the eye to important information is a huge part of transit map design!
I also have major issues with the way that TGV services are shown. Firstly, the shade of light blue used makes them look like rivers instead of high-speed rail. Then, they have to bounce up and down across the diagram to line up with their stations, which seems an odd way to depict your fastest services – the straighter these route lines are shown, the better, in my opinion. Finally, because the route lines are really indicating the extent of the LGV Est high-speed rail lines and not the actual TGV services that run on those lines, it looks like these services end at Vendenheim and Petit-Croix instead of their actual final destinations. Ultimately, the diagram is meant to be focussing on TER services within the region, so the TGV lines should be subsidiary information, but this presentation still rubs me the wrong way.
My biggest problem with the diagram is that there doesn’t really seem to be much of an underlying grid holding it all together… as much as possible, all the vertical lines should adhere to a multiples of a constant vertical grid to give some rhythm and flow, but they just seem to be placed anywhere. The uneven placement of station dots throughout the diagram shows that there’s some room to move to get those lines spaced out a bit better, but that level of care hasn’t been taken.
Our final word: A shapeless, formless blob in need of a stronger grid and better information hierarchy. Unmemorable.
Hello there! The last time you reviewed a map of mine was in 2015 [See review here – Cam]. Since then I’ve moved houses, had several new jobs, and been through a pandemic. I’ve recently been reworking a map of the Welsh rail network, based on a 2:1 triangular grid, using Affinity Designer which has continued to improve.
You will see there are some clear design factors in the diagram. A large improvement from my last design is the ability to adopt a balance between map and diagram. There’s a North-South line between Manchester/Liverpool and Newport, and I finally managed to get the Valley Lines evenly spaced and visually balanced, including space for planned stations. I’ve included the Oswestry and Amlwch proposals.
I’m pleased that the South Wales Mainline gives a strong, smooth base to the diagram, and likewise the North Wales Coast line gives a clear Northern boundary hugging the coast. The Cambrian and Heart of Wales lines provide a nice balance in the centre – almost like the ‘scales’ in 90’s versions of the Lyon metro.
I’ve finally managed to incorporate large parts of the TrawsCymru bus network where it augments (rather than competes with) the railway. This means the rural heart of Wales doesn’t look as empty as it otherwise would, and there’s also some Western ‘closure’ to the map. Despite that, it’s clear that there’s less public transport in the West and North, which reflects reality. Four connecting steam railways are also included.
The map is bilingual, except for where there’s a single spelling of a location or – and this is my preference – the Welsh is so similar to the English that I’ve simply opted for the Welsh alone. (Merthyr Tydful being an example.)
Like every such diagram, there are trade-offs. This isn’t perfect and there’s a number of things I can’t quite fix:
The ruling size of the station labels the impossibly long Eneu’r-glyn a Pharc Churchill Energyln & Churchill Park. That gave a 6pt type size which is … on the small end. I could not come up with a way to make this bigger without making the Rhymni line quite a mess, or implausibly broadening the whole of the Valley Lines.
Grangetown and the future Loundon Square are close to their station dots, but not close enough for my liking.
Heath High Level and Low Level is a constant problem when it comes to managing two stations with long names in two languages whose platforms are only 70 metres apart. I’ve given it a go as best I can
Bilingual station names can vary immensely in size, and I’ve opted to evenly space the text up a route line and move the station dots to match, rather than keep the dots an equal distance but mash the text up. This is most obvious on the Merthyr, Rhymni and Ebbw Vale lines.
Finally the ‘kink’ of the Marches line approaching Newport is a pity, but avoids confusion with the SWML and reflects a number of twists the passenger goes through to get into the station.
Other than this I’m pleased with the graphic balance, the legibility, and the room for future plans to be incorporated without changing the diagram. But I’d be very interested in your own thoughts!
Transit Maps says:
When I reviewed James’ previous diagram back in 2015, I noted that it was unfortunate that it didn’t really look anything like Wales, being squished into a landscape A3 format. This new version definitely solves that problem by employing a 2:1 grid (which gives angles of 26.57° instead of the commonly-employed “isometric angle” of 30°), allowing for an excellent approximation of Wales’ shape. Note how James only uses vertical lines and 26.57° lines (no horizontal or steeper 63.43° lines), which makes the diagram very compositionally strong.
Within that shape, all the lines are arranged in a very visually pleasing way – I particularly like the way all of the Metro lines fan out evenly from Cardiff. Nothing feels too cramped, which is quite an achievement given the use of bilingual labels. I think that spacing station labels evenly instead of their dots was definitely the right choice in this instance, so well done to James for using this solution.
Inclusion of connecting bus services is most welcome and fleshes out the network nicely, and showing the heritage steam railways as well is just the icing on the cake. I think the only thing I really miss is an indication of ferry connections at Holyhead, Fishguard and Milford Haven, just to complete the transportation picture.
The legend does seem to be missing an indication that coloured station labels indicated planned Metro stations, but that’s easily fixed.
Our final word: A massive improvement from James’ previous effort (which wasn’t bad by any stretch of the imagination) – this is confident, bright and really well executed. Great work, and definitely better than the stodgy and old-fashioned official Transport for Wales effort (PDF link).
