Submission  – Sydney Tram Network at its Maximum Extent by VoomMaps

March 15, 2016
Leave a comment
Filed Under:
Historical Maps
Tags:

Submitted by the map’s creator, who says:

After having tried for a long time to find a schematic route map for Sydney’s historical tram network without any success, I decided that the only option was to make one myself. This was a particularly tricky task as all of the maps I could find online showed only the tram tracks, but not how the routes functioned. After many hours going through many different websites, trying to figure out the different streets the tram tracks were on and drawing up the map, I have come up with the attached map.

Transit Maps says:

I’ve previously featured VoomMaps’ map of the maximum extent of railways in New South Wales (May 2015, 3.5 stars), and here’s another map in the same vein. Basically, it’s a “what if?” map, showing how Sydney’s tram network might look if every tram line that ever existed was still in place. (There are two exceptions: the two old spur lines to the Milsons Point and McMahons Point ferries have been superceded by the direct routes over the Sydney Harbour Bridge.)

It’s important to note that the route numbers are the author’s own invention, grouping trams by destination. Sydney trams never had route numbers: destinations were shown by name, sometimes supplemented by a coloured “flag” on the blind.

The map is nicely executed, and it’s very interesting to see how many of the southern suburb lines are separated from the main system, acting as feeder lines to the suburban railways instead. The Northern Beaches trams were also always separate, with The Spit proving an impassable location – ferry service linked the trams on either side until the Manly trams closed in 1938.

I like the way that the routes all collapse into combined trunk lines in the CBD, which definitely helps to simplify things. The list of city terminuses to the top left is also very helpful.

A couple of minor things: Cronulla is shown as being an awfully long way from the coast (the tram station at Shelly Park was just steps away from the beach), and I personally find the crinkly harbour shoreline a little too detailed for my liking – I think it could be simplified just a little more to better match the schematic look of the map. Is it practicable to add start and end dates (where known) for lines? That would certainly add an extra layer of historical information to the map.

Still, overall this map is superbly researched and beautifully drawn. Four stars.

Unofficial Map: Greater Tokyo Railway Network by “Kzaral”

March 14, 2016
Leave a comment
Filed Under:
Unofficial Maps
Tags:

Whoa. An incredibly detailed “Underground-style” map of rail in the Greater Tokyo area – it seems to show everything from ropeways, aerial cables and streetcars all the way up to Shinkansen – by Flickr user Kzaral. 

Transliterating the station names to English means that the diagram simply can’t be as compact as other maps where Japanese characters are used, but there’s still a good sense of rhythm and balance to the map. All labelling is horizontal, with very few labels cutting into or going across route lines – quite the achievement! The colour palette is strangely drab with lots of tan/yellow/orange and pink/purple – are they all based off official line colours?

But enough from me: go take a look at the whole thing nice and big. Enjoy!

Source: Flickr/Kzaral

Submission  – Unofficial Future Map: South East Queensland and Brisbane Rapid Transit (2031) by Alex Jago

March 14, 2016
comment 1
Filed Under:
Future Maps, Unofficial Maps
Tags:

Via: alexjago51:

Here’s another unofficial public transport map I’ve just finished.
This one is a bit more forward looking. The year is traditional, being from a previous State Government’s glossy-brochure plan – in which everything on this map would be built by 2031.

On the map is everything I could feasibly fit (rail, busway), plus a couple of things I probably shouldn’t have (ferries and every single light rail stop).

Rail and busway are a fairly established pattern now; although there are certainly some trickier bits around Park Road. Meanwhile at Roma St, with the 4×4 line crossover, I decided it was best to just put a big circle on and call it a day.

For the non-Brisbane people, I should note that the lines on this map are drawn from the perspective of 2031. In particular: we are yet to dig the tunnel from Yeerongpilly in the south, to near Bowen Hills in the north via George St.

The close observer will note that when a line passes over another in the diagram it also does so in real life. Hence, south of Park Road, the Cleveland and Kuraby lines (on the surface) pass over the busway, which in turn passes over the three lines in the yet-to-be-built tunnel. Similarly, the Ferny Grove line takes a flyover to get out of Bowen Hills.

A perhaps controversial choice is to show the tunnelled lines as passing under the river – if I didn’t show the ferries I probably wouldn’t have done this.

A couple of the line pairings (Ferny Grove to Cleveland and Doomben to Kuraby in particular) were chosen to avoid gaps or step-downs in the line ‘bundles’ in the diagram. However, almost all line pairings are entirely plausible. (The main exception is Gympie North to Coolangatta, that’s just ridiculously long and hence is not described as a pairing. Operationally, trains would start and  terminate on the far side of the city, and run interleaved through the centre). The groups of pairings are pretty much guaranteed to happen.

The ferries were a lucky consequence of transit map’s traditional inner-city distortion. It’s a pity I couldn’t get Norman Park closer to the train station of the same name (as at Milton) but it’s actually quite appropriate: Milton is an inner-city precinct with the train and ferry at opposite edges, about 600m apart; Norman Park station is 1200m away from the ferry and has only suburbia in between.

Fitting in the entire Gold Coast Light Rail was a bit of a challenge. I ended up using a partial inset, joining at the southern end. Hopefully it’s all clear enough.

Meanwhile, the Sunshine Coast is relegated to two insets, if it ever grows in relative importance this may no longer be acceptable. By then, trying to do this specific type of map may just be silly – better to produce three regional maps (which could also show all frequent buses), plus a heavy-rail-only overview.

I’ve chosen to show fare zones in the usual SEQ-system map fashion: a number adjacent to every station name. With 23 concentric zones, this is the more appropriate choice in my view.

The disability icons are of my own creation. I’ve chosen to invert the normal approach and show accessible as default, hence the little red crosses. The ‘accessible with assistance’ icons are the same purple as the official map’s icons – but the official map is a wheelchair being pushed, which is very fine detail and hard to see. My icons are distinguishable even when the station names aren’t!

The ‘future station’ x-marks-the-spot icons and hollow line theming I learnt from fellow mapper Brent Palmer – a great guy, even if he does periodically remove all trace of his work from the net. 

This was made in Inkscape, which is pretty good these days. I only wish it had better ‘draw a tangent circle’ and ‘auto-fillet’ capability like any worthwhile CAD program. Suffice to say I’m really experienced at manual Bezier approximations of circle-arcs.

Transit Maps says:

An interesting piece here by Alex. In the outer parts, the map is great: nice and clear, intelligent usage of insets to show the far-flung reaches of the system (I particularly like the partial inset for the Gold Coast light rail), and lovely “future lines” indication.

However, the middle part of the map is unfortunately a bit of a mess. Some of the problem is the network’s topology, but I feel like there has to be a clearer way to draw this map without having so many of the route lines obscured by labels and other type. Labelling is such a integral part of a transit map, but I feel it can be forgotten sometimes in the excitement of placing lines. The detail image above illustrates what i’m talking about, with the label for Boggo Road sitting right across the main trunk line, while even a hyphenated Woolloongabba still can’t sit clear of its lines. I also can’t fathom why Buranda’s label has to cut into its line at all.

Basically, I feel that the centre of the map needs to be expanded even more, especially the complicated section around South Brisbane, in order to better accommodate the labelling of the map. This could also help out with the representation of the river ferries – while I like their inclusion, they feel a little cramped and tacked-on to me at the moment.

Overall, I think Alex is headed in the right direction here. He’s taken the official map’s style and improved upon it nicely, especially in the outer areas. A little more thought and care in how the central part can be simplified and clarified will take this from “good” to “excellent”.

Video: Depot Discoveries – The Beck Map

March 11, 2016
Leave a comment
Filed Under:
Historical Maps
Tags:

Here’s a little video primer about H.C. Beck’s famous Tube map, put together by the London Transport Museum’s Acton Depot. It’s a breezy little introduction to the most famous and influential transit diagram in the world, but it unfortunately repeats and perpetuates a couple of misconceptions about the map and Beck himself. (I’d expect a little better from the London Transport Museum!)

At first, I even thought the initial statement that Beck was “out of work” when he devised the map was false, but some further research revealed that he had been let go from his temporary position as an engineering draftsman at the Underground Group when he drew his initial working sketch in 1931. He was reemployed in a similar position in 1932, so was fully working for the Underground when the map was actually published in January 1933. His position, however, remained a temporary one until 1937. 

It should be noted that all of Beck’s work on the map was done on a freelance basis outside of his normal duties, and he was paid separate contracting fees for such work. He was under the impression that in return for assigning copyright for the map to the Underground Group, he was assured of being the only person who could make edits to the map. Alas, he never got this in writing, which led to an acrimonious split in 1960 when the Hutchinson map was released without Beck’s knowledge.

The assertion in the video that Beck was employed as the Underground’s “chief cartographer” upon his return is utter nonsense. He was only ever a lowly draftsman (doing the map work in his own time on the side), and actually left London Transport in 1947 to take on a teaching position at the London School of Printing and the Graphic Arts. Here he taught classes in typographical design, colour theory, the history of type design, lettering and drawing. He continued his work on the Tube Map on a freelance basis.

In a memoir, Bryce Beaumont (later the Publicity Director at London Transport) describes Beck’s duties in 1936 thusly:

Beck’s job in those days was the adaption of Press Advertising layouts… and overseeing the correspondence to newspapers and periodicals for the booking and filling of advertising space. 

Ken Garland describes Beck’s work at London Transport as holding “no great prospect of advancement, congenial though it was.”

Finally, the often-repeated “fact” that Beck based his work off electrical diagrams. There is absolutely no conclusive proof that this is true: Beck himself never mentioned an electrical diagram as inspiration, instead focussing on his desire to simplify and clarify the network. It’s just as likely that he was influenced by the seminal diagrammatic map work of George Dow for the LNER. The misconception seems to have taken root because of this joke diagram that Beck drew in 1933 after his co-workers teased him about the perceived similarities between his work and an electrical diagram.

Submission – Official Map: Flixbus Route Network, March 2016

March 10, 2016
Leave a comment
Filed Under:
Official Maps
Tags:

Submitted by Bruno Heemskerk, who says:

Flixbus is quite a new company with bus services between several European countries.

Transit Maps says:

This is another good example of what I call a “boast map”, in that it shows the impressive extent of the network, but reveals very little about actual routing (that’s for the website to tell you). For example, a little poking around on that website tells me that you can only directly reach other destinations within Italy from Naples, and would have to change buses to go farther afield.

Speaking of Naples, I find it very odd that it’s jammed up hard against the bottom edge of the map (and shown at the same latitude as Rome!) when the almost completely empty Sweden gets so much space all to itself at the top of the map.

The map itself is a nice combination of geographic reality and stylised route lines, although I think the routes are way too thin. They’re almost exactly the same weight and colour as the international borders shown on the map, which is pretty inexcusable, really. I do like that the major destinations get a visual boost with big orange dots, and having airport connections denoted is a nice touch. I also like the way that areas where the destinations are too tightly bunched to label properly on the map are instead given a number, and the names of the towns are instead given in the legend for each corresponding number.

Our rating: Looks impressive and has some nice aesthetics, but don’t try using it to plan a trip by itself! Two-and-a-half stars.

See also: This interactive destination map on the Flixbus website, which is much better for helping you work out where you can actually go from each city. 

Reader Question: Can You Identify the Font Used in a 1992 Berlin Map?

March 9, 2016
Leave a comment
Filed Under:
Questions
Tags:

Question: Hi there! Thanks so much for your comments on my Berlin 1952 redesign. I’m working on a recreation of a Berlin map from 1992 (I can’t include links, but there’s a few from 1992, 1991, and 1988 floating around Google I believe), and I’m wondering what your advice on font is. I can’t really pick it out by eye and WhatTheFont hasn’t been too helpful. What would you say would be the closest one? FF Transit maybe? Thanks so much!

Answer: If you’re talking about the Erik Spiekermann-designed BVG diagram that first appeared c.1991, then it’s absolutely FF Transit – the typeface was created specifically for it!

Erik once very kindly sent me a full PDF of the 1993 Berlin diagram, and had a few interesting things to say about its development:

I enclose the diagram I designed for Berlin in 1991 (the version attached is from 93), shortly after the East- and West-Berlin got reunited. It keeps growing and changing, but in essence it’s still the same. It was drawn in Freehand 3.0 before there was a PDF format. Needed 23 layers for all the lines. Things got changed constantly as the two cities grew together and as names changed from Stalin- and Lenin-somethings to more acceptable ones.

The metadata in Erik’s PDF also confirms that the main typeface is Transit, so there you go – straight from the horse’s mouth!

See also: Jesse’s recreation of a 1952 Berlin map

Submission – Official Map: T-Bane Map of Oslo, Norway, 2016

March 8, 2016
Leave a comment
Filed Under:
Official Maps
Tags:

Submitted by Arnt Gulbrandsen, who says:

The map and lines have been rearranged because of a new station (Løren). This is the new official map. Look closely at line 5.

Transit Maps says:

Now that is unusual. While I’ve seen some lines double up on a couple of stations before (London’s Circle line calls twice at Paddington and Edgware Road, for example), I really can’t think of another example where a line makes a complete loop-de-loop through a central circle before continuing on to the other side of its route. In Oslo, Line 5 now calls at a staggering ten stations on its own line twice (as well as three more that it shares with Line 4) as part of its journey. I feel sure announcements and destination boards will make it very clear which leg of the journey each train is on (to Sognsvann/to Vestli/Ringen) – or at least, I hope so!

I have to say that I do feel a bit for the citizens of Oslo: every time I look at a new version of this map, the lines have been renumbered, recoloured and reorganised – with new endpoints and paths through the city each time. I understand that there’s been a lot of modernisation and rebuilding of the network lately, but a little consistency for riders might be nice.

The map itself is still a lovely, clean diagrammatic map, although I note that it doesn’t include the route numbers of connecting bus and tram services anymore, which is a bit of a shame. See my first review of this map from November 2011, and also this unofficial map by Simon H. from last year.

Our rating: The first roller coaster as mass transit? Still a great looking and distinctive map, but I miss the connections information. Three-and-a-half stars.

Photo: The Perils of a Tube Map Puzzle!

March 7, 2016
Leave a comment
Filed Under:
Miscellany
Tags:

White space on maps may be good for readability, but not so much for jigsaw puzzles!

Submission – Official Map: DC Streetcar Strip Map, 2016

March 7, 2016
Leave a comment
Filed Under:
Official Maps
Tags:

Submitted by Edward Russell, who says:

DC Streetcar has published a simple, straightforward strip map in the streetcars that began running a week ago in DC. Hopefully this is the beginning of a far larger streetcar renaissance in DC!

Transit Maps says:

I’m going to resist the temptation to comment on the protracted process that’s led to the delayed opening of this streetcar line. Nor am I going to enter into the whole streetcars in mixed traffic versus dedicated lanes debate. Instead, I’ll just talk about the map, which is – as Edward says – refreshingly simple.

Only eight stops means there’s plenty of room for nice, big, easy-to-read labels (set in what looks like Avenir), some “DC Streetcar” branding and handy accessibility information. Nice and easy does it. About my only complaints are the way that the route line continues past the two terminus stations, and the annoyingly inconsistent nomenclature for stop names.

None of the stops on H Street have that street appended to their name, but all the stops on Benning Road do. Even stranger, there’s a slash separating the street names at 15th St/Benning Rd and 19th St/Benning Rd, but it’s not Oklahoma Ave/Benning Rd. Pick a consistent naming method for your stops and stick to it, please!

Our rating: Simple and easy-to-read, if overall a little unmemorable. Does the job. Three stars.

Photo – Official Map: Montreal Metro Map, 2016

March 7, 2016
Leave a comment
Filed Under:
Official Maps
Tags:

Spotted and photographed in the real world by long-time correspondent, Richard Archambault, who doesn’t hold back with his opinion in this tweet:

Transit Maps says:

I first heard that this map was getting a makeover back in October 2015, but said at the time that I would reserve my judgement until I saw the final map. This new version oddly isn’t yet posted on the STM’s website, so Richard’s photo will have to do, although the dirty and scratched surface certainly isn’t doing it any favours!

First things first: the most defining visual characteristic of the previous map – the way that the whole map, made up only of right-angled sections of routes, was then tilted 37 degrees counter-clockwise – has gone, replaced by a very standard octolinear diagram. Words can’t express how disappointed I am by this turn of events: a truly iconic design feature has been replaced by something completely and breathtakingly average. And the only “benefit” it really brings is to allow the middle section of the Blue line to run at a 135-degree angle compared to the rest of the line. The eastern Green line still stair-steps its way across the map, when it could run smoothly in one straight line until it simply flips northwards for the last few stations. 

My other fear for this map has definitely been confirmed: the labels are tiny, especially compared to the old map. So now they’re small and set in an all-caps condensed typeface, all of which reduces legibility. The reason everything’s so small appears to be the label for Sherbrooke station – it can’t get any larger without cutting into the Green line, so it becomes the lowest common denominator. The terminus station labels are a little better, at least.

I really, really dislike the way that the commuter rail lines run right through the middle of Metro station markers when there’s no interchange available at that station. The old map avoided this by running the commuter rail lines off to the side of such stations, and also used a very visibly different station marker for interchanges – it almost was impossible to be confused. Now, the only visual difference between an interchange station and a non-interchange station is a thin grey ring around the interchange station’s marker, which is perhaps too subtle to be noticed on quick perusal. Overall, I do think the commuter rail lines are drawn slightly better than the previous map, though.

Our rating: A hugely missed opportunity for renewal that seems to discard one of the world’s most unique and identifiable transit maps for a completely average watered-down version of itself. A very disappointing two stars.