Just to show that there’s always a different way to approach the same design problem, here’s a completely different reworked Tube Map by art director/designer, Rich Cousins. Like me, Rich seems to have reached a breaking point where all the additions to the Tube Map over the years have made him say, “there must be a better way!”, although his criteria for a successful redesign are quite different to mine. Note that this map dates back to July of last year, so the new “Zone 2/3″ around Stratford isn’t shown.

In short, Rich has aimed for simplification and reduction, even eschewing the addition of the Thames for orientation. I’ll note here that the last time the official Tube Map got rid of the Thames, the angry mob got out their pitchforks, so I’m not sure this would ever be a popular decision – proceed at your own caution, Rich! 

He’s also made the decision to remove TfL Rail and the Emirates Air Line: this is at odds with the way the official Tube Map is evolving, but it’s Rich’s map and he can do what he wants in regards to those “peripheral” services. One thing that the removal of TfL Rail does is to make the shuttle Overground line between Upminster and Romford look even more ridiculous without anything to connect to at the Romford end!

Rich has made some fundamental changes to the methodology of the map that make quite a difference to the way that it looks. First, he butts all lines heading in the same direction as each other right up to each other, regardless of whether they’re in the same real-world tube or tunnel as each other. I don’t mind this too much: it doesn’t change how you use the Tube at all, and it does clean up the District and Piccadilly lines from South Kensington out to Acton Town quite a lot. Similarly, it consolidates the Metropolitan and Jubilee lines quite nicely as they head north out of Baker Street.

A little more problematic is the way Rich has consolidated as many interchange stations as possible into a single dot. It’s a nice idea in theory, but it actually removes a lot of the nuanced information about changing lines that the real map imparts without the reader really being aware of it. For example, Rich has combined Bank and Monument into a single dot. Technically, he’s right: once you’ve passed through any of the fare barriers, you can reach any platform in the complex. But it’s a heck of a walk from one end to the other, which the official map neatly implies with its long “corridor” connector between the two ends. It also makes the stations which Rich has been unable to combine into a single dot stand out like a sore thumb – the long connectors required at Euston, Paddington and Edgware Road being prime examples.

(I’ll also note here the error at Paddington: the Bakerloo line needs to come down to the District/Circle line platforms at Praed Street, not the Hammersmith & City/Circle line platforms at the opposite end of the complex.)

The single dot is also applied a little inconsistently: the separate stations at Walthamstow Central and Walthamstow Queens Road get a single dot, while Clapham High Street and Clapham North get separated out into two distinct stations. Both are shown as interchanges on the official map.

Relative spatiality is an area where I think Rich’s map falls down. His argument seems to be that elements that don’t directly interface with each other can be shown in the wrong place if it enhances clarity. I respectfully disagree, as I think that maintaining the correct relative position of stations and lines helps to reinforce how the network relates to the city around it. There are lots of examples of what I consider “poor” placement on the map, including West Ruislip, South Tottenham, Mill Hill East to the east of the main branch, and the absurd routing of the Overground right through the middle of the Hainault Loop.

I absolutely adore Rich’s Northern line – dead straight from Morden all the way up to Edgware – but the poor old Victoria line has to take a terribly convoluted path from Warren Street up to Euston and back down again to hit Kings Cross St. Pancras – a victim of the single dot policy, I’m afraid. I also admire his attempt to do something visually different with the fare zones by smoothing them out, but I think they could still use some further refinement to get the shapes just right.

Almost inexcusably, Rich’s map doesn’t present any accessibility information, although he says he’s working on a solution. Again, his single dot solution is harming the map here, as the multiple dots of the official map are used to show accessibility information for separate sets of platforms at large interchange stations. For example, the DLR at Bank/Monument is fully accessible, but none of the other platforms are.

Station names in colours that match their line is something that I’ve never particularly cared for: the different chromatic values make some names more visually prominent than others, when they should all be equally important in the information hierarchy. The explosion of Overground lines also means there’s a lot of orange labels on the map – like the map needs more orange! Still, it’s interesting to see the technique applied to a complex map like this (I think Chicago’s “L” map used to do this as well).

I hope no-one thinks that I hate this map after this long and detailed review, because I don’t. It’s a well-considered and nicely drawn alternative Tube Map, with a lot of thought-provoking additions and alterations. Like me with many of my redrawn maps, I suspect he’s put in a lot of these changes to purposefully make his map as different as possible to the official one – because who wants to look at the things that have already been done?