Roger

Not yet, though it's a possibility.

I thought that Harry Beck's masterpiece as revised was unbeatable - a diagram rather than a map, whose clarity is outstanding. Nevertheless, with the recent additions of Overground and DLR, it can sometimes be a bit unwieldy.

The Independent has an interesting article and shows (part of) Mark Noad's suggestion for a revised map.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...e-2337609.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...action=Gallery
Easier to read at http://www.london-tubemap.com/

I'm impressed. The proposal places stations in closer context with each other and shows where lines merge and cross more graphically. How many knew that Mornington Crescent is actually on the eastern link between Camden Town and Euston, for example? (The current map suggests that it's on the western link.)

In another thread, somebody admitted that they had taken the Tube between Charing Cross and Embankment, something Londoners are unlikely to do as the stations are so close. Similary, Leicester Square to Covent Garden is a simple walk. These are shown more clearly in Mark Noad's version.

Bayswater to Queensway, anyone? Much simpler to judge the distance on the new version.

stut

I think that geographically representative maps have their place, but it's no way near as clear as the Beck-derived map, even with the Overground (and presumably eventually Crossrail) lines in place.

Reason077

It's always Charing Cross (western) branch trains that stop at Mornington Crescent, never City (eastern) branch trains, so logically, it is much clearer to show it on the western branch! Whether the track is physically on the east or west side of the station isn't relavent when the train doesn't stop at that station!

Fair points, but there's always a trade off between geographical accuracy and clarity. While it has some advantages, the Mark Noad version could also make it more difficult for someone unfamiliar with the network to see where to change trains to get from station to station.

The Tube map is becoming less relavent as technology improves, anyway. It shows just one part of a very complex, integrated transport network. Showing stations more geographically might help a few situations when it is quicker to walk than take the tube, but there are also countless journeys where it is quicker to take a bus or National Rail train than the tube. Obviously you can't show all those or the map quickly becomes impossibly complex.

Even with semi-geographical accuracy it is hard to convey, on a map, the relative speeds of the different lines. It can't tell you that, for example, the Circle line is slow and clunky and often has long delays between trains, while, say, the Victoria and Central lines have very fast and frequent services.

We now have access to real-time journey planners in our pockets which consider countless combinations of routes to find the fastest way to get somewhere at any given moment. These are only going to get better with time.

mtkeller

And maybe someday we'll be able to get signal (mobile data or WiFi) underground (even if just on the platforms) to use those journey planners when we get somewhere and discover that there's an unplanned service interruption and we need to figure out the most efficient way to get to our destination.

Reason077

If you wade through TfL's business plan document, there is a section showing the projected Tube maps for 2015 & 2019 with Crossrail included (page 82 & 83):

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...and-Budget.pdf

Interestingly this map doesn't show some other projects which are likely to happen by then, such as the Croxley-Watford Junction Metropolitan line extension (http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/proj...emes/2053.aspx) and the Northern line Battersea extension (http://www.northernlineextension.com/) - but I guess they only wanted to show things that are actually under construction already.

Reason077

Indeed. TfL are promising WiFi in 120 stations by June 2012 (it's already available in a few), but there's still no solid plan for WiFi or mobile data in the trains themselves between stations.

Its something thats taken for granted in other cities, but putting a cellular network into the tunnels is presumably more of a challenge in London given the very restricted space on the deep tube lines.

exilencfc

Lancaster Gate still looks a bit further from Paddington than it should be (it's a five minute walk). It's not a bad idea though, it doesn't seem much less clear than the existing version but it seems to be more reflective of real life geography

Christopher

This revised map is interesting, and potentially useful for people who know what they're doing, but I think that for most practical purposes (i.e. how do I get from A to B) the existing map is actually clearer...

RichardInSF

I like the new map, I'd vote for it. When do California residents get to vote, though?

PWMFlyer19

Give me the old one I love. The new looks likes you gave a bunch of crayons to your kid (no matter how geographically more correct it is).

Thanks.

origin

I like the new one. Well I like the idea of the new one anyway.

Roger

There was a follow-up comment column:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...y-2338238.html

She goes on to mock the Brussels metro map :
and concludes:

JOUY31

Even though I come once or twice a month to London, this new map looks very useful for me and can help me choose the best travel options, just with a paper document, without the need for mobile or web apps. ^^

ajax

I like the look of the new map. ^

Tanya934

I'm confused about the London Overground line.
Why include some routes & not others?
Looking at my old home town of Walthamstow, I noticed that the overground line at Walthamstow Queens Road was included but not the line from Liverpool Street to Chingford which connects with Walthamstow Central Underground.
As this is a major commuter route & within the travelcard Zones, why not include it?