i posted this after reading the announcement of the new Overground names. They didn't strike me as being particularly memorable, and I have seen a suggestion that it would have been better to go with O1, O2, etc. having said that, I am not resident in London or a regular visitor, so I would be interested to hear what other people think, especially " locals".
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Is it time to replace LU line names with numbers?
- Thread starter jadmor
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
JustPassingBy
Member
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2018
- Messages
- 61
Maybe I'm old fashioned, but the existing underground line names seem to have at least some connection to where they go without needing a history lesson.
These names seem pretty random and hard to remember which goes where.
Lioness in particular seems vulnerable to it being a trendy name now and may fall out of fashion.
Might just be me, but the Suffragette line seems a mouthful to pronounce.
I hope the Weaver line goes to Liverpool (Weaver jct...).
These names seem pretty random and hard to remember which goes where.
Lioness in particular seems vulnerable to it being a trendy name now and may fall out of fashion.
Might just be me, but the Suffragette line seems a mouthful to pronounce.
I hope the Weaver line goes to Liverpool (Weaver jct...).
If the service goes downhill, it will soon become the Suffer Line
Like District and Metropolitan... or Jubilee...
Nothing geographical in any of those and you'd need to know history to know those names.
Bakerloo which although potentially obvious is a portmanteau which is potentially lost on many of general public in the modern day
Even the Northern line is the most Southern line...
Haywain
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 15,296
75A
Established Member
The Elizabeth line?
I think the line colours are easier for people to latch onto than names, And that the names, being more distinct, should be easier for people to remember than numbers.
However, I'm not a neuroscientist and I don't have any evidence for these notions
However, I'm not a neuroscientist and I don't have any evidence for these notions
Jim the Jim
Member
I do personally find names easier to remember than numbers. I have a better job remembering where the tube lines go (even though I'm only in London occasionally) than I do remembering which local bus route is which, for example.
Colours are confusing as identifiers for the colourblind. This particularly becomes an issue when you have as many routes as the London lines now are.
Colours are confusing as identifiers for the colourblind. This particularly becomes an issue when you have as many routes as the London lines now are.
Peter Mugridge
Veteran Member
I manage better with the numbers and letters system used in Paris...
Haywain
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 15,296
I'm not sure that it's helpful for the colour blind.
Farigiraf
Member
In larger stations e.g. Euston/Liverpool St, the extra presence of numbers among the departure times might cause some confusion (unless they do what I'm pretty sure will happen and keep it as 'Overground' on NR departure boards)
The O2 line not going to North Greenwich would cause quite a stir!
The O2 line not going to North Greenwich would cause quite a stir!
I imagine the names of the lines come from the era from when railway companies were known by their names and its just stuck when new lines have been built.
Numbering or lettering the lines may make it easier for those who don't speak English.
But turning an existing system upside down isn't usually a good idea
Numbering or lettering the lines may make it easier for those who don't speak English.
But turning an existing system upside down isn't usually a good idea
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
If the network were being designed from scratch now, I'm sure that numbers would be used instead of names. Numbers are easier for most people to follow.
But ripping everything up and starting again probably isn't the most sensible of options now. The names are part of the rich tapestry of the history of underground railways in London.
But ripping everything up and starting again probably isn't the most sensible of options now. The names are part of the rich tapestry of the history of underground railways in London.
When the Croydon Trams started up nearly 25 years ago, they originally had route numbers. They don't any longer, and just rely on the destination of the tram
Busaholic
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Jun 2014
- Messages
- 14,101
It's noticeable that Croydon Tramlink started with numbered routes but in recent years has ditched them, despite the system never being added to, for operational reasons. As the majority of Underground lines are not straightforward A to B via C, unlike the Paris metro, I can see multiple reasons why it would not benefit either passenger or operator, especially on the Northern and District lines.
District and Metropolitan refer back to railway companies, so have a perfectly clear railway history connection. Jubilee is every bit as daft and politically-correct as the Elizabeth Line (or the Elizabeth Tower), and wasn't it — like the Elizabeth Line — a late change, from the Fleet Line? But this new lot? Which is worst? And fancy giving the name of a really rather nice Middle England river to an urban railway line!
Personally I would just separate the Wimbledon District line services into their own line. If there's only one station that all services on a line call at, that line needs to be split.
Some (more) thoughts:
Names: Good for marketing (Heart of Wales is so much more appealing than C15) and general recognition. Has the problem of appropriacy (to steer away from the current controversy - what do you do with the “Airport Line” when the airport moves?)
Numbers: good for detailed recognition of services / routes, rather than lines. (On most underground systems these do however, tend to be one and the same). Relies on a regular, identical service pattern. N1 always runs from High Barnet to Morden via Bank and stops everywhere, for example. Less good for irregular stopping patterns.
Colours: Brilliant as an extra -as we all know from the tube map. Early underground systems colour-coded stations as an aid to the illiterate. As sole identifier even on simple systems not ideal for the colour-blind and useless as a sole description once a system gets complex (you want the “beige with a hint of pink” line)
individual train numbers: Ideal for irregular services and get round the obvious problems if using times. IC123 is the same train whether it leaves at 10.09 or 10.11.
So let’s have all, used appropriately by officialdom and let the public get in and do what it likes.
Names: Good for marketing (Heart of Wales is so much more appealing than C15) and general recognition. Has the problem of appropriacy (to steer away from the current controversy - what do you do with the “Airport Line” when the airport moves?)
Numbers: good for detailed recognition of services / routes, rather than lines. (On most underground systems these do however, tend to be one and the same). Relies on a regular, identical service pattern. N1 always runs from High Barnet to Morden via Bank and stops everywhere, for example. Less good for irregular stopping patterns.
Colours: Brilliant as an extra -as we all know from the tube map. Early underground systems colour-coded stations as an aid to the illiterate. As sole identifier even on simple systems not ideal for the colour-blind and useless as a sole description once a system gets complex (you want the “beige with a hint of pink” line)
individual train numbers: Ideal for irregular services and get round the obvious problems if using times. IC123 is the same train whether it leaves at 10.09 or 10.11.
So let’s have all, used appropriately by officialdom and let the public get in and do what it likes.
No, it's a terrible idea. The names are very ingrained, and names are also easier to remember, at least for a native language speaker. There might be a case for numbering individual services though, so short turns like a Northfields terminating service being P3 or whatever, but that's it
Those names however have been in use for so long (160 years in one case, though that particular line has been seperated from the one that still bears its original name) that everyone knows them. We're stuck with them, but you wouldn't use them if you were designing a new system from scratch.
Class15
On Moderation
I agree. Most other cities use it too.
Technologist
Member
- Joined
- 29 May 2018
- Messages
- 112
This is an M4 (To an American)
This is a Sherman (To a British person)
We have a long history of naming things, just because they use numbers abroad doesn't mean we should.
In this case the American's adopted the British names and practices.
This is a Sherman (To a British person)
We have a long history of naming things, just because they use numbers abroad doesn't mean we should.
In this case the American's adopted the British names and practices.
So the Japanese method (though they don't use line numbers)?
Osaka has Line Names, Latin Line Letters (Markers) and Line Numbers for internal use. All the stations are also numbered along the line, so for example Hommachi station on the Yotsubashi Line is Y13. These are included in announcements in English as well as Japanese, and probably very much appreciated by non-Japanese speakers!
Danger of using Line letters is that you run out! Can see why line numbers are more popular, and would be the go to in places without an alphabetic writing system.
Or you could end up like New York, and have to change them all multiple times. Most people in New York still refer to lines by their name, like 8th Avenue Express (A). But the letters and numbers are still pretty important for distinguishing services, particularly on the map. Personally, I wouldn't gain much from say, a letter and number to distinguish particular services e.g. M1 for Metropolitan line Aldgate - Amersham, but others might, particularly if they don't understand English well.
When I lived there we used names for the tube lines if we were going somewhere new - otherwise "the tube" if it was a common journey. I don't remember anyone saying "get the North London Line to X" if it was a new journey, it'd just be "go to <station> & get the train to X". Part of the reason the tube lines need to be so distinguishable is tube stations are all a maze of very similar looking passageways & the "branding" helps navigate. Given the choice between "Victoria, Central, Bakerloo" vs "Line 1, Line 5, Line 7" inthe maze of Oxford Circus I'll take names any day.
Ashley Hill
Established Member
If answering enquiries in London about how to get where on the tube I always use names and then colours. I prefer names (sensible ones) they’re easier to remember.
Sad Sprinter
Established Member
I reallly don’t see why we need to change the names. They’re part of London’s culture and distinguishes the underground from being any other generic metro system somewhere in the word
Bungle158
Member
It would have been nice to see the Goblin Line recieve official status, but perhaps it would be politically incorrect
AlastairFraser
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 2,165
If they were a coherent network together going out of one terminal, or using one mainline and splitting off, it would be sensible.
But, as they aren't, I think it would be confusing more than helpful, especially when you have branches like Romford to Upminster in the system, miles from any other section of the Overground (now the Liberty Line).
It may work with a few Manchester suburban lines that originate and terminate in GM when they get integrated into the Bee Network, especially if numbered on the basis of the terminus' direction from Manchester city centre clockwise - e.g. the Marple Rose Hill stopper becomes Bee5 and the Hazel Grove stopper becomes Bee6.