Should Thameslink appear on the Tube map? (Now expected to appear in December on Tube map)

[Peter C]

Having watched some of Geoff Marshall's videos, I've been thinking about whether Thameslink should appear on the Tube Map. As a railway in London, Thameslink appears on the "London Rail Connections" maps but, as it is not an Underground line, it does not appear on the Tube Map.
Some argue that it should appear on the Map because there are going to be more trains going through the Thameslink Core every hour than the Circle Line*, therefore choosing Thameslink over LU is a better choice time-wise.

In my opinion, the Tube Map should only include the Underground lines, Crossrail, Trams, DLR, and Overground; the Cable Car isnt' necessary (but that's a topic for another time!). If TfL are going to take over the rail operators in London and make them part of the Overground, which is something that I heard about a short while ago, the map will become so crowded that it will be useless and unusable.
Also, if Thameslink was to appear on the Tube Map, where would be shown and where wouldn't? Just the Thameslink Core, or the whole thing, using arrows showing that the lines go further, like on this old Underground map (below)?

This map recognises the whole network by putting the stations that are not shown in boxes. I think that this could work very well with all of the new lines in London that are going to be built over the next few years.

If this topic has already had a thread made for it, please let me know.

Thanks,

-Peter

 

[swt_passenger]

The most recent discussion I could find is a significant part of this thread, (starts at post 4), which started out about about Thameslink’s relative speed...
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/why-is-the-thameslink-core-so-slow.177357/#post-3850890

 

[transmanche]

Of course, the Thameslink 'core' (Kentish Town to London Bridge/Elephant & Castle/Moorgate) previously featured on tube maps for many years. Here's a snippet from a 1987 tube map showing the Thameslink 'core', the Waterloo & City line and the Northern City line. All these BR lines charged LT fares at the time.

 

[Peter C]

Of course, the Thameslink 'core' (Kentish Town to London Bridge/Elephant & Castle/Moorgate) previously featured on tube maps for many years. Here's a snippet from a 1987 tube map showing the Thameslink 'core', the Waterloo & City line and the Northern City line. All these BR lines charged LT fares at the time.

View attachment 59898

I remember seeing that somewhere before. However, they can't fit it on now because there isn't space on the pocket Tube Map.
What's your opinion?

-Peter

 

[Peter C]

That's entirely deliberate. TfL want to promote their own services - they have no reason to be promoting other companies' services during a time where every penny of revenue counts for them. Hence the inclusion of the Overground on the "Tube map", too, a completely inaccurate inclusion (the same as TfL Rail is now included, and how the Elizabeth Line also will be).

The most recent discussion I could find is a significant part of this thread, (starts at post 4), which started out about about Thameslink’s relative speed...
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/why-is-the-thameslink-core-so-slow.177357/#post-3850890

Having had a quick look at this thread, I agree with this comment (at the top of this message), particularly the highlighted bit (which I've done).

 

[simple simon]

yes the Central London section should be on the map but as the map is really for "TfL Railways" and not London's railways nd might even negatively affect tfL's fares income so the present situation is not at all surprising.

Likewise, the Northern City Line should be reinstated.

 

[James H]

The fact that the Thameslink core is charged on the Tube fare scale is a factor that weighs in favour of its inclusion on the map

 

[higthomas]

Personally I think there shouldn't be a tube map.

I think there should be a "Central London Tube and Rail Map" and a "Greater London Tube and Rail Map".

The latter would be exactly the same as it is currently. The former would be pretty much the subset of the latter within zones 1-2 (with a somewhat flexible boundary as required).

This gets rid of the TFL power grab strategy, as well as enlarging the part of London most tube map users (visitors) actually care about.

There is no reason Cheshunt should be on the tube map and City Thameslink not.

 

[jellybaby]

higthomas for Mayor!

 

[Hadders]

Thameslink should be on the tube map, as it always used to be. The over riding point should be what’s the right thing to show passengers rather than which company operates a particular service. We should be able to be a bit joined up, surely?

I do quite like @higthomas suggestion. Be interested to see exactly what the maps would look like.

 

[urbophile]

Shouldn't the question be, what will best help Londoners and visitors find their way around the city? In other words, the more options that are shown, the better, as long as it does not make the map so horrendously complicated that it is difficult to use. So maybe it wouldn't be practical to show the whole of the inner-London suburban network south of the river; but Thameslink between the southern and northern terminals at least – where it crosses the Circle line and provides a quicker alternative to it – should be a no-brainer.

 

[higthomas]

Personally I think there shouldn't be a tube map.

I think there should be a "Central London Tube and Rail Map" and a "Greater London Tube and Rail Map".

The latter would be exactly the same as it is currently. The former would be pretty much the subset of the latter within zones 1-2 (with a somewhat flexible boundary as required).

This gets rid of the TFL power grab strategy, as well as enlarging the part of London most tube map users (visitors) actually care about.

There is no reason Cheshunt should be on the tube map and City Thameslink not.

Be interested to see exactly what the maps would look like.

Here is my VERY rough draft.

Sadly my editing skills are not up to anything more.

 

[jellybaby]

So maybe it wouldn't be practical to show the whole of the inner-London suburban network south of the river

But why is South Bermondsey less useful to show than Tufnell Park?

 

[Peter C]

Personally I think there shouldn't be a tube map.

I think there should be a "Central London Tube and Rail Map" and a "Greater London Tube and Rail Map".

The latter would be exactly the same as it is currently. The former would be pretty much the subset of the latter within zones 1-2 (with a somewhat flexible boundary as required).

This gets rid of the TFL power grab strategy, as well as enlarging the part of London most tube map users (visitors) actually care about.

There is no reason Cheshunt should be on the tube map and City Thameslink not.

Interesting view.

 

[Ethano92]

it's been kinda mentioned already but I agree so I'll say it again. I don't think Thameslink should be on the tube map. I think the tube map should be abolished altogether as it's no longer a tube map. Out of the 16 lines, 5 arent tube lines. This will become even worse once crossrail opens. It's a TFL map and not helpful to those visiting the city, or even living in the city for the majority of people that are south of the river.

The 'pocket Map' should be abolished too. If people want a map that fits in their pocket they should use their phones. People get paper maps to see the full scope of the network so no point having it stupidly small. Instead the size of the pocket maps should be enlarged and include all London rail transport. Doesn't matter if it doesn't fit in your pocket. Perhaps inner London and extent of oyster zone variants as described already. Both of which would include Thameslink.

At the very least, Thameslink should be described directly by announcements and signs on the TFL network as opposed to classing everything as 'national rail'. For example, circle and district at Blackfriars should mention interchange to Thameslink and NR rather than just NR. This isn't a crazy idea as the overground is national rail however interchange signage explicitly states the name of the service.

 

[TommyL4]

This isn't a crazy idea as the overground is national rail however interchange signage explicitly states the name of the service.

Isn't that exactly why "It's a TFL map"

I personally would love to see Thameslink appear on whatever-its-name-is map, but the criteria would be worth considering. As suggested above, a central London version along with a Greater London version, both with everything on them, would be nice. Though this would probably fail to present fare information given NR and TfL have different scales, let alone Tram fares and a number of exceptions, and this may be puzzling to visitors. But no map can satisfy everyone anyway...

 

[transmanche]

This isn't a crazy idea as the overground is national rail however interchange signage explicitly states the name of the service.

Don't forget that TfL don't see LO as part of National Rail (and would probably it if it wasn't). For example, LO stations don't display the National Rail 'double arrow' symbol - unless another National Rail service calls there.

 

[Peter C]

The 'pocket Map' should be abolished too. If people want a map that fits in their pocket they should use their phones. People get paper maps to see the full scope of the network so no point having it stupidly small. Instead the size of the pocket maps should be enlarged and include all London rail transport. Doesn't matter if it doesn't fit in your pocket. Perhaps inner London and extent of oyster zone variants as described already. Both of which would include Thameslink.

I like the idea of getting rid of the pocket map in its current form, but I think that we should always have a map of some form that is somewhat portable for this who don't have mobile phones.

 

[ijmad]

TfL now have no grant funding from the DfT. If it did, the DfT could easily make putting Thameslink on the tube map a condition of said funding, after all Thameslink is a flagship DfT project. But given the economics of the situation, they've got very limited influence over TfL now, which accounts to the London Mayor, not them, and as we've discussed, TfL has no incentive to steer passengers away from its services on to services that don't create revenue for its already precarious finances.

 

[Flinn Reed]

I think Thameslink should have been designed to be another Crossrail route, rather than going to further away destinations and attempting to merge different journey types into a single service. Operate from places such as St Albans, Welwyn and Hertford to Sutton, Gatwick and Sevenoaks, and transfer to TFL operation. Divert other services to terminal stations. Obviously this requires paths and platform space in terminals, but services to destinations such as Cambridge or Brighton could be swapped for additonal metro-style services.

 

[Far north 37]

I was only last night trying to tell an american tourist in my local pub next to brondesbury station where she was staying locally that the overground to west hampstead from brondesbury and going to the thameslink station was the quickest way to get her eurostar.
Because it doesn’t show it on the tube map she had she thought the underground was quicker even though the underground there is a nightmare to navigate.

 

[whhistle]

No.
It's already too overcrowded as it is.

But then again with apps such as TubeMap and such, maybe people don't need to bother with an actual map, they just use a Journey Planner.

I rarely tell people website addresses these days, but instead just tell them to "search online" (I don't use the term "Google It").

 

[TUC]

The lines should appear because, with the multimodal ticketing in TfL, for most of the public whether a service is a tube, rail or other type of service is pretty irrelevant.

 

[Peter C]

Thanks everyone for showing such an interest in this topic. Very interesting views.

-Peter

 

[Railguy1]

Put Thameslink on the tube map says London Assembly

A report on improving accessibility on London's Transport services has called for the fully accessible Thameslink line to be on the Tube map as a matter of some urgency.

www.ianvisits.co.uk

Of the number of recommendations, the Assembly set a deadline of August 2020 for TfL to add Thameslink to the tube map.

 

[matt_world2004]

Previously the national rail lines that appeared at on the tube map accepted LUL tickets. Most of these like the North London line have become part of London Overground. Thameslink only accepts LUL tickets between Kentish Town and Elephant and castle /London Bridge .

I think any line that gets included on the tube map now should be conditional on fares being charged at the LUL farescale and the same restrictions for all consumer facing tickets as the London Underground (Such as freedom pass validity times) otherwise it's going to cause confusion.

 

[MikeWh]

Previously the national rail lines that appeared at on the tube map accepted LUL tickets. Most of these like the North London line have become part of London Overground. Thameslink only accepts LUL tickets between Kentish Town and Elephant and castle /London Bridge .

I think any line that gets included on the tube map now should be conditional on fares being charged at the LUL farescale and the same restrictions for all consumer facing tickets as the London Underground (Such as freedom pass validity times) otherwise it's going to cause confusion.

Which LUL farescale?

Eg you can't travel between Harold Wood and Stratford off-peak for £1.50 like you can between Epping and Stratford.
What fares should be charged on the line to Reading?

 

[matt_world2004]

Which LUL farescale?

Eg you can't travel between Harold Wood and Stratford off-peak for £1.50 like you can between Epping and Stratford.
What fares should be charged on the line to Reading?

Edit reread your post. Reading isn't isn't a travelcard zone and as such it is the same as places like Watford junction . I personally think acceptance of the full range of LUL tickets and the LUL farescale within the respective zones. before a service is included on the tube map. Like what previously happened. Not that is what currently happens now.

 

[si404]

LUL farescale

So the following non-LU lines:
The DLR
Marylebone - Amersham / West Ruislip
Paddington - West Drayton
West Ealing - Greenford
Richmond / Clapham Junction - Stratford
South Hampstead - Watford High Street
Shepherds Bush - Bushey
Gospel Oak - Barking
West Hampstead / Finsbury Park - London Bridge / Elephant & Castle
Finsbury Park - Moorgate / Kings Cross
Highbury & Islington - Clapham Junction / West Croydon / Crystal Palace / New Cross
Fenchurch Street - Upminster / Rainham

So we have the bizarre situation where Sudbury & Harrow Road with it's not-even-hourly service is on the tube map, but Hackney Downs, Ilford, etc aren't despite being TfL-run decent services? I don't that's a good idea!

 

[matt_world2004]

So the following non-LU lines:
The DLR
Marylebone - Amersham / West Ruislip
Paddington - West Drayton
West Ealing - Greenford
Richmond / Clapham Junction - Stratford
South Hampstead - Watford High Street
Shepherds Bush - Bushey
Gospel Oak - Barking
West Hampstead / Finsbury Park - London Bridge / Elephant & Castle
Finsbury Park - Moorgate / Kings Cross
Highbury & Islington - Clapham Junction / West Croydon / Crystal Palace / New Cross
Fenchurch Street - Upminster / Rainham

So we have the bizarre situation where Sudbury & Harrow Road with it's not-even-hourly service is on the tube map, but Hackney Downs, Ilford, etc aren't despite being TfL-run decent services? I don't that's a good idea!

That's what used to happen though with the the tube map so you had the Northern City line the North London line, Thameslink on the tube map, because London Underground tickets were accepted on them