py_megapixel
Established Member
Why?So the sign in the first image it should just be Euston not Euston Station, the arrow is also incorrect.
Why?So the sign in the first image it should just be Euston not Euston Station, the arrow is also incorrect.
Implementation manual is pretty specific, 'station' is superfluous on entrance signage. Unless you're talking about the arrow?Why?
Yep it its got the br logo it shouldnt need 'Station' plus it should be lower case 's' anywayWhy?
The word station is useful for the majority of people who are less attuned to the arrows than people on this forum, and wouldn't necessarily instantly take them to mean station. More importantly, as "Station" is part of the name of the station, it certainly should have a capital 'S'Yep it its got the br logo it shouldnt need 'Station' plus it should be lower case 's' anyway
The word station is useful for the majority of people who are less attuned to the arrows than people on this forum, and wouldn't necessarily instantly take them to mean station. More importantly, as "Station" is part of the name of the station, it certainly should have a capital 'S'
Why not simply reinstate Rail Alphabet 1....as used by BR from 1966 until privatisation? It was nearly perfect and copied by other administrations (e.g. DSB).
In which case every station needs to have "Station" added to its signs...
As per Tube convention? Though "Battersea Power Station Station" sadly did not happen
The word station is useful for the majority of people who are less attuned to the arrows than people on this forum, and wouldn't necessarily instantly take them to mean station. More importantly, as "Station" is part of the name of the station, it certainly should have a capital 'S'
I have to agree with @takno that the reassurance value of the word 'station' is far greater than that of 'London'. I wouldn't necessarily say that it needs to be added to the signage for every station, but I could see merit in making it the new standard for the London terminals and other major stations.The name of the station is London Euston not Euston Station.
Why change from the current convention? Railway stations don't show station on signs whereas London Underground stations do.I have to agree with @takno that the reassurance value of the word 'station' is far greater than that of 'London'. I wouldn't necessarily say that it needs to be added to the signage for every station, but I could see merit in making it the new standard for the London terminals and other major stations.
In that case as 'Station' is a useful and reassuring addition, perhaps we should have 'Euston Underground Station' for the tube and 'Euston Station' for Network Rail?Why change from the current convention? Railway stations don't show station on signs whereas London Underground stations do.
At Euston it may be confusing to some partly familiar users as the Underground entrance has moved outside the concourse due to HS2 works. There are now two (three?) adjacent separate entrances for tube and for trains.
Couldn't agree more....a total waste of time and money! All that needs doing is covering over or painting out the old TOC logos.As far as I am aware, all stations have name signs in one form or another were people are able to read then, so not sure why time and money is required to 'rebrand' as such as it will not make the trains operate to time, go faster, have more seats etc which is what prospective passengers really want.
I think if I lose my glasses at a strange station I think I'd have to walk a lot closer to the signs and the logos aren't that big. People with cataracts / impaired vision will be struggling at a lot more too.Im starting to agree the typeface isnt bold enough....
That's what it is now with the new signs for national rail and the underground.In that case as 'Station' is a useful and reassuring addition, perhaps we should have 'Euston Underground Station' for the tube and 'Euston Station' for Network Rail?
Thereby creating a visual mess which conveys the message the railway doesn't care and its staff have no pride in their network. And if a consistent house style is missing, passengers (customers if you prefer) will be confused which signs are important and official and which not. Frank Pick's consistent branding for London Transport, a model which has been followed and updated by its successor organisations, is the ideal to follow.Couldn't agree more....a total waste of time and money! All that needs doing is covering over or painting out the old TOC logos.
Forgot about this on previous post.Sign in the second image is better but no separation between the two directions is confusing, could do with a line here. Also I believe the right arrow should be on the right side of the the sign not the left.
No, there's actually a PDF with over 100 pages, written in RA2, it's just that it apparently is being almost universally ignored during the current implementation.The ones used by GB Rail must consist of a single A4 Word document written in Comic Sans.
Then it should be defined in the signage guide rather than making it up as they go along.Euston Station makes sense on signage, given that this is a location which will see one of the highest proportions of foreign visitors who are likely not familiar with the BR arrows and may appreciate a little bit of added clarity that this isn't "Euston Road" or "Euston Square" or some other unhelpfully similarly named location in the same area.
Red jackets and bearskin hats might engender a little respect in the revenue staff.Can we put great British Bulldogs at the gatelines? (some might argue there already are...).
Looks like a poorly fitting vinyl. Cheap and nasty.At Crewe this morning...
This sign off platform 11 looks like printed plastic rather than stuck on letters.
View attachment 108215
I'd hazard a guess and suggest that's not even RA2.Looks like a poorly fitting vinyl. Cheap and nasty.