On Tue, 25 May 2010 00:37:46 +0100, Scott
wrote:

But does the lack of wheelchair symbol on the other line not indicate
that only the ELL station has wheelchair access?

It's not 'wheelchair access', it's 'step-free access'. People with
limited mobility also appreciate knowing they don't have to climb
stairs.

What you say is correct, but that stands for every other station on
the map without the symbol. The two stations are not physically
linked to one another, you have to exit one and cross a road to get to
the other, making it less of an interchange than it appears to be from
the map. If travelling on Oyster, you would have to touch out and
touch in, potentially charging you for two journeys (unless the system
can recognise that?)

On May 25, 10:21*am, Ivor The Engine
wrote:

On Tue, 25 May 2010 00:37:46 +0100, Scott
wrote:
But does the lack of wheelchair symbol on the other line not indicate
that only the ELL station has wheelchair access?

It's not 'wheelchair access', it's 'step-free access'. *People with
limited mobility also appreciate knowing they don't have to climb
stairs.

What you say is correct, but that stands for every other station on
the map without the symbol. *The two stations are not physically
linked to one another, you have to exit one and cross a road to get to
the other, making it less of an interchange than it appears to be from
the map. *If travelling on Oyster, you would have to touch out and
touch in, potentially charging you for two journeys (unless the system
can recognise that?)

Yes, the system can recognise that - it's an Out-of-Station
Interchange (OSI) - and in the case of the Dalston stations I'm
absolutely certain that an OSI will be configured between them.

If you ignore the wheelchair symbol the Dalston Junction symbol looks the
same as the Mile End or Finsbury Park symbols , both of which are cross
platform interchanges.

I note that Hammersmith has also been changed so that the District and
Hammersmith & City stations are joined as one station. I am sure that at
one time they were not. Does this show some change in policy on the part of
LRT . Is it to indicate that Oyster recognises that travel via those
stations is an interchange?

The number of circles at the interchanges appear to have no meaning For
example Baker Street, which is all one station, has two now, wheras West
Hamsptead, which is a Jubilee Line station and an entirely separate North
London line station (originally West End Lane) only shows one.

On 25/05/2010 13:26, Paul Rigg wrote:


If you ignore the wheelchair symbol the Dalston Junction symbol looks
the same as the Mile End or Finsbury Park symbols , both of which are
cross platform interchanges.

I note that Hammersmith has also been changed so that the District and
Hammersmith & City stations are joined as one station. I am sure that at
one time they were not. Does this show some change in policy on the part
of LRT . Is it to indicate that Oyster recognises that travel via those
stations is an interchange?

I would imagine that Hammersmith coalesced when the wheelchair blobs
were introduced. The old system of having one interchange blob separated
from the other two would obviously no longer work, since the wheelchair
blob hides the interchangeness.

On May 25, 1:26*pm, "Paul Rigg" wrote:
If you ignore the wheelchair symbol the Dalston Junction symbol looks the
same as the Mile End or Finsbury Park symbols , both of which are cross
platform interchanges.

I note that Hammersmith has also been changed so that the District and
Hammersmith & City stations are joined as one station. *I am sure that at
one time they were not. *Does this show some change in policy on the part of
LRT . *Is it to indicate that Oyster recognises that travel via those
stations is an interchange?

I think it's nothing more than changed thinking about how to best
represent such interchanges - there seems to be various schools of
thought on this, and which one has the upper hand shifts over time.
(Perhaps market research suggested that many passengers genuinely
didn't realise how close the Hammersmith H&C/Circle station was -
combined with the increased frequency as a result of the Circle line T-
cup changes, this new look on the map might help to persuade more
passengers to use it... I'm speculating of course...)

Oyster has recognised the Hammersmiths as a valid Out-of-Station
Interchange (OSI) since the beginning, I think - so nothing has
changed in that regard lately.

(Oh, and LRT are long gone!)


The number of circles at the interchanges appear to have no meaning *For
example Baker Street, which is all one station, *has two now, wheras West
Hamsptead, which is a Jubilee Line station and an entirely separate North
London line station (originally West End Lane) only shows one.

I think it's just the demands of trying to show the lines clearly -
don't try and read too much into it.

In article
,
(Mizter T) wrote:

I think it's nothing more than changed thinking about how to best
represent such interchanges - there seems to be various schools of
thought on this, and which one has the upper hand shifts over time.
(Perhaps market research suggested that many passengers genuinely
didn't realise how close the Hammersmith H&C/Circle station was -
combined with the increased frequency as a result of the Circle line
T-cup changes, this new look on the map might help to persuade more
passengers to use it... I'm speculating of course...)

Indeed so. Didn't the simplification that included removing the Thames and
the zones from the map also amalgamate most multi-disc interchanges into
single discs?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 25 May, 22:32, wrote:
In article
,

(Mizter T) wrote:
I think it's nothing more than changed thinking about how to best
represent such interchanges - there seems to be various schools of
thought on this, and which one has the upper hand shifts over time.
(Perhaps market research suggested that many passengers genuinely
didn't realise how close the Hammersmith H&C/Circle station was -
combined with the increased frequency as a result of the Circle line
T-cup changes, this new look on the map might help to persuade more
passengers to use it... I'm speculating of course...)

Indeed so. Didn't the simplification that included removing the Thames and
the zones from the map also amalgamate most multi-disc interchanges into
single discs?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

I think there's a fairly clear principle or two to how they show the
interchanges.

* If the lines cross and there's no difference in accessibility,
there's one disc.

* If it's first stop on a shared stretch (with the same pattern) and
there's no difference in accessibility, there's one disc.

* If the lines come close but but neither cross nor run together with
the same pattern, there are linked discs.

* If there's any difference in accessibility there are linked discs.

Any exceptions to that?