Victoria line map
 

On Jan 1, 7:58*pm, Martin Petrov
wrote:
On Sat, 01 Jan 2011 16:58:53 +0000, boltar2003 wrote:
The victoria line in general heads southwest - northeast. Particularly
the line before walthamstow is definately heading east. So what
dribbling ****wit decided that the line map in the 2009 stock would be
the other way around with walthamstow on the left, brixton on the right?

Not really that big a deal though, is it?

It's certainly a lot easier to fix than those tiny windows, cramped
interior due to thick walls and rock hard seats angled so that you
can't sit in them.

Victoria line map
 

In article
,
(MIG) wrote:

On the Victoria and Bakerloo they have used maps which are different
on each side, corresponding to the direction of travel.

Not recently on The Victoria. Did they ever on the Bakerloo?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Victoria line map
 

On Jan 2, 12:52*am, wrote:
In article
,

(MIG) wrote:
On the Victoria and Bakerloo they have used maps which are different
on each side, corresponding to the direction of travel.

Not recently on The Victoria. Did they ever on the Bakerloo?

Yes, there was a time when they both did. I am not often paying
attention though, because I tend to know where the lines go.

Victoria line map
 

On 2011\01\01 20:13, Graham Harrison wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 1 Jan 2011 17:47:40 -0000
"Graham Harrison" wrote:
If I sit on a longitudinal seat and look at the strip map opposite me
and
Walthamstow is on the left it will be at what I will call the A end
of the
train.

If I then switch seats to the opposite side of the carriage and
Walthamstow
is on the left it will be at the B end of the train.

That is what would happen if the map was the same on both sides of
the car.

If I look on a map , east is on the right, west on the left. I'm afraid
the direction of travel argument is just BS. You might as well say turn
a car map upside down if you're heading south!

B2003


I wasn't suggesting otherwise but trying to identify the precise
condition you are trying to describe. I think what you're saying is that
whichever side of the train you sit on the end of the map showing
Walthamstow is at the end of the train pointing towards Brixton. To
achieve that they must have printed two separate sets of maps but
they've printed them both the "wrong way round".

That's a joke, right? They haven't printed them the wrong way around,
they've stuck them on the wrong sides.

Victoria line map
 

In article
,
(MIG) wrote:

On Jan 2, 12:52*am, wrote:
In article
,

(MIG) wrote:
On the Victoria and Bakerloo they have used maps which are different
on each side, corresponding to the direction of travel.

Not recently on The Victoria. Did they ever on the Bakerloo?

Yes, there was a time when they both did. I am not often paying
attention though, because I tend to know where the lines go.

If you say so but, although I've not used the Bakerloo often I don't
remember ever seeing different maps since the line split in the 1970s.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Victoria line map
 

On Sat, 1 Jan 2011 18:29:27 +0000
Eric wrote:
Is the map above Boltar's head like this:

W---------B

Yes.

If the former, they have printed two sets of maps and put them on the
wrong sides. If the latter, there is only one type of map, and if you
don't like it you have to sit on the other side!

Lets get this straight - walthamstow was on the LEFT on all the maps on
BOTH sides of the carraige. Now perhaps the eejit who glued them there was
supposed to have used different ones - I noticed the central area map still
had the old LU ELL on it - but he/she didn't.

B2003

Victoria line map
 

On Sat, 1 Jan 2011 14:34:17 -0800 (PST)
PhilD wrote:
On Jan 1, 5:58=A0pm, wrote:
If I look on a map , east is on the right, west on the left. I'm afraid
the direction of travel argument is just BS. You might as well say turn
a car map upside down if you're heading south!

.... which can often be a convenient way of navigating.

If you're a woman.

As it happens, though, the diagrams you are looking at aren't maps,
they are diagrams. If they were maps they'd need more vertical
space. The diagrams are usually arranged so that, where possible,
they "point" in the direction the train is travelling. Like it or
not, a lot of people find that very helpful.

Sorry , I've NEVER come across someone who found it convenient having a map
the opposite way around to the diagram on the main map. Perhaps the central
line should do it too so that epping is on the "west" side and ruislip on
the "east" then on one side of the train?

B2003

Victoria line map
 

On Sat, 1 Jan 2011 16:11:26 -0800 (PST)
MIG wrote:
I actually agree with Boltar

I shall note this day in my memoirs ;)

B2003

Victoria line map
 

On Jan 2, 6:13*am, wrote:
In article
,

(MIG) wrote:
On Jan 2, 12:52 am, wrote:
In article
,

(MIG) wrote:
On the Victoria and Bakerloo they have used maps which are different
on each side, corresponding to the direction of travel.

Not recently on The Victoria. Did they ever on the Bakerloo?

Yes, there was a time when they both did. *I am not often paying
attention though, because I tend to know where the lines go.

If you say so but, although I've not used the Bakerloo often I don't
remember ever seeing different maps since the line split in the 1970s.

But you'll probably remember the awful District Line attempt, and it
would probably have been around the same time.

Victoria line map
 

It's certainly a lot easier to fix than those tiny windows, cramped
interior due to thick walls and rock hard seats angled so that you can't
sit in them.

Meh, maybe - however "seats" on the Victoria Line are things that happen
to other people so the fact that I can stand completely upright in the
doorways (I'm 6 foot 3) is a big win.