On Jan 1, 5:58*pm, 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.

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.

PhilD

--

On Jan 1, 10:34*pm, PhilD wrote:
On Jan 1, 5:58*pm, 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.

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.

Not usually at all, because most lines have branches.

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

For most lines, they stick to west or north is left. Variation from
that tends to be confusing in my experience, not helpful.

They did attempt the direction-of-travel idea a few years back on the
District, but abandoned it. I don't know what feedback they received
to make them abandon it, but I certainly found it completely wrong to
show that one had to turn right after Earls Court to get to Wimbledon.

I also find it very confusing when I come to those maps in the street
which try to show things the way that you are facing (eg with
southeast at the top or whatever). I have definitely adapted to the
conventions of map-drawing, whether everyone else has or not.

I actually agree with Boltar that unless you are going to put all maps
flat on the ground, they are already so far from reality (being on a
vertical surface) that it's best to stick with conventions that are
well understood, like north at the top.

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

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.

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

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.

On Sun, 02 Jan 2011 02:35:15 -0800, MIG wrote:

On Jan 2, 6:13Â*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. Â*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.

Yeah, you're right about it being awful. They could just about get away
with North/South lines being mirrored left-to-right, but it just plain
didn't work on the District going East/West.

And, of course, the loops on the Central, Piccadilly and Northern meant
there were never any mirrored maps on those lines.

(Were there ever any on the Jubilee?)

In article
,
(MIG) wrote:

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.

Indeed I don't. Must have been before 2001 when my visits to London were
less frequent.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

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

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