Graphics Reference
In-Depth Information
Previously independently operated underground railway lines were in the
process of integration, and lines were being extended further into the
suburbs of the city.
Itwasonlyasrecentas1908thattherailwaycompanieshadcoordinatedthe
publicationofasingleintegratedmapoftheLondonUnderground.Ongoing
integration and expansion meant that the map was subject to regular
revision. As the system became more complex, creating an easily navigated
map was becoming an increasing challenge. Not only was more information
being continually added, but some downtown areas were also exceptionally
dense where formerly competing railways overlapped, while the system
extended ever further into the suburbs where stops were farther apart.
Fitting everything into a legible pocket-sized map was becoming difficult.
It was not part of Beck's job description to make maps. He was an engineer
working in the signals department, not a cartographer. However, as an
engineer, he would have been familiar with schematic diagrams and the
benefits of abstracting the representation of physical systems. He had an
inspired idea about how to solve the map problem. He set about crafting it
in his spare time and presenting it to his employer.
In 1933, with the still tentative support of the London Underground, Beck
introduced a schematic variation of the “tube” map that would be quickly
popularized into one of the most iconic symbols of London, and that would
set the course for many future transit system maps to come.
Beck's map maintained a spatial layout, but constrained lines to cardinal
and ordinal directions, and spaced train stops evenly so that station names
were easily read. Lines were shortened to be just long enough to fit all of the
stops comfortably. The River Thames was the only aboveground geographic
landmark that remained, but it was wisely chosen, serving as a key reference
point for the position and scale of the entire network.
between a geospatially accurate and schematic map for the fictional city of
Lords. Both maps are printed at the same size, yet the schematic map is
much easier to read. The introduction of this approach in the 1930s saw the
same effect.
