The only truly English way of doing this is to have the names originate organically, haphazardly and make absolutely no analytical sense: they just happen, and later, it makes no sense as to why one perfectly applicable name was not used but a baffling one was instead chosen.
My brother and I were once thinking of English words that could be names of small English villages, but (probably) aren't. I came up with Mildew and Crapping.
Whoa, the “you are the x to my y” came early this time! I agree. I don’t think the DLR is really sprawling enough to warrant naming. Having all 3 shades of teal on the main TfL map would be nice though. I would personally categorise the dark one as a (dark) teal, the medium one as turquoise, and the light one as seafoam green.
@@hb1338 don’t they actually get updated every couple of years? Besides, Pantone values are more about ensuring brands have consistent colours, sidestepping monitor and printer calibration which might affect the RGB values you pick. I’m sure TfL specifies Pantone values to unify their printing and signage, but they don’t help a colour theorist to categorise their aesthetic function! Teal implies a darker shade with full hue saturation (though not necessarily as dark as on the DLR map), turquoise implies bright and vibrant (full saturation, full brightness), while seafoam green implies a pastel (full brightness but little saturation). It was even more important to think like that when mixing one’s own paints from basic colours, but it’s still a necessary framework to easily navigate the colour wheel in Photoshop/Illustrator. While all these names, though they may seem arbitrary to a layperson, have functional meanings in colour theory. They help to navigate the brightness/shade functionality, for instance painting a light grey object versus a dark grey object under a blueish light versus under a reddish light. It’s also useful for ensuring a large set of colours don’t clash with each other (with complementary colours you generally want one dark and one light, eg ruby with navy, or burgundy with sky blue).
But _if_ you already go all the way and colour the lines, they should be visibly distinct. You should be able to see at a glance, what colour it is without comparing. Also, for ease of accessibility, the colours should be fairly distinct.
The DLR may be 'light', it may have been done on the cheap, some even thought it might have been better done by tube lines - but it has been a huge success, now with nearly 120 million users a year. Cities around the world that want a decent metro system without going bankrupt could do well to copy the DLR.
Indeed, look no further than Montreal - they are building a new service called the REM that will run very DLR-like trains on a similar service pattern and network.
Loved the DLR as soon as it opened. Having the choice to use the train instead of the smelly crowded bus at the to go backwards and forwards to school in the 80's was great. Then I used it for work to get to the tube at bank was great. Haven't used it for years as I moved away, but my daughter does to get from Bow to Silvertown, and it's so much easier than a car or bus...it was an instant hit with me
Except that DLR required a ton of closures and disruption for upgrade works to get to the current state - all because it was initially built on the cheap without a decent upgrade path.
It less urgent than for the Overground. If you know you are going to an Overground station, you hear an announcement on an Underground train saying "change here for the Overground", there is a very good chance that you will be on completely the wrong line, whereas an incorrect interchange onto the DLR would be less fatal. Having said that, I would use the same colours on the Tube Map as on the DLR-only map. On the Jubilee Line at Canary Wharf, I would announce "Change here for the Elizabeth Line, and the DLR Lewisham Branch" and have similar examples elsewhere on the network.
I find it very confusing that the District line is considered one line. Waiting at Bayswater for a train to Richmond, there was absolutelty no indication that it would never come. Not on the guidebook tube map, not on the maps at the station, nowhere.
The Docky McDockface Line? har har... But as a tourist to London from time to time, I've never had an issue wrapping my brain around how the DLR fits in. So one colour on general maps, with the breakout once in the local system worked fine for me. Bigger issue was making sure I was on the right platform at some of the larger stations. DLR wayfinding could use a little work there...
Why such little love for Tower Gateway? It's only a couple of minutes stroll from Tower Hill and the District Line and an opportunity for a bit of fresh air and a chance to admire one of the finest remaining pieces of the old Roman city wall.
It's a shame that the descent to the bank tubes is too steep to accommodate a replacement station on the route into bank. With any future redevelopment of Fenchurch Street it could have been linked into an eastern entrance.
As a member of the original team that built the DLR, there were originally 2 services: Tower Gateway/Bank to Island Gardens and Island Gardens to Stratford. However, the technology existed for the DLR control room staff to easily create other services if desired. On at least one occasion, DLR created a Bank to Stratford service when there was an incident that temporarily closed access to Island Gardens. I believe the current technology can also create different services if/when needed, so assigning line identities could easily cause confusion if the services changed.
The trouble is that it's very difficult to see what should and should not be separate lines. For example, it you depend on interoperability and ease of changing lines, you could count the Circle, District, Met, and H&C as one line, but if you look at destinations and termini, there are arguments to split up the Northern Line and District Line into smaller lines. There is an additional problem with maps and ease of use. Any map that includes every service detail will be difficult to use for general information, and any map that is easy to look at will not show some of the information. There's also a limited number of colour/line type combinations before they become too similar to distinguish.
The Hammersmith & City Line used to be a branch of the Metropolitan Line before it got its own identity. My guide would be, if you have to change trains to one going in the opposite direction, it is OK to have them the same colour, because it is obvious from the map anyway. But if you have to change trains to one going in the same direction (eg Finchley Road to Aldgate East), then they should be different colours to make it clear there are no direct services.
Agreed the DLR is really a single line with branches. However, I'd argue that denoting each service by a more distinctive colour than the varieties of blue would be helpful.
I have to disagree with your comment that the DLR is really a single line with branches. It is a network of differnet lines, and each line should have it own colour, to make it easier for people who don't know the network. To get around, and find their way in Startford and Canning Town stations, to get to the right DLR line.
@AtoZbyLocalBus if that is the case then we need to do the same for the District, Metropolitan, Central, Northern and Picadilly lines as well. The DLR has a core section and a major hub station (alright 2 with the Stratford International bit), if you get the wrong train you can change and go back to that core or hub and try again. On the Overground network, I have to know which part my station is on as there is no core or hub. I can't just change at Willesden Junction for a different branch if I got on a Watford DC line and realise I actually wanted the service to South Tottenham.
As a traveller it usually bugs me when the lines are not easily distinguishable. I'm on a train, and all of a sudden it branches off to some place I did not intend to go to. If it branches, it is not the same line. It might be, traditionally, but that is a relic from when there were a bunch of different companies, all with their separate networks.
@@quintuscrinis8032 the DLR has 3 major hub stations or 4 if you are counting Stratford station. The 3 major hub stations are Canary Wharf, Poplar & Canning Town. These 3 stations are not beside each other, but Poplar & Canary Wharf are close to each other. But only the line from Stratford calls at both of these stations. The Bank to Woolwich Aresanel and Tower Gateway to Backton call at both Poplar & Canning Town stations. The trains from Startford International to Woolwich Aresanel call at Canning Town, and not the other 2 hub stations. So that is why I say it is a network, as there is no core section where all the services run.
In middle Europe as well as Japan this is how it's done: We don't seperate by the track routes - but by services, whcih often intermix on the same tracks with each other.
With the Overground, it has a fairly strong case to give the individual lines their own identity. The DLR doesn't have that; it's a small network within the same area of London (the Docklands). To me, it's just easier to call the individual branches the Beckton branch, the Stratford branch, the Lewisham branch, and the Woolwich branch
There is something to be said to marking on the map the route of each service in a different colour. At least on the DLR system itself, if not on the underground maps.The ptb should certainly look at that for the overground. The nearest similar system I can think of is Newcastle Metro, which uses Green and yellow to mark the two routes, Sunderland to Airport in Green and South Shields to St James in Yellow which share track from Pelaw to South Gosforth.
They should get their own names for the line so you can be more distinctive for which service are getting. But I think the current display with one colour on the main map and distinct colours on their individual map works for readability and visibility whilst reading each map, which is why I think they have done that.
I always wonder why London is the only big capital where they seperate trains by which tracks they use in the city and not the destinations. Like in Munich that would make the S-Bahn all one line, as they all use the same city tunnel. Or two lines in Hamburg. Even in Asia where they don't use a number or letter system to distinguish the different services often running on the same line they still separate the services itself, like they would never put together the Shonan-Shinjuku lines together with the Sankai-line, although the Sankai-Line uses the same tracks as the Shonan Shinjuku branch from Ousaki till Omiya.
@@acmenipponair I think it's because historically they were all built by separate companies before being merged together later on and they just kept the tradition. Rather than being purpose-built all as one service and then all just called the one thing. Although there is some truth to that as the Bakerloo is called that because it used to run to Baker Street and Waterloo Station originally.
@@ShikiKiryu Well, many of our S-Bahn lines run also on tracks that were when build private railway companies. And Japan also has many different operators, still you know when you are on the Tokyu Meguro Line that your Meguro Line train will go where it's used to be. They even give the branches specific line names.
@@acmenipponair fwiw London is a strange mix - the Circle, Metropolitan, and Hammersmith and City lines DO all share the same tracks more or less. Yet they are called separate lines. The rest are treated as separate due to being in deep segregated tunnels in the city centre, despite sometimes sharing track outside of the city centre.
In Paris, where I live, we have the Metro and the RER. They are technically different entities, but share a lot of the lines in the Cité. While we Parisians know how to use it, foreigners are sometimes irritated that they have different fares to pay on the same line, understandable.
The metro line 1 and the RER A share a roughly similar route, both going to La Defense. Though the metro doesn't use fare zones while the RER does, so the RER is more pricey when going outside of zone 1 while the metro is entirely within zone 1 for fare purposes, even in the sections physically outside of zone 1.
Interesting question Jago. I think you can answer your own question, by looking at the subsurface trains on the Underground. Before we got the S Stock trains we had three different railway lines using C Stock trains: • Circle Line • Metropolitan Line (Hammersmith and City Branch) and • District Line (Wimbledon and Edgeware Road Branch). At the same time the Metropolitan Line and District Line both had their own different trains, as well as sharing Circle Line trains. From a functional point of view the Circle Line really also included what we now call the Hammersmith and City Line and the Wimbledon and Edgeware Road Line, even though the maps said otherwise. Trains would switch from one of these lines to another of the lines at Edgeware Road, depending on the time of day. According to the route maps on the stations something totally different was happening. But you could tell it was all a cosmic lie as tourists would occasionally get baffled by C Stock trains or would stand on the Wimbledon branch of the District Line ignoring a train that could take them to Earl's Court, because it was the wrong type of train. Even now, the Hammersmith and City Line and Circle Line are mostly just one line pretending to be two lines. There are just two small sections of track that only Circle Line trains use. So what the subsurface trains do both backs you up, but also undermines your arguments. And that's probably because it might be time to start considering that the term "District Line train" is kind of useless to any passenger who wants to travel west, beyond Earl's Court....and is also kind of useless to passengers on the Wiimbledon branch that want to travel back beyond Earl's Court. What the trains actually do, is more important than what the maps pretend the trains do. But I know there are also some rare movements, like D Stock trains from Ealing Broadway and Richmond going to High Street Kensington and Upminster trains going to Olympia. So, what is the point in having a brand name, like "District Line" instead of having trains be called "Upminster to Richmond service"? I think the point here is that "District Line" is faster and "Wimbledon to Edgeware Road branch" is clunky. And that clunkyness is critically important, when announcements are made telling passengers going to certain places that they need to get off of the train they are on and get onto another train. Confusion causes delays, makes people stand near the doors reading maps and makes people hold doors open, while they are trying to figure out if they should get off. If you go back to your archived footage for the DLR, London Overground and subsurface lines and compare the various "the next station is..." X "...change here for" Y "and" Z announcements, I think you will be able to use a stopwatch to work out which PA announcements are faster or easier and which are more awkward. And, if you have any video of people getting off of trains in the rush hour, at the interchange stations, I think you will be able to see which stations have the most people getting off with a purpose and which stations have people getting off and looking baffled. So, if I asked you to compare all the internal interchanges of subsurface trains, London Overground and DLR, which do you think have the best PAs and station wayfindiing? And which do you think are the most clunky? (Don't forget all the trips that involve going back on yourself, like Richmond to Ealing Broadway.) And, if we add in the deep level lines that have branches (Central, Piccadilly and Northern Lines) which of those have interchanges with the best flow and which are the most clunky? Ultimately, if we are talking about "what should be done in the future," I look at the Victoria Line with it's "90 second railway" mission statement and I see a railway line that does one simple thing, a railway that makes sure passengers know it only does one simple thing and a railway designed to get passengers off of the trains as fast as possible, so that the train behind it can come into the station. In the long term, we might use the same trains across the DLR, but we will need to chop up the lines, as much as possible, so frequencies can increase.
I have used the DLR a couple of times in recent months, both times I had to change at Canning Town. When planning the journeys in advance this need for change was not apparent, so extending usage of the 3 colours on the DLR maps across the main London Underground map makes perfect sense to me.
Don't worry the dark green line is a lie off peak the trains trains via pudding mill lane terminate at canary wharf meaning they only have one station in common with the bank to Lewisham trains and you have to change to stay on the dark green line, TFL think it's so confusing they have a message at every station south of CW
There would seem to be a logical argument for keeping the turquoise outline but maybe filling in the centre for individual services.(following the DLR's own colour scheme) Maybe getting stripey where lines share the same track. Does that help or hinder the potential traveler? I guess the answer might be to work up proposals and see what passengers think.
I think there should be separate lines running in parallel, like what happens with the Circle Line and the other lines that interline with it. It makes it obvious that you are going to have to change trains somewhere, and you can plan that.
has to be said, if I were to try and expand the DLR westward from Bank, I'd be inclined to merge it with the Waterloo and City line, in the process managing a slight reduction in the number of people changing at Bank during peak times (temporarily)
@@seansoraghan3245Not sure though. The DLR seems to be the lowest level station at Bank and could probably be linked with or even merged with the W&C by a short bit of extra tunnelling. They could decide to link the W&C directly to one or more DLR routes and retain the Waterloo to Bank shuttle or close the W&C platforms down.
@@davepoole9520: I would think that you'd also (probably) need to (at best) resize the Waterloo and City tunnels, if you intend on keeping the same size DLR trains?
Without ruining the whole brand identity element of the DLR, I think because of how unique of a system it is, it warrants looking at letter codes for the lines (A, B, C, etc) rather than names. This could easily be applied to the DLR system map, without the need to change the DLR appearance on the network map. Much in the same way that Tramlink is portrayed (though I'd prefer letters to numbers for the DLR).
Yes, I agree. We have enough 'named' lines; and having the DLR lines given letters would clearly define it against both the London Underground, London Overground, and the Elizabeth Line. Naming the different parts of the DLR would confuse Londoners. It would completely scramble the minds of tourists. Please please please can we end the obsession with naming all our lines! The DLR needs to have a clear and separate identity, and be 'defiantly' different from the Underground and Overground networks. Keep all the DLR lines the same colour, just assign a single letter to the different parts of it. But NO more named lines, otherwise its identity will end up being swallowed up by the London Underground. It needs to be different, not blend into the Underground.
These letters being those things that needed to be given distinct names because they sound too similar over communication systems? Plus having a completely different line nomenclature would further generate tourist questions as to integrated fares and such like. It was bad enough with the Elizabeth line (so named to try and emphasis its integration with the tube) thanks to the constant enthusiast mantra of it not being a tube line cutting through and confusing people. Treating the DLR like its a totally different thing and giving its services letters not names is just asking for trouble!
to expand on what you said in regards to the overground v dlr… i feel the dlr isn’t really large enough to warrant separation both in terms of geographical space and stations… i think it’s similar to the district line in that it has lots of little fork off sections but i don’t think there would be any rewards to making things even more confusing on the already cluttered tube map
Mr Hazzard yet another terrific video with the added repertoire that makes the videos so unique. Well done mate and thank you for taking the time to upload all of your videos. Stay safe and have a great weekend David 👍👍
An issue with the DLR is that while there are standard routes, the system is very flexible and during engineering works, special events, other disruption and for depot moves different services can and do operate, sometimes at the drop of a hat (e.g. there are typically one or two late night services from Lewisham to Gallions Reach, and my first ever ride on a B07 train was from Bank to Stratford (via Bow Church).
The S7 lines (District/Circle/H&C), do all sorts of weird stuff (eg "This is a Circle line train to Barking") to do depot moves, stock transfers, deal with engineering works, etc. DLR lines having the same problems wouldn't be without precidence.
I feel like this is always a good idea, yet the brand identity is the most important to these networks. Be interesting to see what they do when (or if) Crossrail 2 opens, could be incorporated into the Overground, or maybe even Thameslink. Though I think I like an overall 'Crossrail' branding most.
@@ChilternTransportProductions East London Line [Highbury to New Cross/New Cross Gate and beyond] would get Orange because it brought it over from when it was part of the Underground, other lines would get different colours. Highbury to Clapham would be South London Line Stratford to Clapham would be West London Line Stratford to Richmond would be North London Line Gospel Oak to Barking would be Goblin Line Romford to Upminster would be Emerson Park Line Euston to Watford would be Watford DC Line The lines out of Liverpool Street would be the Lea Valley Lines.
I guess a new brand known as crossrail with the elizabeth line and crossrail 2 (and maybe even thameslink if TFL gets it’s hand on that) would make sense. And overground for the non crossing commuter services, kinda like RER and Transilien in Paris.
The DLR is run as 3 lines & shown on a DLR map in 3 related colours. So I reckon a tube map should do the same. BTW: I'd also show the Northern line as 2 related lines (Charing X & City)...
What amazes me is how the Northern line branches in the middle; Londoners must be careful to get on the right train if they are bound for central London. Anyway, if Tower Gateway is shut, the DLR will be simple enough to allow the status quo to continue. The TfL map is complicated enough now. In Los Angles, Metro has decided to make the LRT line "Line A" and name its subway lines "Lines B and D," even though the subways already carry more people than comparable LRT lines. I'm sure tourists will be surprised to find themselves boarding a trolley when using the prestigious "Line A" running from Long Beach to Azusa (about 52 miles).
Thanks again for this nice episode. Maybe not use different colors (the tube-map is already so colorful that it is looking cluttered more and more) or special names for each line. But what to think about a separate line-number, or a letter, for each DLR line on the displays in the stations and on the trains? I think it would be a benefit in the same way as it is on the buses, especially in stations where more lines are calling at the same platform, as it is at Bank DLR.
Yes, the DLR is more like a bus in that respect. No names for 'lines' but give codes/letters for the different combinations of start/end/via points. That way, if special needs arise, it'll be easier to create say a 'Q' train to facilitate single-seat journeys.
I was going to say this. You need not change the colours but definitely name the lines. After all, tourists use the Tube. If their destination is closer to a DLR station than a Tube station and they look at a Tube map, they could think "Oh, I can get off at this station to get to the DLR"...and then, it's not on the line to the destination.
@@quantisedspace7047 That's going to be very very confusing. Firstly people would need to be in the know about the codes for them to be of any use (special codes are going to be difficult as they will trip up regular passengers too. Calling a Canary Wharf - Beckton train a Q is less useful than just using the strange terminus as people know where Beckton is). Secondly the DLR is nothing like a bus - it's effectively an over-complex tube line. Treating it like a bus network will confuse people thinking that the fares are bus fares (separate to tube, hopper, etc) and not the tube fares that they are. Line names, or nothing at all!
I’ve come across another extension that’s barely mentioned at all: Bow Church - Hackney Central with stops seemingly titled Roman Road and Victoria Park. There is very little indication which routing this would undertake other than mostly following a closed and lifted railway line that’s been partially built over
Underground, Overground, and DLR are all categories. As such, they should each have named services, likely with a color and/or shape combination to make it easy to tell to which line a train on a particular mode/category belongs and where it is going. It was one of the problems brought up by Geoff Marshall early in the branding of the Elizabeth Line, as they put the line's name on the roundel, instead of Crossrail or some other name, then have something like 8 different service patterns all with the same name. New York seems to do this well, with different colors/letters/shapes for different routes, even those that share track. Or Portland, OR, with its 5 color for its lines, with the distinction being the terminus of the line to tell you which direction it is going. TfL and the current setup can, and likely does lead to confusion for locals and visitors alike, and anything to improve it would and should be welcomed.
For about 20 years I have defined a "line" as "any connection where it is possible to travel by any route between any pair of destinations without changing, even if this is not possible at all times and all days." So the Northern Line is a line because it is possible at peak times to travel from Morden to Edgware, Mill Hill East and High Barnet via Bank or Charing Cross. LU split off the Hammersmith and City from the Metropolitan Line because it was a unique route between Hammersmith and Barking. Trains from Barking never went to Watford, Amersham and Chesham, and trains from Aldgate never went to Hammersmith. It looks to me that the 3-line definition for the DLR is based on this idea.
You are confusing lines and routes. Lines should be about continuous physical tracks, routes should be about services which operate on one or more lines.
You know what would make me very happy? A daily mail with a random “I would likte to thank…. You make are my X to my Y” quote of Jago. Other me: you’re a IT developer, just code it man. Me: I would! If I only had the time to write them all down. Hes output is of the scale !
That's a good summary, and I go along with your final conclusion. As you say, it's not hard to get around the DLR, and if you get the wrong train, it's usually possible to correct that quickly. Changing DLR lines at Poplar (the system's best cross-platform interchange) is really easy. Shame that the designers of the eastern branches funked that at Canning Town and West Ham.
The DLR used to have separate route names back in the 90s. There was the Red Route, Blue Route and Green Route as the trains used to display this from the B90s onwards
The same discussion can be done about the trams. But let them first split the Overground up and see how would that look on the Tube Map, as this splitting is definitely much more important, but the map can be only so much crowded
At some point the trams were given numbered line designations, but they got rid of them about a decade later. Numbers work for the trams (unlike tube-esque Overground and DLR), as they are just fancy bus routes when it comes to fares, etc (and get them off the tube map because of that!).
I tend to think of the relationship between the DLR lines in a similar way to the relationship between the sub-surface Tube lines - they share many parts but branch off wildly. I don’t think many people would be happy if the sub-surface Tube lines all had the same name, so I can understand why people would like names for the DLR lines.
What did a friend of mine once say when the Overground was introduced in the East: "Nooo! The East was supposed to be difficult to get to. Now everyone will come here.". Let's keep it difficult.
The trams used to have route numbers, but these have now been abandoned. I think they also had slightly different shades of green. The service routes have also changed twice as to which of the three Eastern termini have trams which run through to Wimbledon and which run round the town centre loop.
I hadn't realised how complex the DLR had got. But it is really easy to change lines, most of the way, if we ignore West India Quay. It's also very short distances between most stops. I don't think it's an issue for locals or frequent users, but these things rarely are. Those additional green/blue variants, don't appear other than on the DLR maps do they, which feels like a great way to confuse tourists. My vote, which carries no weight, it's fine as it is, but should go down to Thamesmead etc. Not equivalent to Overground lines which are a real mess, which need sorting.
I think the lines should be named the following: Bank to Lewisham - City line (as it goes through two places with skyscrapers - a hallmark of a city); Bank to Woolwich Arsenal - Airport line (self explanatory); Tower Gateway to Beckton - Gateway line (as it goes to the gateway of central London); Stratford to Lewisham/Canary Wharf - 1987 line (as it covers one of the original routes); Stratford to Woolwich Arsenal - Eastern line (as it goes east and is on the east side of the railway); and Stratford to Beckton - Royal Docks line (as it travels through the Royal Docks). The shuttle service which operates on the railway could be also named Dockside Sprinter, given the location with a nod to the 2012 Olympics.
Should the DLR get a solid line? I'd argue it's small metro trains are more similar to the underground than they are to the overground or Elizabeth line.
@@neuralwarp They are pretty small even the new B23 stock is shorter in length than a tube train. Also them being very frequent is my point they run a very tube like service with trains every few minutes.
I think so. It's got a distinctly different shade of purple than the Metropolitan Line's maroon and I doubt if the colour blind would have too much trouble with it.
I use the Lewisham station a lot. I have not seen a Stratford bound train from there for a very long time. Advice is to change at Canary Wharf. Easy enough but don't bother waiting for a Stratford train at Lewisham.
I think the low coast approach that you mentioned at the begiinning of your video may ultimately prove a factor in the future of the DLR. Ultimately a decision will have to be taken to upgrade it to LTU rolling stock requirements. In which eventuality it will have a a different identity - maybe the DHR - Docklands Heavy Railway! Thanks for uploading.
The new B23 stock can carry 792 passengers per 87 metre long train, which is over 100 more people than the Piccadilly or Northern line's 106 metre long trains can take. LU-style stock is not going to be an upgrade!
@@sihollett I have never been on the DLR as I don't live in London. But as a train enthusiast I think it is an interesting question. The opinion of a friend of mine who lives in London is that the DLR is not entirely safe and he has advised me not to travel on it. I think there will eventually be a crash which will force a rethink as to the quality of the rollling stock used!
@@AllensTrains Your friend is being both overly paranoid and completely clueless. Pretty sure the trains are held to similarly high crash standards as tube trains, and the automatic operation makes them safer than the very-rarely crashing tube trains as when they crash its normally driver error.
As a reglar user of the DLR, i would support an Overground-like split up of the network into different lines with different names and colours. One could retain the turqouise of the head brand and the others could somehow use other green-ish or blue-ish colours not used on any other TfL mode yet. I even have some name ideas loosely based on geographical terms: Lewisham -> Stratford/Bank = Isle of Dogs line Woolwich Arsenal -> Stratford Intl./Bank = Silvertown line Beckton -> Tower Gateway = Royal Docks line
If we there was no rail transport in London at all (no heavy rail, no tube, no DLR, no trams, nothing) and we were starting with a completely blank piece of paper, you wouldn't build the system that we've currently got. But, once you have worked out what the best system is, and actually managed to build it, it still won't be right. Because people tend to want to live and work in areas that they want to and can afford to, rather than living and working in areas that transport planners tell them they have to. Get rid of all the passengers, and the system would be perfect.
The DLR looks at the same time modern, because it's elevated and automated and goes around these financial buildings, and cheap because it was cheap. The unfilled line on the map I think fits the 'quick & cheap' theme.
Jago only mentioned the 'budget' for the original build. I'd guess the overall cost came out 2-3 times higher at least. That's the nature of these things. Lets' face it, it was a completely new idea in London at the time.
@@rogink Counter-intuitively, elevated railways are cheap. You see them in Chicago, New York, Paris, or Berlin from the early 20th century. They look expensive because they're obtrusive but of course that's the cheap option compared to a tunnel, or even a level right of way.
@@PavlosPapageorgiou There is nothing 'counter-intuitive'. It would be obvious to the layman that if you are going to build a railway or road through a built up area, a tunnel would be the hardest but least obtrusive and ground level would mean blasting through swathes of housing. Like you say, building above streel level is obtrusive. The cheapest solution is to do nothing, which is what we usually do!
An Idea I have thought of could be to expand use of the different shades of Turquoise on the tube map, to identify where the routes run, but cruicially, have them as thinner lines overall so you don't get super thick lines on triple interlined sections. Just an idea though, replies would be welcome as to how colours could be done.
Interesting thing is that there was always a DLR line under development or actual construction from the mid-80s through til the Stratford International extension opened in 2011. That's a 25-year construction project. It's now 12 years since anything happened and it could be abother ten years before a modest - albeit under the Thames - section opens to Thamesmead and that may not happen.
DLR can be kept as a brand, but for individual lines, TfL is better off using the different shades of blue it has internally with simple letters. I say letters and not numbers because the DLR is smaller with less lines and less combinations available. Numbers should be reserved for the Underground for the higher complexity. I'm basing this off the DLR map from TfL: A - Lewisham to Stratford B - Lewisham to Bank C - Woolwich Arsenal to Stratford International D - Woolwich Arsenal to Bank E - Beckton to Tower Gateway
Great video very succinctly making the point. If you are on the DLR and end up on the wrong train all you have to do is get (back) to Poplar and change trains. If you are on the wrong Overground it's a lot more complicated, you can't just head back to Willesden Junction and change for the right branch if you get on the Watford line but want somewhere like Southbury.
The Sir Boris Johnston way name them after the rich and famous who never actually use public transport.The Sir Jacob Rees Mogg Line might be a good start.
As you mention, the DLR already separates its lines on its internal maps, so the only question is "Should it be separated on the bigger "Underground" map?" The bigger question is how many colours, shadings and outlines can you put on the big "underground" map before it ends up looking like technicolo(u?)r spaghetti? I think that ship sailed long ago, to mix a few metaphors.
I don't often have occasion to use the DLR and I certainly can't remember the various different official routes. I go on the principle of going as far as I can on my intended route and get off at the appropriate junction to wait for the next train going in my direction. But that might not always work, given the complexity of the network. I don't recall seeing different shades of colour even at the stations - but then the trains are so frequent I don't usually gave time to study any maps that might be there.
The DLR route maps showing the service and stopping pattern are helpful. The same thing has been done on the South London network which is all branded as one railway, no line numbers (though the old Southern Railway had headcodes). Interesting comparison with Sheffield and Newcastle where tram/metro routes are coloured to show the service pattern, but there you don't have a dozen tube lines in different colours as well to contend with.
not forgetting during engineering works and service disruption there are are sorts of wired combinations of destinations, more so than overground and underground national rail. but that is the nature of the DLR very flexible.
The DLR should probably just get numbers, similar to what the Croydon Tramlink* used to have until a couple of years ago when TfL removed route numbers from public-facing information (e.g. timetables) while on the Tube map, the services should get numbers in a design similar to what is seen on TfL's London Buses route diagrams (maps) that is most commonly seen as bus shelters and bus stations...
That will confuse a lot of people as they are train lines not bus/tram routes: fully integrated with the tube's zonal fares, not at all integrated with the bus and their hopper fares. They need names, not numbers!
You right ‘Overground’ is a category. The different BR lines in London were always colloquially called ‘The Overground’ and covered a large area featuring different routes. DLR has always had its own identity and services a very specific part of town. I think naming lines would probably complicate it rather than simplify it.
I’ve also heard people refer to the National Rail lines today as “the overground” as well. As in, “you can take the overground from Deptford to London Bridge”
I think with Tower Gateway closing it would give an oppurtunity to name the line going to Bank. I would merge all Bank trains into 1 line and call it the City Line so people know this is the line I need to take to get to the City. Woolwich to Stratford International line could be called the Olympic Line in honour of the 2012 Olympics. Lewisham to Stratford line I have no clue what I would call it.
I tend to think of the DLR as having three lines, but a different three from how they map them: (1) the main line, to the City; (2) the line via Bow Church; and (3) the line via West Ham. Which branch they go down from there is adequately indicated by the terminus.
I suggest that a need to differentiate lines clearly arises when travellers frequently change from one line to another, at the same station. This happens a lot on the Underground, but much less on the Overground or the DLR.
3:28 "...none of those three lines are completely separated from each other and all of them share some tracks with the others" But couldn't that be also used as an argument for Metropolitan, Circle, H&C and District lines? I know they have separate extremities (Amersham/Chesham, Upminster, Wimbledon, etc.) but you could basically just redraw the map and have completely "messy" situation like with DLR.
I’ve no particular opinion with regard to showing different colours for the DLR itself, but speaking as a colourblind tourist from “oop North”, I think it would help if the colour(s) used for the DLR on the standard tube map was/were differentiated further from the one used by the Elizabeth Line, and if the colour used on the Overground was a bit more distinct from the one used for the trams. Perhaps rather than using hollow spaces, they could use an interior pattern, a bit like they have with the Thameslink lines - Thin stripes, blocks, combinations of blocks and stripes, cross-hatching, dots, etc. Thankfully, I’ve used the map enough to understand the difference between the lines, but there are bound to be people more badly afflicted than I am who would be more confused.
A possible compromise solution for the DLR and Overground would be to keep each as one line, but give each "line within the line" a number. That number could be displayed on the TfL map at each terminus of each line. For example, DLR Line 1 could go between Tower Gateway and Beckton. Overground Line 1 could go between Richmond and Stratford.
The #1 point of a transport map is to tell rookie commuters where their trains go, so they know if and where they need to change. The DLR tube maps fail this essential function. Call the three lines whatever you like, but get them in different colours.
It may be where I live (not in somewhere on the DLR) but I'm happy that the DLR network is all one colour, just like eg the District that has more than one end point.
Very good to see you grow as a person, Jago. I doubt the version of you making these videos back when I started watching would have been willing to actually go up to the cable cars.
It's a nice idea, except that during times of engineering works, trains will often stray from their usual routes. I remember when I lived in Beckton, I once got a train directly to Crossharbour instead of having to change at Poplar because the branch west of Westferry was closed. That would be more confusing if the routes had names - almost like getting on a District Line train which then becomes a Metropolitan Line train without getting off.
I don't see why the different colours which are currently used on the DLR map couldn't be used on the tube map. Don't worry about calling them different names, just have them marked so you know if you have to change, etc.
Instead of lines you could have routes, which are defined by their two termini and the route followed in between. That gets around the problem of having to decide what is and what isn't a line and also allows any passengers to be certain of where their train is going. Route IDs (name / number / letters etc) can be made unique, whereas lines generally cannot.
yes, just like the overground, they should have their lines being an outer edge in DLR teal (or whatever colour it currently is) and then an inner colour for the individual line. the overground should be an outer edge of orange and then the colour for the line in the centre. you also need to take the overground and dlr off the underground map, this way they would both be much clearer. the current map which shows them all is really complex and noisy.
Purely for clarity of the ever 'busier' tube map, I say no. The map has already got to the stage where it is so cluttered that it's not very useful for people who aren't used to it (ie those who need it the most). For clarity anything above about 10 colours starts getting awkward, we're already above that. Add in potential split of the Northern, and the 6? Overground lines. You could change the pattern, but broken and dotted lines add to confusion.
Tower gateway is so important. When dlr at bank is closed it makes it possible to go via monument and tower hill. Without that link it would be some serious walking
It's a bit late for other London transport systems other than the buses, but i think the DLR is a place where line numbers could make a lot of sense. Call the services DLR 1, DLR2, DLR3 etc so that they have a public facing identity when needed, but the overall branding still focuses on it as a network. Trams should be treated similar, though I'm less sure what the prefix would be. Could be L1 L2 etc which is common overseas, but they are branded as trams, not light rail. T1 T2 etc could work? Obviously would have to fit with bus numbering giving a number of those use letters.
I learnt something today - I now know what colour teal is! ;) In all seriousity, I’m not sure that it’s necessary to split the lines on maps - the district line seems to cope with its branches
My proposed solution would be to treat it like the Northern line in Central London: Have it be all one line, but also have each train be via X station to indicate precisely how it’s getting to the other end. Example: DLR to Stratford via Bow Church to distinguish it from those going the other way via Canning Town. Or simply do away with the idea of having stations only served by trains coming a particular way and replace it instead with a system such that any journey between any two points on the DLR network can be completed on a single train. All it’d need is the building of a few small extra curves at Blackwall and Royal Victoria to let those corners be traversable in both directions.
The only truly English way of doing this is to have the names originate organically, haphazardly and make absolutely no analytical sense: they just happen, and later, it makes no sense as to why one perfectly applicable name was not used but a baffling one was instead chosen.
Like calling the most southerly line on the Underground network the Northern Line 🤪
@@katrinabrycemake the line to Beckton the west London light railway
If this is the case I anticipate at least one of them with the name LineyMcLineFace.
You know it will happen.
My brother and I were once thinking of English words that could be names of small English villages, but (probably) aren't. I came up with Mildew and Crapping.
I see what your saying. From this day forth the DLR shall be known as the Metroland lines.
Whoa, the “you are the x to my y” came early this time!
I agree. I don’t think the DLR is really sprawling enough to warrant naming. Having all 3 shades of teal on the main TfL map would be nice though.
I would personally categorise the dark one as a (dark) teal, the medium one as turquoise, and the light one as seafoam green.
Why not use Pantone numbers ? Then there would be no arguing.
And leave each of the services unnamed?
@@hb1338 don’t they actually get updated every couple of years?
Besides, Pantone values are more about ensuring brands have consistent colours, sidestepping monitor and printer calibration which might affect the RGB values you pick. I’m sure TfL specifies Pantone values to unify their printing and signage, but they don’t help a colour theorist to categorise their aesthetic function!
Teal implies a darker shade with full hue saturation (though not necessarily as dark as on the DLR map), turquoise implies bright and vibrant (full saturation, full brightness), while seafoam green implies a pastel (full brightness but little saturation). It was even more important to think like that when mixing one’s own paints from basic colours, but it’s still a necessary framework to easily navigate the colour wheel in Photoshop/Illustrator.
While all these names, though they may seem arbitrary to a layperson, have functional meanings in colour theory. They help to navigate the brightness/shade functionality, for instance painting a light grey object versus a dark grey object under a blueish light versus under a reddish light. It’s also useful for ensuring a large set of colours don’t clash with each other (with complementary colours you generally want one dark and one light, eg ruby with navy, or burgundy with sky blue).
But _if_ you already go all the way and colour the lines, they should be visibly distinct. You should be able to see at a glance, what colour it is without comparing. Also, for ease of accessibility, the colours should be fairly distinct.
@@hb1338Pantone is copyrighted
The DLR may be 'light', it may have been done on the cheap, some even thought it might have been better done by tube lines - but it has been a huge success, now with nearly 120 million users a year. Cities around the world that want a decent metro system without going bankrupt could do well to copy the DLR.
Indeed, look no further than Montreal - they are building a new service called the REM that will run very DLR-like trains on a similar service pattern and network.
Loved the DLR as soon as it opened. Having the choice to use the train instead of the smelly crowded bus at the to go backwards and forwards to school in the 80's was great. Then I used it for work to get to the tube at bank was great. Haven't used it for years as I moved away, but my daughter does to get from Bow to Silvertown, and it's so much easier than a car or bus...it was an instant hit with me
Except that DLR required a ton of closures and disruption for upgrade works to get to the current state - all because it was initially built on the cheap without a decent upgrade path.
DLR is one of the gems of public transport in London
It less urgent than for the Overground.
If you know you are going to an Overground station, you hear an announcement on an Underground train saying "change here for the Overground", there is a very good chance that you will be on completely the wrong line, whereas an incorrect interchange onto the DLR would be less fatal.
Having said that, I would use the same colours on the Tube Map as on the DLR-only map. On the Jubilee Line at Canary Wharf, I would announce "Change here for the Elizabeth Line, and the DLR Lewisham Branch" and have similar examples elsewhere on the network.
No actually
I find it very confusing that the District line is considered one line. Waiting at Bayswater for a train to Richmond, there was absolutelty no indication that it would never come. Not on the guidebook tube map, not on the maps at the station, nowhere.
It's split into two on the line diagrams inside the trains although both sections include Kensington Olympia.
The Docky McDockface Line? har har... But as a tourist to London from time to time, I've never had an issue wrapping my brain around how the DLR fits in. So one colour on general maps, with the breakout once in the local system worked fine for me. Bigger issue was making sure I was on the right platform at some of the larger stations. DLR wayfinding could use a little work there...
Why such little love for Tower Gateway? It's only a couple of minutes stroll from Tower Hill and the District Line and an opportunity for a bit of fresh air and a chance to admire one of the finest remaining pieces of the old Roman city wall.
It's a shame that the descent to the bank tubes is too steep to accommodate a replacement station on the route into bank. With any future redevelopment of Fenchurch Street it could have been linked into an eastern entrance.
As a member of the original team that built the DLR, there were originally 2 services: Tower Gateway/Bank to Island Gardens and Island Gardens to Stratford. However, the technology existed for the DLR control room staff to easily create other services if desired. On at least one occasion, DLR created a Bank to Stratford service when there was an incident that temporarily closed access to Island Gardens. I believe the current technology can also create different services if/when needed, so assigning line identities could easily cause confusion if the services changed.
The trouble is that it's very difficult to see what should and should not be separate lines. For example, it you depend on interoperability and ease of changing lines, you could count the Circle, District, Met, and H&C as one line, but if you look at destinations and termini, there are arguments to split up the Northern Line and District Line into smaller lines.
There is an additional problem with maps and ease of use. Any map that includes every service detail will be difficult to use for general information, and any map that is easy to look at will not show some of the information. There's also a limited number of colour/line type combinations before they become too similar to distinguish.
The Hammersmith & City Line used to be a branch of the Metropolitan Line before it got its own identity.
My guide would be, if you have to change trains to one going in the opposite direction, it is OK to have them the same colour, because it is obvious from the map anyway. But if you have to change trains to one going in the same direction (eg Finchley Road to Aldgate East), then they should be different colours to make it clear there are no direct services.
@@katrinabryce Your Finchley Road to Aldgate East is functionally identical to Tower Gateway to Canary Wharf.
Agreed the DLR is really a single line with branches. However, I'd argue that denoting each service by a more distinctive colour than the varieties of blue would be helpful.
I have to disagree with your comment that the DLR is really a single line with branches. It is a network of differnet lines, and each line should have it own colour, to make it easier for people who don't know the network. To get around, and find their way in Startford and Canning Town stations, to get to the right DLR line.
@AtoZbyLocalBus if that is the case then we need to do the same for the District, Metropolitan, Central, Northern and Picadilly lines as well.
The DLR has a core section and a major hub station (alright 2 with the Stratford International bit), if you get the wrong train you can change and go back to that core or hub and try again.
On the Overground network, I have to know which part my station is on as there is no core or hub. I can't just change at Willesden Junction for a different branch if I got on a Watford DC line and realise I actually wanted the service to South Tottenham.
As a traveller it usually bugs me when the lines are not easily distinguishable. I'm on a train, and all of a sudden it branches off to some place I did not intend to go to. If it branches, it is not the same line. It might be, traditionally, but that is a relic from when there were a bunch of different companies, all with their separate networks.
@@quintuscrinis8032 the DLR has 3 major hub stations or 4 if you are counting Stratford station. The 3 major hub stations are Canary Wharf, Poplar & Canning Town. These 3 stations are not beside each other, but Poplar & Canary Wharf are close to each other. But only the line from Stratford calls at both of these stations. The Bank to Woolwich Aresanel and Tower Gateway to Backton call at both Poplar & Canning Town stations. The trains from Startford International to Woolwich Aresanel call at Canning Town, and not the other 2 hub stations. So that is why I say it is a network, as there is no core section where all the services run.
In middle Europe as well as Japan this is how it's done: We don't seperate by the track routes - but by services, whcih often intermix on the same tracks with each other.
With the Overground, it has a fairly strong case to give the individual lines their own identity. The DLR doesn't have that; it's a small network within the same area of London (the Docklands). To me, it's just easier to call the individual branches the Beckton branch, the Stratford branch, the Lewisham branch, and the Woolwich branch
I don't even really think in terms of branches since I have to go all the way to Canary Wharf to begin making connections.
There is something to be said to marking on the map the route of each service in a different colour. At least on the DLR system itself, if not on the underground maps.The ptb should certainly look at that for the overground.
The nearest similar system I can think of is Newcastle Metro, which uses Green and yellow to mark the two routes, Sunderland to Airport in Green and South Shields to St James in Yellow which share track from Pelaw to South Gosforth.
They should get their own names for the line so you can be more distinctive for which service are getting. But I think the current display with one colour on the main map and distinct colours on their individual map works for readability and visibility whilst reading each map, which is why I think they have done that.
@@mildlydispleased3221 Oh, yeah. Absolutely.
I always wonder why London is the only big capital where they seperate trains by which tracks they use in the city and not the destinations. Like in Munich that would make the S-Bahn all one line, as they all use the same city tunnel. Or two lines in Hamburg. Even in Asia where they don't use a number or letter system to distinguish the different services often running on the same line they still separate the services itself, like they would never put together the Shonan-Shinjuku lines together with the Sankai-line, although the Sankai-Line uses the same tracks as the Shonan Shinjuku branch from Ousaki till Omiya.
@@acmenipponair I think it's because historically they were all built by separate companies before being merged together later on and they just kept the tradition. Rather than being purpose-built all as one service and then all just called the one thing. Although there is some truth to that as the Bakerloo is called that because it used to run to Baker Street and Waterloo Station originally.
@@ShikiKiryu Well, many of our S-Bahn lines run also on tracks that were when build private railway companies. And Japan also has many different operators, still you know when you are on the Tokyu Meguro Line that your Meguro Line train will go where it's used to be. They even give the branches specific line names.
@@acmenipponair fwiw London is a strange mix - the Circle, Metropolitan, and Hammersmith and City lines DO all share the same tracks more or less. Yet they are called separate lines. The rest are treated as separate due to being in deep segregated tunnels in the city centre, despite sometimes sharing track outside of the city centre.
In Paris, where I live, we have the Metro and the RER. They are technically different entities, but share a lot of the lines in the Cité. While we Parisians know how to use it, foreigners are sometimes irritated that they have different fares to pay on the same line, understandable.
Not exactly the same lines surely? Given that the Métro drives on the right and the RER drives on the left.
The metro line 1 and the RER A share a roughly similar route, both going to La Defense. Though the metro doesn't use fare zones while the RER does, so the RER is more pricey when going outside of zone 1 while the metro is entirely within zone 1 for fare purposes, even in the sections physically outside of zone 1.
Since we have the Bakerloo, maybe the lines could be called Becktobank (or Becktogate), Mudpudding and Wooliham.
Interesting question Jago. I think you can answer your own question, by looking at the subsurface trains on the Underground.
Before we got the S Stock trains we had three different railway lines using C Stock trains:
• Circle Line
• Metropolitan Line (Hammersmith and City Branch) and
• District Line (Wimbledon and Edgeware Road Branch).
At the same time the Metropolitan Line and District Line both had their own different trains, as well as sharing Circle Line trains.
From a functional point of view the Circle Line really also included what we now call the Hammersmith and City Line and the Wimbledon and Edgeware Road Line, even though the maps said otherwise. Trains would switch from one of these lines to another of the lines at Edgeware Road, depending on the time of day. According to the route maps on the stations something totally different was happening.
But you could tell it was all a cosmic lie as tourists would occasionally get baffled by C Stock trains or would stand on the Wimbledon branch of the District Line ignoring a train that could take them to Earl's Court, because it was the wrong type of train.
Even now, the Hammersmith and City Line and Circle Line are mostly just one line pretending to be two lines. There are just two small sections of track that only Circle Line trains use.
So what the subsurface trains do both backs you up, but also undermines your arguments. And that's probably because it might be time to start considering that the term "District Line train" is kind of useless to any passenger who wants to travel west, beyond Earl's Court....and is also kind of useless to passengers on the Wiimbledon branch that want to travel back beyond Earl's Court.
What the trains actually do, is more important than what the maps pretend the trains do. But I know there are also some rare movements, like D Stock trains from Ealing Broadway and Richmond going to High Street Kensington and Upminster trains going to Olympia.
So, what is the point in having a brand name, like "District Line" instead of having trains be called "Upminster to Richmond service"? I think the point here is that "District Line" is faster and "Wimbledon to Edgeware Road branch" is clunky.
And that clunkyness is critically important, when announcements are made telling passengers going to certain places that they need to get off of the train they are on and get onto another train. Confusion causes delays, makes people stand near the doors reading maps and makes people hold doors open, while they are trying to figure out if they should get off.
If you go back to your archived footage for the DLR, London Overground and subsurface lines and compare the various "the next station is..." X "...change here for" Y "and" Z announcements, I think you will be able to use a stopwatch to work out which PA announcements are faster or easier and which are more awkward.
And, if you have any video of people getting off of trains in the rush hour, at the interchange stations, I think you will be able to see which stations have the most people getting off with a purpose and which stations have people getting off and looking baffled.
So, if I asked you to compare all the internal interchanges of subsurface trains, London Overground and DLR, which do you think have the best PAs and station wayfindiing? And which do you think are the most clunky? (Don't forget all the trips that involve going back on yourself, like Richmond to Ealing Broadway.)
And, if we add in the deep level lines that have branches (Central, Piccadilly and Northern Lines) which of those have interchanges with the best flow and which are the most clunky?
Ultimately, if we are talking about "what should be done in the future," I look at the Victoria Line with it's "90 second railway" mission statement and I see a railway line that does one simple thing, a railway that makes sure passengers know it only does one simple thing and a railway designed to get passengers off of the trains as fast as possible, so that the train behind it can come into the station.
In the long term, we might use the same trains across the DLR, but we will need to chop up the lines, as much as possible, so frequencies can increase.
Word of the Day: ‘Bluey-Green-Greeny-Blue’
I have used the DLR a couple of times in recent months, both times I had to change at Canning Town. When planning the journeys in advance this need for change was not apparent, so extending usage of the 3 colours on the DLR maps across the main London Underground map makes perfect sense to me.
Don't worry the dark green line is a lie off peak the trains trains via pudding mill lane terminate at canary wharf meaning they only have one station in common with the bank to Lewisham trains and you have to change to stay on the dark green line,
TFL think it's so confusing they have a message at every station south of CW
The Canning Town conundrum!
There would seem to be a logical argument for keeping the turquoise outline but maybe filling in the centre for individual services.(following the DLR's own colour scheme) Maybe getting stripey where lines share the same track. Does that help or hinder the potential traveler?
I guess the answer might be to work up proposals and see what passengers think.
I think there should be separate lines running in parallel, like what happens with the Circle Line and the other lines that interline with it. It makes it obvious that you are going to have to change trains somewhere, and you can plan that.
has to be said, if I were to try and expand the DLR westward from Bank, I'd be inclined to merge it with the Waterloo and City line, in the process managing a slight reduction in the number of people changing at Bank during peak times (temporarily)
Not possible to merge with Waterloo and city
There’s too much in the way at bank
@@seansoraghan3245Not sure though. The DLR seems to be the lowest level station at Bank and could probably be linked with or even merged with the W&C by a short bit of extra tunnelling. They could decide to link the W&C directly to one or more DLR routes and retain the Waterloo to Bank shuttle or close the W&C platforms down.
@@davepoole9520: I would think that you'd also (probably) need to (at best) resize the Waterloo and City tunnels, if you intend on keeping the same size DLR trains?
The WC has been through enough already
Without ruining the whole brand identity element of the DLR, I think because of how unique of a system it is, it warrants looking at letter codes for the lines (A, B, C, etc) rather than names. This could easily be applied to the DLR system map, without the need to change the DLR appearance on the network map. Much in the same way that Tramlink is portrayed (though I'd prefer letters to numbers for the DLR).
you mean doing the same thing every other country in Europe does? That's not very British
Yes, I agree. We have enough 'named' lines; and having the DLR lines given letters would clearly define it against both the London Underground, London Overground, and the Elizabeth Line.
Naming the different parts of the DLR would confuse Londoners. It would completely scramble the minds of tourists.
Please please please can we end the obsession with naming all our lines! The DLR needs to have a clear and separate identity, and be 'defiantly' different from the Underground and Overground networks.
Keep all the DLR lines the same colour, just assign a single letter to the different parts of it. But NO more named lines, otherwise its identity will end up being swallowed up by the London Underground. It needs to be different, not blend into the Underground.
I'm warning you - I'm reaching for my data analyst's hat. You will not enjoy the outcome.
These letters being those things that needed to be given distinct names because they sound too similar over communication systems? Plus having a completely different line nomenclature would further generate tourist questions as to integrated fares and such like. It was bad enough with the Elizabeth line (so named to try and emphasis its integration with the tube) thanks to the constant enthusiast mantra of it not being a tube line cutting through and confusing people. Treating the DLR like its a totally different thing and giving its services letters not names is just asking for trouble!
@@thesteelrodent1796 No, but it would be a refreshing change.
They should call them after Eastender characters lol
With Calamity Khan the Fuhrer in charge better to name them after famous clowns!
I’d take the Peggy line 😂
The Barry line. It’s surprisingly good at singing but is ashamed of itself.
Sharmilla line
@@AcornElectronEnjoy Cardiff!
to expand on what you said in regards to the overground v dlr… i feel the dlr isn’t really large enough to warrant separation both in terms of geographical space and stations… i think it’s similar to the district line in that it has lots of little fork off sections but i don’t think there would be any rewards to making things even more confusing on the already cluttered tube map
Mr Hazzard yet another terrific video with the added repertoire that makes the videos so unique. Well done mate and thank you for taking the time to upload all of your videos. Stay safe and have a great weekend David 👍👍
An issue with the DLR is that while there are standard routes, the system is very flexible and during engineering works, special events, other disruption and for depot moves different services can and do operate, sometimes at the drop of a hat (e.g. there are typically one or two late night services from Lewisham to Gallions Reach, and my first ever ride on a B07 train was from Bank to Stratford (via Bow Church).
The S7 lines (District/Circle/H&C), do all sorts of weird stuff (eg "This is a Circle line train to Barking") to do depot moves, stock transfers, deal with engineering works, etc. DLR lines having the same problems wouldn't be without precidence.
I feel like this is always a good idea, yet the brand identity is the most important to these networks.
Be interesting to see what they do when (or if) Crossrail 2 opens, could be incorporated into the Overground, or maybe even Thameslink. Though I think I like an overall 'Crossrail' branding most.
I think the Elizabeth Line should be part of the Overground network, but still called the Elizabeth Line, and still purple on the map.
@@katrinabryceWhat about the existing Overground network? What should that be called? And what colour should be carried?
@@ChilternTransportProductions East London Line [Highbury to New Cross/New Cross Gate and beyond] would get Orange because it brought it over from when it was part of the Underground, other lines would get different colours.
Highbury to Clapham would be South London Line
Stratford to Clapham would be West London Line
Stratford to Richmond would be North London Line
Gospel Oak to Barking would be Goblin Line
Romford to Upminster would be Emerson Park Line
Euston to Watford would be Watford DC Line
The lines out of Liverpool Street would be the Lea Valley Lines.
I guess a new brand known as crossrail with the elizabeth line and crossrail 2 (and maybe even thameslink if TFL gets it’s hand on that) would make sense. And overground for the non crossing commuter services, kinda like RER and Transilien in Paris.
I wonder how many lines could get names similar to the Bakerloo, with station name combinations?
And the Goblin
Amergate. Amerbake.
The DLR is run as 3 lines & shown on a DLR map in 3 related colours. So I reckon a tube map should do the same.
BTW: I'd also show the Northern line as 2 related lines (Charing X & City)...
What amazes me is how the Northern line branches in the middle; Londoners must be careful to get on the right train if they are bound for central London. Anyway, if Tower Gateway is shut, the DLR will be simple enough to allow the status quo to continue. The TfL map is complicated enough now.
In Los Angles, Metro has decided to make the LRT line "Line A" and name its subway lines "Lines B and D," even though the subways already carry more people than comparable LRT lines. I'm sure tourists will be surprised to find themselves boarding a trolley when using the prestigious "Line A" running from Long Beach to Azusa (about 52 miles).
Thanks again for this nice episode. Maybe not use different colors (the tube-map is already so colorful that it is looking cluttered more and more) or special names for each line. But what to think about a separate line-number, or a letter, for each DLR line on the displays in the stations and on the trains? I think it would be a benefit in the same way as it is on the buses, especially in stations where more lines are calling at the same platform, as it is at Bank DLR.
Perhaps identify the route rather than the line. If there is some similarity between the two, you can make the route IDs similar.
Yes, the DLR is more like a bus in that respect. No names for 'lines' but give codes/letters for the different combinations of start/end/via points. That way, if special needs arise, it'll be easier to create say a 'Q' train to facilitate single-seat journeys.
I was going to say this. You need not change the colours but definitely name the lines. After all, tourists use the Tube. If their destination is closer to a DLR station than a Tube station and they look at a Tube map, they could think "Oh, I can get off at this station to get to the DLR"...and then, it's not on the line to the destination.
@@hb1338 That's what's done now - the route information of "Woolwich Arsenal" is more useful information than "1" or whatever anyway.
@@quantisedspace7047 That's going to be very very confusing. Firstly people would need to be in the know about the codes for them to be of any use (special codes are going to be difficult as they will trip up regular passengers too. Calling a Canary Wharf - Beckton train a Q is less useful than just using the strange terminus as people know where Beckton is).
Secondly the DLR is nothing like a bus - it's effectively an over-complex tube line. Treating it like a bus network will confuse people thinking that the fares are bus fares (separate to tube, hopper, etc) and not the tube fares that they are.
Line names, or nothing at all!
I’ve come across another extension that’s barely mentioned at all: Bow Church - Hackney Central with stops seemingly titled Roman Road and Victoria Park. There is very little indication which routing this would undertake other than mostly following a closed and lifted railway line that’s been partially built over
Underground, Overground, and DLR are all categories. As such, they should each have named services, likely with a color and/or shape combination to make it easy to tell to which line a train on a particular mode/category belongs and where it is going. It was one of the problems brought up by Geoff Marshall early in the branding of the Elizabeth Line, as they put the line's name on the roundel, instead of Crossrail or some other name, then have something like 8 different service patterns all with the same name. New York seems to do this well, with different colors/letters/shapes for different routes, even those that share track. Or Portland, OR, with its 5 color for its lines, with the distinction being the terminus of the line to tell you which direction it is going. TfL and the current setup can, and likely does lead to confusion for locals and visitors alike, and anything to improve it would and should be welcomed.
For about 20 years I have defined a "line" as "any connection where it is possible to travel by any route between any pair of destinations without changing, even if this is not possible at all times and all days." So the Northern Line is a line because it is possible at peak times to travel from Morden to Edgware, Mill Hill East and High Barnet via Bank or Charing Cross. LU split off the Hammersmith and City from the Metropolitan Line because it was a unique route between Hammersmith and Barking. Trains from Barking never went to Watford, Amersham and Chesham, and trains from Aldgate never went to Hammersmith. It looks to me that the 3-line definition for the DLR is based on this idea.
You are confusing lines and routes. Lines should be about continuous physical tracks, routes should be about services which operate on one or more lines.
You know what would make me very happy?
A daily mail with a random “I would likte to thank…. You make are my X to my Y” quote of Jago.
Other me: you’re a IT developer, just code it man.
Me: I would! If I only had the time to write them all down. Hes output is of the scale !
How about giving the various options on the DLR route numbers? It would be fairly simple to modify the trains to carry one at the front and rear.
That's a good summary, and I go along with your final conclusion. As you say, it's not hard to get around the DLR, and if you get the wrong train, it's usually possible to correct that quickly. Changing DLR lines at Poplar (the system's best cross-platform interchange) is really easy. Shame that the designers of the eastern branches funked that at Canning Town and West Ham.
Canning Town and West Ham are the Jubilee line designers' fault. All the DLR could do was to take the North London Line trackbed.
The DLR used to have separate route names back in the 90s. There was the Red Route, Blue Route and Green Route as the trains used to display this from the B90s onwards
Good use of maps JH.
Extending usage of the 3 colours on the DLR maps across the main London Underground map makes perfect sense to me.
The same discussion can be done about the trams. But let them first split the Overground up and see how would that look on the Tube Map, as this splitting is definitely much more important, but the map can be only so much crowded
At some point the trams were given numbered line designations, but they got rid of them about a decade later. Numbers work for the trams (unlike tube-esque Overground and DLR), as they are just fancy bus routes when it comes to fares, etc (and get them off the tube map because of that!).
'Bluey Green'.
Tonight, folks, it's your vote that counts.
Greeny blue X
I tend to think of the relationship between the DLR lines in a similar way to the relationship between the sub-surface Tube lines - they share many parts but branch off wildly. I don’t think many people would be happy if the sub-surface Tube lines all had the same name, so I can understand why people would like names for the DLR lines.
What did a friend of mine once say when the Overground was introduced in the East: "Nooo! The East was supposed to be difficult to get to. Now everyone will come here.". Let's keep it difficult.
The trams used to have route numbers, but these have now been abandoned. I think they also had slightly different shades of green. The service routes have also changed twice as to which of the three Eastern termini have trams which run through to Wimbledon and which run round the town centre loop.
I hadn't realised how complex the DLR had got.
But it is really easy to change lines, most of the way, if we ignore West India Quay.
It's also very short distances between most stops.
I don't think it's an issue for locals or frequent users, but these things rarely are.
Those additional green/blue variants, don't appear other than on the DLR maps do they, which feels like a great way to confuse tourists.
My vote, which carries no weight, it's fine as it is, but should go down to Thamesmead etc.
Not equivalent to Overground lines which are a real mess, which need sorting.
I live in Woolwich and a lot of my friends live in Greenwich & Lewisham. The way we think about the dlr is very different
Another simple, but informative and entertaining video.
King Jago 👑
I think the lines should be named the following:
Bank to Lewisham - City line (as it goes through two places with skyscrapers - a hallmark of a city);
Bank to Woolwich Arsenal - Airport line (self explanatory);
Tower Gateway to Beckton - Gateway line (as it goes to the gateway of central London);
Stratford to Lewisham/Canary Wharf - 1987 line (as it covers one of the original routes);
Stratford to Woolwich Arsenal - Eastern line (as it goes east and is on the east side of the railway); and
Stratford to Beckton - Royal Docks line (as it travels through the Royal Docks).
The shuttle service which operates on the railway could be also named Dockside Sprinter, given the location with a nod to the 2012 Olympics.
Should the DLR get a solid line? I'd argue it's small metro trains are more similar to the underground than they are to the overground or Elizabeth line.
They're not small. And they can carry a huge capacity because their very frequent running.
@@neuralwarp They are pretty small even the new B23 stock is shorter in length than a tube train. Also them being very frequent is my point they run a very tube like service with trains every few minutes.
I think so. It's got a distinctly different shade of purple than the Metropolitan Line's maroon and I doubt if the colour blind would have too much trouble with it.
Thank you for creating another great video about the DLR. I hope it gets extended to Thamesmead for everyone who lives in that area.
I rode the DLR for the first time today. I got on at Tower Gateway and was pleased with it. The trains are showing their age.
'Should we do the same with the Docklands light railway?' No.
I use the Lewisham station a lot. I have not seen a Stratford bound train from there for a very long time. Advice is to change at Canary Wharf. Easy enough but don't bother waiting for a Stratford train at Lewisham.
I think the low coast approach that you mentioned at the begiinning of your video may ultimately prove a factor in the future of the DLR. Ultimately a decision will have to be taken to upgrade it to LTU rolling stock requirements. In which eventuality it will have a a different identity - maybe the DHR - Docklands Heavy Railway! Thanks for uploading.
Some of the corners are too tight for the larger Underground trains to cope, I think the DLR will remain as a "Dinky Little Railway" forever.
The new B23 stock can carry 792 passengers per 87 metre long train, which is over 100 more people than the Piccadilly or Northern line's 106 metre long trains can take. LU-style stock is not going to be an upgrade!
@@sihollett I have never been on the DLR as I don't live in London. But as a train enthusiast I think it is an interesting question. The opinion of a friend of mine who lives in London is that the DLR is not entirely safe and he has advised me not to travel on it. I think there will eventually be a crash which will force a rethink as to the quality of the rollling stock used!
@@AllensTrains Your friend is being both overly paranoid and completely clueless. Pretty sure the trains are held to similarly high crash standards as tube trains, and the automatic operation makes them safer than the very-rarely crashing tube trains as when they crash its normally driver error.
As a reglar user of the DLR, i would support an Overground-like split up of the network into different lines with different names and colours. One could retain the turqouise of the head brand and the others could somehow use other green-ish or blue-ish colours not used on any other TfL mode yet. I even have some name ideas loosely based on geographical terms:
Lewisham -> Stratford/Bank = Isle of Dogs line
Woolwich Arsenal -> Stratford Intl./Bank = Silvertown line
Beckton -> Tower Gateway = Royal Docks line
If we there was no rail transport in London at all (no heavy rail, no tube, no DLR, no trams, nothing) and we were starting with a completely blank piece of paper, you wouldn't build the system that we've currently got. But, once you have worked out what the best system is, and actually managed to build it, it still won't be right. Because people tend to want to live and work in areas that they want to and can afford to, rather than living and working in areas that transport planners tell them they have to. Get rid of all the passengers, and the system would be perfect.
The DLR looks at the same time modern, because it's elevated and automated and goes around these financial buildings, and cheap because it was cheap. The unfilled line on the map I think fits the 'quick & cheap' theme.
Jago only mentioned the 'budget' for the original build. I'd guess the overall cost came out 2-3 times higher at least. That's the nature of these things. Lets' face it, it was a completely new idea in London at the time.
@@rogink Counter-intuitively, elevated railways are cheap. You see them in Chicago, New York, Paris, or Berlin from the early 20th century. They look expensive because they're obtrusive but of course that's the cheap option compared to a tunnel, or even a level right of way.
@@PavlosPapageorgiou There is nothing 'counter-intuitive'. It would be obvious to the layman that if you are going to build a railway or road through a built up area, a tunnel would be the hardest but least obtrusive and ground level would mean blasting through swathes of housing. Like you say, building above streel level is obtrusive. The cheapest solution is to do nothing, which is what we usually do!
An Idea I have thought of could be to expand use of the different shades of Turquoise on the tube map, to identify where the routes run, but cruicially, have them as thinner lines overall so you don't get super thick lines on triple interlined sections. Just an idea though, replies would be welcome as to how colours could be done.
Interesting thing is that there was always a DLR line under development or actual construction from the mid-80s through til the Stratford International extension opened in 2011. That's a 25-year construction project. It's now 12 years since anything happened and it could be abother ten years before a modest - albeit under the Thames - section opens to Thamesmead and that may not happen.
DLR can be kept as a brand, but for individual lines, TfL is better off using the different shades of blue it has internally with simple letters. I say letters and not numbers because the DLR is smaller with less lines and less combinations available. Numbers should be reserved for the Underground for the higher complexity.
I'm basing this off the DLR map from TfL:
A - Lewisham to Stratford
B - Lewisham to Bank
C - Woolwich Arsenal to Stratford International
D - Woolwich Arsenal to Bank
E - Beckton to Tower Gateway
Great video very succinctly making the point. If you are on the DLR and end up on the wrong train all you have to do is get (back) to Poplar and change trains.
If you are on the wrong Overground it's a lot more complicated, you can't just head back to Willesden Junction and change for the right branch if you get on the Watford line but want somewhere like Southbury.
5:43 'Future events that will affect us in the future'. Jago, meet Criswell.
I love the DLR. I think it’s the best way to travel in London and wish there was more of it - and was more appreciated!
Pantone needs to get to work if it wants to help the DLR add more colours to the Tube Map.
Men only know 16 colours, plus BAIGE.
The Sir Boris Johnston way name them after the rich and famous who never actually use public transport.The Sir Jacob Rees Mogg Line might be a good start.
As you mention, the DLR already separates its lines on its internal maps, so the only question is "Should it be separated on the bigger "Underground" map?"
The bigger question is how many colours, shadings and outlines can you put on the big "underground" map before it ends up looking like technicolo(u?)r spaghetti? I think that ship sailed long ago, to mix a few metaphors.
Keep the DLR as just one, it's a bit like the Northern line being one line, overground has to be changed as they are completely different lines
Oddly enough I was just talking to a friend about this a couple of days ago
I don't often have occasion to use the DLR and I certainly can't remember the various different official routes. I go on the principle of going as far as I can on my intended route and get off at the appropriate junction to wait for the next train going in my direction. But that might not always work, given the complexity of the network. I don't recall seeing different shades of colour even at the stations - but then the trains are so frequent I don't usually gave time to study any maps that might be there.
Remember a lot of the lines share same bitt of track from Bank / Towergateway towards Canary Wharf via Shagwell
The DLR route maps showing the service and stopping pattern are helpful. The same thing has been done on the South London network which is all branded as one railway, no line numbers (though the old Southern Railway had headcodes). Interesting comparison with Sheffield and Newcastle where tram/metro routes are coloured to show the service pattern, but there you don't have a dozen tube lines in different colours as well to contend with.
not forgetting during engineering works and service disruption there are are sorts of wired combinations of destinations, more so than overground and underground national rail. but that is the nature of the DLR very flexible.
The DLR should probably just get numbers, similar to what the Croydon Tramlink* used to have until a couple of years ago when TfL removed route numbers from public-facing information (e.g. timetables) while on the Tube map, the services should get numbers in a design similar to what is seen on TfL's London Buses route diagrams (maps) that is most commonly seen as bus shelters and bus stations...
That will confuse a lot of people as they are train lines not bus/tram routes: fully integrated with the tube's zonal fares, not at all integrated with the bus and their hopper fares. They need names, not numbers!
I think line numbers, rather than names, would be a better idea here.
You right ‘Overground’ is a category. The different BR lines in London were always colloquially called ‘The Overground’ and covered a large area featuring different routes. DLR has always had its own identity and services a very specific part of town. I think naming lines would probably complicate it rather than simplify it.
Most of the Underground is over-ground! 🤣
I’ve also heard people refer to the National Rail lines today as “the overground” as well. As in, “you can take the overground from Deptford to London Bridge”
0:36 I feel like this is the most valuable footage that you have ever gotten
I think with Tower Gateway closing it would give an oppurtunity to name the line going to Bank. I would merge all Bank trains into 1 line and call it the City Line so people know this is the line I need to take to get to the City. Woolwich to Stratford International line could be called the Olympic Line in honour of the 2012 Olympics. Lewisham to Stratford line I have no clue what I would call it.
The Meridian Line?
@@davepoole9520 Yeah that would be a good name as it does pretty much follow it.
I tend to think of the DLR as having three lines, but a different three from how they map them: (1) the main line, to the City; (2) the line via Bow Church; and (3) the line via West Ham. Which branch they go down from there is adequately indicated by the terminus.
The thing I've never understood about the DLR is where the key is. Clearly the trains need periodic winding up, but when is it done and by whom?!
I suggest that a need to differentiate lines clearly arises when travellers frequently change from one line to another, at the same station. This happens a lot on the Underground, but much less on the Overground or the DLR.
3:28 "...none of those three lines are completely separated from each other and all of them share some tracks with the others"
But couldn't that be also used as an argument for Metropolitan, Circle, H&C and District lines? I know they have separate extremities (Amersham/Chesham, Upminster, Wimbledon, etc.) but you could basically just redraw the map and have completely "messy" situation like with DLR.
I’ve no particular opinion with regard to showing different colours for the DLR itself, but speaking as a colourblind tourist from “oop North”, I think it would help if the colour(s) used for the DLR on the standard tube map was/were differentiated further from the one used by the Elizabeth Line, and if the colour used on the Overground was a bit more distinct from the one used for the trams. Perhaps rather than using hollow spaces, they could use an interior pattern, a bit like they have with the Thameslink lines - Thin stripes, blocks, combinations of blocks and stripes, cross-hatching, dots, etc. Thankfully, I’ve used the map enough to understand the difference between the lines, but there are bound to be people more badly afflicted than I am who would be more confused.
A possible compromise solution for the DLR and Overground would be to keep each as one line, but give each "line within the line" a number. That number could be displayed on the TfL map at each terminus of each line. For example, DLR Line 1 could go between Tower Gateway and Beckton. Overground Line 1 could go between Richmond and Stratford.
Having taken the wrong southbound DLR line out of Stratford, I'd say very yes!
The #1 point of a transport map is to tell rookie commuters where their trains go, so they know if and where they need to change. The DLR tube maps fail this essential function. Call the three lines whatever you like, but get them in different colours.
It may be where I live (not in somewhere on the DLR) but I'm happy that the DLR network is all one colour, just like eg the District that has more than one end point.
Very good to see you grow as a person, Jago. I doubt the version of you making these videos back when I started watching would have been willing to actually go up to the cable cars.
It's a nice idea, except that during times of engineering works, trains will often stray from their usual routes. I remember when I lived in Beckton, I once got a train directly to Crossharbour instead of having to change at Poplar because the branch west of Westferry was closed. That would be more confusing if the routes had names - almost like getting on a District Line train which then becomes a Metropolitan Line train without getting off.
A great Video on my Birthday 🎂. Thanks Jago 😊
Happy birthday!
I don't see why the different colours which are currently used on the DLR map couldn't be used on the tube map. Don't worry about calling them different names, just have them marked so you know if you have to change, etc.
Instead of lines you could have routes, which are defined by their two termini and the route followed in between. That gets around the problem of having to decide what is and what isn't a line and also allows any passengers to be certain of where their train is going. Route IDs (name / number / letters etc) can be made unique, whereas lines generally cannot.
yes, just like the overground, they should have their lines being an outer edge in DLR teal (or whatever colour it currently is) and then an inner colour for the individual line. the overground should be an outer edge of orange and then the colour for the line in the centre.
you also need to take the overground and dlr off the underground map, this way they would both be much clearer. the current map which shows them all is really complex and noisy.
Purely for clarity of the ever 'busier' tube map, I say no. The map has already got to the stage where it is so cluttered that it's not very useful for people who aren't used to it (ie those who need it the most). For clarity anything above about 10 colours starts getting awkward, we're already above that. Add in potential split of the Northern, and the 6? Overground lines. You could change the pattern, but broken and dotted lines add to confusion.
Tower gateway is so important. When dlr at bank is closed it makes it possible to go via monument and tower hill. Without that link it would be some serious walking
It's a bit late for other London transport systems other than the buses, but i think the DLR is a place where line numbers could make a lot of sense. Call the services DLR 1, DLR2, DLR3 etc so that they have a public facing identity when needed, but the overall branding still focuses on it as a network.
Trams should be treated similar, though I'm less sure what the prefix would be. Could be L1 L2 etc which is common overseas, but they are branded as trams, not light rail. T1 T2 etc could work? Obviously would have to fit with bus numbering giving a number of those use letters.
I learnt something today - I now know what colour teal is! ;)
In all seriousity, I’m not sure that it’s necessary to split the lines on maps - the district line seems to cope with its branches
Great video Jago
My proposed solution would be to treat it like the Northern line in Central London: Have it be all one line, but also have each train be via X station to indicate precisely how it’s getting to the other end.
Example: DLR to Stratford via Bow Church to distinguish it from those going the other way via Canning Town.
Or simply do away with the idea of having stations only served by trains coming a particular way and replace it instead with a system such that any journey between any two points on the DLR network can be completed on a single train. All it’d need is the building of a few small extra curves at Blackwall and Royal Victoria to let those corners be traversable in both directions.
(Side note: It’s always rather disconcerting seeing maps like that at 1:48 that invert the locations of Bank and TG for no apparent reason.)
You might be right. Personally I'd upgrade the Underground, Overground, and mainline to DLR.
I'm actually not that interested in railway, but somehow this British gentleman makes the videos interesting to watch. Great pinch of humour, too