Log in or Sign up

London Underground Stations

A list of 338 words by chained_bear.

About

Tagged with which London Underground line it is part of. Some are permanently closed and tagged as such. Some are open but have closed portions and are tagged "closed platforms."

Some permanently closed stations with current stations by the same name are: Aldgate East, Earl's Court, Hillingdon, King's Cross St Pancras, Northfields, Osterley, South Harrow, Swiss Cottage, Uxbridge, and Westbourne Park. To avoid confusion with the current stations, these words are not tagged "permanently closed."

Comments

Log in or sign up to get involved in the conversation. It's quick and easy.

  • chained_bear *puzzled* You wouldn't happen to have pictures of what you're describing, would you? Dec 23, 2008

  • sarra One of my favourite things to do with Tube stations is work out fancy dress costumes for them. High Barnet wins for feasibility. There are lots, alas, which involve accessorised nudity, and which I can't fulfil due to lack of the correct anatomical equipment. Dec 23, 2008

  • chained_bear Oh my gosh. That's three Tube maps I want now, in addition to the large tea towel I was given as a gift and promptly hung up on the kitchen wall. I'm going to start an Underground map collection. Heck, I already have the playing cards. :)

    Thanks everyone! I knew I'd love making this list. Oct 2, 2008

  • frindley I especially like the RSC's theatrical take on things. Detail here. Oct 2, 2008

  • yarb You're welcome. I keep meaning to get a print for my office. Oct 2, 2008

  • chained_bear Thanks for the link to The Great Bear, yarb! :) Oct 2, 2008

  • yarb True, the subway doesn't go up into the skyscrapers of NYC (though it would be cool if it did). But what I meant was that NYC's identity, certainly in the eyes of the world, is bound up with its precipitous architecture; as such, the 2D subway map can't capture the essence of the city in the way London's does. Oct 2, 2008

  • lampbane But uh, NYC might be full of skyscrapers, but the subway doesn't go UP into them anyway. (And neither do most New Yorkers).

    However, since I must rise to its defense, what's special about the New York map is its sense of potential—it stretches so far, to so many different corners of the city, all of which have their own unique culture, their own unique feel.

    28 years and so much of it is still a mystery to me. Oct 2, 2008

  • yarb The London underground map is iconic, transcendent. I can look at it endlessly, listening to it speak about humankind and the universe and the way the two relate. It's an essay on and a study in the way we interpret our environment, the patterns we find in chaos - see Simon Patterson's famous artwork - and it's the ultimate poem of place, a sounding of London's soul from the basso profundo of Bow to the chirping of Chiswick.

    The NYC map is hobbled by its linearity, and by the verticality of its city: so much of NYC exists in the sky that a 2D plan can't do it justice. London by contrast is a broad, sprawling city, and its map a vital underpinning, the lines the qi meridians along which its lifeforce literally and figuratively flows. Oct 2, 2008

  • lampbane I've never been to London but the system looks roughly like the Tokyo subway, which is only confusing in that there are two different systems overlapping.

    I think what makes the New York Subway confusing is that a lot of lines share the same track but have different destinations. Unfortunately, in reference to the redesigns that Prolagus mentioned, many designers come up with these solutions that just create a lot of visual clutter on the map, while eliminating the rather useful geographical details (like streets and parks). Oct 2, 2008

  • chained_bear Lampbane (knowing you didn't ask me but answering anyway because I'm obnoxious), I don't know what's wrong with letters/numbers--I don't think anything is, really--but there is something definitely right about the London Underground map. That thing works, even for directionally-challenged people like me. Nothing against New York (also one of my favorite cities), but I've never been able to figure out the subway system, and for buses... I'm way out of my league. :) I'd love to learn more about it though. Are the maps of the NY transit system as easy to read as those of London's? Oct 2, 2008

  • Prolagus The map of NYC subway is now being redesigned by many artists, mainly because of the problems in using the current one on smartphones, PDA, iPhones and so on, I guess. Oct 2, 2008

  • lampbane Frindley, what's wrong with letters or numbers? They might not be pretty, but they're fine for indicating direction and distance.

    Is "take the train from Bay Ridge Avenue to Union Street" really clearer than "take the train from 68th Street to 1st Street" ? Oct 2, 2008

  • chained_bear It's interesting, frindley, I've been reading about that guy since starting these lists. His name was Harry Beck, and the first such map was drawn in 1933, far earlier than I would have guessed. Here is some more information about it, if you like.

    It's inspired a number of other cities to draw similar maps, and of course it's become iconic as well. See here for an interesting anagram map of the Tube system.

    And I have never, ever gotten lost on the Underground either. Oct 2, 2008

  • frindley That's why I always get lost in the New York subway, but have never gotten lost on the Underground, not even the first time I ventured into it. And while I'm at it, the person who devised the Underground map is a genius. Absolute genius! Oct 2, 2008

  • chained_bear You could do it anyway, if you wanted. :) Oct 2, 2008

  • lampbane I'd do the same for New York, except that most of our stations would be numbers or letters. Oct 1, 2008