What's in a Name?
London's recent naming of Overground lines has caused a stir. Perhaps it's time to ditch names entirely?
Transport networks are complicated beasts. Whilst the labyrinthine network of trains, tubes, and tunnels under metropolises like London may at times feel impregnable to all but lifelong residents, simpler setups in smaller cities can also be confusing to infrequent travellers.
Even people who don’t use a network at all are subjected to its whims and curiosities, with the names of stations and other transport hubs often being adopted as the label for the local area (as is the case with London Waterloo), or for fare zones to delineate where the centre of a city starts and ends (what do you mean you live in Zone 3!?).
And whilst stations and fare zones might be easy to slip from the mind, the names of the lines you take will often stay at the forefront of it. Giving individual routes their own identifier simplifies navigation, and helps to paint a picture of the city. It can give character to a whole area, whilst also helping visitors to picture the general direction of a location with far greater ease than just knowing the name of a station can. Identifiers also massively speed up the processing of information by passengers, such as whether a specific line is closed or whether you should change your journey to avoid a route with delays.
Easy as 1, 2, 3
There are two systems for identifying routes on a transport network. The first is alphanumeric, with the usage of numbers and letters to identify key routes. At its simplest, a network would identify its first line with a ‘1’, the second line with a ‘2’ and count up from there. This is commonplace throughout most of the world, such as in Paris with numbers, or with letters in New York.
In larger, more complicated networks, a combination of letters and numbers may be used. German speaking nations are common adopters of a combined system, with networks across central Europe using a letter to denote the type of service, and a number to denote the route, for example, T5 might identify a specific tram line, U4 a metro, S3 a suburban rail route, and R72 a regional mainline service.
Alongside running with letters and numbers, there is a third system which I’m going to assign to the same category; naming lines by colour1. The United States is one of the few places where this is common, with cities including Chicago and Washington having Blue and Green lines rather than a B and a G.
The other system for identifying routes is by naming them. London is the most famous example of this, with every different tube line having its own moniker, and in many cases a nickname too. The naming system is almost exclusively used within the Anglosphere. Whereas you’ll find numberings as standard across Italy, Spain, Germany, France, and Denmark, look to the Anglosphere and the networks of Sydney, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Toronto have looked to Britain and adopted the London model.
The main advantage of alphanumerics over names is their simplicity, and the ease with which unfamiliar network users can remember them, but names have their own benefit too; they can convey extra information to the passenger. A name doesn’t just separate a line from every other. If selected well, then it can also tell you where that line goes. Whether it’s Hong Kong’s ‘Island line’, London’s ‘Circle’ line, or Melbourne’s ‘Sandringham line’, a first-time passenger would have an instant idea of either where a train would take you, or what kind of route it would take. Well, usually… At other times, names might just be political.
Seeing Orange
And this I fear, is what has recently happened in London. Finally delivering on a long trailed promise to give each of the six London Overground lines their own name, Mayor Sadiq Khan recently unveiled the new half dozen: Lioness, Weaver, Mildmay, Windrush, Suffragette, and Liberty.
Up until last week, only two rail lines in the UK were named after an individual or group of people, both were in London, and both were named after the Queen2. Whilst obviously a political move, naming something after the head of state is such an obvious and commonplace activity that even the most ardent republican would do little more than shrug.
And whereas ‘Jubilee’ or ‘Elizabeth’ might trigger indifference, the spectrum of responses to the Overground rebranding exercise seem to have largely ranged in the realms of frustration and confusion. Other than the two lines of the late queen, the name of every other line in London did have some relation to the areas that the line in question served3. That is no longer the case.
Whilst the Weaver line skims past Weavers Fields, for the other five lines, the names provide no usefulness to the average transport user. Rather, they are designed to memorialise a specific community in London.
Mildmay is named after the hospital known for its work treating patients with HIV-related conditions, even though the closest station is on a different line,
Windrush celebrates London’s Caribbean communities. Surprisingly, it passes through Brixton without a stop, despite this area possibly having the strongest cultural ties,
Lioness runs through Wembley, the home of English football, and celebrates the England women’s team,
Suffragette runs to Barking, where the longest living Suffragette died, and,
Liberty gives a nod to the London Borough of Havering’s (through which it runs) ancient rights.
Not only do these names not support users of the network as most of the existing names do, but in the case of Windrush and Lioness, I strongly suspect that were this naming activity taking place in ten years time, or ten years ago, then neither would have been selected. Both are very much of the moment; one driven by scandal, and one by celebration. And despite supposedly being named after a period of engagement and consultation, a YouGov poll even found that four of the names have more Londoners who dislike them, than like them. This is no way to make a decision on the naming of key elements of public infrastructure that matter for wayfinding, especially when their longevity, like much of the Underground thus far, looks to be in the hundreds of years.
Whether an institution like the Mildmay is good or bad to memorialise is not an issue for me. My concern stems from the fact that when it comes to navigation and wayfinding, we should be selecting names that would assist the people that matter most, the users of the network, rather than choosing names for a political or historical statement. In some cases, these new names are also untranslatable for overseas visitors, counteracting some of the benefits of creating identifiers in the first place. This is further complicated by the fact that the lines in question already had perfectly good identifiers that could have been adopted officially, including the North London Line, the East London Line, and my particular favourite, the Goblin4.
A Measured Alternative
Officially adopting the pre-existing names on marketing and maps would have been a better use of public funds, and would have provided more benefits for transport users. Perhaps though, it is time for a more radical alternative.
Two decades ago the tube map had thirteen lines on it, today that figure is 22; an almost doubling. The ugliness caused by cramming the bloating network into the traditional London Underground mapping style is a problem in itself, and Transport for London rightly has ambition to bring the entire suburban rail network under its oversight, which could add tens of lines more. Painting maps, stations, and services with a full slate of names takes up valuable real estate, makes the network harder to understand and navigate, and at some point, will start to merge lines together in people’s heads.
Remembering the names of a dozen lines is relatively easy; push it up to 30 or 40, and all but the most hardcore trainspotters would be forgiven for failing to memorise them. Much as a Brit never likes to admit the French are right, if we’re ditching the primary benefit of names over numbers, perhaps London should ditch line names entirely and opt for the Parisian simplicity of alphanumerics.
Under this model, the existing names could adopt the letter that they each start with as their future identifier, such as ‘D’ for District. This way, the history of the network would also be retained. London is relatively well set up for a rebranding like this as only two lines would need a change; the Circle could adopt ‘O’ so as not to conflict with the Central, and the DLR (Docklands Light Railway) could give way by adopting ‘L’, after all, its reach is far beyond the Docklands these days.
For the Overground, and other suburban lines, double digit numbers can be used. This provides a separation between the high frequency mostly subterranean lines of the Underground, with the mostly above ground, lower frequency lines of National Rail. 0x for orbital lines, 1x for suburban routes radiating from Liverpool Street, 2x for Fenchurch Street, 3x for London Bridge, and so on clockwise. Alongside an overhaul of the full network map, this would massively improve network comprehension for the average user.
Simplifying the network like this is something that has already been attempted by a few map makers, including in this beautiful reimagining by Jug Cerovic. Even if we stick with the current map, just look at how much simpler wayfinding could be:
Going National
But why stop there? The UK is somewhat of an outlier when it comes to route numbers, and given the UK’s complicated rail network with numerous operators, types of service, and service patterns, applying identifiers to individual services would make a huge difference to passenger journeys. Rather than scan through every departure on the boards to confirm if that train really stops at your station despite the time and destination matching, you could have absolute confidence from just the route number.
The identifier alone could give you a feel for how fast the train would travel, and where abouts it might go, even if you’re unfamiliar with it. It also avoids the confusion caused by British train departures that leave at a slightly different minute every hour, and by trains leaving at a similar time heading to the same destination but via different routes. Such is their usefulness, that in many European countries, the route identifier is often the first piece of information displayed for passengers, immediately after the time.
How would such a system work? Copying practices from Switzerland and Germany, prefix letters can designate the service type, such as HS for High Speed services, IC for Intercity, RX for Regional Express, R for Regional, and S for Suburban, with a number then used to designate the route taken. For services that sometimes miss out a stop or that alternate between two or more stations on the way, we could add suffix letters on to distinguish the difference. Private operators that operate outside of the national franchising system could have their own unique prefix to distinguish them as operating on their own fare structure. (For those interested in the full model of what this might look like, take a look at the footnotes5).
People don’t like change, but a wholesale restructuring of route labelling in London and the wider UK would make rail and metro services far easier to understand and navigate for regular and infrequent passengers alike. With passenger numbers still yet to recover to their 2019 peak, any potential to increase ridership, particularly with low-cost cosmetic changes, is surely an opportunity worth taking.
If you’re at TfL or the DfT and want to discuss this some more, then feel free to drop me a DM.
This follows the same rules as alphanumeric in that there is an infinite range of identifiers which are taken from a set naming list, and for which the identifier serves no other purpose than to distinguish the line from others.
The Victoria line is named after the station and area of London that it runs through and thus is not directly named after the late queen . It’s a shame that the earlier proposal of Viking (combining VIctoria with KING’s cross) was overlooked.
Named lines of London, and how their name relates to where they go:
Bakerloo Passes through BAKER street and waterLOO
Central Runs E-W through the centre of the City
Circle Circles the city centre/zone 1
District Longest line, goes to the most places, mostly in suburbs
Docklands LR Passes through most of the Docklands
Elizabeth n/a - named after the late Queen
H'smith & City Starts in H'smith and passes through the City
Jubilee n/a - named for the late Queen
Metropolitan Terminates in the heart of the Metropolis; the world's first underground railway, it set the name for all future 'Metros'
Piccadilly Passes through Piccadilly Circus
Victoria Passes through Victoria
W'loo & City Starts in Waterloo and ends in the CityGoblin - the Gospel Oak to Barking LINe
Model for route identifiers on the UK rail network:
Where x denotes a unique number within that service class
HS High Speed
HS1x for St Pancras
HS2x for future HS2
IC Intercity
Services only stop at major cities. First digit denotes region, then second digit, the route.
IC0x for CrossCountry
IC1x for Great Eastern
IC2x for Southern and Southwestern
IC3x for Great Western
IC4x for West Coast
IC5x for Midland
IC6x for East Coast
IC7x for TransPennine
IC8x for Scotland
IC9x for Wales
RX Regional Express
Services call at interchanges, major towns, and cities, running semi-fast.
First digit assigned regionally as with intercity, then two unique digits. Digits should mirror equivalent stopping service.
R Regional
Services call at all stations.
First digit assigned regionally as with intercity, then two unique digits.
Some rural routes may alternate stops or terminate short, in which case: R122a and R122b would refer to the same route but for the minor variation.
S Suburban
Services which are in cities or operate primarily as commuter routes. These will be primarily under the control of Combined Authorities.
Utilise single digit that can be reused between cities. Larger cities may use double digits.
For instance in London: S0x for orbital, S1x for Liverpool Street, S2x for Fenchurch Street...
N Night Services
N1x for Caledonian Sleepers
N2 for the Night Riviera
M Metro
T Tram
U Underground
For urban mass transport services.
Open Access Operators
ESx for Eurostar
LUx for Lumo
GCx for Grand Central
HUx for Hull Trains
I appreciate you sparking this discussion. While I understand your perspective on prioritizing ease of navigation, I disagree with your dismissal of the chosen names based solely on their perceived lack of immediate geographical connection.
The reasons why I believe the new names hold significance beyond simple wayfinding are:
1. Recognition and Representation:
Names like Windrush and Suffragette acknowledge and celebrate the contributions of historically marginalized groups in London's development. This recognition is crucial as it fosters a sense of belonging and inclusion for those communities and sends a message of progress for future generations.
2. Contextual Learning and Deeper Understanding:
While the names may not directly point to specific locations, they can spark curiosity and encourage users to learn about the historical context behind them. This creates an opportunity for deeper engagement with the city's diverse tapestry and fosters a sense of connection to its rich history.
3. Long-Term Significance vs. Short-Term Trends:
While you raise concerns about the longevity of names based on "scandal" or "celebration," historical markers often endure beyond fleeting trends. The Windrush generation's struggle for rights will remain an important part of Britain's history, regardless of current headlines. Similarly, the significance of the Suffragettes' fight for women's suffrage transcends any specific point in time.
Finding a Balance:
While user experience remains important, it isn't the sole factor to consider when naming public infrastructure. Striking a balance between facilitating navigation and acknowledging historical and cultural significance is crucial.
Alternative Solutions:
Instead of abandoning names altogether, consider exploring complementary solutions:
Integrating map legends: Provide clear explanations for each name on the map, briefly detailing their historical context.
Developing interactive information modules: Offer optional interactive displays at stations, providing deeper information upon user interaction.
A Final Note:
Change can be unsettling, but it also presents an opportunity for growth and understanding. Embracing the potential of these names to spark dialogue and engage users with the city's history can enrich the overall passenger experience. Let's encourage exploration and learning alongside efficient navigation.