A new train map is coming (and: network status boards)

Neither the old nor the new map bear any resemblance to the actual geography of greater Melbourne. Not an issue for locals, but challenging for visitors. I discovered this challenge when I visited San Francisco – I ‘knew’ the geography of SF from maps, but I struggled to match BART destinations to their actual locations because the stylised network map didn’t match geographic reality. Not sure how to solve this problem, as the global preference seems to be stylised PT maps.

Where are the tram and bus connection logos?

I like the map, but noticed that premium and limited stations have been redesignated as ‘customer service hubs’. Is this an actual change across the network or are they just rebranding them?

While they are at it, “Metlink” (that shows how old it is!!) Android app could REALLY do with an update. Such a hard app to use with all those tiny buttons. I’m using TrainTrapper and Offi to avoid the Metlink app

They seem to have made no attempt to make at least some of the colours the same as the ones in The Plan. So, instead of being yellow like the Baxter–Parliament–Craigieburn line in the final metro, Frankston is maroon. (I don’t know whether it’s a grim in-joke that this is the same colour used for the Metropolitan Line on the famous Tube map; like Franston, that line was designed with complex stopping patterns that have been simplified to the detriment of commuters, and like Frankston the timetable padded to “improve” reliability.)

A proportion of the population is colour-blind, so names for the lines will always be needed, but when you’re shovelling tens of thousands through interchanges it’s a big win to be able to consistently indicate lines by colour. And another big win not to have to change too many of them as you rearrange lines later.

As for the lack of geographical accuracy, this type of map is known as a Beck map after its inventor. When his map for the London Tube was first shown, in the 1930s. it was considered radical and shocking because of this lack of accuracy. To this day visitors to the city undertake half-hour train journeys when they could have walked 400m on the surface – because the map doesn’t tell them. I hate these maps and wish Melbourne would have the courage to revert to something more geographically accurate like the one for the NY subway.

Perhaps a little off-topic, but since most trains from Frankston go to Werribee (or another destination in that direction) on weekdays (and they’re apparently going to be colour-coded on the map accordingly), why don’t the displays on the front of the trains and at stations such as Richmond, South Yarra etc actually say so (instead of just Flinders St)?

I really like the inclusion of regional lines on the map; there is a clear interconnection with their routes in reality, so might as well have it on the map. I bet it’d be subtly helpful for increasing leisure travel on Vline too, by hinting to people they could go further afield via Myki on weekends.

I agree with others that the bay should be shown as an important “anchor” point, just like the River Thames is shown on the Tube maps in London.

Another bit of feedback is that the station blob at North Melbourne is ambiguous – do V/Line trains stop there or not?

And, because we all like to dabble and think we can do it better – here’s a shameless plug for my attempt at a semi-geographically accurate map that still aims to show things clearly (although it is biased towards trams as I figured the geography is more important for that mode) http://mikealex.com/images/metmap.pdf

@Tim: the usual solution in metros is to use numbers or letters for the lines, because that only takes one character position on the destination board. Hence, “Take the A train”. If you have a colour-coded Beck or subway map, you can attach a matching colour-coded metal plate to the front of the train. If you have stable platform assignments you can colour-code directional signage and platform signs. That’s why it’s expensive to change the colours with versions of the map.

Hi everyone,
I’m the Product Development Manager for PTV and I’ve been working on the new map. Thanks for the feedback and I’ve taken the liberty of outlining some of the logic behind each decision. The map will go through multiple drafts and we have six months before we need to lock it down before we start designing things for the launch of RRL in 2015. So lots of time to get comments. The following comments outline the logic of why certain decisions were made – not expecting everyone to necessarily agreed with the logic, but I thought you’d like some insight into the thought process that went into the map. Just remember – you might not be the target audience for the map! ;) Remember to think like a tourist or occasional network with limited knowledge.
Thanks and I look forward to reading more comments. Expect more drafts to be released progressively as we refine it.

Paul on Wed 16 April 2014 at 9:10 am said: I know these things are needed, but I find it irritating that they’re rolling out these new status board when there are plenty of stations on the network that don’t even have an electronic display, showing how many minutes away the next train is. These things are especially important on lines that have low frequency.

The boards are being rolled out on the Frankston Line which now has services every ten minutes during the day, seven day a week. All stations on the Frankston Line have ‘green buttons’ which tell passengers how long until the next train. So that information is available at the stations – but you are of course correct that it isn’t available in a visual format. The real time boards are unfortunately quite expensive (even more expensive than the Network Status Boards!). More stations on the Frankston Line (and across the network generally) will be getting real time screens that show number of minutes until departure but for many stations with lower patronage, the green buttons will remain the primary way to know how many minutes until the next train. Interestingly, I was in NYC last month and they only have real time information on a few lines – you really forget how valuable the green buttons are until you’re waiting on a NYC subway platform at 11pm wondering when the next train is.  So probably worth remembering we are already ahead of many cities in that respect.

Michael Bell on Wed 16 April 2014 at 9:13 am said: Neither the old nor the new map bear any resemblance to the actual geography of greater Melbourne. Not an issue for locals, but challenging for visitors. I discovered this challenge when I visited San Francisco – I ‘knew’ the geography of SF from maps, but I struggled to match BART destinations to their actual locations because the stylised network map didn’t match geographic reality. Not sure how to solve this problem, as the global preference seems to be stylised PT maps.

There is a strong argument for more multi-modal, geographically accurate local area maps that show all modes. But I think we are talking about a different product – the purpose of this map which is designed to let customers find their way through the rail system, so they can find out where to change, etc. The new map is just one of a suite of products provided to customers, some of which may need to be revised. The new map certainly doesn’t remove the requirement for other kinds of maps. The market research into this map provided some interesting findings in terms of how people use the train map in conjunction with other maps on their mobile devices and local area maps at stations. In other words, generally people use the train map to get to a station, and then use their phone to navigate to their final destination.

tranzitjim on Wed 16 April 2014 at 9:35 am said: Each V/Line line should be given their own color, much like with Metro lines.

We tried a number of designs and giving V/Line services their own colours simply ended up looking too complex for passengers and reducing utility. Options examined included colouring the stations on each V/Line service (eg. green dots on the Traralgon Line), but it just confuses things without actually giving any benefits to customers. Unfortunately adding V/Line colours to the map makes the end product more complex without giving passengers any real benefits.

tranzitjim on Wed 16 April 2014 at 9:35 am said: Each : I am not a fan of a plasma screen doing the whole lot. The only electronic part of the display needs to be only where the status is shown for each line.

It is actually cheaper to do it this way – and it means we can change the designs to reflect customer feedback and changes. It means we can add and delete information more easily.

tranzitjim on Wed 16 April 2014 at 9:35 am said: Each V/Line should be done line-by-line as well as Metro.

So far the boards have been representing V/Line pretty well. We have the ability to split out the V/Line information by line if we need to. But that’s something we will be testing and evaluating.

No need to know :) on Wed 16 April 2014 at 12:00 pm said: Where are the tram and bus connection logos?

In market testing we found that this added no value to customers. However, electronic versions of the map can include this information (eg. when you touch a station it can give you a list of connecting services, etc..). On a static map it isn’t useful, but it will be VERY useful on other mediums.

Aidan on Wed 16 April 2014 at 1:06 pm said: Thank God someone else said “there are plenty of stations on the network that don’t even have an electronic display, showing how many minutes away the next train is.” I’ve been wanting this done for years at Narre Warren.

As discussed above, this information is available at stations via the green buttons. Obviously the real time screens are expensive so these have only been rolled out selectively – but more stations will be getting them.

Aidan on Wed 16 April 2014 at 1:06 pm said: Also, I wish the Cranbourne Line was the same as the Alamein in regards to being a shuttle service when not in peak, because quite Frankly, there are definitely not as meany people on Cranbourne As there is Pakenham, They should have a 15 or 10 minute Pakenham line frequency with 3 carriages during the middle of the day (allows more trains to run) with a high frequency shuttle service to Cranbourne.

The long term plan is to eliminate all shuttle services from Dandenong with trains operating either to Pakenham or Cranbourne. For this reason, we haven’t shown shuttle service at Cranbourne. Same logic for shuttle services from Ringwood.

Phil on Wed 16 April 2014 at 1:36 pm said: I like the map, but noticed that premium and limited stations have been redesignated as ‘customer service hubs’. Is this an actual change across the network or are they just rebranding them?

We are considering rebranding them – what do you think of the new term? We are considering a consistent term across Metro, V/Line and PTV and that’s one of the things we are testing with the new map.

Tim on Wed 16 April 2014 at 3:43 pm said: Here’s one thing that IS missing from this new network map: Something that identifies where a train might be indicated as traveling to. I’ll give an example. The other week I had to catch a V/Line service to Geelong. That’s fine – it was easy to find on the timetables. But when I got to Southern Cross, it wasn’t so simple. Why? Because the train was listed as traveling to ‘Marshall’, not ‘Geelong’, a place I’ve frankly never heard of.

The benefit of having line colours is that you can start to promote services via these rather than the end destination of the line. Ideally, in a few years we would have line names (eg. like London). E.g. this is the X line service to Y. But that’s quite some time off. Due to the large number of places we terminate trains on the network it isn’t feasible to include them all (eg. on the Hurstbridge Line we terminate trains at Macleod, Greensborough, Eltham and Hustbridge). If we ever get more consistent operating patterns and starting points we might be able to consider that in the future.

Tim on Wed 16 April 2014 at 9:52 pm said: why haven’t they included RRL if it’s going to be rolled out when it starts next year?

We haven’t included RRL or the new stations being opened on the map – but they will be included. Don’t forget, this map is only on display at three stations and the PTV Hub at Southern Cross! The map is designed to accommodate RRL – the line at Deer Park will continue down to Little River (so two more stations in that space).

Francis E on Wed 16 April 2014 at 10:43 pm said: They seem to have made no attempt to make at least some of the colours the same as the ones in The Plan.

The Plan was designed by engineers and there wasn’t any market testing of the colours – which were just to show concepts. The map is designed to be more user friendly. The map has been tested for people who are colour blind and we are already consulting with various vision groups for their comments and feedback. For example, we have designed the map so that the Red and Green Lines are not next to each other.

Francis E on Wed 16 April 2014 at 10:43 pm said: As for the lack of geographical accuracy, this type of map is known as a Beck map after its inventor. When his map for the London Tube was first shown, in the 1930s. it was considered radical and shocking because of this lack of accuracy. To this day visitors to the city undertake half-hour train journeys when they could have walked 400m on the surface – because the map doesn’t tell them. I hate these maps and wish Melbourne would have the courage to revert to something more geographically accurate like the one for the NY subway.

It isn’t possible to have a network map that is geographically accurate for a city as large as Melbourne. However, that doesn’t mean we can’t have geographically accurate maps on a local level. London has invested significant money recently in developing a suite of maps at stations and on streets to show walking distances. PTV is working with the City of Melbourne and other groups on a similar project. However, the use of mobile phones is changing this significantly – people are now using products like Google Maps to estimate walking time. The problem of people doing long tube journeys for short distances has largely been eliminated in London with a combination of mobile devices and local area maps. In the focus groups we held for the new map it was interesting that people said that they would often use Google Maps in conjunction with the map (eg. see how long it would take to walk all the way, use the train map to get to the nearest stop and then use Google Maps, etc.). Our research really helped to position this map in relation to the other information sources that customers use.

Francis E on Wed 16 April 2014 at 10:53 pm said: Perhaps a little off-topic, but since most trains from Frankston go to Werribee (or another destination in that direction) on weekdays (and they’re apparently going to be colour-coded on the map accordingly), why don’t the displays on the front of the trains and at stations such as Richmond, South Yarra etc actually say so (instead of just Flinders St)?

We are working towards this – there are some technical issues to resolve. This is highly desirable to reduce the number of transfers made by passengers.

Tim Richards on Thu 17 April 2014 at 8:12 am said: I really like the inclusion of regional lines on the map; there is a clear interconnection with their routes in reality, so might as well have it on the map. I bet it’d be subtly helpful for increasing leisure travel on Vline too, by hinting to people they could go further afield via Myki on weekends.

Yes, we hope the new map will encourage Melbournians to know they can travel more easily to regional Victoria. People tend to forget that you can travel around Melbourne, jump on the train to Ballarat and then travel around local buses in Ballarat all on the one myki and get information for your entire trip via the same website and call centre. Now that there is greater integration in terms of ticketing, services and information, it is time to start promoting it. The map helps with this.

Matthew Coote on Thu 17 April 2014 at 8:18 am said: I agree with Michael Bell and Francis E re: problem with lack of resemblance to the actual geography of Greater Melbourne. Sandringham, for example, is shown on the map as southwest of the loop and in the middle of Port Phillip Bay. While such inaccuracy is amusing this will be an issue for intrastate, interstate and international visitors. Readers, put yourself in the shoes of a visitor and recall your feelings anxiety when you visited a big city for the first time and travelled on public transport. Remember your feelings of annoyance and anger when you were told incorrect information and wasted valuable time and money.

We considered including the bay on the map, but it actually ending up being misleading for people as it implies the map is geographically accurate, which it isn’t. I understand your concern, but it was considered to be far more misleading for tourists to imply any level of geographic consistency by including landmarks. By putting the Bay on a schematic map, you actually make the problem worse.

Mike on Thu 17 April 2014 at 9:19 am said: Another bit of feedback is that the station blob at North Melbourne is ambiguous – do V/Line trains stop there or not?

V/Line trains will not stop at North Melbourne once Regional Rail Link is opened. There are a couple of reasons for this, but the main one is that with the network becoming more congested, V/Line passengers wouldn’t necessarily be able to board Metro trains at that station easily. By running express to Southern Cross the passengers can transfer to Platform 9 and pick up trains to Flagstaff, Melbourne Central and Parliament that have already dropped off most of their passengers at Flinders Street. That is one of the reasons why the South Morang and Hurstbridge Lines were altered to always operate clockwise around the loop – any V/Line passenger arriving at Southern Cross can be sure that there will be a service to the underground loop stations departing from Platform 9, seven days a week.

I still think that trams and busses should be listed. It can help a little bit sometimes, and as for the sandringham line, I think it should not fan out like that. This is just a bit of a small petty opinion, but it implies that the Frankston line is further away from the bay than it actually is. But that dosent really matter, :D

@Mike wrote:
“And, because we all like to dabble and think we can do it better – here’s a shameless plug for my attempt at a semi-geographically accurate map that still aims to show things clearly (although it is biased towards trams as I figured the geography is more important for that mode) http://mikealex.com/images/metmap.pdf ”

Can I be the first to say that I really like Mike’s map? I’ve seen countless train maps and tram maps, but I don’t recall ever seeing an integration of the two, let alone such a good one.

@AdrianW wrote:
“All stations on the Frankston Line have ‘green buttons’ which tell passengers how long until the next train. So that information is available at the stations – but you are of course correct that it isn’t available in a visual format.”

Adrian, please don’t forget people who are hearing impaired. Green buttons with audio messages don’t help them much. Ideally all real-time running information should be available in both audio and visual formats. I’m not deaf, but I regularly chat on social media with people who are, and the lack of real-time visual information is a constant source of frustration for them. This is annoying enough when trains are merely running a bit late, but becomes a real problem when there are serious disruptions to service, such as trains terminating short of their destination, or trains replaced by buses. Announcements of these disruptions are often made only over the PA system, and not backed up by anything visual. This is completely useless if you are deaf.

It looks OK.

The only change I’d make, is to bend Alamein down at a 45 degree angle, and label it’s stations horizontally on the right of the track. Easier to read the names and a better representation of the actual direction.

@AdrianW – PTV is working with the City of Melbourne and other groups on a similar project. However, the use of mobile phones is changing this significantly – people are now using products like Google Maps to estimate walking time.

Not meaning to be rude, but given the opportunity I’d much rather use Google Maps to work out my entire journey; it worked beautifully for me travelling around North America in 2012. PTV did promise to realise the necessary data in a suitable API, but it seems your (well not you personally, but the company) has a different idea of what makes a suitable API to Google and most app developers. Given that Google is, well… Google, it seems like if you are going to release the data, it would be sensible to comply with GTFS. If PTV are not going to fix the API, then it would at least be nice if Android got a software update! Android does currently have a larger market share than IOS.

But Adrian, why has the “Metlink” Android app not been updated since 2011? It really is a hideous app for usability and general viewing of the network particulars. Most of the reviews on google play are negative.. why not port the iphone app to android?

It’s absolutely fantastic to see this project underway. About time!

The drafts look very promising.

I have to point out of course that our Melbourne Rail and Tram Map has been online continuously since 1996.

http://www.railmaps.com.au/melbourn.htm

Our map has been oft copied – Mike’s map (above) is but one whose work is based on our map (don’t worry we consider it a compliment), There have even been international companies who have printed commercial maps that have copied ours (we’re not quite so OK with them).

We developed our map principally because the ‘official’ Melbourne rail and tram maps of the time were so hopelessly inadequate that they did an injustice to the network. In the 18 years since we first published our Melbourne map the official maps have barely improved at all. However I have to say that I am extremely encouraged by what I’m seeing here and it seems likely that for the first time ever Melbourne could be about to get a quality network map that does justice to the great system.

Andrew W – we wish you all the best with your project. We’ll be looking at your drafts a bit more closely and commenting. If there’s anything you’d like from us here at Australian Rail Maps – we’d be very happy to help.

I would like to say that I really like where this concept map is heading. It is the map Melbourne has needed for a long time.

As someone who has lived in London and travelled the world, I can safely say that Melbourne is one of the hardest networks I have had the privilege to navigate. Only locals get it after years of figuring it out.

We need a more navigation friendly network map. But not just one. I understand the focus here is on rail, but the continued focus of lets fix this single part first, compared to, let’s have an overall rethink of the whole system to see how we can make this better, drives me bonkers.

For physical maps (digital can have multiple user toggled layers) I would like to see the London model of mapping:
– At the station forecourt, an oversized network map. A map that people can walk up to and spend time figuring out a journey on all available modes. This map would be the frequency map for all modes and lots of secondary/supplemental info map all in one. Hence the oversized condition.
– On the station platform (inside the ticket gates) and on board the train would be two maps:
1. The metro network map. Suburban rail services only showing interchanges, no secondary information or connecting modes.
2. The line guide. A horizontal line of the train route you are on.

These maps would have a unified design language that is also used on all other modes of PT.

To the concept map…

I really do like it in this early stage. Some notes:
– The station marker spacing is inconsistent (e.g Glen Waverley branch vs Pakenham branch)
– Station labels don’t align consistently with the station markers (e.g. Victoria Park v Westgarth)
– For readability, I prefer station labels to be always on one side of the route line and horizontal. The new Moscow map does this very well. (http://ilyabirman.net/projects/moscow-metro/)
– Station markers AND Customer Hubs. Why not just the customer hub symbol?
– The Altona/Newport/Werribee area of the map looks a bit messy compared to the rest of the map. Could the “loop” be removed so that a line just runs parallel to the Werribee line?

What is great is @AdrianW communicating the design processes to the community. I want to meet with you to shake your hand and then have a coffee to discuss in detail!

Look forward to future versions and I have too many ideas to mention in one comment.

James Miller on Sat 19 April 2014 at 1:48 pm said: I would like to say that I really like where this concept map is heading. It is the map Melbourne has needed for a long time.

Thanks. Although I think we agree that it is one map in a suite of maps and products that we need – but it’s the first step. :)

As someone who has lived in London and travelled the world, I can safely say that Melbourne is one of the hardest networks I have had the privilege to navigate. Only locals get it after years of figuring it out.

True – but the problem hasn’t necessarily just been the map, but rather the services have been too complex to represent on a map. This project is a mixture of mapping and also working with service planning to provide more consistent operation. Overall the goal is to have a more legible and customer friendly transport network, but there are a lot of elements that will have to go into that. As an example, I pushed really hard to ensure the South Morang and Hurstbridge Lines operated around the loop in a clockwise direction seven days a week. As some of you may recall we had clockwise operation on weekdays and anti-clockwise on weekends. The reason for this was that some people wanted to keep anti-clockwise operation so that drivers remained current on anti-clockwise operation (believe it or not, if we wanted to go back to anti-clockwise we would need to retrain them). The problem is that without consistent operation seven days a week we can’t effectively promote the service. Consistent operation of this loop in a clockwise direction provides a number of key messages for passengers:
– If you live on the South Morang and Hurstbridge Lines then you will always go clockwise around the loop (I know it’s obvious but not being able to predict loop direction really annoys many passengers)
– V/Line passengers arriving at Southern Cross now know that they can catch a train to Melbourne Central, Parliament and Jolimont MCG seven days a week from Platform 9 (and Flagstaff on weekdays).
– If you want to go to Southern Cross from Flinders Street you can always get a train from Platform 1

We need a more navigation friendly network map. But not just one. I understand the focus here is on rail, but the continued focus of lets fix this single part first, compared to, let’s have an overall rethink of the whole system to see how we can make this better, drives me bonkers.

Couldn’t agree more. If we get the map right then we can change the line specific maps, we can then look at signage at station platforms so that customer at Flinders Street has a better idea of where to go, etc.. We are working on the total suite. :)

For physical maps (digital can have multiple user toggled layers) I would like to see the London model of mapping:
– At the station forecourt, an oversized network map. A map that people can walk up to and spend time figuring out a journey on all available modes. This map would be the frequency map for all modes and lots of secondary/supplemental info map all in one. Hence the oversized condition.
– On the station platform (inside the ticket gates) and on board the train would be two maps:
1. The metro network map. Suburban rail services only showing interchanges, no secondary information or connecting modes.
2. The line guide. A horizontal line of the train route you are on.
These maps would have a unified design language that is also used on all other modes of PT.

Yes, all things we are looking at. :)

To the concept map…
I really do like it in this early stage. Some notes:
– The station marker spacing is inconsistent (e.g Glen Waverley branch vs Pakenham branch)
– Station labels don’t align consistently with the station markers (e.g. Victoria Park v Westgarth)
– For readability, I prefer station labels to be always on one side of the route line and horizontal. The new Moscow map does this very well. (http://ilyabirman.net/projects/moscow-metro/)
– Station markers AND Customer Hubs. Why not just the customer hub symbol?
– The Altona/Newport/Werribee area of the map looks a bit messy compared to the rest of the map. Could the “loop” be removed so that a line just runs parallel to the Werribee line?

Station spacing is always going to be complex. We have used a number of subtle things – such as where some lines go from being Metro to V/Line we switch the side of the line that the station names appear. We do want the map to provide a visually pleasing experience, and that’s one of the reasons that we have played with geography. Having a map that looks balanced and visually appealing does have a patronage benefit – and that’s a key objective. Have a map that people like, want to use, and helps grow patronage. Maps particularly target off-peak occasional users so that’s good for everyone. :)

The Werribee Loop is a little complex in terms of operation. As many of you know, we have single track on the loop which limits the number of services that can be operated and reduces the performance of the line. These stations have relatively low patronage compared to Werribee, Hoppers Crossing, etc. which have massive patronage levels and are growing fast. With RRL removing V/Line trains from the Werribee line we will have a lot more flexibility and capacity on the line (which was one of the main points of RRL). When RRL is introduced, of course the grey line via Newport will disappear which will make the Werribee line look a bit clearer and provides the opportunity to add extra information (eg. when you eliminate the grey line to the north of the Werribee Line then you can put information on the line both above and below).

Thanks for the detailed reply, Adrian :)

My eyes popped out when you mentioned you campaigned for the clockwise loop of the Clifton Hill group! So not only are you a map builder, wayfinder and public spokesperson, but also transport planner!? You need far more people working for you by the sounds of it.

Just a quick clarification about my Werribee/Altona map region:
I’m studying digital media design in my spare time so the design aspect was really my focus as plenty of others on here can go for gold in regards to operations and tph etc.

What I was referring to was the eastern network is highly stylised with the 45° lines and nice clean spacing.

The western side of the network appears to attempt to hold onto reality by representing the geography/real world.

Most lines after leaving the loop only have one bend/angle change. The Werribee line has 4! My suggestion would be that the line run 135° from footscray with the Williamstown branch coming off at 45°. The Altona line and Werribee lines run alongside each other (I.e. Not showing the actual loop on the map), with the Werribee line represented by your “direct services” line style and the Altona line displaying the 3 stations. The same style tithe way the routes are displayed around Burnely & East Richmond.

Hard to explain but hopefully you get what I am trying to convey. A cleaner line style for the west.

James Miller on Sun 20 April 2014 at 11:54 am said:
Thanks for the detailed reply, Adrian :)
My eyes popped out when you mentioned you campaigned for the clockwise loop of the Clifton Hill group! So not only are you a map builder, wayfinder and public spokesperson, but also transport planner!? You need far more people working for you by the sounds of it.

You pick up a few things after working in public transport for nineteen years. ;) My role is to work with other areas to create products that resonate with passengers. This involves collaboration between marketing, signage, data analysis, planning, operations and customer service. I’m effective because I don’t have lots of people working for me. ;) There are lots of extremely smart and dedicated people in PTV and I’m proud to work there. Many people have technical expertise well beyond my own in particular areas – but my skill is knowing who knows what. I’ve turned being the little kid who asked why into a career. ;) Some of my previous projects include the 601 bus from Huntingdale to Monash (which during semester are now the busiest buses in Melbourne carrying more than 1400 passengers per day per bus), the discount weekend fares that doubled Sunday patronage on the rail network and reduced the government subsidy per weekend traveller by around half (cost of running the network was spread over significantly more people), the rainbow boards (development of concept and then handed it over to smart people to implement). I have an awesome job. ;)

I think you’ve made some good points about the Altona loop. Of course half the comments above are asking for more geographic consistency and half are asking for less. ;) So either way I can’t make everyone happy. With the removal of the V/Line services along Werribee your suggestion becomes more viable – but give me the argument in twenty words or less – that we can use for people in that area when they complain about it not looking like real life. :) I’m serious – tell me how to sell it and I will seriously consider it. ;)

Stony Point — it looks like a V/Line service, runs like a V/Line service (apart from ticketing?). The fact that it’s technically a Metro service is irrelevant for passengers. It’s quite proper that it be marked on the map like a V/Line service (that accepts Myki). Even putting the (Metro) on the map is probably not necessary.

No real difference in ticketing between Stony Point and V/Line – both Myki services. I think there is a broader question here about how Stony Point is explained to customers more generally (outside the map). If we put it as V/Line then people will expect to be able to get information from the V/Line website. If we position it as Metro it implies a level of service that isn’t appropriate. I guess one potential outcome is to co-brand timetables with Metro and V/Line or maybe just brand everything connected with Stony Point as PTV. Either way, it’s something we should address – even though of course patronage on that line is pretty small! It is certainly a line that in decades to come will be important as development occurs down there.
http://tt.ptv.vic.gov.au/tt/TTB/20140416-162446/vic/02SPTF_ttb_TP.pdf

In relation to the Overland, I think that given the service isn’t included on Myki and that it only operates twice a week, it shouldn’t be included on the map. I guess it could be included as a note in the key. Again, I’m worried about setting expectations that are inconsistent with the product being provided to passengers. The other problem is the route taken by the Overland – you would need a line via North Geelong and Ararat which again would make the map harder to use. For me the key thing is that the Overland is a service with compulsory reservations – it is a very different product to the other regional services. The compromise would be to include the additional stations at the end of the Ararat line but not show the line down to North Geelong. The problem is that you then need another line type and information in the key. The primary form of travel from the Victorian towns served by the Overland to Melbourne is actually coach connecting at Ararat – which is faster than the Overland (eg. Coach to Ararat and then train to Melbourne). So options are: not include, include in the key, include as an extension to Ararat (but not show route via Geelong).
https://www.greatsouthernrail.com.au/site/the_overland/timetables_schedules.jsp

1. Given that the Clifton Hill loop is now permanently clockwise, why not have white arrows in the line?
2. Easiest solution for Ballarat and Bendigo splits would be to use the same design as at Newport and Camberwell, with two lines through station merging at the far end. Onboard conductors and announcements should take care of the rest.
3. Re Albury line running via Sunshine, does the map allow for the future change if it is decided later on to restore the Sunshine standard gauge platform?
4. Adelaide trains are only a few per week, but the Sydney XPT is daily. Easiest solution for the latter is to just have an arrow at the end of the Albury route. Also, does this mean the V/Line extension to Wagga Wagga has been canned? As for the stations served by the Overland only, those routes are supplemented with V/Line buses on other days. Still, if sticking to rail, how about this?
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3809/13949117775_b6b548dfb1_b.jpg – left image
5. Given that any customer complaints/etc are now directed through PTV, why does it matter who operates the Stony Point line? So marking as a V/Line (i.e. reduced service) route should be fine.
6. I really want to see the Hexagon City Loop design :P
7. Did the market research indicate why interchange indicating was a problem at Camberwell (blue), but not at Newport (purple)?
8. Re North Melbourne and the express V/Line services, why not slew the grey line around the station bubble to give some white between the black border and the white line? https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3809/13949117775_b6b548dfb1_b.jpg – right image.
9. When it comes time to name the lines, why not make it a community consultation project? i.e. years back Ricc suggested a Hurstbridge line shuttle named the “Nillumbik Numbat”. Alternatively, the names could come from the local government areas.
10. Adrian commented above that bus/tram interchange information was mostly useless at this scale. What about other station facilities, i.e. toilets, carparking, PSOs?
11. Also, will Customer Service Hubs all have the same first-to-last train staffing hours?
12. Was an experiment done including the 401, 601 and 896 Trainlink services? Other primary routes might be the Smartbus network, and maybe one or two of the tram routes with the highest average trip lengths.
13. Are the status boards standalone with network update functionality, or do they require a constant network connection? I’m guessing the latter; in that case, what happens if the network drops out for half an hour?
14. Relative positioning – on the current map, a useful but little-known feature is that the Craigieburn/Upfield/South Morang line stations, at least, match distances from the city – indicating, for example, that Bell and Coburg stations are on the same east-west axis (Bell St). I suppose with no geographic reference this is moot?
15. What was behind the decision to not indicate zones? If shaded backgrounds aren’t warranted, another option would be to have a thin line perpendicular to the track at zone-change stations, with text indicating the change from Zone X to Zone Y. Result could be similar to the existing tram route maps (showing streets) and the train route maps (showing section times in peak hours). Of course this is a lot harder with Myki covering all 73 zones, but still worth considering?
16. Routing in the inner area:
a. Indicating that the Glen Waverley trains terminate at Flinders Street adjacent to the Sandringham line is useful from an artistic perspective, but may be confusing to some travellers. I don’t know if this is an actual problem, but was the question asked in development?
b. When was the last time a train stopped at both Showgrounds and Racecourse? Maybe the line should be redrawn with two tracks through Showgrounds, but the station only indicated on one of them?
c. The same issue could be applicable to East Richmond – relatively few Ringwood trains stop there; probably the same number as Dandenong trains stopping at Armadale/Toorak/Hawksburn.
d. Suggest altering the Bairnsdale line to the outside of the Flinders St – Southern Cross curve, so that it can’t be mistaken for a Bairnsdale-Flemington route if printed in black & white.

Adrian W wrote: – Quiz masters take note: “Which three operating railway stations, not on tourist railways, do not appear on the new map?”.

Hmm – Stawell, Horsham, Dimboola and Nhill?

Thanks for your very detailed reply and consideration of suggestions. It’s refreshing to know that you value suggestions, care about what you’re doing and have obviously put a lot of thought into the job.

AdrianW, it is good to see you are now back online in the various forums.

The issue of City loop, why do we not have City Circle trains?

What the city loop needs, is CityCircle trains. It does not matter which direction they go, city circle trains would benefit almost everyone.

Now with the City Circle trams not running via Southern Cross, and with #75 also no longer linking Southern Cross and Flinders Street stations, I would say that a city circle train would be great again now.

Further to knowing which way for what, you need a display showing where to catch the next trains for which stations. It really does not matter which direction is taken by which tunnels.

++ A simple display on all platforms at Flinders Street which says
—‘next 4 trains to Southern Cross’
–‘next 4 trains to Flagstaff, Melburne Central and Parilament’

At Southern Cross, replace Southern cross with Flinders Street.

++ At Flagstaff you would have
— ‘next 4 trains to Southern Cross’
— ‘next 4 trains to Flinders Street’
— ‘next 4 trains to Melbourne Central and Parliament’

Weather you discriminate between the most direct to the long way around, I do not know.

It is good to maintain fluent-drivers in knowing how to work the loop in both directions, as you do not know what kind of emergency in the future may need that to happen.

After an issue at Flinders Street or Southern Cross, you can run trains into the loop and out again, although somewhat limited. Say Jollimont – Flagstaff – then return back to Jollimont. with some other trains terminating at Melbourne Central and/or Parliament in the meantime.

tranzitjim on Mon 21 April 2014 at 12:33 pm said: The issue of City loop, why do we not have City Circle trains?

When the City Circle Trains were withdrawn, they had very low patronage. I don’t think we necessarily need to operate City Circle Trains if the loops can be operated in a consistent manner so that passengers can always travel between the five loop stations without changing (which is the actual objective you want to meet). The operation of the Clifton Hill Loop in a clockwise direction means that passengers can travel from Flinders Street and Southern Cross to the three underground stations at all times. In terms of travelling between Flinders Street and Southern Cross we now always have trains operating in both directions. So that delivers a good product for a number of passengers. So the problem is underground stations to Flinders Street and Southern Cross during the PM on weekdays. That could be addressed in time by operating the loops in a consistent direction – which I think will probably happen sooner or later. Once we have that happening we can represent it on the map. I think the objective of making sure that people can always travel between all five city loop stations at all times without the need for a change is good – but I’m not sure the reintroduction of the City Circle is actually the best way to meet this objective.

Further to knowing which way for what, you need a display showing where to catch the next trains for which stations. It really does not matter which direction is taken by which tunnels.

Consistent operation means that we can include fixed signage as well as electronic signage (eg. if you want to travel from Southern Cross to the Loop then Platform 9 provides this at all times). So I agree with having better customer information, but not necessarily the operation of the City Circle train. You’d need at least one additional train, probably six carriages rather than three otherwise you’d delay the trains behind from people walking down the platform to board, drivers, etc… Plus if you run it every ten minutes (eg. around one train), then you’ve removed six train paths from the Clifton Hill Loop per hour, and probably reduced the effective capacity by even more than that because you now need to merge the trains arriving from the City Circle with the trains from Jolimont (which leads to delays). A key benefit of consistent operation is that it reduces the number of times trains have to merge – which reduces delays and increases available capacity.

It is good to maintain fluent-drivers in knowing how to work the loop in both directions, as you do not know what kind of emergency in the future may need that to happen. After an issue at Flinders Street or Southern Cross, you can run trains into the loop and out again, although somewhat limited. Say Jollimont – Flagstaff – then return back to Jollimont. with some other trains terminating at Melbourne Central and/or Parliament in the meantime.

We don’t have that capability at the moment operationally – and it is unlikely to be introduced. If we wanted to invest the money required to deliver that functionality (and we’re not talking small amounts of money here by the time you alter the signalling system, customer information systems and train staff to deliver it) then we could include driver training in that. I just can’t foresee a situation where we would want to operate anti-clockwise. If we did (eg. for short term works) then we would need to train a limited number of drivers to pilot the trains through – while there is a cost of this, it is small compared to patronage and revenue benefits from consistent operation seven days a week.

Thanks Adrian,
Re North Melbourne & V/Line services, is this the only place where people have commented on that being potentially misleading?
Well [Ballarat & Bendigo] have the same design as Clifton Hill and Ringwood at present. Does it also not work for those?
I figured that a split-line-then-large-bubble could indicate that changing trains *may* be required at this location; a dot then junction would indicate that trains go through. So Clifton Hill only needs the Customer Service Hub mark, but Ringwood in the short term would be of the split-style. I suppose based on that logic Bendigo wouldn’t need the split indication, and the standard CSH dot would be sufficient.
There does need to a threshold for complexity – if it isn’t going to benefit a few hundred people a week then it shouldn’t been included.
What’s the average weekly XPT loading, compared to that threshold?
[Marking Stony Point as a V/Line service] is my view but V/Line and Metro would probably argue against that. ;)
Have you actually had that discussion with Metro? And besides, do they have a deciding vote?
Well Metro [CSH’s have identical staffing hours], but V/Line hours can be inconsistent.
I was thinking in terms of Host stations – are they being promoted to Premium/CSH, or demoted to normal?
Plus you’d have to add notes so that people don’t assume they had the same operating hours as trains.
How does the 896 Trainlink compare to the Cranbourne line services? Given the name I’d assume it is effectively a rubber-tyred train service. Fair point re 401, 601.
[The status boards] refresh every twenty seconds. If they loose connection with the central server for more than a few minutes (not sure how long exactly) then they automatically display an offline message.
If the status board does go offline, is there some feedback system so that METROL/etc knows about it and can instruct staff to make extra announcements?

Why not try zone indications similar to the Yarra Trams map or London Tube map?

Will the rainbow board be available on both up and down platforms?

And from my understanding from reading above, that this map and the rainbow boards will be available as an app in the future? Is this going to extend to realtime updates for trains?

Maybe with the rainbow board, showing the next 2 up and down services for that local station inc stopping pattern? or is that too much dynamic changes to the actual board.

Mathew on Mon 21 April 2014 at 11:21 pm said: Will the rainbow board be available on both up and down platforms? And from my understanding from reading above, that this map and the rainbow boards will be available as an app in the future? Is this going to extend to realtime updates for trains? Maybe with the rainbow board, showing the next 2 up and down services for that local station inc stopping pattern? or is that too much dynamic changes to the actual board.

Initially the boards are being rolled out on the “to city” platforms on the Frankston Line as those are the passenger who are most likely to be transferring to other services. Passengers on the “to Frankston” platforms have access to the green buttons at all stations that tell them how long until the next train. But the Frankston Line is a trial – we want feedback on the boards and what people think of them. That will assist in working out how broadly to roll the boards out in the future.

The boards are based on London, NYC, etc.. where they are designed to provide information on the overall network – and not specific services. The number of minutes until the next train is best dealt with by other information sources (e.g. displays on platforms, announcements). More of these are being rolled out. Rainbow boards really work well on very frequent lines – and that’s one of the reasons for picking the Frankston line which operates every ten minutes during the day, seven days a week. There is likely to be a larger number of users who just turn up. Testing is on the Frankston line will give us really good feedback as that line has the frequency that other major lines will progressively get in years to come.

We aren’t proposing to release this data as an app, but rather a mobile website. Delivering it as a mobile website means that it is quicker, cheaper and easier to deliver – and doing updates is also easier (if we want to change the format). It will be available soon. :) This is how we expect most people to access this information.

Kurt on Mon 21 April 2014 at 7:45 pm said: Why not try zone indications similar to the Yarra Trams map or London Tube map?

We tried a number of versions, including shading behind (like Yarra or London), using differences in the line colour/texture, changes to the station indicator, little numbers (like Brisbane) after the station name, having the zone number used as the station indicator, etc.. And the problem is that it just makes the map more complex. We reached the view that including zones wasn’t warranted as customers who wanted to find out what fare they needed will have to refer to another information source in any event (eg. check a fares brochure, etc). So we will improve that information rather than putting zones on the map. It doesn’t mean we can’t include it in line specific maps (eg. when you look at a line map for the Frankston Line then it could show the zone boundaries). The key principle is that passengers who want to find out how much their journey will cost should be able to find out easily – there are ways of doing that other than including them on a map, that is just the first stage in the process.

Also worth mentioning that the size of the zone overlap also causes problems here – in London they can just use a boundary and put any stations in multiple zones in a box (their symbol for an overlap zone station). When you have three or four stations in overlaps on each line it becomes quite complex. Our research tends to show that people think it is important, but for other people – not themselves.

AndrewR on Mon 21 April 2014 at 4:32 pm said: Folks, colour coded metro melbourne train maps, with Vline being shown in alternate grey (faded) existed back in the 1980′s for gawds sake. Get with the programme. As for not being able to show zones, pftt. They can do it on the London Underground/ Overground combined map which has far more stations and far far more zones extending out to the countryside than we have yet we cannot do a dotted line cutting through where zone 1 and 2 divide??? No wonder we are a backward nation peddling to no where.

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” Santayana
This isn’t just about a map Andrew – it’s about creating a more logical train network. It worth reminding everyone WHY the colour maps disappeared from the system. The main reason was that the network wasn’t being operated in a consistent manner. Let’s take the Hurstbridge Line as an example – in the 1980s with the opening of the loop the line ended up with a combination of services that ran direct from Jolimont to Flinders Street and services that operated via the Loop. The loop reversed direction in the middle of the day, etc.. That’s pretty complex and quite difficult to explain on a map. Rather than trying to show the very varied service pattern (and risk people saying the map was misleading) they effectively gave up and went for a map that didn’t show how the lines interacted. Over the last few years we have altered the product for the Hurstbridge and South Morang lines so that they now operate the same direction, seven days a week. So this isn’t just about developing a map – it’s about recognising why the last coloured maps were withdrawn and addressing the same issues.

Mathew on Tue 22 April 2014 at 3:47 pm said: Thanks for your feedback Adrian. DO you know if there is any update to Metros real time updates? Its so handy to be able to exactly know when to turn up at a platform, like for Yarra Trams.

Not my area of expertise, but I gather that it is linked with the project to replace the train control system. I gather one of the problems is that we have multiple train control systems in the Metro area which makes it difficult to introduce a consolidated system. So I’m afraid it isn’t something that you can expect in the very short term. It is likely that the product for buses will be launched before the product for trains. Of course you’ll be able to check what time the next five services are scheduled to depart, and whether there are any delays (rainbow board) via the PTV website – so that’s still an improvement in customer information.

Thanks for that explanation Adrian. Considering the number of the zones in the combined Metro/Vline network I suppose that’s reasonable.

My only other criticism is that of the direction of the Alamein line on the map which is at a right angle to its true direction. Would it not be better to have it pointing in the same south-easterly direction as the Glen Waverley line? That would also mean that its station names could be written horizontally rather than on an angle.

I also think it would be worthy reconsidering adding a heavily stylised Port Phillip and Bass Strait, similar to how most other rail maps show their city’s main body of water. It’d put into perspective roughly where Geelong, Williamstown, Sandringham, and Frankston are in relation to the bay, and would also highlight that Warrnambool and Bairnsdale are well away from it.

As you said yourself, people are using Google Maps to visualise the true distance to locations anyway, so a nice blue bay would only add to the aesthetics of the map rather than detract from it’s usability.

Id think since zone 2 is going, I support the fact that Zone info isn’t required.

I guess at the same time, we have to look at this map as a medium to long term plan till new lines get built (Melbourne Airport/Melbourne Metro).

Daniel K on Tue 22 April 2014 at 8:39 pm said: Why not just put a little icon next to the name of the station that forms the start of the zone 1/2 overlap, and explain what the icon means in the legend. Or even just a little perpendicular notch on each line. That way there’s complete zone information (given the zone 2 exclusive bits are going to be abolished anyway, right?) with hardly any clutter at all, and only people who are looking for zone information will notice it.

If this was a Metropolitan map then this might work, but you then have to deal with all the other locations – some of which are in myki and some of which are not. We looked at a number of options (eg. trying to define metro zones by background colour, station design, etc. and then using zone numbers for regional stations), but the problem is that we don’t actually think that information is going to be particularly useful for customers – given they still need to refer to another sources of information for the fares. Many maps don’t include zone boundaries – such as Sydney – while others do – such as Brisbane. The question here is whether all the added complexity assists or hinders customers. The map is designed to help passengers and the danger is that you actually end up compromising that objective. We will release some of the options we looked at which will help inform the debate.

I do not think that the regional lines, beyond the urban boundary, should necessarily be shown on the suburban rail map. The London Underground map does not show England`s Nation Rail network.

I know there would be a cost factor, but is it worth digitizing the map as well as say the myki prices and timerables such and run it in a lcd board like the rainbow boards.. 45sec rotating…

Would cut the cost if reprinting and let you change important stuff quickly..

Adrian,

What was behind the decision to produce a “rail” map, as opposed to a “high frequency” map? Or if you’re aiming to show the public transport network’s spread over Victoria, then might be better off showing the entire state and including V/Line coaches etc. Something like the maps at vrhistory.com but with coach routes added.

For a frequency map, consider these:
http://www.humantransit.org/2012/11/melbourne-an-updated-frequent-network-map.html
http://www.ptua.org.au/2012/10/03/frequent-services-still-lag/#maps
http://www.danielbowen.com/2014/04/09/how-long-to-city/

Also, not sure if you saw my reply above, Mon 21 April 2014 at 5:04 pm?

Mathew on Thu 24 April 2014 at 1:58 am said: I know there would be a cost factor, but is it worth digitizing the map as well as say the myki prices and timerables such and run it in a lcd board like the rainbow boards.. 45sec rotating…Would cut the cost if reprinting and let you change important stuff quickly..

We’ve looked at having electronic information at stations before and until now the costs have been too high – but definitely this is something that can be considered as the costs come down. The Rainbow Board project will provide some valuable feedback on what it costs to install and maintain such screens. You never know, we might find out that putting in a few screens isn’t that much more expensive than one screen – the downside being that screens do wear out after a few years. Counter argument is that 7 out of 10 of our customers have smartphones and that number is rising – so there is a law of diminishing returns at work here.

Hi Adrian,

Re XPT, shouldn’t there be a note that the train continues to NSW? After all, Albury isn’t a Victorian station :)

Agree re not showing Host stations, but that may need to be made clearer in the initial stages. Maybe a note down the bottom to the effect of, “some stations staffed in AMP, most stations staffed from 6pm”.

Re status boards going offline, what about when the boards fail at an intermediate, non-staffed station? Or if METROL calls staff away from the counter to switch in a panel for an overtaking move or to deal with a freight train? Point is, staff won’t always be immediately present and there should be a third tier of information supply after status board and staff. As mentioned previously, not everyone has a mobile phone.

Even if the feedback system isn’t deemed necessary at this stage, it makes sense to provide for it at the technological level just in case that changes at a later date.

Re mode maps vs frequency maps –
The purpose of a map overall is to provide information related to the fastest/most reliable/best option from A to B, and to transmit that information at a quick glance. The best option might not always be rail.

if people are travelling, it makes sense to take the the fastest, most direct journey possible. If you were driving from Eltham to Dandenong, you’d be nuts to suggest driving via the freeway/tollway network. Sure, the freeways are probably faster, but it’s a much longer journey overall.

Same thing with PT – why would you want to travel Richmond-City-Collinwgood by train when the 246 bus is a better option because it runs direct? Or a more extreme example – why take V/Line trains from Warrnambool to Southern Cross then back to Ararat, when a coach will do the trip in about half the time?

Showing rail-only, at the expense of other options, is very limiting and may restrict people’s views of how useable public transport can be.

Having a whole-of-network map is pointless if it doesn’t show the whole network. If that’s the goal, it makes sense to show the lot.

A frequency map gives the best quick overview of the network as applicable to the majority of trips (either majority total, or majority-portions of all trips). Varying frequencies can be solved with different colour or thickness of lines; thicker lines = peak 5min, offpeak 10min, nights/weekend 20min or better; medium line 10/15/30 or better, thin line 20/40/60 or better, other routes see local area maps.

There are times when someone might want to travel by certain modes; say they’re in a wheelchair or are travelling with a bike (the latter option is not available on the current Journey Planner), or you’re a gunzel. But these are a minority of cases. The majority of people shouldn’t have a preference between modes, if the modes are of equal frequency and reliability.

So, in answer to your two points-
a) A frequency map could well make a rail map obsolete, if the threshold is set high enough. You’d lose V/Line but gain the Smartbus series and a few others. Very good for a Melbourne map, so that would go in the Metro and Feeder classes of vehicles. The Statewide map would go in the Intercity/Interurban vehicles, and anywhere those vehicles stop. It could also be shown at other locations as space permits.
b) Trying to do a frequent network and service area map on the same document is possible electronically, but impossible on a standard poster. You’d need to make a choice about what goes where, but trying to avoid that choice by making a rail-only (or bus-only, etc) map is just about the worst of both worlds.

As for LA: I presume you mean this map – http://media.metro.net/riding_metro/maps/images/rail_map.pdf
Note it shows the silver and orange “Metro Liner” routes, which are apparently buses running to train schedules. Sounds like the 900/etc to me.

Re XPT, shouldn’t there be a note that the train continues to NSW? After all, Albury isn’t a Victorian station :)

No but it is a V/Line Station. We considered adding a “to Sydney” designation but beyond Albury you go from five trains a day to two trains a day – so we were comfortable not including it. XPT is strictly a reserved service. Also, they do have their own map! :)
http://www.nswtrainlink.info/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/18353/Regional_network_map.pdf

Agree re not showing Host stations, but that may need to be made clearer in the initial stages. Maybe a note down the bottom to the effect of, “some stations staffed in AMP, most stations staffed from 6pm”.

We just don’t think that adds value to the map. Best place to inform customers of host status will be at the stations themselves or on a clickable version of the map. People don’t read notes ;)

Re status boards going offline, what about when the boards fail at an intermediate, non-staffed station? Or if METROL calls staff away from the counter to switch in a panel for an overtaking move or to deal with a freight train? Point is, staff won’t always be immediately present and there should be a third tier of information supply after status board and staff. As mentioned previously, not everyone has a mobile phone.

If the board isn’t refreshing the system picks up on it. But if a rainbow board fails then it isn’t the end of the world. We expect staff to make announcements for people with vision impairments anyway. This is one more source of information in addition to the existing suite of information. Rainbow boards aren’t at every station – worst case scenario is that a station with a rainbow board temporarily becomes like a station without a rainbow board. We expect existing information sources to be retained and improved.

The purpose of a map overall is to provide information related to the fastest/most reliable/best option from A to B, and to transmit that information at a quick glance.

I disagree – the role of the journey planner is designed to tell the customer the quickest way for A to B for travel across Melbourne. The journey planner is fully multi-modal and picks the best route using all available services – including those that are low frequency that might provide a better service. The role of this map is for people who have already decided they want to use rail to get between two station and see how to get there, where to change and track their journey. Even a map of high frequency services may be misleading as there may be a low frequency service more suited to their trip. The map is one of a suite of products – as soon as you say “fastest” or “best” option then the map isn’t the right product to determine this. Using the journey planner – either online or calling the call centre – gives you the best option. The new map absolutely assumes that you have already made the decision to travel by rail based on pre existing knowledge or another product.

A frequency map gives the best quick overview of the network as applicable to the majority of trips (either majority total, or majority-portions of all trips). Varying frequencies can be solved with different colour or thickness of lines; thicker lines = peak 5min, offpeak 10min, nights/weekend 20min or better; medium line 10/15/30 or better, thin line 20/40/60 or better, other routes see local area maps.

But why not have a full network map, all modes and routes, and distinguish the frequency of maps on there? I agree with frequency maps but I think you’re trying to add this to the wrong product for passengers. You’ve focused on buses but trams are just as frequent – you can’t add the worlds largest tram network to a map of one of the largest suburban train networks in the world and expect it to be legible where we display it now. You’re talking about a different product.

As for LA: I presume you mean this map – http://media.metro.net/riding_metro/maps/images/rail_map.pdf
Note it shows the silver and orange “Metro Liner” routes, which are apparently buses running to train schedules. Sounds like the 900/etc to me.

The Metro Liner routes are generally buses operating on dedicated infrastructure. The LA equivalent of Smartbus are Metro Rapid routes which aren’t shown on the train map but are shown on the full network map.
http://media.metro.net/riding_metro/maps/images/system_map.pdf

The new map will be rail only, and I’m not going to respond to other comments on this point. However, I am willing to continue the discussion in relation to other products (eg. If we do a full network map for Melbourne – like LA does in the link above), how do we designate frequency, etc. How should local area maps be changed? What information should be included in the train line diagrams (eg. Line by Line).

While I agree that a frequency map should be developed by PTV, I also agree with Adrian’s sentiment that it cannot replace a rail map. If we replaced all the rail maps in stations/on trains/etc with what some above a proposing, there would be mass confusion among the public. People are riding a train, so they expect a train map. Of course, we do want to encourage the further use of trams/buses rather than an obsession with trains, but it’s a gradual process. We can have a frequency map online while having the rail map in person.

Furthermore, a huge flaw with frequency maps is that they do not represent speed. With rail maps, although it isn’t explicit, one can assume you will move pretty quickly and faster than a bus or tram. If I had a frequency map and wanted to go from Box Hill to Mordialloc, you’d assume you could get the frequent 903. But according to the Journey Planner, it is actually faster, and more reliable, to get the train into the city and out again along the spokes. I don’t believe frequency maps are the godsend of public transport information as they are often portrayed.

The new map needs to be displayed in a number of places (eg. brochures, on trains, etc.) where increased complexity seriously compromises the usability of the product. Hence the desire to keep it purely as a train map.

This discussion has certainly highlighted the need to look at certain other map products – which was always on the ‘to do’ list. :)

PTV used to produce a complete network map that folded out. It used to sell for $2 but the reality was that the only people who were using it were transport planners and transport enthusiasts. It wasn’t a very useful product for passengers – as they still needed to refer to another source to determine timetables, frequency, etc. The product was discontinued, but we have local area maps:
http://ptv.vic.gov.au/getting-around/local-areas/

Los Angeles has this product:
http://media.metro.net/riding_metro/maps/images/system_map.pdf

Now, we could release a metropolitan map based on the local area maps, but the question is whether such a product would be of interest or use to the general public – or whether it would become like the old fold out metropolitan bus map which was only used by transport planners or transport enthusiasts. Producing and then maintaining a new map isn’t cheap – so we need to be sure that there would be a market for it before it was produced. Given the size of Melbourne then any map of this sort would probably need to be electronic (which has the advantage of lower publishing costs). The problem is that if it was electronic, then wouldn’t the journey planner provide customers with better information (e.g. if you are looking at the map on your phone, tablet or desktop then wouldn’t it be easier to just plan a journey with the journey planner).

So there are two questions:
– Are there any advantages to having a large metropolitan map for the general public in digital format? Does it potentially risk people trying to use the product in combination with timetables, where it may have been more appropriate for them to use the journey planner?
– If we do product a metropolitan wide map, what should be displayed? There have been some good comments made in relation to ensuring that thickness of lines reflect frequency, but what else? (bearing in mind the map will be geographically accurate).

Just as well all those branch line services were closed since the ’80s or they couldn’t fit them on the map.
eg Healesville, Mornington, Whittlesea (ok ’60s), Wonthaggi, Daylesford and Mansfield

If we’re looking at an electronic map anyway, then it could be integrated with the journey planner’s back-end system; say have a time scrolling bar at the top, so you can view the map at different time periods. That way Nightrider would be shown as the primary (only?) service overnight, but it wouldn’t be shown at all on the day map. This also solves the problem of peak-only or school-only routes.

The diagrammatic map thing is a fashion that can be taken too far. There’s no reason why a map shouldn’t be geographically accurate as far as convenient so people can mentally map it onto their other maps. You can compromise by enlarging the inner area and squashing the extremities of the longer lines.

In particular, the Sandringham line should at least be vertical.

Agree about desirability of giving more prominence to intermediate terminal and other major stations, not only end of line stations.

Agree that there’s no need to show zones on this map. I’d wager that few people decide where they want to go today based on which zone it’s in. People know where they want to go – this map is to help them get there – if they particularly want to know the fare, that is an additional piece of information that belongs elsewhere with ticketing information.

General comment: the ease or difficulty of conveying information interrelates with the fundamental complexity of the information. To a visitor or occasional traveller Melbourne’s rail network will always be confusing as long as they keep the regrettable practice of reversing the loops at lunchtime. Can anyone say what the purpose of this is, or ever was?

Adrian W on interchange from Southern Cross terminal to platform 9 Clifton Hill loop: I hope the authorities will consider retrofitting a better placed staircase so that passengers from platform 8 don’t have to walk 50m the wrong way to find a stair to the upper concourse.

tranzitjim on Canberra’s separate weekday and weekend maps: This is because the entire network (routes, numbers, frequencies) is significantly different at weekends, which I understand results historically from workplace agreements in relation to weekend work for drivers. It’s undesirable. Better to work for a consistent daily service pattern where the only variable, if necessary, is reduced weekend frequency.