The book contains an extremely high quality of illustrations, considering the rarity of the maps themselves.

It's great for anyone with an interest in the London Underground, maps in general or the history of railway publicity. I was lucky enough to interview the book's co-author David Leboff.

Going Underground (GU) - What began your interest in the history of London Underground maps?

David Leboff (DL) I've always been interested in the Underground system, being a Londoner born and bred. When I went to study for a degree in geography and cartography, I was looking for a subject for my final year dissertation which could cover both fields and the Underground map appeared to be an appropriate one. I knew next to nothing about the subject when I started but eventually discovered enough to produce the thesis. For the intervening 17 years, I have been fascinated by the subject and have built up a large collection of maps of my own, as well as researching their origins.

GU - How long did it take to research and write your book?

DL There was not too much to research per se and so much of the time was spent amending the format of the text and illustrations. Overall, it took around two years between being commissioned and seeing the book in print.

GU - You have illustrations of maps dating back to 1867, which was the hardest map to find and how long did it take to locate it?

DL Many of the maps in the book (including the 1867 one) are owned by me personally. The remainder had to be borrowed or copied from fellow collectors or official collections such as the Public Records Office and Guildhall Library. I don't recall any maps which we knew to exist but had trouble locating. To the contrary, we had to be tough and leave out several worthwhile examples which I would have loved to have included.

GU - You think too much importance was given to Harry Beck as the founder of the tube map. Basically he fudged the real locations of the stations, gave greater importance to the central London part of the map and straightened tube lines in order to make the whole map more readable. However, his map has totally confused tourists, as the map gives little indication of the real distance between stations - forcing people to take the tube for one or several stops when a short walk would be quicker!

Who then, in your opinion, was the founding father of the map?

DL My view is that Beck developed the first true diagrammatic depiction of the Underground network and that this was a major advance for which he has been rightly lauded. However, I find it frustrating when people claim that he produced the first map of the Underground, which is patently incorrect. The maps I would regard as the first ones to depict the Underground as a unified network (albeit with some lines under separate ownership) were those produced around 1907/08 (see page 50 of 'No Need to Ask', for example), for they include key features such as colour coding of lines, a unifying title and all lines shown with equal prominence. The actual cartographers/artists of these maps are unknown, although they were probably in-house staff at Johnson Riddle.

GU - The pre 1906 maps showed parks, major roads and following the geographical route to the letter, and to me looked like a complete maze - like an A-Z streetmap of greater London with a tube map superimposed on top.

How on earth do you think people made sense of these early maps?

DL Indeed many of the later maps up to Beck's time also included such features, albeit increasingly in the background. I agree that many of the Victorian maps, such as those in the various District Railway series, are rather cluttered and so large as to make easy use while travelling well nigh impossible (especially in windy conditions!). One I suppose has to remember that the (Underground) railway network was far less complex in those days and also that people's expectations regarding information provision would have been much lower than today's demanding 'customers'.

GU - I love the section where you discuss the company rivalries during early days of the system where companies would publish maps excluding other lines - pre 1906-7 when a unified standard map was introduced showing all lines.

Given that PPP (part privitsation) of the tube is on the way - do you think we could see mad arguments of this type again with different lines being given greater prominence on the map?

DL Thankfully the production of publicity material of this sort will remain in the hands of London Underground (or at least Transport for London) following the start of PPP. This means that there is no prospect of the separate private companies having an influence over the design, format or content of the map.

AM - The front cover of your book features a London Transport poster from 1908 also called "No Need to Ask a P'liceman (sic)" by the artist John Hassell. There's a jolly fat policeman smugly standing in front of one of the "newer" unified standard maps with an elderly couple attempting to ask him the way. Could you tell us more about the story behind that poster?

DL I'm afraid I'm not an expert on poster design or John Hassell and so can't really answer this. I do know that the actual poster is somewhat more extensive than shown on the frontispiece and that the version used on the front cover was produced by my co-author, Tim Demuth.

GU - Which do you think was the most popular map with the public?

DL An impossible question to answer! The 1979 version was produced in greater numbers than any other as far as I am aware, but I can't say it's a particularly outstanding design. The versions produced in the early 1980s which adopted a folded A4 format with adverts around the map itself was known to be unpopular and the map reverted back to standard pocket size within a couple of years.

GU - F H Stingemore's map in 1930 was I believe the last map to show the River Thames following its more or less correct geographical shape and is the only natural surface area to be shown on the map. Do you think Beck's "straightened" river was a mistake or an act of genius?

DL Neither! If anything, it was a bit of a cop-out given there were several maps prior to this which deleted the River and other geographical features completely. I remember doing a comparison between the different shapes adopted for the Thames from 1933 in my degree dissertation. Given it is a diagram and bears little semblence to true geography, there appears to be little justication in retaining its inclusion.

GU - What's the story with Beck's payment then? Was he really only paid 10 guineas - the equivalent of two weeks wages - for his design?

DL I have seen documentary evidence to this effect dating back to the 1930s. He developed the design in his spare time and had a real struggle getting the powers that be to adopt the concept. Therefore, it's perhaps not too surprising that Beck didn't get paid much. Furthermore, I get the impression that he was a little naive commercially and perhaps this contributed towards the situation.

GU - Which is your favourite design and why?

DL There are numerous maps in which I hold particular affection for whatever reason but two stand out for me.

The pride of my collection is a pristine copy of a second edition District Railway Map of London from 1876. (almost identical to that shown on page 11 of 'No Need to Ask'). However, my favourite design is the 1928 map by EG Perman ('No Need to Ask' page 72) - there's something about the subtle use of colour and the ornate calligraphy which I find particularly beautiful.

GU - Someone has designed a geographical map based on today's lines which looks far more like the Edwardian maps in your book. Do you think a move to produce a more standard geographical map would prove popular today?

DL The development of the diagram did not stop geographical depictions of the Underground system being produced. Indeed, there were significant series of fold-out maps produced in the late 1930s and throughout the 1960s in this style. I believe that there is probably a case to be made for the production of a geographic map covering central London which complements (rather than replaces) the pocket diagram.

GU - The early maps had little advertising slogans on them - "What to See and How to See it" & "Stations Everywhere" which nicely promoted the use of the underground itself. Today's maps just seem to be vehicles for Yellow Pages, Scoot and other advertisers. How important do you think the tube map is in actually publicising the use of the London Underground today?

DL Much has been made over the years of the tube 'map' about its significance as a cultural icon and indeed a representation of London itself. To be honest, I believe that the vast majority of people simply regard it as a means of information provision for guidance as to how to travel around what is a complex network.

My personal view is that the space around/on the back of the map should be used for material that promotes or assists use of the Underground, rather than the commercial sponsorship that exists today. This is particularly true of the poster version where the size of the map has had to be reduced to accommodate the sponsor's message.

Thanks for a great interview and anyone who wishes to see the book for themselves or read other reviews should click here.

Transport Exchange

Going Underground's Search Engine Search this site