Subway signs
Nigel Goddard
numbers for the station names and the train identification markings.
Thanks
Sandinista
Belfast
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Can anybody tell me what the correct font type is for the letters and
> numbers for the station names and the train identification markings.
It *looks* like Futura Bold, but it may well be a proprietary font that
hasn't been released for general use. In the US you can't copyright a
typeface (yet), but it used to be possible to simply not sell type to
printers who hoped to use it (such as the New Yorker titling font).
It's easier in London, where Gill Underground was released not long
after as Gill Sans. (Is it still used there?)
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net
Paul Matus
Peter T. Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:381C20...@worldnet.att.net...
> Nigel Goddard wrote:
> >
> > Can anybody tell me what the correct font type is for the letters and
> > numbers for the station names and the train identification markings.
>
> It *looks* like Futura Bold, but it may well be a proprietary font that
> hasn't been released for general use. In the US you can't copyright a
> typeface (yet), but it used to be possible to simply not sell type to
> printers who hoped to use it (such as the New Yorker titling font).
The MTA standardized on Helvetica more than a decade ago for all its
signage. The weight most commonly used now seems to be called Helvetica
Bold, though on Linotype it was known as Helvetica Medium.
Helvetica is probably the most popular single typeface in the world because
of its agreeable appearance, clean design and easy readibility. It is the
only sans-serif face which is truly readable as a text font.
As to copyright, you can copyright typeface _names_ in the U.S. In other
words, you could copy Helvetica and sell, say, transfer type of it, but you
would have to call it something else.
Before you go copying "True Type" or Postscript fonts from computer to
computer, be aware that any scalable font (font where you can get different
display or printing sizes from one master on a computer) *IS* copyrighted.
So don't go passing your Adobe fonts around to your friends.
> It's easier in London, where Gill Underground was released not long
> after as Gill Sans. (Is it still used there?)
Gill Sans is used in the U.S., but is generally thought of a "European"
face.
Joel Rubin
>As to copyright, you can copyright typeface _names_ in the U.S. In other
>words, you could copy Helvetica and sell, say, transfer type of it, but you
>would have to call it something else.
>
>Before you go copying "True Type" or Postscript fonts from computer to
>computer, be aware that any scalable font (font where you can get different
>display or printing sizes from one master on a computer) *IS* copyrighted.
>So don't go passing your Adobe fonts around to your friends.
Didn't some company which sold computer fonts get in trouble because
they didn't look for hidden text strings embedded in the files?
Gazza
Being a Brit I think London's is much more stylish. But I don't want to
start a "battle of the signs"!
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:381C20...@worldnet.att.net...
> > Nigel Goddard wrote:
> > >
> > > Can anybody tell me what the correct font type is for the letters and
> > > numbers for the station names and the train identification markings.
> >
> > It *looks* like Futura Bold, but it may well be a proprietary font that
> > hasn't been released for general use. In the US you can't copyright a
> > typeface (yet), but it used to be possible to simply not sell type to
> > printers who hoped to use it (such as the New Yorker titling font).
>
> The MTA standardized on Helvetica more than a decade ago for all its
> signage. The weight most commonly used now seems to be called Helvetica
> Bold, though on Linotype it was known as Helvetica Medium.
I'm highly dubious, since I find Helvetica ugly but I consider the
subway signage handsome. The third candidate for all-purpose sans serif
font is Univers.
> Helvetica is probably the most popular single typeface in the world because
> of its agreeable appearance, clean design and easy readibility. It is the
> only sans-serif face which is truly readable as a text font.
>
> As to copyright, you can copyright typeface _names_ in the U.S. In other
> words, you could copy Helvetica and sell, say, transfer type of it, but you
> would have to call it something else.
Staples has CD-ROMs with dozens of fonts for $9.95. They even come with
a key to tell you which to use when some standard is called for (years
ago I got a package with "Futurist"). But these bargain fonts tend not
to have the full array of unusual characters -- if your word processor
automatically substitutes the fi and fl ligatures (FrameMaker does),
you'll get an unpleasant surprise upon printout ...
Peter T. Daniels
Edward Johnston may have designed a typeface or two (though I can't
think of any), but Eric Gill was commissioned to make a proprietary
font, Gill Underground, that subsequently became available as Gill Sans.
One still occasionally sees it (especially in ads trying for a period
and English flavor), but when I was in London in 92 at least some of the
signage still used it.
Chris Thompson
>
> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:381C20...@worldnet.att.net...
> > Nigel Goddard wrote:
> > >
> > > Can anybody tell me what the correct font type is for the letters and
> > > numbers for the station names and the train identification markings.
> >
> > It *looks* like Futura Bold, but it may well be a proprietary font that
> > hasn't been released for general use. In the US you can't copyright a
> > typeface (yet), but it used to be possible to simply not sell type to
> > printers who hoped to use it (such as the New Yorker titling font).
>
> The MTA standardized on Helvetica more than a decade ago for all its
> signage. The weight most commonly used now seems to be called Helvetica
> Bold, though on Linotype it was known as Helvetica Medium.
>
> of its agreeable appearance, clean design and easy readibility. It is the
> only sans-serif face which is truly readable as a text font.
>
> As to copyright, you can copyright typeface _names_ in the U.S. In other
> words, you could copy Helvetica and sell, say, transfer type of it, but you
> would have to call it something else.
>
> computer, be aware that any scalable font (font where you can get different
> display or printing sizes from one master on a computer) *IS* copyrighted.
> So don't go passing your Adobe fonts around to your friends.
>
> > after as Gill Sans. (Is it still used there?)
>
> Gill Sans is used in the U.S., but is generally thought of a "European"
> face.
I am consistently amazed at what you can find out by spending a short
time on Usenet.
--
Chris Thompson
Biologist for Hire
Smoke-free since 6 September 1999!
Gazza
did indeed design the London font. It says he designed it in 1916 and that
Eric Gill ( a fine typogropher himself) helped him. Johnston worked on the
project unitl 1940. Then in 1979 Colin Banks produced New Johnston. You can
tell Johnston by the dot on the "i" and the "j"; it's a square at 45
degrees.
As to Helvetica. It's played out but eminently readable. Function over form
maybe.
Paul Matus
> Paul Matus wrote:
> >
> > Peter T. Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > news:381C20...@worldnet.att.net...
< snip >
> >
> > The MTA standardized on Helvetica more than a decade ago for all its
> > signage. The weight most commonly used now seems to be called Helvetica
> > Bold, though on Linotype it was known as Helvetica Medium.
>
> I'm highly dubious, since I find Helvetica ugly but I consider the
> subway signage handsome. The third candidate for all-purpose sans serif
> font is Univers.
I can see where you think the MTA font might be Futura, but it's Helvetica.
Herb Lubalin tried to jump-start Futura with his variant, Avant Garde which
is now, to put it one way, very Last Tuesday.
As to Univers, Adrian Frutiger had a modern perspective in design, but I
don't care much for his typefaces.
Somehow I feel that what you've been looking at as Helvetica have been Brand
X bastardizations, like Arial. Trust me, I've read untold thousands of pages
of copy in many different typefaces, and Helvetica is the only sans-serif
typeface that my eye won't stumble over after a while.
> > Helvetica is probably the most popular single typeface in the world
because
> > of its agreeable appearance, clean design and easy readibility. It is
the
> > only sans-serif face which is truly readable as a text font.
> >
> > As to copyright, you can copyright typeface _names_ in the U.S. In other
> > words, you could copy Helvetica and sell, say, transfer type of it, but
you
> > would have to call it something else.
>
> Staples has CD-ROMs with dozens of fonts for $9.95. They even come with
> a key to tell you which to use when some standard is called for (years
> ago I got a package with "Futurist"). But these bargain fonts tend not
> to have the full array of unusual characters -- if your word processor
> automatically substitutes the fi and fl ligatures (FrameMaker does),
> you'll get an unpleasant surprise upon printout ...
WOTPPAPER
>subway signage handsome. The third candidate for all-purpose sans serif
>font is Univers.
>
Helvetica condensed is ugly and difficult to read in small typeface or at a
distance, but standard Helvetica is one of the most legible typefaces
available.
If this was the 1970s, the MTA probably would have picked stencil as its sign
typeface, so be thankful for what you've got.
Peter T. Daniels
> I can see where you think the MTA font might be Futura, but it's Helvetica.
> Herb Lubalin tried to jump-start Futura with his variant, Avant Garde which
> is now, to put it one way, very Last Tuesday.
Partly because advertisers started using it as a text face -- I wonder
why a lowercase was even provided, since the point was the huge array of
variants for producing novel ligatures. (Was it designed for the
high-class porno mag Avant Garde of the late 60s?)
> As to Univers, Adrian Frutiger had a modern perspective in design, but I
> don't care much for his typefaces.
>
> Somehow I feel that what you've been looking at as Helvetica have been Brand
> X bastardizations, like Arial. Trust me, I've read untold thousands of pages
> of copy in many different typefaces, and Helvetica is the only sans-serif
> typeface that my eye won't stumble over after a while.
Arial is the Windows substitute for Helvetica, which is the basic Mac
sans serif. Arial is indeed quite dreadful.
I still love Optima, even though it was overused for a while in the
early 70s.
Nigel Goddard
Now is Helvectia found on most standard draw packages or will I have to
purchase it elsewhere, it's not on my MS Word or my Corel Draw 4.
Nigel Goddard
Belfast
Chris Thompson <rockw...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:381D03...@erols.com...
> Paul Matus wrote:
> >
> > Peter T. Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > news:381C20...@worldnet.att.net...
> > > Nigel Goddard wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Can anybody tell me what the correct font type is for the letters
and
> > > > numbers for the station names and the train identification markings.
> > >
> > > It *looks* like Futura Bold, but it may well be a proprietary font
that
> > > hasn't been released for general use. In the US you can't copyright a
> > > typeface (yet), but it used to be possible to simply not sell type to
> > > printers who hoped to use it (such as the New Yorker titling font).
> >
> > The MTA standardized on Helvetica more than a decade ago for all its
> > signage. The weight most commonly used now seems to be called Helvetica
> > Bold, though on Linotype it was known as Helvetica Medium.
> >
> > Helvetica is probably the most popular single typeface in the world
because
> > of its agreeable appearance, clean design and easy readibility. It is
the
> > only sans-serif face which is truly readable as a text font.
> >
> > As to copyright, you can copyright typeface _names_ in the U.S. In other
> > words, you could copy Helvetica and sell, say, transfer type of it, but
you
> > would have to call it something else.
> >
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Looks like I accidentally started something here. Thanks for all the info.
> Now is Helvectia found on most standard draw packages or will I have to
> purchase it elsewhere, it's not on my MS Word or my Corel Draw 4.
I haven't come across word processors that include fonts, and I wouldn't
expect CAD programs to do so, either. Helvetica comes with every Mac,
but on a PC you presumably have to buy it separately.
Hank Eisenstein
suggested that it would be easier to read (and from a moving train, it is)
The newer black-on-white signs are temporary, and usually denote
construction detours. They're all over Times Square, they were used on the
63st line during the track repairs, and during the Lenox invert project.
-Hank
--
http://www.quuxuum.org/~nixon Amateur Photographer
ni...@quuxuum.org Fire-Emergency Services
Hank Eisenstein Transit-NY Metro
Staten Island, NY AOL IM: Hank21k ICQ UIN# 1579309
Let's Go Mets!!
Joshua P. Hill <XXjos...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:0xQdOJOVC49ckPHODy=eyhd...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 01 Nov 1999 01:01:07 GMT, "Paul Matus" <pma...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Peter T. Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> >news:381CCD...@worldnet.att.net...
> >> Paul Matus wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Peter T. Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> >> > news:381C20...@worldnet.att.net...
> >
> >< snip >
> >
> >> >
> >> > The MTA standardized on Helvetica more than a decade ago for all its
> >> > signage. The weight most commonly used now seems to be called
Helvetica
> >> > Bold, though on Linotype it was known as Helvetica Medium.
> >>
> >> I'm highly dubious, since I find Helvetica ugly but I consider the
> >> subway signage handsome. The third candidate for all-purpose sans serif
> >> font is Univers.
> >
> >I can see where you think the MTA font might be Futura, but it's
Helvetica.
> >Herb Lubalin tried to jump-start Futura with his variant, Avant Garde
which
> >is now, to put it one way, very Last Tuesday.
> >
> >As to Univers, Adrian Frutiger had a modern perspective in design, but I
> >don't care much for his typefaces.
> >
> >Somehow I feel that what you've been looking at as Helvetica have been
Brand
> >X bastardizations, like Arial. Trust me, I've read untold thousands of
pages
> >of copy in many different typefaces, and Helvetica is the only sans-serif
> >typeface that my eye won't stumble over after a while.
>
> Helvetica is wonderful, a rare combination of beauty and legibility,
> but the variations are indeed awful. Even the "official" version from
> Adobe is screwed up--they intentionally regularized it, removing in
> the process much of its character, beauty, and readability.
>
> Seems to me it was a mistake to use it in the subway, though--it
> doesn't go with the older stations, whereas a serif type would fit
> both old and new. Now it looks like they've indeed decided to change,
> and have reversed the white on black as well. A good choice if only
> they'll stick to it *forever*--changes according to fashion are an
> ongoing disaster in a system such as this one, as the hodgepodge of
> mismatched typefaces, tiles and everything else demonstrate.
>
> --
>
> Josh
>
> "Only those with personality know what it is to want to escape
> from it."
>
> --T S Eliot
WOTPPAPER
Gates' word processing programs, you're stuck with Arial.
I think the federal government played a part in the original introduction of
Helvetica into the subway system, as part of an urban mass transit requirement
for legability of signs.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> On Mon, 1 Nov 1999 09:05:35 -0500, "Hank Eisenstein"
> <ni...@quuxuum.org> wrote:
>
> >They moved from black-on-white to white-on-black after several studies
> >suggested that it would be easier to read (and from a moving train, it is)
> >The newer black-on-white signs are temporary, and usually denote
> >construction detours. They're all over Times Square, they were used on the
> >63st line during the track repairs, and during the Lenox invert project.
> >-Hank
>
> though not on the level of those braille signs for blind people that
> the blind people have no way of finding), but not about the latter.
My first awareness of black-on-white was during the 2/5 reroute, and
then I noticed they gave temporary information all over the place.
BDMNQR2
>sans serif. Arial is indeed quite dreadful.
>Adobe PageMaker for Windows includes Helvetica, but if you use one of Mr.
Gates' word processing programs, you're stuck with Arial.
PC's have Helvetica in WP <I>Greek</I> and maybe a couple of other non-Roman
fonts!
I like to make subway route bullets, but the Arial "G" and perfectly round "Q"
are so different from the signs. Swiss is somewhat more like Helvetica.
On some signs, the tail of the "Q" is like Arial: a straight line going into
the inside of the letter, and on some signs, it is curved and only on the
outside. Which one of those is Helvetica, and what is the name of the other?
Eric B
Peter T. Daniels
>
> On 01 Nov 1999 15:50:45 GMT, wotp...@aol.com (WOTPPAPER) wrote:
>
> >Adobe PageMaker for Windows includes Helvetica, but if you use one of Mr.
> >Gates' word processing programs, you're stuck with Arial.
> >
> >Helvetica into the subway system, as part of an urban mass transit requirement
> >for legability of signs.
>
> read . . .
Looks like Helvetica to me! (For the station names and line letters
alongside them.)
Charles Gallo
>Adobe PageMaker for Windows includes Helvetica, but if you use one of Mr.
>Gates' word processing programs, you're stuck with Arial.
<snip>
Actually you can BUY Helvetica for the PC (Both in TT and using ATM),
but it's not one of the "default" comes with MS Word fonts. And yes,
there is a difference, mostly in the font hinting section. I'm not
much of a font guy myself, but my old boss is a font maven, and I just
ask him when I need advice, for instance, my resume is in clearface
Charlie
-- PGP Key on Request
For the Children RKBA!
Peter T. Daniels
>
> On Mon, 01 Nov 1999 18:49:37 -0400, "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
> >> Meanwhile, the new maps have type that only an eight-year-old could
> >> read . . .
> >
> >Looks like Helvetica to me! (For the station names and line letters
> >alongside them.)
>
Are you more middle-aged than I am? (Check with Paul M.)
Peter T. Daniels
>
> >Arial is the Windows substitute for Helvetica, which is the basic Mac
> >sans serif. Arial is indeed quite dreadful.
>
> Gates' word processing programs, you're stuck with Arial.
>
> fonts!
> I like to make subway route bullets, but the Arial "G" and perfectly round "Q"
> are so different from the signs. Swiss is somewhat more like Helvetica.
> On some signs, the tail of the "Q" is like Arial: a straight line going into
> the inside of the letter, and on some signs, it is curved and only on the
> outside. Which one of those is Helvetica, and what is the name of the other?
"Swiss" is a good fake-name for Helvetica, since that's exactly what H.
means in Latin ("Switzerland" is Helvetia on its stamps, for instance).
Usually, though, just in case there's a copyright issue in some other
country, the fake font will have a slight difference from the real one,
and the Q-tail would be a good place to do it.
(In real Palatino, the e is snub-nosed, but in imitations it's often
pointy.)
WOTPPAPER
all sections of the letters. Type styes that widen out or narrow down at
certain points can be harder to read either at a distance or by we aging baby
boomers who are trying to avoid our first pair of glasses.
I do my work in Microsoft Word, but as long as we're using PageMaker, it's
going to convert Arial into Helvetica, so not having direct access to the font
on my computer isn't that big a hindrance.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> The nice thing about Helvetica from a legiblity point is the uniform width of
> all sections of the letters. Type styes that widen out or narrow down at
> certain points can be harder to read either at a distance or by we aging baby
> boomers who are trying to avoid our first pair of glasses.
That would be contrary to legibility studies by psychologists, who find
that serif type is more legible than sans (because of the greater
differentiation among letters), which should carry over to uniform vs.
tapered sans fonts.
> I do my work in Microsoft Word, but as long as we're using PageMaker, it's
> going to convert Arial into Helvetica, so not having direct access to the font
> on my computer isn't that big a hindrance.
If you're doing very fine work, you might encounter occasional problems
because (a) the widths of every letter probably don't correspond exactly
in the two fonts and (b) Word is pretty gross when it comes to both
horizontal and vertical positioning. (In FrameMaker I can specify just
about every parameter to three decimal places, but Word can only do .5
at best -- I'm talking v.5.1a for Mac, but the MS folk don't seem to
have taken much interest in fine typography. FrameMaker is now owned by
Adobe but they seem never to advertise it -- I hope they're not planning
to let it be "replaced" by PageMaker, which isn't at all equivalent.)
JOHN PAZMINO
JP> Subject: Re: Subway signs
JP> Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 11:59:01 -0500
JP> Organization: None
JP>
JP> >They moved from black-on-white to white-on-black after several studies
JP> >suggested that it would be easier to read (and from a moving train, it is)
JP> >The newer black-on-white signs are temporary, and usually denote
JP> >construction detours. They're all over Times Square, they were used on the
JP> >63st line during the track repairs, and during the Lenox invert project.
JP> >-Hank
JP>
JP> Interesting. I knew about the former (which is intensely ridiculous,
JP> though not on the level of those braille signs for blind people that
JP> the blind people have no way of finding), but not about the latter.
Yet new signs are indifferently printed on matte flat panels and
also the glossy specular panels. The latter are impossible to read
with a reflection running thru the lettering.
---
ž RoseReader 2.52į P005004
Hank Eisenstein
white-on-green, rather than black-on-yellow, or white-on-brown, as I've seen
be replaced locally. It's a lot easier to read while moving.
-Hank
--
http://www.quuxuum.org/~nixon Amateur Photographer
ni...@quuxuum.org Fire-Emergency Services
Hank Eisenstein Transit-NY Metro
Staten Island, NY AOL IM: Hank21k ICQ UIN# 1579309
Let's Go Mets!!
Joshua P. Hill <XXjos...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:i8YdOHZZhfdKsK...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 1 Nov 1999 09:05:35 -0500, "Hank Eisenstein"
> <ni...@quuxuum.org> wrote:
>
> >They moved from black-on-white to white-on-black after several studies
> >suggested that it would be easier to read (and from a moving train, it
is)
> >The newer black-on-white signs are temporary, and usually denote
> >construction detours. They're all over Times Square, they were used on
the
> >63st line during the track repairs, and during the Lenox invert project.
> >-Hank
>
> Interesting. I knew about the former (which is intensely ridiculous,
> though not on the level of those braille signs for blind people that
> the blind people have no way of finding), but not about the latter.
>
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Not that rediculous. It's the same reason that all the highway signs are
> white-on-green, rather than black-on-yellow, or white-on-brown, as I've seen
> be replaced locally. It's a lot easier to read while moving.
White on brown is supposed to be for cultural-type signs, not
directional signs. I guess you never got corrupted into being a driver,
like I did at age 30 while in Chicago, where carlessness is seen as a
major defect (and where the "L"s and buses don't actually *go* anywhere
-- seems like you always have to transfer at least once). Cause the sign
color rules are laid out on the color covers of the Rules of the Road
manual of each state.
WOTPPAPER
the original look, even if the materials used don't last as long. From about
1955 to 1985 the attitude was to keep making the stations look more and more
"modern" and the result was the look found at Grand St., Grant Ave., 59th & Lex
express and other stations.
Personally, I think the Helvetica signs are OK for use on the system's elevated
platforms, but the subway signs should continue to be done in "IRT Classic"
style.
Jack Arthur
WOTPPAPER <wotp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991103141050...@ng-fi1.aol.com...
> At least the latest restorations on the IRT and BMT are an attempt to
restore
> the original look, even if the materials used don't last as long. From
about
> 1955 to 1985 the attitude was to keep making the stations look more and
more
> "modern" and the result was the look found at Grand St., Grant Ave., 59th
& Lex
> express and other stations.
But all of these were new construction. The TA actually ripped out old tile
and replaced with something more modern like at Brooklyn Bridge, The BMT
local stations, 179 Street (I think), Cortlandt Street IRT and others.
> Personally, I think the Helvetica signs are OK for use on the system's
elevated
> platforms, but the subway signs should continue to be done in "IRT
Classic"
> style.
Why elevated? The MTA renovates underground stations and tries to return
them to their nice old look, yet on the els, they continue to restore the
ghastly corrugated steel windscreens. One exception of this is the Franklin
Avenue Shuttle, I can't think of another.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> On Wed, 3 Nov 1999 17:56:17 -0500, "Jack Arthur"
> <onl...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>
> >But all of these were new construction. The TA actually ripped out old tile
> >and replaced with something more modern like at Brooklyn Bridge, The BMT
> >local stations, 179 Street (I think), Cortlandt Street IRT and others.
>
> tilework.
Ripped it out. One of the CCNY faces is at the Transit Museum.
OTOH, at least some of the stations on the Jerome Avenue line still have
original mosaic name panels; parts of the walls are concrete. The
southern entrance to Mosholu Pkwy is sealed up, but the panel is partly
visible sticking out from the barrier. (Of course, the present bus stops
are closer to the closed entrance than to the active one!)
WOTPPAPER
legability in use for offset printing, compaired to a serif type. It holds the
ink better, so to speak.
Of course, I doubt even the MTA would be using 6 point type on their signs, so
it's not a real issue as far as t he subway is concerned.
Peter T. Daniels
> sizes, which is why they're used in things like stock tables.
Hmm ... thanks for making me discover that my misplaced type gauge isn't
where I thought I'd misplaced it ... I wanted to measure the type on the
[ObTrans] TheMap.
MC
Bold being the "official" face for most signage. However, in trying to
reproduce the circled line letters/numbers, I have yet to find a typeface
that accurately mirrors the ones the MTA uses. For some letters, Helvetica
may be used. But the "R" in Helvetica has a curved leg on it, unlike the
MTA's. Also, the "C" and "Q" are too narrow in Helvetica. Not to mention
trying to find a typeface that has the correct numbers. I can probably
complete the entire set using 6 or 7 different typefaces...
Is there any way we can truly find an answer to this?
Nigel Goddard <Ni...@goddardn.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7vh8nf$mlf$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Can anybody tell me what the correct font type is for the letters and
> numbers for the station names and the train identification markings.
>
> Thanks
>
> Sandinista
> Belfast
>
>
Pete Humble
>Being a big typography fan, I can say yes you are all right about Helvetica
>Bold being the "official" face for most signage. However, in trying to
>reproduce the circled line letters/numbers, I have yet to find a typeface
>that accurately mirrors the ones the MTA uses. For some letters, Helvetica
>may be used. But the "R" in Helvetica has a curved leg on it, unlike the
>MTA's. Also, the "C" and "Q" are too narrow in Helvetica. Not to mention
>trying to find a typeface that has the correct numbers. I can probably
>complete the entire set using 6 or 7 different typefaces...
>
>Is there any way we can truly find an answer to this?
>
Try Arial, it is very similar to Helvetica, but not identical.
--
___ __o Pete Humble, JRI Europe, Ltd
_ \<,_ Email: peet AT dircon DOT co DOT uk
(_)/ (_) Any resemblance between the views expressed here
============= and those of my employers is pure coincidence.