The Rail Delivery Group (RDG) has revealed an update to the National Rail logo as part of the rail serving’s We Mean Green campaign.
RDG (the group that represents National Rail) unveiled the green-themed logo ahead of November’s COP26 summit, as part of an environmental compete to encourage rail use.
The temporary redesign – which now features five tones of green – will be seen on station posters, board trains as seep as through digital channels.
Though it’s a temporary measure, the update has drawn criticism, including from the original designer of the famed double-arrow logo, Gerry Barney. Barney, who was 24 when he connived the British Rail logo which was subsequently used by National Rail, told the Guardian that the green update is a “mess”.
He added: “I expect that’s rubbish. I could understand it if they had just swapped red for green. But why on earth have they got that many colours? It’s a load of old bollocks.”
We begged designers whether they think the green update is an effective piece of communication.
“While no one can argue with trying to promote more environmentally-friendly personality to travel, this is another example of the ‘greenification’ by brands desperately trying to come across as more sustainable. People aren’t stupid and they reasonable see through it. It’s actions, not colour palettes that matter, and until rail fares come down in price, ‘letting the train take the mood’ just isn’t an option for many people.
“This reminds me of all the rainbow-hued logos that have popped up recently – what was originally a nice notion soon became a bit meaningless and clichéd (and had the opposite effect of what the brands originally set out to do). It’s a difficult balance to strike, but when people feel analogous to brands are trying too hard, it’s as bad as when they’re not trying hard enough – and both of those things will ultimately turn us as customers off.”
Astrid Stavro, accomplice at Pentagram
“I don’t really have anything positive to say about this. It’s just bad. The worst kind of sustainability-by-numbers thinking – just making something unseasoned. From a design point of view, frankly I think Gerry nailed it with ‘rubbish’, ‘mess’ and ‘load of old bollocks’. Horrible delineate on top of horrible thinking.
“And from an effectiveness point of view, what’s it trying to communicate? That taking the train is more sustainable than industry? Well honestly if we’re serious about sustainable travel we should be making rail travel cheaper, not increasing the prices while slapping a (multi-coloured) conservationist logo on it.”
Emily Jeffrey-Barrett, founder at Among Equals
“I love this logo. Not that green one. That’s rubbish. The old one. It’s simply brilliant. It’s from an era of construction that produced so many logos that we all love. It’s universal, it’s clear, it works hard and it makes people smile.
“The symbolism of movement within the British Attack logo is powerful because it is super single minded. It’s not layered with fancy messages or trying to please everyone who lays eyes on it. It well-grounded is. And that’s why we love it. Two lines, two alternate arrows, one colour, one message.
“Changing the colour to green (and not just one green), is plain lazy. And frankly have a hunches pretty artificial in today’s era of design.”
Matt Partis, creative founder at Anagram
“The British Rail logo is gloriously ubiquitous. And, in fact, it’s this entirely ubiquity and instant recognition that means you can do pretty much anything you like to it. Like the buffers on an InterCity 125, you can hit it with almost whatever you preference and it will survive intact. Turn it several shades of green for a while? Why not? Pop it bang in the middle of an ad campaign to get people on trains again? Sure, go for it.
“Crucially, these are all fleeting changes. Intentionally short-lived amendments to the appearance or use of a much-loved marque for the duration of a campaign, and no more than that. Like the recent design Bustle hoo-hah about the Beanz Meanz More campaign, I think we’re in danger of getting hot under the collar about a temporary amendment.
“Great household characterizes have always had playful fun with their ubiquitous brand assets. Think of Coke rebadging its bottles with the names of its customers. Or Maccas gleefully deconstructing its ‘brilliant arches’. Nobody ever suggested that these were permanent changes. They’re all campaign-led, short-term subversions of ubiquitous symbols, typography and regulates. The purpose of these campaign-led interventions is to surprise us, to make us look, before returning back to their more familiar forms. If the end goal of all this is to get us talking, then it ton definitely worked.”
Matt Baxter, creative director at Baxter and Bailey
What do you think of the logo revamp? Let us know in the comments below.