designs

When I first came to London from Yorkshire in the late 1980s, I found the tube replete with bizarre novelties. Among them was the way most trains required me to sit sideways to the direction of travel, as on a fairground waltzer. Directly opposite me was another person or an empty seat, and while I knew not to stare at people, I did stare at the seats – at their woollen coverings, called moquette. I have since written two books about them, the first nonfiction, Seats of London, and now a crime novel, The Moquette Mystery.

I was attracted to moquette firstly because it, like me, came from Yorkshire (most of it back then was woven in Halifax), and whereas many foreign metros have seats of plastic or steel, moquette made the tube cosy. Yet it seemed underappreciated. The index of the standard history of the tube, for instance, proceeds blithely from Moorgate to Morden.

A moquette might last a decade or more on a particular vehicle, coinciding with a Londoner’s formative years, the design evoking forever after those tube rides to triumphs and disasters. For generation Z, the resonant one is likely to be Barman, introduced in 2010 to replace a range of moquettes deemed too diffuse. Therefore, our two-hour moquette tour begins on one of the many lines to use Barman: the Northern line, from Leicester Square to Charing Cross.

Barman is named after Christian Barman, publicity officer to Frank Pick who, as vice-chair of London Transport in the 1930s, commissioned the roundel symbol, the tube map, Charles Holden’s subtly modernist station architecture and many posters and moquettes. Barman was designed by Wallace Sewell (Harriet Wallace-Jones and Emma Sewell) and, unusually for moquette, it’s figurative; but it’s also mysterious. The landmarks it depicts seem suffused in a haze of blue rain, and the harder you stare, the more the top of Big Ben becomes Battersea Power Station – and is that Southwark cathedral looming ghostly behind the dome of St Paul’s?

At Charing Cross, we change on to the Bakerloo, which has a darker version of Barman, the same landmarks at night, perhaps. The sombre black, grey and brown colour scheme suits the crepuscular mood of these elderly trains; it is also historically valid. In the early 1920s, the first moquette widely applied on the underground – called Lozenge – was the colour of dried mud, a capitulation to the dirtiness of clothes in those days before widespread dry-cleaning.

In the late 1930s, Frank Pick commissioned brighter moquettes from leading textile designers, including Enid Marx and Marion Dorn. He favoured red and green – red symbolising the town, green the country – and he considered green serene. My novel is set in this golden age of the underground, epitomised by the lambent glamour of Piccadilly Circus station concourse, which features a sort of shrine to Pick, showing his watchwords in brass on the marble wall. These range from “Utility” to “Beauty”, and moquette has usually been filed under the first word, but the second applies to the best of it.

We go from Picadilly Circus to Green Park on the Piccadilly line – Barman again, but with a richer blue than on the Northern line. It reflects the line colour and the dark blue of the Underground roundel bar, which a transport designer once described to me as “the reassuring colour of an old-fashioned police lamp”.

At Green Park, we take the Victoria line to Oxford Circus. This unnamed moquette uses multiple V-shapes, evoking she who was not amused. The Vs are white, which shows the dirt, but the radiated light suggests diamond facets and alleviates the claustrophobia of this line which never comes above ground.

At Oxford Circus, we observe some Central line trains, waiting for a lucky break. Most have Barman, but some refurbished trains have a new red, black and grey moquette called Tuppenny, the Central having once been “the Tuppenny Tube”. It is reminiscent of a Central line moquette of the late 80s, my “home” line back then, when the red and black seemed consoling, like a coal fire.

I suggested to Paul Marchant, head of product design at Transport for London, that Tuppenny was “retro”. “Yes,” he said, “I was on holiday when it was commissioned!” A joke (I think), but moquette is meant to keep pace with London; it is not supposed to be retro. Currently, only two Central line trains have Tuppenny, so the odds are against our sitting on it while heading west to our next stop, Bond Street.

Here, we board the Elizabeth line for Paddington. Most moquettes have four colours, but on the luxurious, hi-tech Lizzy line, it has about eight. The designers (Wallace Sewell) were briefed to incorporate royal purple, a strident shade unlikely to be “serene” if emphasised. So it’s subsumed here amid others, representing connecting lines and suggesting train movements digitally represented in some futuristic signal box.

At Paddington, we board a Circle or Hammersmith & City line train heading east. We are now on one of the “cut-and-cover” lines just below street level. If you don’t know which lines are sub-surface, the moquette on those trains tells you. The colours of the small rectangles set against a black background denote the Circle, H&C, District and Metropolitan lines.

Moquette has a pile – tufts – that can be left as loops or cut for a more vivid colour and a velvety texture, and this sub-surface one is entirely cut, so it is not as hard-wearing as others. The seats near the doors (the most popular ones) are badly worn, with the backing fabric “grinning through”, to use the technical term. I am assured there are “big plans” to address this.

At King’s Cross we head south on the Piccadilly line to Covent Garden and the London Transport Museum. In the cafe, we sip the museum’s excellent coffee while sitting on seats covered with their own special moquette, which is red and green in homage to Frank Pick. In the museum shop, moquettes past and present are for sale as bags, cushions, pouffes and so on. That Londoners are willing to pay to have a symbol of public transport in their homes is a tribute to the legacy of Pick. As the man himself said: “The quality of our surroundings contributes to the quality of our own lives.”

Andrew Martin’s novel, The Moquette Mystery, is published by Safe Haven. To support the Guardian, order your copy at guardianbookshop.com. Delivery charges may apply

The U.S. Navy may soon be required by law to only consider designs built from the keel up to sail without a crew ever being on board for at least its first batch of Modular Surface Attack Craft (MASC). The service wants to acquire a new family of larger uncrewed surface vessels readily configurable for surveillance and reconnaissance, strike, and other missions using modular payloads through the MASC program. Being able to dispense with features necessary for even optional human operation does offer potential benefits, especially when it comes to cost and production at scale.

A provision explicitly about the MASC program is contained in the most recent draft of the annual defense policy bill, or National Defense Authorization Act, which the House Armed Services Committee released this past weekend. The legislation, which is a compromise between previous House and Senate versions of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2026, could now be put to a vote as early as this week.

The MASC provision contained in the current version of the bill is brief but to the point. It stipulates that “the Secretary of the Navy may not enter into a contract or other agreement that includes a scope of work, including priced or unpriced options, for the construction, advance procurement, or long-lead material for Modular Attack Surface Craft Block 0 until the Secretary certifies to the congressional defense committees that such vessels will be purpose-built unmanned vessels engineered to operate without human support systems or operational requirements intended for crewed vessels.”

The Navy laid out a host of details regarding its plans for MASC this past summer, including initial requirements for a baseline design, as well as high-capacity and single-payload types, all of which you can read more about here. As mentioned, the Navy is primarily looking to configure MASC drone ships to conduct surveillance and reconnaissance and strike missions. The service has also expressed an interest in unspecified capabilities to counter adversary intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and targeting activities. As TWZ has previously noted, stated power generation requirements could also be particularly relevant for any plans to integrate laser or high-power microwave directed energy weapons, as well as electronic warfare suites, onto future members of the MASC family.

For years now, the Navy has been using optionally crewed vessels to help lay the groundwork for future fleets of medium and large uncrewed surface vessels (MUSV/LUSV). This has included the test-firing of a containerized missile launcher from one of those ships, as seen in the video below.

The MASC program reflects a larger shift in focus away from those previous efforts, which were defined primarily by very rigid length and displacement requirements. Modular, containerized payloads, rather than specific hull designs, are central to the new MASC concept.

The Navy has also been fielding a growing number of speed boat and jet ski-type USV designs through programs separate from MASC.

As mentioned, USVs that are designed from the outset to only sail in an uncrewed mode offer benefits when it comes to development, production, and operational employment. They do not need berthing space, galleys, toilets, or any other features needed to support human personnel on board. All of this, in turn, can allow for more radical design decisions optimized for the performance of the missions, as well as help reduce overall complexity and cost. This can further translate into USVs that are faster and easier to produce in larger quantities.

With all this in mind, the Navy has already been openly talking about moving away from optionally-crewed designs for MASC.

“When you introduce that capability to operate with people on board, it creates a lot of other requirements and cost and complications,” Navy Capt. Matt Lewis, program manager of the Unmanned Maritime Systems program office within Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA), told USNI News on the sidelines of an event back in August. “The [MASC] solicitation that went out for industry… it was open, and we are eager to get proposals as we review them, to look at the proposals that don’t have people on board.”

“We definitely want unmanned. Period. I mean, it’s that simple,” Navy Capt. Garrett Miller, commander of Surface Development Group One (SURFDEVGRU), also said at that time.

SURFDEVGRU is currently a focal point within the Navy for work on operationalizing USV capabilities and has two unmanned surface vessel squadrons assigned to it. The Group also oversees the two Zumwalt class stealth destroyers that the Navy has in service now. The third ship in that class, the future USS Lyndon B. Johnson, is also set to be assigned to the unit.

Larger USVs intended to sail for protracted periods without even a skeleton crew on board to provide immediate maintenance and other support do also present certain challenges. These vessels have to be highly reliable and be capable of at least a certain degree of safe autonomous operation in areas that could be full of other ships. How force protection might be ensured, especially during more independent operations, is an open question, too.

Underscoring all of this, the recently release draft NDAA for Fiscal Year 2026 includes a separate provision that would prevent the Secretary of the Navy from awarding “a detail design or construction contract or other agreement, or obligate funds from a procurement account, for a covered [medium and large USV] program unless such contract or other agreement includes a requirement for an operational demonstration of not less than 720 continuous hours without preventative maintenance, corrective maintenance, emergent repair, or any other form of repair or maintenance,” for a variety of key systems. It would also block the Navy from accepting delivery of any “articles” produced under any such contract or agreement before the successful conclusion of that operational demonstration.

The Navy has already been cooperating with the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) on a program specifically intended to prove new USV capabilities with a demonstrator designed from the start to operate without humans ever being on board. The Defiant drone ship that was developed for DARPA’s Manning Required Ship (NOMARS) effort, also known as the USX-1, kicked off an extended at-sea trial in September that has included a demonstration of its ability to be refueled at sea using a system that does not require personnel to be present on the receiving side. You can read more about the Defiant, which prime contractor Serco also developed to be a lower-cost and readily producible design, here.

USX-1 Defiant fueling at sea demonstration

USX-1 Defiant begins at-sea demonstration

The stated plan is for Defiant to be transferred to SURFDEVGRU after DARPA’s testing with the ship wraps up. The Navy has said that it sees the vessel, which is also designed around carrying containerized mission payloads, as a key technology ‘feeder’ into the MASC effort. Prime contractor Serco has already been developing an enlarged derivative, currently called the Dauntless, as well.

Other companies are already lining up to compete for future MASC contracts, including Eureka Naval Craft with its Bengal-Module Carrier, or Bengal-MC.

U.S. shipbuilder Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) unveiled its own plans for a new line of USVs, called ROMULUS, in September. HII says ROMULUS designs will be highly modular and capable of carrying containerized payloads, which is all in line with the Navy’s current vision for MASC.