Pedants' corner again - someone said there's a coding problem that stops the Oyster card including the out of town stations. Not sure what it is, but it could be as simple as not having enough storage space.
@@bishwatntl You're somewhat right, the entire oyster system currently assumes that only 15 fare zones will ever exist. Only four binary bits are assigned to storing fare zone numbers. As such, you either need to assign existing zone numbers to all the new stations, or perform some kind of merging of old zones to free up a zone number for the new route. That said, TfL saved Zone 15 specifically for journeys out to Reading via the Elizabeth Line, but did not ever start using it. So there's one free zone waiting and ready to go.
@@SimonHollingshead One other option is to make new Oyster cards with a larger zone capacity, and gradually roll them out to replace the old ones. But then if some person from out of town that missed the changeover tries to use their old Oyster it wouldn't work as well, so not an appealing solution.
@@radagastwiz Agreed. While we had the rollover from the 'old' oyster cards to the ones with the D on them, the old ones broadly still function even now - you just don't get to use things like the app to manage your card.
I suspect most Londoners who responded to that poll use the "Oyster Card Definition" of what's an Underground line. "Does it go through central London and can I use an Oyster Card to ride it? It's an Underground line. Now let me get on with my day."
It’s just… when we sit on the trains they distinctly say “this is a London Underground service to…”. The Elizabeth line trains don’t say that, and the London Overground trains say overground. No excuses 😂
As Jago said, you can’t on the western section. My understanding is that it is “beyond the wit of man” to fix this as Oyster can only have 16 zones and these have already been used. I doubt a replacement Oyster, say catering for 256 or 65536 zones, is likely any time soon.
@ubahni interesting. Since I had my children in 2018 I’ve mainly driven and I rarely use London trains like I did to commute daily beforehand. In the past, the announcement always specified when you were using the London Underground service. So the fact that they apparently don’t any more might explain the poll results.
This video refers to me as an "ordinary passenger" and I find that to be a comment that is both shocking and, ironically, extraordinary. I am, as indeed are all viewers of this channel, a truly exceptional passenger of the very highest quality.
Well, personally, as a German, I'd call it an S-Bahn! Essentially just something between an underground line and a regional train (with a tunneled section through the city center)
@@purplebrick131 I'd argue that the Stockholm Tunnelbana is just a traditional metro system. Two branches per line is not unusual for metros, and that doesn't make it an S-bahn system by itself. Also, it originated from a tram system, whereas every single S-bahn system that's actually branded as S-Bahn (or S-line, S-train, etc) originated from a commuter rail system. The Blue Line was built from the ground up as a metro. Though maybe we can call the Roslagsbanan an S-train once it gets a central underground section, as it has a more regional scope compared to the mostly urban and suburban Tunnelbana. The RER is totally an S-bahn, though. And Crossrail is too.
One thing you see on the Elizabeth line destination boards is that there is a timetable shown ,even in the core section when trains are running every few minutes it will show, for example, the next train to Abbey Wood as being the 16:02 or whatever time it’s due
I was on a elizabeth line train going from reading that waa running late and skipped around 6 stations to make up the time. Tube lines apart from the met don't skip stations unless they are closed.
@jtrack5withthe5 And? The New York Subway has plenty of express lines. I do accept that non-stop Euston to Warrington Bank Quay may indeed render the relevant infrequent service not a Tube line.
@@MrCoolebThe Elizabeth Line from Reading to Paddington does not stop at all stations anyway, it's not clear from the tube map as they added it incorrectly. Needs two colours.
If Crossrail 2 ever opens, I think the distinction will be clearer. Mode type: Crossrail, Name: Elizabeth Line. As far as normal punters go, Tube: train every few mins, calls all stations Overground: trains every 7-15mins, calls every station Crossrail: trains every 5 mins, check stopping pattern, some stations missed If punters for Acton Mainline think of the lizzie line as a tube line they will be rather surprised when they go flying through Acton on a Reading train!
And now, for some REAL controversy, outside of the Smoke: [Lights touch paper...] "The Merseyrail City Line is part of Merseyrail, even though Merseyrail don't operate it." [Legs it!]
Heh. Does the “City Line” really mean anything? I ended up using it on 30 January 2024 to get back from Chester to Bamber Bridge, but is a Liverpool Lime Street to Blackpool North train really part of the Liverpool metropolitan rail system?
Foreign tourist who thinks trains are fun perspective: As long as it's that purple, it is its own thing. If the Circle line was as aggressively yellow as the Elizabeth line is purple, it would also be a separate thing. "What's in a name?" as Juliet said.
Always been of the opinion that even though it's built different from the tube, it's functionally similar enough that in a few decades it will have been absorbed into the public consciousness as just another tube line, and that official classification will follow. It's not like the actual tube lines were all seen as being one consistent standard mode when they were first built, they were consolidated later.
In Paris, no-one cares if they're on the Metro or the RER. In Berlin, no-one cares if they're on the U-Bahn or the the S-Bahn. Same is true here, Elizabeth Line sits alongside tube and DLR and Overground as another way to go places. All the systems are on the same map and charge consistent fees with ticket integration.
@@ijmad That's just not really true though. Because RERs, S-Bahns, Liz Lines, etc. are almost always more spacious and significantly faster people will prefer them over Metros and tubes for certain trips.
I hope not. It goes too far outside London. Should Thameslink be a tube line? There are also benefits to having it as part of the National Rail network, particularly if you want to make a long distance through journey starting from an Elizabeth Line station. Being a timetabled National Rail service, you can have it on your booked itinerary and if you're delayed while travelling on the Elizabeth Line and miss your connection, then said booked itinerary can be very much to your advantage. I believe very few people include the Elizabeth Line leg on their booked itinerary when they buy a train ticket to Newcastle or Manchester or Glasgow, because they don't think of it as a railway line, and most of the time that will be absolutely fine, but as soon as there's a significant delay on the Elizabeth Line and they miss their connection, not having booked the whole trip as one through journey can leave them at quite a dramatic disadvantage.
@@Gfynbcyiokbg8710 I don't disagree with you there. People will definitely pick lines to use based on speed and comfort, but what label those 'modes' have is irrelevant imho.
@@ijmad They don't charge consistent fares, though. When Ken Livingstone was Mayor and Labour were in government, the agreed approach was for TfL to take over the National Rail franchises as and when they came up for renewal (e.g. Silverlink and part of the former One Railway became London Overground) and this allowed TfL to introduce Oyster and charge consistent fares based solely on the number of zones you travelled through. When Boris Johnson became Mayor he stopped this, and instead did a deal with the remaining train companies where they would accept Oyster in London, but they could charge 50% of a day return ticket for a single journey along their lines (often resulting in much higher fares - zone 2 to zone 4 on Southeastern is considerably more expensive than zone 2 to zone 4 on a TfL line. For mixed-mode journeys (e.g. DLR plus Southeastern), the fare is bodged. That is why nobody can tell you what the single off-peak fare from Zone 2 to Zone 5 is - it depends where you're going and what route you are deemed to have taken. If by 'integrated ticketing' you mean people can just tap and not worry about it, that is true. If you make several journeys in a day then fares are predictable based on the zones you travel in because daily capping means the individual single fares don't matter. It is not correct to say the fares on tube and train are consistent, though.
My answer: While the Elizabeth line is not within the ‘London Underground’ network, it acts as an underground urban railway within the Crossrail (Paddington - Abbey Wood). Commuters travelling short or moderate distances into or within the city may treat it as a tube line, and it can relieve congestion on the Central and District lines as a more direct route.
This is trivially true, as no railway line can be a tram - a tram is a vehicle that runs on a tramway. Whether or not the Elizabeth Line is a tramway is not as easy a question to answer (although it's still not a _difficult_ question to answer).
@@msg5507 Reports have also been received from Weymouth of a Class 33 with a full rake of coaches running on a tramway. Will adding "designed to" to the definition assist matters?
The Metropolitan Line is a Tube line (i.e part of the London Undergound) whilst the Elizabeth Line is not (as it is not run by London Underground Ltd but by a private contractor). However the Elizabeth Line is a tube line (running at least in part under ground, in tubular tunnels built using tunnel boring machines), unlike the Metropolitan Line which was built by the "cut & cover" method (build a big trench and roof it over)
As a passenger, it was very important to me that it's not a tube line. When I was in London I had an Interrail pass. It is valid on national rail trains but not on the tube, so the new (four months old at that point) purple trains in Central London were useful for east-west trips without paying. This situation with my Interrail pass got the most ridiculous at Greenford: When changing from GWR to the Central Line, I had to take the stairs down from the platform through the gate, walk out, tap back in with my Oyster Card and then go back up the same stairs onto the same platform.
It doesn't have quite as much rubbish in the carriages as the old-fashioned lines, the waft of skunk and cheap cologne is stronger, but the "my bag deserves a seat" policy is enforced, and it's as full as a state school when I commute. I'd say 50/50.
Honestly, the biggest difference between the Liz Line and, say, the District Line from a classification standpoint is that the Liz Line's day-to-day running is managed through a private concessions system in the same way as the Overground, as opposed to being directly run by TfL. If you're MTR or whoever the next guys are, for all intents and purposes you're operating a National Rail line with TfL branding. Beyond that, to the average commuter it's just a really fancy tube line. The tube is just a colloquialism for trains in London/that bring people into the centre of the city from the commuter belt. If we were to make the argument that Lizzy isn't a tube line because they run full-size trains out onto national rail tracks on each end, then technically we shouldn't even consider the sub-surface lines tube lines and that just doesn't feel right.
Right. I consider the Metropolitan Line out to Amersham/Watford/Uxbridge to be of a similar "level" to the Elizabeth Line. Mainly because they run full-sizedish trains, run to outside of London, and run to a published timetable. I think we should stop using the phrase Tube completely. It doesn't help to cause this separation in what is supposed to be an integrated tramsport system.
@quantisedspace7047 Same here, I've had the same thoughts about the District Line. Also I've seen some people critique London's Transport but only focus on the "Tube" when in reality when you factor in the Tube, Liz Line, Overground, Trams, DLR, National Rail, Buses, London has one of if not the most comprehensive public transport networks in the world.
I'm not convinced the Tube network even exists. As far as I am concerned, it refers to the particular method of digging tunnels, so it could be used for the Channel Tunnel, or the HyperSewer as well. UndergrounD is just branding, whose roots lie with Charles Tyson Yerkes. I very rarely hear people say "I'm going on the Overground". It's the specific line name or "on the train". Just branding. For the longest time now, I've used such phrases as "I came on the Victoria Line" or "The District Line". The Lines themselves have a distinct identity and I don't think it's worth grouping them together under a single banner any more, except for corporate stuff. For instance, if someone says "you can go on the Central Line", it immediately conjures up images of hot congested tunnels and may cause me to reject the suggestion if it's a particularly hot day, compared to if someone suggested "lets go on the District Line"
Yes, as Jago is forever pointing out the various bits of the underground were built by different companies at different times using different technologies they are only under one umbrella because of corporate takeovers and government policies.
There are certain functional differences in that the London tube lines have a much smaller loading gauge than mainline trains, have a cross-sectional area and use cast iron segments. Admittedly the tube is synonymous with London, but I think the larger, "full bore" tunnels are qualitatively different. The Glasgow subway is similar to the London tube (that is deep underground) network, but the Channel Tunnel and the Elizabeth Line (to name a couple) would not count as tube lines to my mind.
Yeah no one says "underground" because everyone says "tube". I almost never hear people say "I took the X line" it always just "I took the tube". And everything else you say makes it seem like you're trying to argue that rail networks don't exsist in general.
@@Gfynbcyiokbg8710 I always use the term Underground. That is the traditional name for the entire network, and Tube was reserved for the deep level lines as it was descriptive of their construction. Maybe things have changed, but the older convention is more logical to my view. The term "tube" seems to have come into existence with the building of the Central line. The deep-line network was not incorporated into what was then called he Underground system until the early 20th Century, and not 1933 did it all come under the London Passenger Transport Board. TFL has a web page titled "A brief history of the Underground". Note, not the Tube. What's more, it even includes the Elizabeth line opening in 2022.
Before the closure of the Epping-Ongar section (which is now a preserved railway) the Central Line got further away from the centre of London than most of the Underground lines.
In a thousand years, people will debate whether the Wormhole Line connecting London with New New London on a planet orbiting Tau Ceti is an Underground line, since you can go through it with Underground trains, and the termini are both under the ground on each planet.
I'm somewhere between 'no' and 'who cares', kinda. More towards the former as I definitely have things to say about it - you touch on a lot of them here. Pretty much all the railway lines of London are unique in some regard and actually don't have a ton in common. Their histories of being built by separate companies over a long span of time, under different economic climates and governments, and so on. That extends to the type of train they use, the distances they cover, the places they serve, the distances between stations, the service frequency, and so on. There are so many examples of this that you could spend all day going through all of them. Even the two new lines of the Underground - the Jubilee and the Victoria - are markedly different. The latter is all new, but is hampered a bit by its stations that come from a somewhat pessimistic era for railways in Britain. The Jubilee is made up of a very old section that takes over from another line, and the very modern extension it received that is all new - and it has amongst the most future-proofed stations from a time where it was felt they could splash out a bit with them. And of course the examples you gave - the Met and the W&C - is perhaps the most extreme contrast in the entire network; the two lines beyond 'going underground' and 'going through London' have very little in common. Given all of that, as you say - all the weird things about the Elizabeth Line are actually not that weird at all. A section underground in London? The Tube does that at many points, but so does parts of the Overground, Thameslink (and Great Northern), and the DLR. Full-sized trains? Thameslink and Great Northern, Overground, the sub-surface lines of the Underground perhaps. Long distances covered well outside of London? Thameslink, arguably Overground - also the Met. A hybrid of urban rapid transit and suburban commuter rail? Thameslink, and the Met, and I guess the Overground at times? You can make the case that it being branded as its own thing makes total sense - to me personally it has most in common with a combination of the Overground, Thameslink and the Met. If it had to be placed into a box, I would perhaps say the Overground as it's a National Rail concession under TfL and uses full-on mainline trains, I guess. But that's the second part; I don't think it's worth putting too much stock in it, or things like this. Categories are often very arbitrary, they often do not have the most clearly-defined borders, things often exist on a spectrum and various categories needn't be mutually exclusive. In this case, it's mostly a technical and bureaucratic thing - I mean, the W&C is proportionally the most underground of Underground lines and is very old, yet is technically the newest Tube line as it was only transferred from the National Rail network in 1994. It was literally, functionally a Tube line in all but name (even used Tube rolling stock towards the end) yet was not branded as such... doesn't really matter much. No one debates that it isn't an Underground line. Meanwhile the Northern City Line... I mean that's all kinds of odd, as you know. And it wasn't a part of the Underground, then it was, and now it isn't again. No one debates that it IS an Underground line. And again... does it really matter? It's basically akin to the underground section of Thameslink in more ways than one. This whole sort of thing is just way too blurry to definitively say yes or no to, and so I kinda just want to go 'it doesn't matter'. It's probably best to just take each line on its own characteristics regardless of branding tbh. As you say, even the undifferentiated routes of the DLR are different in their way - the quieter Beckton branch being the only one to terminate at Tower Gateway, the Lewisham branch having a station with one-way service and so on. Still, whether it matters or not, it is an interesting topic to think about for a bit regardless. Great video!
As someone not from London, I would say to look at it from a National Rail point of view. If a certain line in London accepts National Rail tickets (which I think someone else has commented on) it is part of National Rail and the Elizabeth Line does
@@AndrewBanks42 Yeah, and although TfL keeps quiet about it, you can buy a ticket (or a series of split tickets on a single itinerary) from any Elizabeth Line station (even in the core) to any other National Rail station in Britain. Okay, they issue it with the origin or destination "London Zone U1" (or whatever the appropriate zones are to cover the bit of the journey on the Elizabeth Line core section), but it is still a National Rail through ticket issued under the Conditions of Travel, particularly if it comes with an itinerary showing the timetabled Elizabeth Line train. It can be to the passenger's advantage to have such a ticket and itinerary, particularly when making a longer journey.
You'll notice on the tube maps displayed on trains have the underground lines listed as "Central", "Bakerloo" but Liz is specifically "Elizabeth line".
@@Vile_Entity_3545 I think the plans for angryrail and bloodyfuriousrail were cancelled, though, so there was a need to save face with a rebranding. Not that those don't hurt.
“I don’t know if you could call this video a tale from the tube or not….” And there is the genesis of today’s video! Musing on the Elizabeth Line was just the vehicle to get to that, er, line. Fun video Jago! :)
In an earlier video you observed that the term, 'Tube Railway' was coined by a specific company. The term 'tube' was subsequently adopted by Londoners to refer to any underground train. It is possible to argue that the term tube doesn't apply to the Elizabeth Line, as it is a modern development! Thanks for uploading.
The last time but one that I went from Potters Bar to Heathrow Airport I used a Welwyn Garden City to Sevenoaks train and changed at Farringdon onto the Elizabeth Line. The last time I did this journey I used a Welwyn Garden City to Moorgate train and changed at Finsbury Park to the Piccadilly Line, as I usually did before the Elizabeth Line opened and will do in the future. I was charged a much higher fare for the route using the Elizabeth Line, and the change at Farringdon is much less convenient than the change at Finsbury Park. For passengers in many parts of London and its eastern and western suburbs the Elizabeth Line trains replace trains that had much more comfortable seats, better placed windows, and toilets. The Elizabeth Line trains have no toilets and have inward-facing seats like those of a tube train.
I’ve been looking at TFLs data APIs recently, which lists transport modes and the Elizabeth Line is defined as its own mode. Other modes include: Tube, Tram, DLR, bike and Overground. So at least TFL this it’s separate.
The Elizabeth Line was originally supposed to be names Crossrail after the Crossrail Project. It is a part of the National Rail Network not the Tube network. If it shares tracks with National Rail then it should skip stations East and West to speed up Journey times as it is not a Tube Line it might not have to stop at every station. For Example Bond Street and Tottenham Court Road.
I probably fall into the "no" category, mostly because I only ever had a use for the Shenfield to Liverpool Street line (and sometimes going further out to Chelmsford). The reason behind the TfL branding has always struck me as an exercise in empire building on the part of the corporation. Also consider that, like the outgoing age of the vendor based railways elsewhere in the country, TfL branding is the only thing directly used by the line; it is actually operated on behalf of TfL, unlike the Tube.
You can thank the Tory government for the "operated on behalf of TfL" nonsense as that was their demand for continued funding. It won't last past the current contract running out and renationalisation of the network.
Was the Budapest Metro an underground network that bored tunnels? If so, the design would resemble that of Budapest, with larger tunnels, trains, and station capacity.
@@Brookspirit I suspect that whichever sized stock they built it for, eg small tunnel tube stock or large tunnel S/Lizzie line size, it would have walkway down at least one side of the tunnel.
In some ways yes, in some ways no, I'd imagine. A new underground line in an underground-line-less London would use the larger tunnels and platform screen doors, but it would almost certainly have more doors per carriage, closer stop spacing and more stops, and probably shorter platforms and trains to enable that. The Elizabeth line doesn't, because it's the high-capacity system and people are supposed to use the existing tube lines for the remaining journeys. It would also be fully driver-less, not an option for the Elizabeth line which shares tracks and signals with normal trains.
If it were being built in the US now it would probably be trams ("light rail" in US parlance), regardless of whether that made any sense or not (because cheaper). And it would come once an hour.
The reason you can't use an Oyster Card to Reading (and other areas) is because the card itself is unable to store the data for them as it has run out of storage space for it. When a tap is made with an Oyster card it can read one of 16 different values, 0 is used for buses/trams, and 1-15 are used for Zoes (1-9) and then otehr areas like Gatwick (10-15), so the only way to get Oyster to Reading is to make a new set of Oyster cards that don't have the same issues, with all the marketing and such required to ensure people know the difference between the new Oyster+ or whatever and tthe original, and there's barely the point in doing that when most people can just use contactless cards anyway.
In my personal experience, Contactless Cards are incredibly unreliable forms of paying for travel. Likewise there is nothing stopping TFL from simplifying the number of Oyster Zones that are currently in place.
25 years ago, we fixed the Y2k problem so modifying the Oyster card should be no problem. £200 million to Fujitsu and by 2025 they should have it totally fixed, surely? In the meantime, we can all be imprisoned in the redundant Post Office Railway tunnels when our cards get the zones wrong.
Since contactless credit or debit cards cannot store any TFL data but can be used (I assume) on the purple line on TFL stations outside London, I would have thought some hybrid system could be adopted, with all data being held online rather than some data being stored on the card? However changing the card should be possible, it was last changed in 2010 when a new chip was used. It would also be nice to see gates than can read e-tickets from phones. I can get on a train at Durham and open the gate at Kings Cross with an e-ticket, but while I can buy an e-ticket for purple line journeys, the gates, e.g. Paddington, Burnham, etc. cannot read read them so I have to get a human to let me through.
The District line once ran to Southend and Staines (IIRC- help me out here!) does that mean it wasn't an Underground line for a while? I'm with you, Jago - a rose is still a rose....
There are certain circumstances where the Elizabeth Line's status as a National Rail service matters. It matters to holders of BritRail or Priv tickets. It could also matter if you booked a journey from, say Custom House to Preston. If you bought an Advance Single from a National Rail retailer (in which case you'd get one of the old-fashioned orange and cream credit card-sized tickets which would be issued as London Zones U123 to Preston), you would receive along with your ticket collection reference an itinerary telling you what time you needed to be at Custom House to use the timetabled National Rail service from Custom House to Tottenham Court Road, arriving there in time to give at least the minimum connection time stipulated by the rail industry to transfer from Tottenham Court Road to Euston (probably via the Northern Line) and safely catch your train from Euston to Preston. If something were to go wrong on the Elizabeth Line (e.g. if your train were to break down, or the train immediately ahead of yours were to break down and you were stuck on the train in the tunnel behind it), and this caused you to miss your train out of Euston, you would be entitled to travel on the next available train to Preston. The people on the barriers at Euston might not like it, but you would be able to show them your booked itinerary and ask them to check what time your timetabled Elizabeth Line from Custom House to Tottenham Court Road actually arrived, and they would see that it was heavily delayed and that is why you missed your connection. That is a really important consumer protection, which would be much more difficult to rely on if you booked your train ticket from Euston and used Oyster or Contactless to get to Euston from Custom House; if you do that then you're not including the local leg of the journey in the transport contract when you buy your ticket and you are not protected if you don't get to Euston on time because of a delay on that local leg. If you miss your train you may find yourself having to buy a brand new ticket to Preston, which will not be cheap. By contrast, if you have a booked and ticketed itinerary that starts at Custom House and ends at Preston, not only will Avanti have to convey you to Preston on a later train if a delay on the Elizabeth Line causes you to miss your booked Avanti train; if as a result you arrive in Preston 30 minutes or more after you were due to arrive, you can claim Delay Repay from TfL on the cost of the whole journey. In my opinion this is one of the reasons TfL doesn't put any National Rail branding anywhere on Elizabeth Line trains or stations: they don't want people to know this fact, because they don't want to have to pay out if they cause people to be delayed when they're making a potentially expensive journey of hundreds of miles that includes a local leg on the Elizabeth Line (or London Overground, for that matter). MerseyRail behaves in a similar way: they're potentially liable for delays on journeys from a local MerseyRail station to Glasgow, London or wherever, if people book through tickets and know their rights. If I were Transport Secretary I would insist that the Elizabeth Line, London Overground and MerseyRail put the BR double-arrow prominently on their trains and stations, alongside their own branding, so that passengers know the service is part of the National Rail network and therefore they can buy a through ticket, or a series of split tickets, from any station on the Elizabeth Line, London Overground or MerseyRail to any other National Rail station anywhere in Britain, and enjoy the various rights under the National Rail Conditions of Travel and the delay repay schemes which might not apply in the same way if they didn't make a booking and buy tickets in advance for the whole journey they are making. So I would say it's important for passengers to be aware that the Elizabeth Line is part of National Rail and that this enables them to book a through journey if they are using the Elizabeth Line as part of a longer journey, e.g. to go into central London to meet an intercity train. I appreciate people like Oyster and Contactless because it saves having to mess about buying a ticket, but if you're going to Preston then you will need a ticket anyway, and what could be more convenient than a through ticket (or a series of split tickets covering the whole journey) from your local National Rail station to your final destination? I suspect the fact TfL pretends the Elizabeth Line is separate from the National Rail network means at least 95% of passengers who live in near Custom House and want to make a long-distance train journey do not realise it is possible to book a through ticket. It can be cheaper to do it that way, especially if you have a Railcard, and even where it isn't cheaper, it can give you better protection in the event of disruption.
Thanks for a very interesting video, Jago. I can see why some may become irritated at this question popping up consistently, but I would take it as a sign that our London Underground system is the result of a mix of history, and an amalgamation of different modes of rail travel. Including the Elizabeth Line, DLR, Overground lines, and even the Trams, Thameslink and the Northern City Line running into Moorgate via Finsbury Park, is what makes our London rail system unique. 👏🏾🌟❤🚉
I don't live in the UK but from an outsiders POV it does feel separate from the Underground IMO. What I think London does well is brand its various different services to reflect the type of service it operates. Here in Toronto our streetcars vs LRT vs Subway-LRT hybrid things are all branded very similarly so unless you know which streetcar lines have their own right of way vs which "Subway" lines are actually overcomplicated Trams, there isn't really a good way to tell what each service is good for. What I like about London is that each type of service is branded separately so its clear- Underground is urban mass transit and more local/slower. The overground is more suburban and a bit faster over distance. The DLR is a local rapid transit system and the liz line is a regional scale and truly rapid line that you would prioritize using when travelling long distance. Having that distinct brand to reflect its unique service type makes it separate from the Underground (brand) and that is a good thing- it helps locals and tourists better understand the larger system.
Come to think of it, the only part of the tube line I have walked along is the Brunel Tunnel at Wapping/Rotherhithe. Built as a road it was only ever used as a pedestrian tunnel, until converted to rail. In my (remembered) lifetime it has gone from being the East London Line, to being part of the Overground (despite running under the Thames) and is now on the Windrush line. Hey ho.
I think the main confusion just comes from the fact they chose to call the new mode AND the line “Elizabeth line”, rather than simply sticking with the more descriptive “Crossrail” for the mode. The confusing inconsistencies come from there. If they had called the mode “Crossrail” and the line within the mode “Elizabeth line” I think people could grasp why it’s treated differently. In fact it would be great to bring Thameslink into the same mode as the “Thameslink line” as it’s also a full fledged rail line that crosses through the middle of London, which is what the mode should represent.
@@andrewhotston983 I have heard the word “mode” used to describe the different sub-units/brands of TFL before, but not sure it’s official. Maybe it’s an internal thing that nerds have picked up on. Either way you can see Elizabeth line is treated separately if you go on e.g. the TFL website
Before the core 'Crossrail' section between Paddington and Abbey Wood opened, both east and west sections (Liv St-Shenfield and Paddington-Heathrow/Reading) were taken over by TFL and run under the moniker of 'TFL Rail'.
@@AlphaBee6 There are people who would therefore argue that Reading and Brentwood are in London! It must only be a matter of time before TfL try to get their grubby hands on Thaneslink!
The Dutch have a single system for _all_ public transport in the _entire_ country. Some of it has been privatised, or at least, concessions have been awarded via public tender. There used to be a card like the Oyster Card, but from what I understand, this is being phased out in favour of a contactless bank card or a mobile phone. You just tap and enter/exit. As soon as something runs on rails, it becomes difficult to categorise. If we go back to Paris, it's actually quite easy. The Métro is what runs inside Paris, or just outside the city limits. The RER is a regional train, which happens to run underground so that they didn't have to knock down large parts of Paris, which no doubt would have led to protests, and likely several strikes. Except that the new Métro lines are going further afield, even as far as the airports. So, no longer that easy. Translate that to London, and, well, it's not _quite_ that straightforward. Chesham station lies as far as 40 km away from central London. Some lines have more branches than the Habsburg family. Except for the tram, all of them have both underground and overground sections. And even if you manage to get an acceptable definition of what's what in London, move over to Karlsruhe, where they have trams both running in city streets and sharing tracks with high-speed trains, so you throw the towel in the ring and declare 'who cares'. Rail vehicles are difficult. Maybe an idea for a video?
In defence of pedantry defining things IS very important sometimes. Because all works of public transport require a clear purpose if theyre to succeed. And defining them is usually good for that. But we know what we want from the Elizabeth line without a definition so its fine
To me, a foreigner abroad who never took it, it always felt like the Elizabeth line was Britain's take on an S-Bahn line. They are technically railway services but usually pretty local. Not quite like Regional Express/Commuter trains (what I imagine Thameslink is like) but also definitely not a metro or tram.
Surprised it wasn't mentioned, but another point in favour of it not being a tube line is that National Rail Conditions of Travel (NRCoT) apply on the Elizabeth Line rather than TfL's Conditions of Carriage that apply to the Underground lines and DLR. This is due to it being a defined National Rail operator and, therefore conclusively, not an Underground line. Whilst the majority of people would say, "Who cares?" the delay repay scheme differs between the two; being something regular uses of the Elizabeth Line very much care about given the regularity of delays.
I do think part of it is down to nomenclature, I mean, it is outright called a "line", so it makes sense for people to consider it an addition to the underground. The DLR, Overground, and Thameslink all sound like their own distinct /things/ while the Elizabeth Line just sounds like a bit that was added on later
I think the Elizabeth line should be a tube line. I would consider there to be three types of Underground line: Subsurface, Deep Level, and Crossrail. If Crossrail 2 ever happens, it should be considered a tube line in the third category too!
All I want is consistency. Give the Elizabeth Line a full fat purple line on the tube map to reflect its importance. In many ways, it is the most important one. Perhaps get rid of the "line" in the moniker, same goes for the Overground lines. Adding "line" to certain lines but not to others is really quite silly. That's it. That's all my ocd self wants.
@@melissareohorn7436Only the Elizabeth line has the word "line" in its name. Check how TfL lists the lines on their status update site. Or any directions sign at a station interchange.
@@melissareohorn7436In the key to lines on the TfL maps (and I think also in the wayfinding signs in stations), only the names are shown for the Underground lines, but " line" for the Elizabeth Line and the Overground lines.
I'm more disturbed by the Circle line. Without it I could tell myself the Elizabeth Line lives in a set with Trafalgar Square and sets up for a future, I don't know, Rebecca Cube. And, I mean, no one is seriously going to confuse it with a disc.
At the beginning of this video I was on the side of Yes, then later on in the video I realised that the answer should be No, but by the end of the video I didn't really care either way. And I haven't even been on the Elizabeth Line. Great video!
It's considered a tube line by almost any Londoner and they include the EL when saying "I'm taking the tube to XYZ", so it's therefore a tube line in all places apart from official internal discussions and pedantic people in online videos/comments/forums.
When the first line was built in the 1960s, the first open section connected the new business district of La Défense to the Place de l'Etoile (where the Arc de Triomphe is located). This new line was first named "MEtro Régional Défense Etoile (MER-DE). If you speak a little French, you will understand why this name was quickly replaced by "MEtro régional Est-Ouest"! (it's true) The name RER ("Réseau Express Régional") did not appear until 1977, with the central junction between the first two lines at Châtelet - Les Halles.
Hi Jago, The most important matter raised in your video is the validity of Oyster Cards. As an Englishman living in Australia and getting "home" only once a year, I'm always frustrated by whether or not my Oyster Card is valid for travel throughout Greater London and environs. I'm fortunate to have friends in Ashford (Surrey) with whom I can stay but I need to travel to Feltham to use my Oyster Card on the trains to Waterloo whereas Ashford (Surrey) station (the next station going west and closer to where I stay) requires an additional fare (2GBP I think). I seem to remember that the tube zones have an overlap, so, it seems only sensible that this practice should occur for boundary stations and include Ashford (Surrey). (Of course, Whitton/Feltham might be that blurred "zone" demarcation line!) What is strange is that my Oyster Card is accepted from Feltham to Ashford (Surrey). and beyond (at least to Staines) on the bus!! 73, POHM, Ian
In New York City,there are several,now,Subway lines,that started out as Steam Railroads! The history goes back to the 1870's,and literally covers a number of what became BMT lines,operating today! Two examples,the Culver line[F],and the Brighton[Q&B],and the history is also bound up,with the Long Island Railroad! North of Manhattan,there was a subsidiary of the New Haven,which left its mark! The New York,Westchester,and Boston,abandoned in the 1930's,bought by the City,and now run,as the 5 line,on the IRT,also,a complicated history! Anyway,as London,New York's lines,are historically as mixed a bag,as anyone who follows the lines,will tell you! Thank you,Jago,for another excursion in pendantics,and semantics! Thank you 😇 😊!
Hi Jago. I sit firmly in the "No" camp. You have covered all the arguments I would have made... and then some. I do like the way all the signage has the Tube feel, while not actually part of the family. Happy New Year to you.
It not being officially an Underground line means that you always know whether it stops at any given station, which we see at 6:04 Add to that that, as you said in another video, if you were at Wimbledon and said “meet at the tube station, on one’s going to be in a state of confusion thinking ‘I only see a sub-surface station’”, but if you were in Langley and you said “meet at the tube station” some people might actually be confused.
TFL has modes, then lines within. So there are these modes (and more): dlr,overground,elizabeth-line,tram,tube,bus,etc.. . Then there are tube lines: central, circle etc, overground lines : liberty, weaver etc.. . The elizabeth-line is an interesting mode as it has just the one line , elizabeth-line, so the mode shares the name as its line. So, no , it is not an underground line but instead a single TFL line . Interestingly with this setup buses are also TFL lines too Source for those interested, the TFL APIs
Things took a dip at every engine on the Caledonian but this was brilliant. Thank you! By the way, I would never thumbs down a video (unless I was about to report it), still less one of yours. More power to you train enthusiast elbow!
AND to make things even more complicated..... I remember when I traveled the Central Line to Epping and on to Ongar... that was outside of the zone-system in those pre-Oyster days, and as such special (higher) fares were applicable.
I agree with this. What I think the Elizabeth line should be is the London Overground. The differences between it and the Windrush Line, Liberty Line and Weaver Line are minor and it would fit in quite well now all the lines are named. Both companies also run trains with frequencies of every 3 minutes to every half-an-hour. Obviously it would pointless at the moment to repaint the trains and changes the roundels to orange, but it would certainly be more neater having less transport brands for London in the long-term.
Crossrail, Underground, Overground. In that order. Trams equal buses. Though the Metropolitan Line does somewhat confuse the issue. And then there’s Thameslink…
The good thing about the lizzy line apart from that it opened on my birthday is that I can use my staff pass out to reading so I can save on GWR fares 🤣
Exactly. It's an Underground line. It's even named after an empire-controlling tyrant! It just needs the colour of the roundel to be changed to the correct one.
The Elizabeth line, the London Overground and all the stopping trains within the London area are London's S Bahn/RER. The London Underground and the DLR are London's U Bahn/metro.
I feel as though the thing that most sets the Elizabeth line apart from other Underground lines is the longer station spacing. Most other differences are pretty immaterial to everyday passengers.
I might have missed this bit, but the central part of the Elizabeth Line was built with a tunnel boring machine so that gives extra points to the 'it's a tube' argument. It was built in a similar way to the PIccadilly, Northern, etc. However, I am in the 'who cares' camp myself.
Feels like the main difference is the power delivery systems used and that it uses the main line track. I would say that at the end of the day it provides a hybrid service of the main line and underground so neither is wrong.
For a while, London Underground was considering switching to overhead power rails as part of the Victoria Line upgrade. Would that meant it was no-longer a tube line?
On part of its route it shares the Great Western relief lines with freight trains, mainly stone trains around Acton. I don’t think any part of the Underground carries freight now, other than the Underground’s own engineering trains when the line is closed to passengers.
I'm not a londoner so I might get shat on by londoners for saying this, but: London's got in a bit of a similar situation as Tokyo in that it has a metro, in the sense of a high-frequency high-capacity urban railway, but unlike the metro system in most other cities around the world, London's and Tokyo's is composed of several services which are branded differently although they're part of the same metro network and London's metro is comprised of (in my opinion at least, as an outside observer with limited insight) the following services: - London Underground - London Overground - DLR (which is not an LR at all, it's also a metro like the Underground, though you could say it's a light metro rather than a heavy metro) - Elizabeth Line - Thameslink - Northern City Line so it isn't part of the _Underground_ because the Underground is more so a brand than a transport mode, but it _is_ part of the metro
The tube map should show those services that are in the core tfl fair structure ONLY (i.e. not Thameslink or the trams) the tube and rail map are for the tfl services and Thameslink and other rail.
That's the line i took from Heathrow to Whitechapel to get to tower hill a few weeks ago when I visited London, jetlag with train travel is just not a good time. London is such a cool city.
As you say, the Elizabeth Line is esentially the London equivalent of Paris's RER lines. They're not considered Metro lines, but are used extensively by Parisiennes and visitors across the central area as they offer quicker journeys . The slower Metro lines are numbered from 1to 14 wheras the RER lines are lettered from A to E. If the original "Crossrail" title had been kept, or something with Her Lste Majesty's name in the title thatvdidnt sound like just another tube line, who knows?
They are both main line and underground trains. SNCF drivers take the trains over the national network, but they change to RER drivers for the underground section, thus the longer wait at Chatelet les halls, while the drivers change over. (it's France...)
My view is if you could fit a "Subsurface" stock train into the tunnel it ISN'T a Tube line, but then I'm just picky. As for the zone system don't get me started on the lack of forward thinking when it was introduced!!!
Changing the Elizabeth line to a purely TfL service (as opposed to being on the part of the national rail) does have _some_ effects on passengers. Currently with Elizabeth line being a National Rail service, national rail tickets can be used just as normal on the Elizabeth line. Same goes for London Overground. _TfL's National Rail_ stations can be treated as an origin/destination of a National Rail ticket, but not underground or DLR stations, which can be only be used as "London Underground Zone *" on National Rail tickets. Also if you are calling Elizabeth line a tube line, Thameslink core is also underground, high frequency, Oyster capable, and travels through central London, which is somehow a smaller scale "Elizabeth line". Nevertheless with most travelling on the line being intra-London travel most people use pay-as-you-go and hardly finds a difference.
They really should have included the trams, the Thames clipper, the cable car, buses, taxis, the bike hire scheme, and going for a walk. They are all perfectly good ways of getting around.
I know the Freedom Pass isn't an Oyster Card but you can go all the way to Reading on it on the Elizabeth Line. Perhaps they couldn't cope with the idea of loads of confused Oldies after West Drayton and thought 'Well, not many oldies are gonna be going to Reading cos there are no toilets so what the heck?'. The lack of loos is what's so far put me off investigating the pubs in Reading just because I could.
Ah, I suspect the clue is that the asked 'Londoners'. We/they rarely leave London, and though I abandoned London many years ago, now living in Aylesbury (more by luck than judgement), I do think it would be harder to convince me that the Met was an Undergound line if it still came out as far as Verney Junction. I grew up on the District and Circle lines, but even the District gets a bit dodgy after Putney Bridge! Over-river-line anyone?
It's really an underground S-Bahn or an RER like Paris especially the RER A and B which are RATP/SNCF joint worked The RER C which is more like the Overground and D and E like Thameslink and Great Northern with one through and the other a suburban line terminating mostly in the capital
Elizabeth line is our version of RER / S-Bahn - just because it is the first of its kind in London (second if you count Thameslink), doesn't mean that it's not.
"We mapped the human genome, I'm sure we can get to Reading". I wouldn't be so sure about that. Some train companies can't even reschedule to tickets automatically. GWR has a "mandatory reserved seat" policy on their flexible tickets (e.g. anytime, off peak), but they can't enforce it because they can't change the allocated seat after you buy the ticket. Want to reschedule your trip and travel a day early? The process: buy a new ticket, submit a refund request, wait 10 days, be very careful to not accidentally use the return part of the old ticket because you can't remove it from the app while waiting for GWR to move.
As someone from outside London as a tourist, I go on something akin to the oyster card definition. In my mind, if I go through the ticket barrier at King's Cross, I am on the underground if I leave through a ticket barrier, whether I take the Circle line, Overground or Elizabeth line. Some lines are not on this network, like Thameslink, some lines are.
"I mean, come on, we mapped the human genome, I'm sure we can get to Reading" 😆😆😆 Expertly delivered sir.
I suspect mapping the human genome is somewhat easier than understanding TFL & National Rai fares.
Pedants' corner again - someone said there's a coding problem that stops the Oyster card including the out of town stations. Not sure what it is, but it could be as simple as not having enough storage space.
@@bishwatntl You're somewhat right, the entire oyster system currently assumes that only 15 fare zones will ever exist. Only four binary bits are assigned to storing fare zone numbers. As such, you either need to assign existing zone numbers to all the new stations, or perform some kind of merging of old zones to free up a zone number for the new route.
That said, TfL saved Zone 15 specifically for journeys out to Reading via the Elizabeth Line, but did not ever start using it. So there's one free zone waiting and ready to go.
@@SimonHollingshead One other option is to make new Oyster cards with a larger zone capacity, and gradually roll them out to replace the old ones. But then if some person from out of town that missed the changeover tries to use their old Oyster it wouldn't work as well, so not an appealing solution.
@@radagastwiz Agreed. While we had the rollover from the 'old' oyster cards to the ones with the D on them, the old ones broadly still function even now - you just don't get to use things like the app to manage your card.
I suspect most Londoners who responded to that poll use the "Oyster Card Definition" of what's an Underground line. "Does it go through central London and can I use an Oyster Card to ride it? It's an Underground line. Now let me get on with my day."
It’s just… when we sit on the trains they distinctly say “this is a London Underground service to…”. The Elizabeth line trains don’t say that, and the London Overground trains say overground. No excuses 😂
@@Lucina.. the metropolitan says "this is an all stations metropolitan line train to...", idk what tube trains says "london underground service"
Gatwick airport is a tube station *beeps oyster*
As Jago said, you can’t on the western section. My understanding is that it is “beyond the wit of man” to fix this as Oyster can only have 16 zones and these have already been used. I doubt a replacement Oyster, say catering for 256 or 65536 zones, is likely any time soon.
@ubahni interesting. Since I had my children in 2018 I’ve mainly driven and I rarely use London trains like I did to commute daily beforehand. In the past, the announcement always specified when you were using the London Underground service. So the fact that they apparently don’t any more might explain the poll results.
This video refers to me as an "ordinary passenger" and I find that to be a comment that is both shocking and, ironically, extraordinary. I am, as indeed are all viewers of this channel, a truly exceptional passenger of the very highest quality.
Well, personally, as a German, I'd call it an S-Bahn! Essentially just something between an underground line and a regional train (with a tunneled section through the city center)
Another German seconds this. Same for the RER, Tunnelbana and many other recent rail schemes
@@purplebrick131 I'd argue that the Stockholm Tunnelbana is just a traditional metro system. Two branches per line is not unusual for metros, and that doesn't make it an S-bahn system by itself. Also, it originated from a tram system, whereas every single S-bahn system that's actually branded as S-Bahn (or S-line, S-train, etc) originated from a commuter rail system. The Blue Line was built from the ground up as a metro. Though maybe we can call the Roslagsbanan an S-train once it gets a central underground section, as it has a more regional scope compared to the mostly urban and suburban Tunnelbana.
The RER is totally an S-bahn, though. And Crossrail is too.
I think Reese of RMTransit said something similar.
One thing you see on the Elizabeth line destination boards is that there is a timetable shown ,even in the core section when trains are running every few minutes it will show, for example, the next train to Abbey Wood as being the 16:02 or whatever time it’s due
That's very similar to German S-Bahn lines like those in Berlin and Munich.
Back to school tomorrow, nothing starts Sunday better than watching jago's newest creation :D
Study harder. Capital J.
@@BibTheBoulderTheOriginalOnedon't be patronising 😒 hope you've had a good break and have a good time back at school tomorrow @tantaf123 :)
The underground lines are the friends we made along the way
3:39 its not a tube line because it sped past the station. The met does that because its a damn blasted National Rail train in disguise.
So is the Piccadilly line between Hammersmith and Acton Town.
I was on a elizabeth line train going from reading that waa running late and skipped around 6 stations to make up the time. Tube lines apart from the met don't skip stations unless they are closed.
It is a tube line its also been handed to the japanese metro owners
@jtrack5withthe5 And? The New York Subway has plenty of express lines. I do accept that non-stop Euston to Warrington Bank Quay may indeed render the relevant infrequent service not a Tube line.
@@MrCoolebThe Elizabeth Line from Reading to Paddington does not stop at all stations anyway, it's not clear from the tube map as they added it incorrectly. Needs two colours.
"I don't know if we can call this video a 'Tale From The tube'...."
Perfect ending
Excellent work by TfL, providing nomenclature that pedants can argue about for days.
They know their biggest fans so well. ❤❤😂
A true gift honestly
If Crossrail 2 ever opens, I think the distinction will be clearer. Mode type: Crossrail, Name: Elizabeth Line.
As far as normal punters go,
Tube: train every few mins, calls all stations
Overground: trains every 7-15mins, calls every station
Crossrail: trains every 5 mins, check stopping pattern, some stations missed
If punters for Acton Mainline think of the lizzie line as a tube line they will be rather surprised when they go flying through Acton on a Reading train!
And now, for some REAL controversy, outside of the Smoke:
[Lights touch paper...]
"The Merseyrail City Line is part of Merseyrail, even though Merseyrail don't operate it."
[Legs it!]
The Merseyside Passenger Transport Executive (or whatever they're called these days) call it "Merseyrail", so that's good enough for me.
Heh. Does the “City Line” really mean anything? I ended up using it on 30 January 2024 to get back from Chester to Bamber Bridge, but is a Liverpool Lime Street to Blackpool North train really part of the Liverpool metropolitan rail system?
This comment floats my boat
the stations that merseyrail actually do operate on the city line are merseyrail
@@rypieuwu Yes, though I can only think of two - Liverpool South Parkway and Hunts Cross.
Schrödinger's Tube
Foreign tourist who thinks trains are fun perspective: As long as it's that purple, it is its own thing. If the Circle line was as aggressively yellow as the Elizabeth line is purple, it would also be a separate thing. "What's in a name?" as Juliet said.
Always been of the opinion that even though it's built different from the tube, it's functionally similar enough that in a few decades it will have been absorbed into the public consciousness as just another tube line, and that official classification will follow.
It's not like the actual tube lines were all seen as being one consistent standard mode when they were first built, they were consolidated later.
In Paris, no-one cares if they're on the Metro or the RER.
In Berlin, no-one cares if they're on the U-Bahn or the the S-Bahn.
Same is true here, Elizabeth Line sits alongside tube and DLR and Overground as another way to go places. All the systems are on the same map and charge consistent fees with ticket integration.
@@ijmad That's just not really true though. Because RERs, S-Bahns, Liz Lines, etc. are almost always more spacious and significantly faster people will prefer them over Metros and tubes for certain trips.
I hope not. It goes too far outside London. Should Thameslink be a tube line?
There are also benefits to having it as part of the National Rail network, particularly if you want to make a long distance through journey starting from an Elizabeth Line station. Being a timetabled National Rail service, you can have it on your booked itinerary and if you're delayed while travelling on the Elizabeth Line and miss your connection, then said booked itinerary can be very much to your advantage. I believe very few people include the Elizabeth Line leg on their booked itinerary when they buy a train ticket to Newcastle or Manchester or Glasgow, because they don't think of it as a railway line, and most of the time that will be absolutely fine, but as soon as there's a significant delay on the Elizabeth Line and they miss their connection, not having booked the whole trip as one through journey can leave them at quite a dramatic disadvantage.
@@Gfynbcyiokbg8710 I don't disagree with you there. People will definitely pick lines to use based on speed and comfort, but what label those 'modes' have is irrelevant imho.
@@ijmad They don't charge consistent fares, though.
When Ken Livingstone was Mayor and Labour were in government, the agreed approach was for TfL to take over the National Rail franchises as and when they came up for renewal (e.g. Silverlink and part of the former One Railway became London Overground) and this allowed TfL to introduce Oyster and charge consistent fares based solely on the number of zones you travelled through. When Boris Johnson became Mayor he stopped this, and instead did a deal with the remaining train companies where they would accept Oyster in London, but they could charge 50% of a day return ticket for a single journey along their lines (often resulting in much higher fares - zone 2 to zone 4 on Southeastern is considerably more expensive than zone 2 to zone 4 on a TfL line. For mixed-mode journeys (e.g. DLR plus Southeastern), the fare is bodged. That is why nobody can tell you what the single off-peak fare from Zone 2 to Zone 5 is - it depends where you're going and what route you are deemed to have taken.
If by 'integrated ticketing' you mean people can just tap and not worry about it, that is true. If you make several journeys in a day then fares are predictable based on the zones you travel in because daily capping means the individual single fares don't matter. It is not correct to say the fares on tube and train are consistent, though.
My answer: While the Elizabeth line is not within the ‘London Underground’ network, it acts as an underground urban railway within the Crossrail (Paddington - Abbey Wood). Commuters travelling short or moderate distances into or within the city may treat it as a tube line, and it can relieve congestion on the Central and District lines as a more direct route.
Agree…! As an amateur Hegelian, I posit a negation from Greater London’s rail-bound transport;
*The Elizabeth Line is **_not_** a tram.*
This is trivially true, as no railway line can be a tram - a tram is a vehicle that runs on a tramway. Whether or not the Elizabeth Line is a tramway is not as easy a question to answer (although it's still not a _difficult_ question to answer).
Mornington Crescent!
@Tevildo "Sir, we've got a call coming in from Sheffield. He says he's a 'British Rail Class 399'?"
@@msg5507 Reports have also been received from Weymouth of a Class 33 with a full rake of coaches running on a tramway. Will adding "designed to" to the definition assist matters?
You can use a freedom pass to get to Shenfield and Reading if it’s after 9am
The Metropolitan Line is a Tube line (i.e part of the London Undergound) whilst the Elizabeth Line is not (as it is not run by London Underground Ltd but by a private contractor). However the Elizabeth Line is a tube line (running at least in part under ground, in tubular tunnels built using tunnel boring machines), unlike the Metropolitan Line which was built by the "cut & cover" method (build a big trench and roof it over)
As a passenger, it was very important to me that it's not a tube line. When I was in London I had an Interrail pass. It is valid on national rail trains but not on the tube, so the new (four months old at that point) purple trains in Central London were useful for east-west trips without paying.
This situation with my Interrail pass got the most ridiculous at Greenford: When changing from GWR to the Central Line, I had to take the stairs down from the platform through the gate, walk out, tap back in with my Oyster Card and then go back up the same stairs onto the same platform.
I see a flaw in your argument. We wanted to map the human genome. But do we really want to go to Reading? 😉
LMAO
The argument works better if we want to get OUT of Reading, perhaps?
@@dancedeckerMuch, much better!
@@andrewhotston983 Appreciated
@dancedecker it was most useful getting back to Ealing Broadway ASAP!
It doesn't have quite as much rubbish in the carriages as the old-fashioned lines, the waft of skunk and cheap cologne is stronger, but the "my bag deserves a seat" policy is enforced, and it's as full as a state school when I commute.
I'd say 50/50.
Ticket inspectors on some rail systems can require people who put bags on seats to buy a ticket for their bag.
Honestly, the biggest difference between the Liz Line and, say, the District Line from a classification standpoint is that the Liz Line's day-to-day running is managed through a private concessions system in the same way as the Overground, as opposed to being directly run by TfL. If you're MTR or whoever the next guys are, for all intents and purposes you're operating a National Rail line with TfL branding. Beyond that, to the average commuter it's just a really fancy tube line. The tube is just a colloquialism for trains in London/that bring people into the centre of the city from the commuter belt. If we were to make the argument that Lizzy isn't a tube line because they run full-size trains out onto national rail tracks on each end, then technically we shouldn't even consider the sub-surface lines tube lines and that just doesn't feel right.
Right. I consider the Metropolitan Line out to Amersham/Watford/Uxbridge to be of a similar "level" to the Elizabeth Line. Mainly because they run full-sizedish trains, run to outside of London, and run to a published timetable.
I think we should stop using the phrase Tube completely. It doesn't help to cause this separation in what is supposed to be an integrated tramsport system.
@quantisedspace7047 Same here, I've had the same thoughts about the District Line. Also I've seen some people critique London's Transport but only focus on the "Tube" when in reality when you factor in the Tube, Liz Line, Overground, Trams, DLR, National Rail, Buses, London has one of if not the most comprehensive public transport networks in the world.
I'm not convinced the Tube network even exists. As far as I am concerned, it refers to the particular method of digging tunnels, so it could be used for the Channel Tunnel, or the HyperSewer as well.
UndergrounD is just branding, whose roots lie with Charles Tyson Yerkes.
I very rarely hear people say "I'm going on the Overground". It's the specific line name or "on the train".
Just branding.
For the longest time now, I've used such phrases as "I came on the Victoria Line" or "The District Line". The Lines themselves have a distinct identity and I don't think it's worth grouping them together under a single banner any more, except for corporate stuff.
For instance, if someone says "you can go on the Central Line", it immediately conjures up images of hot congested tunnels and may cause me to reject the suggestion if it's a particularly hot day, compared to if someone suggested "lets go on the District Line"
Yes, as Jago is forever pointing out the various bits of the underground were built by different companies at different times using different technologies they are only under one umbrella because of corporate takeovers and government policies.
There are certain functional differences in that the London tube lines have a much smaller loading gauge than mainline trains, have a cross-sectional area and use cast iron segments. Admittedly the tube is synonymous with London, but I think the larger, "full bore" tunnels are qualitatively different. The Glasgow subway is similar to the London tube (that is deep underground) network, but the Channel Tunnel and the Elizabeth Line (to name a couple) would not count as tube lines to my mind.
Yeah no one says "underground" because everyone says "tube". I almost never hear people say "I took the X line" it always just "I took the tube".
And everything else you say makes it seem like you're trying to argue that rail networks don't exsist in general.
@@Gfynbcyiokbg8710 I always use the term Underground. That is the traditional name for the entire network, and Tube was reserved for the deep level lines as it was descriptive of their construction. Maybe things have changed, but the older convention is more logical to my view.
The term "tube" seems to have come into existence with the building of the Central line. The deep-line network was not incorporated into what was then called he Underground system until the early 20th Century, and not 1933 did it all come under the London Passenger Transport Board.
TFL has a web page titled "A brief history of the Underground". Note, not the Tube. What's more, it even includes the Elizabeth line opening in 2022.
Before the closure of the Epping-Ongar section (which is now a preserved railway) the Central Line got further away from the centre of London than most of the Underground lines.
In a thousand years, people will debate whether the Wormhole Line connecting London with New New London on a planet orbiting Tau Ceti is an Underground line, since you can go through it with Underground trains, and the termini are both under the ground on each planet.
I'm somewhere between 'no' and 'who cares', kinda. More towards the former as I definitely have things to say about it - you touch on a lot of them here.
Pretty much all the railway lines of London are unique in some regard and actually don't have a ton in common. Their histories of being built by separate companies over a long span of time, under different economic climates and governments, and so on. That extends to the type of train they use, the distances they cover, the places they serve, the distances between stations, the service frequency, and so on. There are so many examples of this that you could spend all day going through all of them. Even the two new lines of the Underground - the Jubilee and the Victoria - are markedly different. The latter is all new, but is hampered a bit by its stations that come from a somewhat pessimistic era for railways in Britain. The Jubilee is made up of a very old section that takes over from another line, and the very modern extension it received that is all new - and it has amongst the most future-proofed stations from a time where it was felt they could splash out a bit with them. And of course the examples you gave - the Met and the W&C - is perhaps the most extreme contrast in the entire network; the two lines beyond 'going underground' and 'going through London' have very little in common.
Given all of that, as you say - all the weird things about the Elizabeth Line are actually not that weird at all. A section underground in London? The Tube does that at many points, but so does parts of the Overground, Thameslink (and Great Northern), and the DLR. Full-sized trains? Thameslink and Great Northern, Overground, the sub-surface lines of the Underground perhaps. Long distances covered well outside of London? Thameslink, arguably Overground - also the Met. A hybrid of urban rapid transit and suburban commuter rail? Thameslink, and the Met, and I guess the Overground at times? You can make the case that it being branded as its own thing makes total sense - to me personally it has most in common with a combination of the Overground, Thameslink and the Met. If it had to be placed into a box, I would perhaps say the Overground as it's a National Rail concession under TfL and uses full-on mainline trains, I guess.
But that's the second part; I don't think it's worth putting too much stock in it, or things like this. Categories are often very arbitrary, they often do not have the most clearly-defined borders, things often exist on a spectrum and various categories needn't be mutually exclusive. In this case, it's mostly a technical and bureaucratic thing - I mean, the W&C is proportionally the most underground of Underground lines and is very old, yet is technically the newest Tube line as it was only transferred from the National Rail network in 1994. It was literally, functionally a Tube line in all but name (even used Tube rolling stock towards the end) yet was not branded as such... doesn't really matter much. No one debates that it isn't an Underground line. Meanwhile the Northern City Line... I mean that's all kinds of odd, as you know. And it wasn't a part of the Underground, then it was, and now it isn't again. No one debates that it IS an Underground line. And again... does it really matter? It's basically akin to the underground section of Thameslink in more ways than one. This whole sort of thing is just way too blurry to definitively say yes or no to, and so I kinda just want to go 'it doesn't matter'. It's probably best to just take each line on its own characteristics regardless of branding tbh. As you say, even the undifferentiated routes of the DLR are different in their way - the quieter Beckton branch being the only one to terminate at Tower Gateway, the Lewisham branch having a station with one-way service and so on.
Still, whether it matters or not, it is an interesting topic to think about for a bit regardless. Great video!
I personally believe the controversy wouldn't be so bad if the trains were painted White, red and blue. That's a feature of all "Underground" trains.
As someone not from London, I would say to look at it from a National Rail point of view. If a certain line in London accepts National Rail tickets (which I think someone else has commented on) it is part of National Rail and the Elizabeth Line does
.. but you can use NR tickets on part of the Metropolitan Line and the District Line as well.
But you can get rail tickets with an inclusive London Travelcard...
@@AndrewBanks42 Yeah, and although TfL keeps quiet about it, you can buy a ticket (or a series of split tickets on a single itinerary) from any Elizabeth Line station (even in the core) to any other National Rail station in Britain. Okay, they issue it with the origin or destination "London Zone U1" (or whatever the appropriate zones are to cover the bit of the journey on the Elizabeth Line core section), but it is still a National Rail through ticket issued under the Conditions of Travel, particularly if it comes with an itinerary showing the timetabled Elizabeth Line train. It can be to the passenger's advantage to have such a ticket and itinerary, particularly when making a longer journey.
Jago with the type of fearless editorial stance that makes for a robust democracy.
You'll notice on the tube maps displayed on trains have the underground lines listed as "Central", "Bakerloo" but Liz is specifically "Elizabeth line".
‘Who cares’ works for me. If it does its job then it doesn’t matter.
It just feels like the wrong sentiment for a channel like this is all 😅
No it is crossrail. It was designated crossrail and not the underground so who cares is not an option.
@@Vile_Entity_3545 I think the plans for angryrail and bloodyfuriousrail were cancelled, though, so there was a need to save face with a rebranding. Not that those don't hurt.
@@stephenspackman5573😂😂😂😂
“I don’t know if you could call this video a tale from the tube or not….”
And there is the genesis of today’s video! Musing on the Elizabeth Line was just the vehicle to get to that, er, line. Fun video Jago! :)
In an earlier video you observed that the term, 'Tube Railway' was coined by a specific company. The term 'tube' was subsequently adopted by Londoners to refer to any underground train. It is possible to argue that the term tube doesn't apply to the Elizabeth Line, as it is a modern development! Thanks for uploading.
It may be modern, but in central London, it's still sort of round and 'tubey'...
Whilst the Waterloo and City was often referred to as 'The Drain'.
The last time but one that I went from Potters Bar to Heathrow Airport I used a Welwyn Garden City to Sevenoaks train and changed at Farringdon onto the Elizabeth Line. The last time I did this journey I used a Welwyn Garden City to Moorgate train and changed at Finsbury Park to the Piccadilly Line, as I usually did before the Elizabeth Line opened and will do in the future. I was charged a much higher fare for the route using the Elizabeth Line, and the change at Farringdon is much less convenient than the change at Finsbury Park.
For passengers in many parts of London and its eastern and western suburbs the Elizabeth Line trains replace trains that had much more comfortable seats, better placed windows, and toilets. The Elizabeth Line trains have no toilets and have inward-facing seats like those of a tube train.
You don't need oyster when you have contactless! Hopefully this year we will be able to add railcards to contactless 😮
The Elizabeth Line is an underground line, but not an Underground line.
This is the fun part of language 😁
I’ve been looking at TFLs data APIs recently, which lists transport modes and the Elizabeth Line is defined as its own mode.
Other modes include: Tube, Tram, DLR, bike and Overground.
So at least TFL this it’s separate.
The Elizabeth Line was originally supposed to be names Crossrail after the Crossrail Project. It is a part of the National Rail Network not the Tube network. If it shares tracks with National Rail then it should skip stations East and West to speed up Journey times as it is not a Tube Line it might not have to stop at every station. For Example Bond Street and Tottenham Court Road.
I probably fall into the "no" category, mostly because I only ever had a use for the Shenfield to Liverpool Street line (and sometimes going further out to Chelmsford). The reason behind the TfL branding has always struck me as an exercise in empire building on the part of the corporation. Also consider that, like the outgoing age of the vendor based railways elsewhere in the country, TfL branding is the only thing directly used by the line; it is actually operated on behalf of TfL, unlike the Tube.
You can thank the Tory government for the "operated on behalf of TfL" nonsense as that was their demand for continued funding. It won't last past the current contract running out and renationalisation of the network.
Ah, run by the ghost of Yerkes!
4:49 - "We mapped the human genome ...". Genius!
I wonder, if the Underground didn't exist and was only just being built now, would it be more like the Elizabeth Line?
Was the Budapest Metro an underground network that bored tunnels? If so, the design would resemble that of Budapest, with larger tunnels, trains, and station capacity.
Not in Sydney it isn’t . Overhead rail certainly, driverless trains, shorter trains, all sideways seating, I suspect a narrower loading gauge.
@@Brookspirit I suspect that whichever sized stock they built it for, eg small tunnel tube stock or large tunnel S/Lizzie line size, it would have walkway down at least one side of the tunnel.
In some ways yes, in some ways no, I'd imagine. A new underground line in an underground-line-less London would use the larger tunnels and platform screen doors, but it would almost certainly have more doors per carriage, closer stop spacing and more stops, and probably shorter platforms and trains to enable that. The Elizabeth line doesn't, because it's the high-capacity system and people are supposed to use the existing tube lines for the remaining journeys. It would also be fully driver-less, not an option for the Elizabeth line which shares tracks and signals with normal trains.
If it were being built in the US now it would probably be trams ("light rail" in US parlance), regardless of whether that made any sense or not (because cheaper). And it would come once an hour.
The reason you can't use an Oyster Card to Reading (and other areas) is because the card itself is unable to store the data for them as it has run out of storage space for it.
When a tap is made with an Oyster card it can read one of 16 different values, 0 is used for buses/trams, and 1-15 are used for Zoes (1-9) and then otehr areas like Gatwick (10-15), so the only way to get Oyster to Reading is to make a new set of Oyster cards that don't have the same issues, with all the marketing and such required to ensure people know the difference between the new Oyster+ or whatever and tthe original, and there's barely the point in doing that when most people can just use contactless cards anyway.
The Oyster Card has only four bits available for station zones ? How many of these four-bit sequences does it need to store ?
In my personal experience, Contactless Cards are incredibly unreliable forms of paying for travel. Likewise there is nothing stopping TFL from simplifying the number of Oyster Zones that are currently in place.
25 years ago, we fixed the Y2k problem so modifying the Oyster card should be no problem. £200 million to Fujitsu and by 2025 they should have it totally fixed, surely? In the meantime, we can all be imprisoned in the redundant Post Office Railway tunnels when our cards get the zones wrong.
Since contactless credit or debit cards cannot store any TFL data but can be used (I assume) on the purple line on TFL stations outside London, I would have thought some hybrid system could be adopted, with all data being held online rather than some data being stored on the card?
However changing the card should be possible, it was last changed in 2010 when a new chip was used. It would also be nice to see gates than can read e-tickets from phones. I can get on a train at Durham and open the gate at Kings Cross with an e-ticket, but while I can buy an e-ticket for purple line journeys, the gates, e.g. Paddington, Burnham, etc. cannot read read them so I have to get a human to let me through.
The District line once ran to Southend and Staines (IIRC- help me out here!) does that mean it wasn't an Underground line for a while? I'm with you, Jago - a rose is still a rose....
There are certain circumstances where the Elizabeth Line's status as a National Rail service matters.
It matters to holders of BritRail or Priv tickets.
It could also matter if you booked a journey from, say Custom House to Preston. If you bought an Advance Single from a National Rail retailer (in which case you'd get one of the old-fashioned orange and cream credit card-sized tickets which would be issued as London Zones U123 to Preston), you would receive along with your ticket collection reference an itinerary telling you what time you needed to be at Custom House to use the timetabled National Rail service from Custom House to Tottenham Court Road, arriving there in time to give at least the minimum connection time stipulated by the rail industry to transfer from Tottenham Court Road to Euston (probably via the Northern Line) and safely catch your train from Euston to Preston.
If something were to go wrong on the Elizabeth Line (e.g. if your train were to break down, or the train immediately ahead of yours were to break down and you were stuck on the train in the tunnel behind it), and this caused you to miss your train out of Euston, you would be entitled to travel on the next available train to Preston. The people on the barriers at Euston might not like it, but you would be able to show them your booked itinerary and ask them to check what time your timetabled Elizabeth Line from Custom House to Tottenham Court Road actually arrived, and they would see that it was heavily delayed and that is why you missed your connection. That is a really important consumer protection, which would be much more difficult to rely on if you booked your train ticket from Euston and used Oyster or Contactless to get to Euston from Custom House; if you do that then you're not including the local leg of the journey in the transport contract when you buy your ticket and you are not protected if you don't get to Euston on time because of a delay on that local leg. If you miss your train you may find yourself having to buy a brand new ticket to Preston, which will not be cheap. By contrast, if you have a booked and ticketed itinerary that starts at Custom House and ends at Preston, not only will Avanti have to convey you to Preston on a later train if a delay on the Elizabeth Line causes you to miss your booked Avanti train; if as a result you arrive in Preston 30 minutes or more after you were due to arrive, you can claim Delay Repay from TfL on the cost of the whole journey.
In my opinion this is one of the reasons TfL doesn't put any National Rail branding anywhere on Elizabeth Line trains or stations: they don't want people to know this fact, because they don't want to have to pay out if they cause people to be delayed when they're making a potentially expensive journey of hundreds of miles that includes a local leg on the Elizabeth Line (or London Overground, for that matter). MerseyRail behaves in a similar way: they're potentially liable for delays on journeys from a local MerseyRail station to Glasgow, London or wherever, if people book through tickets and know their rights. If I were Transport Secretary I would insist that the Elizabeth Line, London Overground and MerseyRail put the BR double-arrow prominently on their trains and stations, alongside their own branding, so that passengers know the service is part of the National Rail network and therefore they can buy a through ticket, or a series of split tickets, from any station on the Elizabeth Line, London Overground or MerseyRail to any other National Rail station anywhere in Britain, and enjoy the various rights under the National Rail Conditions of Travel and the delay repay schemes which might not apply in the same way if they didn't make a booking and buy tickets in advance for the whole journey they are making.
So I would say it's important for passengers to be aware that the Elizabeth Line is part of National Rail and that this enables them to book a through journey if they are using the Elizabeth Line as part of a longer journey, e.g. to go into central London to meet an intercity train. I appreciate people like Oyster and Contactless because it saves having to mess about buying a ticket, but if you're going to Preston then you will need a ticket anyway, and what could be more convenient than a through ticket (or a series of split tickets covering the whole journey) from your local National Rail station to your final destination? I suspect the fact TfL pretends the Elizabeth Line is separate from the National Rail network means at least 95% of passengers who live in near Custom House and want to make a long-distance train journey do not realise it is possible to book a through ticket. It can be cheaper to do it that way, especially if you have a Railcard, and even where it isn't cheaper, it can give you better protection in the event of disruption.
Thanks for a very interesting video, Jago. I can see why some may become irritated at this question popping up consistently, but I would take it as a sign that our London Underground system is the result of a mix of history, and an amalgamation of different modes of rail travel. Including the Elizabeth Line, DLR, Overground lines, and even the Trams, Thameslink and the Northern City Line running into Moorgate via Finsbury Park, is what makes our London rail system unique. 👏🏾🌟❤🚉
I don't live in the UK but from an outsiders POV it does feel separate from the Underground IMO. What I think London does well is brand its various different services to reflect the type of service it operates. Here in Toronto our streetcars vs LRT vs Subway-LRT hybrid things are all branded very similarly so unless you know which streetcar lines have their own right of way vs which "Subway" lines are actually overcomplicated Trams, there isn't really a good way to tell what each service is good for. What I like about London is that each type of service is branded separately so its clear- Underground is urban mass transit and more local/slower. The overground is more suburban and a bit faster over distance. The DLR is a local rapid transit system and the liz line is a regional scale and truly rapid line that you would prioritize using when travelling long distance. Having that distinct brand to reflect its unique service type makes it separate from the Underground (brand) and that is a good thing- it helps locals and tourists better understand the larger system.
Come to think of it, the only part of the tube line I have walked along is the Brunel Tunnel at Wapping/Rotherhithe. Built as a road it was only ever used as a pedestrian tunnel, until converted to rail. In my (remembered) lifetime it has gone from being the East London Line, to being part of the Overground (despite running under the Thames) and is now on the Windrush line. Hey ho.
I think the main confusion just comes from the fact they chose to call the new mode AND the line “Elizabeth line”, rather than simply sticking with the more descriptive “Crossrail” for the mode.
The confusing inconsistencies come from there. If they had called the mode “Crossrail” and the line within the mode “Elizabeth line” I think people could grasp why it’s treated differently.
In fact it would be great to bring Thameslink into the same mode as the “Thameslink line” as it’s also a full fledged rail line that crosses through the middle of London, which is what the mode should represent.
@@TheOnlyMeta The mode is "rail", surely? Modes of transport: road, rail, sea, air, etc.
@@andrewhotston983Underground, Overground, Crossrail,
@@andrewhotston983 I have heard the word “mode” used to describe the different sub-units/brands of TFL before, but not sure it’s official. Maybe it’s an internal thing that nerds have picked up on. Either way you can see Elizabeth line is treated separately if you go on e.g. the TFL website
Before the core 'Crossrail' section between Paddington and Abbey Wood opened, both east and west sections (Liv St-Shenfield and Paddington-Heathrow/Reading) were taken over by TFL and run under the moniker of 'TFL Rail'.
@@AlphaBee6 There are people who would therefore argue that Reading and Brentwood are in London!
It must only be a matter of time before TfL try to get their grubby hands on Thaneslink!
The Dutch have a single system for _all_ public transport in the _entire_ country. Some of it has been privatised, or at least, concessions have been awarded via public tender. There used to be a card like the Oyster Card, but from what I understand, this is being phased out in favour of a contactless bank card or a mobile phone. You just tap and enter/exit.
As soon as something runs on rails, it becomes difficult to categorise. If we go back to Paris, it's actually quite easy. The Métro is what runs inside Paris, or just outside the city limits. The RER is a regional train, which happens to run underground so that they didn't have to knock down large parts of Paris, which no doubt would have led to protests, and likely several strikes.
Except that the new Métro lines are going further afield, even as far as the airports. So, no longer that easy.
Translate that to London, and, well, it's not _quite_ that straightforward. Chesham station lies as far as 40 km away from central London. Some lines have more branches than the Habsburg family. Except for the tram, all of them have both underground and overground sections.
And even if you manage to get an acceptable definition of what's what in London, move over to Karlsruhe, where they have trams both running in city streets and sharing tracks with high-speed trains, so you throw the towel in the ring and declare 'who cares'.
Rail vehicles are difficult.
Maybe an idea for a video?
In defence of pedantry defining things IS very important sometimes. Because all works of public transport require a clear purpose if theyre to succeed. And defining them is usually good for that. But we know what we want from the Elizabeth line without a definition so its fine
To me, a foreigner abroad who never took it, it always felt like the Elizabeth line was Britain's take on an S-Bahn line. They are technically railway services but usually pretty local. Not quite like Regional Express/Commuter trains (what I imagine Thameslink is like) but also definitely not a metro or tram.
Surprised it wasn't mentioned, but another point in favour of it not being a tube line is that National Rail Conditions of Travel (NRCoT) apply on the Elizabeth Line rather than TfL's Conditions of Carriage that apply to the Underground lines and DLR. This is due to it being a defined National Rail operator and, therefore conclusively, not an Underground line. Whilst the majority of people would say, "Who cares?" the delay repay scheme differs between the two; being something regular uses of the Elizabeth Line very much care about given the regularity of delays.
I do think part of it is down to nomenclature, I mean, it is outright called a "line", so it makes sense for people to consider it an addition to the underground. The DLR, Overground, and Thameslink all sound like their own distinct /things/ while the Elizabeth Line just sounds like a bit that was added on later
I think the Elizabeth line should be a tube line.
I would consider there to be three types of Underground line: Subsurface, Deep Level, and Crossrail. If Crossrail 2 ever happens, it should be considered a tube line in the third category too!
is there a good reason why Thameslink shouldn't be included in the Crossrail category too?
All I want is consistency. Give the Elizabeth Line a full fat purple line on the tube map to reflect its importance. In many ways, it is the most important one. Perhaps get rid of the "line" in the moniker, same goes for the Overground lines. Adding "line" to certain lines but not to others is really quite silly. That's it. That's all my ocd self wants.
arent all the tube lines called lines,
@@melissareohorn7436Only the Elizabeth line has the word "line" in its name. Check how TfL lists the lines on their status update site. Or any directions sign at a station interchange.
@@melissareohorn7436In the key to lines on the TfL maps (and I think also in the wayfinding signs in stations), only the names are shown for the Underground lines, but " line" for the Elizabeth Line and the Overground lines.
You've drawn a line in the sand there.
I'm more disturbed by the Circle line. Without it I could tell myself the Elizabeth Line lives in a set with Trafalgar Square and sets up for a future, I don't know, Rebecca Cube. And, I mean, no one is seriously going to confuse it with a disc.
Another thing to add to the argument that it is a tube line is that it's named like one
At the beginning of this video I was on the side of Yes, then later on in the video I realised that the answer should be No, but by the end of the video I didn't really care either way. And I haven't even been on the Elizabeth Line. Great video!
In Germany, many parts of the U-Bahn are above ground, and some S-Bahn are under ground.
It's considered a tube line by almost any Londoner and they include the EL when saying "I'm taking the tube to XYZ", so it's therefore a tube line in all places apart from official internal discussions and pedantic people in online videos/comments/forums.
I love the RER. It even sounds french
When the first line was built in the 1960s, the first open section connected the new business district of La Défense to the Place de l'Etoile (where the Arc de Triomphe is located).
This new line was first named "MEtro Régional Défense Etoile (MER-DE).
If you speak a little French, you will understand why this name was quickly replaced by "MEtro régional Est-Ouest"! (it's true)
The name RER ("Réseau Express Régional") did not appear until 1977, with the central junction between the first two lines at Châtelet - Les Halles.
Hi Jago, The most important matter raised in your video is the validity of Oyster Cards. As an Englishman living in Australia and getting "home" only once a year, I'm always frustrated by whether or not my Oyster Card is valid for travel throughout Greater London and environs. I'm fortunate to have friends in Ashford (Surrey) with whom I can stay but I need to travel to Feltham to use my Oyster Card on the trains to Waterloo whereas Ashford (Surrey) station (the next station going west and closer to where I stay) requires an additional fare (2GBP I think). I seem to remember that the tube zones have an overlap, so, it seems only sensible that this practice should occur for boundary stations and include Ashford (Surrey). (Of course, Whitton/Feltham might be that blurred "zone" demarcation line!) What is strange is that my Oyster Card is accepted from Feltham to Ashford (Surrey). and beyond (at least to Staines) on the bus!! 73, POHM, Ian
There is never an ancient Greek philosopher around when you need one! A bit like a train in fact!
In New York City,there are several,now,Subway lines,that started out as Steam Railroads! The history goes back to the 1870's,and literally covers a number of what became BMT lines,operating today! Two examples,the Culver line[F],and the Brighton[Q&B],and the history is also bound up,with the Long Island Railroad! North of Manhattan,there was a subsidiary of the New Haven,which left its mark! The New York,Westchester,and Boston,abandoned in the 1930's,bought by the City,and now run,as the 5 line,on the IRT,also,a complicated history! Anyway,as London,New York's lines,are historically as mixed a bag,as anyone who follows the lines,will tell you! Thank you,Jago,for another excursion in pendantics,and semantics! Thank you 😇 😊!
The IFS Cloud is my favourite underground line
Hi Jago. I sit firmly in the "No" camp. You have covered all the arguments I would have made... and then some. I do like the way all the signage has the Tube feel, while not actually part of the family. Happy New Year to you.
It not being officially an Underground line means that you always know whether it stops at any given station, which we see at 6:04
Add to that that, as you said in another video, if you were at Wimbledon and said “meet at the tube station, on one’s going to be in a state of confusion thinking ‘I only see a sub-surface station’”, but if you were in Langley and you said “meet at the tube station” some people might actually be confused.
You might be confused at Wimbledon since it is basically a National Rail station with just a couple of platforms for the underground.
@@davidemmott6225 might be a bad example, but it's to one he used in his video explaining the differences between deep-level and sub-surface lines.
The Elizabeth Line is a local/suburban rail service serving the Reading area, which happens to be run by TfL. There, I fixed it...
New year and a new start, Abbey wood is one of the many adventures for this year.
TFL has modes, then lines within. So there are these modes (and more): dlr,overground,elizabeth-line,tram,tube,bus,etc.. . Then there are tube lines: central, circle etc, overground lines : liberty, weaver etc.. .
The elizabeth-line is an interesting mode as it has just the one line , elizabeth-line, so the mode shares the name as its line.
So, no , it is not an underground line but instead a single TFL line . Interestingly with this setup buses are also TFL lines too
Source for those interested, the TFL APIs
Things took a dip at every engine on the Caledonian but this was brilliant. Thank you!
By the way, I would never thumbs down a video (unless I was about to report it), still less one of yours. More power to you train enthusiast elbow!
Yes it is part of the Underground: When leaving Heathrow, I followed signs for the Underground.
No it isn't: It wasn't there.
AND to make things even more complicated..... I remember when I traveled the Central Line to Epping and on to Ongar... that was outside of the zone-system in those pre-Oyster days, and as such special (higher) fares were applicable.
I went to Ongar once, It was surreal, like a heritage line! Of course, it is one now!
I agree with this.
What I think the Elizabeth line should be is the London Overground. The differences between it and the Windrush Line, Liberty Line and Weaver Line are minor and it would fit in quite well now all the lines are named. Both companies also run trains with frequencies of every 3 minutes to every half-an-hour. Obviously it would pointless at the moment to repaint the trains and changes the roundels to orange, but it would certainly be more neater having less transport brands for London in the long-term.
Crossrail, Underground, Overground. In that order. Trams equal buses. Though the Metropolitan Line does somewhat confuse the issue. And then there’s Thameslink…
The good thing about the lizzy line apart from that it opened on my birthday is that I can use my staff pass out to reading so I can save on GWR fares 🤣
A complementary question would be: "What would a new TfL Underground line look like that is completely built after 2020?"
Exactly. It's an Underground line. It's even named after an empire-controlling tyrant! It just needs the colour of the roundel to be changed to the correct one.
The Elizabeth line, the London Overground and all the stopping trains within the London area are London's S Bahn/RER.
The London Underground and the DLR are London's U Bahn/metro.
I feel as though the thing that most sets the Elizabeth line apart from other Underground lines is the longer station spacing. Most other differences are pretty immaterial to everyday passengers.
I might have missed this bit, but the central part of the Elizabeth Line was built with a tunnel boring machine so that gives extra points to the 'it's a tube' argument. It was built in a similar way to the PIccadilly, Northern, etc.
However, I am in the 'who cares' camp myself.
I think of the Elizabeth Line as a hybrid tube line and national rail service. That's what makes it so cool.
The elizabeth line is officially a tube line
Feels like the main difference is the power delivery systems used and that it uses the main line track. I would say that at the end of the day it provides a hybrid service of the main line and underground so neither is wrong.
For a while, London Underground was considering switching to overhead power rails as part of the Victoria Line upgrade.
Would that meant it was no-longer a tube line?
@ I’m glad they never did. It would still be a tube line though as it’s ingrained in us.
Most of what was the Southern Region of British Rail uses a rail power delivery system. That would make all of that part of the 'Underground'.
On part of its route it shares the Great Western relief lines with freight trains, mainly stone trains around Acton. I don’t think any part of the Underground carries freight now, other than the Underground’s own engineering trains when the line is closed to passengers.
I'm not a londoner so I might get shat on by londoners for saying this, but:
London's got in a bit of a similar situation as Tokyo in that it has a metro, in the sense of a high-frequency high-capacity urban railway, but unlike the metro system in most other cities around the world, London's and Tokyo's is composed of several services which are branded differently although they're part of the same metro network
and London's metro is comprised of (in my opinion at least, as an outside observer with limited insight) the following services:
- London Underground
- London Overground
- DLR (which is not an LR at all, it's also a metro like the Underground, though you could say it's a light metro rather than a heavy metro)
- Elizabeth Line
- Thameslink
- Northern City Line
so it isn't part of the _Underground_ because the Underground is more so a brand than a transport mode, but it _is_ part of the metro
The tube map should show those services that are in the core tfl fair structure ONLY (i.e. not Thameslink or the trams) the tube and rail map are for the tfl services and Thameslink and other rail.
That's the line i took from Heathrow to Whitechapel to get to tower hill a few weeks ago when I visited London, jetlag with train travel is just not a good time. London is such a cool city.
As you say, the Elizabeth Line is esentially the London equivalent of Paris's RER lines. They're not considered Metro lines, but are used extensively by Parisiennes and visitors across the central area as they offer quicker journeys . The slower Metro lines are numbered from 1to 14 wheras the RER lines are lettered from A to E. If the original "Crossrail" title had been kept, or something with Her Lste Majesty's name in the title thatvdidnt sound like just another tube line, who knows?
They are both main line and underground trains. SNCF drivers take the trains over the national network, but they change to RER drivers for the underground section, thus the longer wait at Chatelet les halls, while the drivers change over. (it's France...)
My view is if you could fit a "Subsurface" stock train into the tunnel it ISN'T a Tube line, but then I'm just picky. As for the zone system don't get me started on the lack of forward thinking when it was introduced!!!
Agree it's an honorary tube line along with similar others
When I'm between Leyton and Epping on the Central Line in daylight, I don't think of myself as travelling on the tube. When it's dark, I do.
Changing the Elizabeth line to a purely TfL service (as opposed to being on the part of the national rail) does have _some_ effects on passengers.
Currently with Elizabeth line being a National Rail service, national rail tickets can be used just as normal on the Elizabeth line. Same goes for London Overground. _TfL's National Rail_ stations can be treated as an origin/destination of a National Rail ticket, but not underground or DLR stations, which can be only be used as "London Underground Zone *" on National Rail tickets.
Also if you are calling Elizabeth line a tube line, Thameslink core is also underground, high frequency, Oyster capable, and travels through central London, which is somehow a smaller scale "Elizabeth line".
Nevertheless with most travelling on the line being intra-London travel most people use pay-as-you-go and hardly finds a difference.
They really should have included the trams, the Thames clipper, the cable car, buses, taxis, the bike hire scheme, and going for a walk. They are all perfectly good ways of getting around.
I am not paying TFL for 'going for a walk' !
Partially *in* but not *of* the tube, perhaps *tubular* ? You're welcome! 🧐
I know the Freedom Pass isn't an Oyster Card but you can go all the way to Reading on it on the Elizabeth Line. Perhaps they couldn't cope with the idea of loads of confused Oldies after West Drayton and thought 'Well, not many oldies are gonna be going to Reading cos there are no toilets so what the heck?'. The lack of loos is what's so far put me off investigating the pubs in Reading just because I could.
Ah, I suspect the clue is that the asked 'Londoners'. We/they rarely leave London, and though I abandoned London many years ago, now living in Aylesbury (more by luck than judgement), I do think it would be harder to convince me that the Met was an Undergound line if it still came out as far as Verney Junction. I grew up on the District and Circle lines, but even the District gets a bit dodgy after Putney Bridge! Over-river-line anyone?
Well does go underground at Woolwich. But then again Underground trains do go overground at certain stations (e.g. Oakwood on Piccadilly Line).
It's really an underground S-Bahn or an RER like Paris especially the RER A and B which are RATP/SNCF joint worked
The RER C which is more like the Overground and D and E like Thameslink and Great Northern with one through and the other a suburban line terminating mostly in the capital
Elizabeth line is our version of RER / S-Bahn - just because it is the first of its kind in London (second if you count Thameslink), doesn't mean that it's not.
"We mapped the human genome, I'm sure we can get to Reading". I wouldn't be so sure about that. Some train companies can't even reschedule to tickets automatically. GWR has a "mandatory reserved seat" policy on their flexible tickets (e.g. anytime, off peak), but they can't enforce it because they can't change the allocated seat after you buy the ticket. Want to reschedule your trip and travel a day early? The process: buy a new ticket, submit a refund request, wait 10 days, be very careful to not accidentally use the return part of the old ticket because you can't remove it from the app while waiting for GWR to move.
As someone from outside London as a tourist, I go on something akin to the oyster card definition. In my mind, if I go through the ticket barrier at King's Cross, I am on the underground if I leave through a ticket barrier, whether I take the Circle line, Overground or Elizabeth line. Some lines are not on this network, like Thameslink, some lines are.