Should we call the Elizabeth Line, 'Crossrail' ?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 вер 2024
- Some reasoning on why London's newest railway that we already know as "Crossrail" should be continued to be called that ... it's also NOT a Tube line!
Links to things as mentioned: The Cross London Report from 1980 (I couldn't find the 1974 one):
www.railwaysarc...
Crossrail 2 will be called the George line because it it going to take so long to build that Prince George will be an old man before it opens
The Willy Line
You jest, but he'll probably be King before it opens, and as reigning King they will probably name it after him, the way they've named Crossrail 1 after the reigning Queen.
so it'll be called the republic Line
Actually the winston Churchill line
The Georgian Line would be appropriate when considering the 'Royal' naming of London's mass-transit systems. And the possibility that George VII would be the one to officially open the line seems most likely, whether as Prince of Wales or as King, time will tell!
Elizabeth = 4 Syllables
Metropolitan = 5 Syllables
Waterloo & City = 5 Syllables
Hammersmith & City = 6 Syllables
Totally agree
Yeah, and we shorten some of the names in speecgh - the Met, the Drain (W&c)
I really don't know why Geoff is so freaking out about it, I think calling it the Elizabeth line is a wonderful idea
Yes, but the Elisabeth line (Crossrail) is not a tube line, its a rail service more in common with Thameslink, not stopping as frequently as the tube so Geoftech's points make perfect sense.
But the Elizabeth line is a line within the Cross rail service, so calling it that makes sense.
BOOM
(rekt)
People will just call it the Lizzie Line, Are you going to ride the Lizzie? Catch the Lizzie.
But they're calling it that as there's a Victoria line.
It's not a Line though, it's different. That's the point.
But Lizzie Line does have a certain ring about it!
+Nick Lindsey you both deserve a medal each
It's also known in some circles as the Lizard line...
Take a ride on the Tin Lizzie!
I prefer 'Liz Line', snappier.
so crossrail is not the underground, or the overground.
something completely new in its own category ?
To the average traveller, as long as the fares are the same as for the Tube, it shouldn't really matter that Crossrail is a mainline railway. They can see from the map that it stops at fewer stations, just as they can see the same for the Metropolitan line relative to the Jubilee line between Baker Street and Wembley Park, and the Piccadilly line relative to the District Line between Acton Town and Earl's Court. The Metropolitan line even has many different stopping patterns, which are not depicted on the tube map.
The wide range of frequency is certainly a valid concern, but that's also true with the Metropolitan line which only has 2 trains per hour to Amersham or Chesham.
I'm not from London, but I don't see why "line" is intrinsically associated with a metro service. There is equally the "East London line", "North London line", "Gospel Oak to Barking line" and so on.
I don't think Crossrail should be described as a separate network on the scale of "Overground" or "Underground". Surely it would be better to group all TFL-fare railway services as the "Overground" network, then describe Crossrail as a line. For example, here's how it would compare to the Met line:
Network: Underground / Overground
Line: Metropolitan (5 syllables) / Elizabeth (4 syllables)
Services: Aldgate to Chesham all-stops, Baker Street to Amersham fast, etc. / Shenfield - Heathrow, Abbey Wood - Reading etc.
The TfL network already blurs the line between commuter rail and metro, and I think that's a good thing. I come from Toronto where there is an absolute distinction between commuter rail and metro caused by completely independent fare systems. People largely ignore the commuter network for intra-urban trips, which causes severe overcrowding on the subway and massive political demand for expensive subway construction. Having a vague distinction between metro and commuter rail like TfL would be a massive improvement.
reaperexpress I guess when you walk a mile in someone's shoes, you know what Toronto needs: and the people of Toronto want subways, subways, subways.
The stopping patterns could be reduced to two:
Place an S for Standard Service (stops everywhere),
place an X for Express Service (stops only at interchange and branching stations).
That would be especially convenient for the nonlocal......
Great response. Cheers from Toronto!
@@crazyoncoffee Yes but they are so expensive!Trams in tunnels are much better!
What about Trainy McTrainface?
What about renaming the Queen to Queenie McQueenface?
Great idea
Oh no it’s not
@@Tomstransport1 oh yes it is
The syllable count is an unfortunate argument - Victoria (four), Piccadilly (four), Metropolitan (five), Hammersmith and City (six). If the Elizabeth Line remains as its name, it will quickly be termed as the "Liz Line".
Daniel Whitley nice color your profile picture
Well also how easy are the words to say?
R Won what the f**k?
Should be called LizRail so it sounds individual from the Tube.
If they really want to give it a "line" name such as "Elizabeth", instead of calling it "line", call it "express". Since the term rarely if at all refers to specific trains, calling it the "Elizabeth Express" would be extremely fitting when it comes to function. It is in some manners, an express tube.
I absolutely agree with you Geoff. Here in Milan, Italy we have multiple "crossrails" and we call them "suburban lines" (S1, S2, S3, S4....) like the RER in Paris. It's a very useful rail system which runs mostly overground like a normal train, but in the heart of the city enters underground where the average waiting time is 5 minutes. I think that a city like London really needs a transport system like this and Crossrail is definitely going to be the starting point.
Is Crossrail / Elizabeth Line really that different to the Metropolitan Line? When you head out towards Watford and Amersham then you kinda need a timetable. It's been like that for decades. The branding thing is weird and I can see why it might be annoying, I'm guessing TFL are banking on the fact that the overwhelming majority of users will be unaware or simply won't care about the history of it's construction once trains start running.
That is a very true statement you make. The met serves amersham I believe every 15 mins is it or is it chesham?? Either way its not a frequent service compared to the other lines in the tube. Plus it goes non stop from Wembley park southbound and I've seen it can by pass some stops in the morning and evening (peak) beyond Wembley park northbound
+kyle twomeywalsh both Amersham and Chesham are only every 30 minutes each.
Semi-fast trains skip Northwick Park and Preston Road. Fast trains additionally don't stop between Harrow-o-t-H and Moor Park. Wembley Park is a bit of an enigma - some trains are timetabled not to stop, but most do.
+Si Hollett so even more reason to have the debate is it a true tube line
+RandomNameHere The whole point about giving it a "___ Line" name was to integrate it into the network better (if only they would do the Overground, especially the orbital network) as for the typical punter it works like a tube line (albeit with bigger trains and fewer stations in zone 1) and shouldn't be treated as some strange other thing.
And there's still purple roundels for those wanting to make a Parisian (or Germanic: U-bahn vs S-bahn) distinction on the London network despite the difference (especially functional) being a lot less clear cut between the Underground and Crossrail than Metro and RER.
In my opinion the 'Metropolitan line' should not be part of the London Underground. It is also a mis-nomer; it is anything but metropolitan and is a tube 'line' in name only. It along with Crossrail 1&2 etc should be put in the Outer-Suburban category- that is London rail that leaves Greater London to a significant degree. Also if we could have Chiltern Mainline trains instead of running via Wembley into Marylebone, instead run along the New North Mainline and terminate at Old Oak Common (with the Central Line trains to West Ruislip be replaced with Crossrail branch line stoppers to High Wycombe) then you could have the former metropolitan line trains end at Marylebone. Thus Marylebone would become the terminus for trains in the Outer-Suburban category which would include former Metropolitan line trains, the Aylesbury service and trains which would run between South Ruislip and Marylebone via Wembley Stadium where the Chiltern Mainline currently runs
I notice that at the end, you mentioned Crossrail 2 and 3. Surely, they could be the" _____ line", so that each branch has its own line name, but the product as a whole is still Crossrail. This still allows differentiation, while keeping the "Elizabeth Line" name.
Sorry but I'm not with you on this one.
4 syllables ... like the Pic-ca-dil-ly and Vic-tor-i-a lines, but less than the 5 syllables of the Met-ro-pol-it-an, or 6 syllables of the Ham-mer-smith-and-Cit-y or Wat-er-loo-and-Cit-y ... those lines don't seem to have suffered *too* much by having names that take a whole second to say!
Infrequent services ... like the Metropolitan line to Amersham and Chesham, which is only every 30 minutes on each branch, or the Chigwell branch of the Central Line, which is only every 20 minutes and for most of the day doesn't run through to London ... this line isn't any worse than that! And let's face it, the majority of people travelling to Reading will still use Great Western because it will be a lot quicker and more frequent, even with the change at Paddington.
Lines ... only denote tube services ... or Overground lines, like the North London Line, West London Line, East London Line, South London Line, Watford DC Line, Gospel Oak to Barking Line, Lea Valley Line and Romford to Upminster Line. Maybe it needs to be the Elizabeth Line under the Crossrail umbrella, in the same way that those lines are under the Overground umbrella.
You call a 20-minute service infrequent? Come to the North, lad. We've lines with just 6 trains a _week!_
They may have the same number of syllables but the name "piccadilly" mainly contains plosive sounds of a similar type so it is easier to say in a hurry/ Elizabeth contains many different sound types which makes it cumbersome ti say
It doesn't work as a line because there will be multiple lines when it opens, some going from abbey wood and others from upminster.
I would say though that, in regards to the "turn up and go" style of the Underground, the Metropolitan Line does only see trains every 30 mins to Amersham and Chesham, and it also has fast and semi-fast services, yet it is still classed as a London Underground line.
Geoff Marshall Very true, I understand and agree with all your points, I was just mentioning that I regularly travel between Liverpool Street and Moor Park, and that it helps to know the timetable for the Met Line in a way you don't have to for the other lines. I am certainly against the Elizabeth Line as well!!
Francis Lawson
I will still call it X-Rail. Because it's a National Rail Line and not a Tube Line
I will call it Cross-Lizzie
We have the West Coast Main Line etc. I've always thought of line meaning a railway line.
I really don't agree with your point about use of the word "line". Crossrail is a railway line. Lots of railway lines have the word line in their name.
The Overground is a network of railway lines, such as the North London Line, and the East London Line.
Crossrail will, eventually, have more than one line,and they will need to be differentiated one from another. and while The Elizabeth Line is difficult to say, it's as good a name as any other, and it will still be Crossrail.
I prefer to call it Crossrail for the simple reason that I dislike naming lines after people (same for Victoria line). And I don't think the Queen did enough work inside the tunnels to be honoured like this ;)
+Geofftech Wow, I didn't know that happened. He should definitely be commemorated in some way.
+Geofftech where and when did that happen?
I really want the next actual tube line to be constructed to be called the Churchill Line. It has a nice ring to it and he is historically significant.
Technically, Victoria Line was named after Victoria Street/Victoria Station (which were named after Queen Victoria) ...
10 seconds of google would have been enough to find this: "Victoria station (...) is near to Victoria Street, which along with the area and station is named after Queen Victoria." So who's the moron now, not even able to reason his argument and resorting to abusive language?
My thoughts exactly when I first heard the new name, it'll always be called Crossrail in my mind.
I agree with everything you said Geoff. However, what is the point of your point? It's been named the Elizabeth Line, it is what it is.
We can still call it Crossrail and probably will call it the crossrail.
in Germany we call this type of railway, analogue to the French RER, S-Bahn (rapid transit train/suburban railway). You can find them in every major big city in German speaking countries. The lines are often old suburban railways but often go under the city centre in a tunnel, connecting the head railway stations. Inside the city the S-Bahn has a Metro-style character while outside it is often a classic high capacity regional train service.
My concern is that if TfL take over the suburban rail network, they will standardise the trains into 'lines'. A report has already stated there would be "consistent, easier to understand 'lines'". In effect this means a complete loss of flexibility. For example, currently from Bexleyheath you can get to Vic, Charing X or Cannon St. If TfL got their way this could standardise on (eg) Cannon St necessitating passengers changing at Lewisham for a Vic train (which might start at Hayes). Such an arrangement would see less conflicting moves over the congested junction at Lewisham but would also mean a vast increase in passengers interchanging there between trains - an inconvenience most would, I'm sure, prefer to avoid. All in the name of having a 'line'
I think that 'simplification' is already coming in the May 2018 timetable changes, something to do with the new use of London Bridge Station. As ever beware of 'improvements' in transport systems, they normally make things worse.
But surely you already have that kind of thing - 30 million people change at Clapham Junction, slmost as many as enter or exit it.
Its a really stupid name. I wish we could stop naming everything after the Queen.
YOU INSULTER
Kim Kardasian's name is mentioned so much these days I'm surprise that haven't named a train line after her yet!
iBeer420noscope GeoffRail then? Geoff had no Royalty in it
Oh, Dhissraylwayhaznohnaymexeptfordhiswunyoowarreedingnowitsgrayt is better. 18 syllables and 61 letters! I counted.
its a really stupid name?
Yeah, sure iBeer420noscope lolol
Completely agree Geoff. I'm against calling everything "Elizabeth" in general because it's getting crazy and when Her Majesty isn't the Queen any more I suppose the trend will become calling everything "Charles".
We work in the health sector and the number of "Queen Elizabeth" Hospitals up and down the country makes things VERY complicated... Enough is enough...
First world problems....
Should just be Crossrail. I guess it was named the Elizabeth Line by someone wanting a Knighthood. I agree with all your arguments.
Thanks for this. I'm not for London but visit occasionally, not always thought this was a news underground tube line.
Thanks for clearing it up.
Geoff, I really enjoy your videos. I live in Ireland and your videos really keep me up to date with all that's going on at the mo. Thanks so much!
Of course Geoff, I rather your videos though and ones on the rail and tube network narrated by you on the londonist channel.
Well Geoff. The Elizabeth Line film got my first dislike for your stuff, which I thoroughly enjoy watching.
However, you explained your reasoning so well that after an entire 3 mins 17secs I conceded and hit the like button....
Maybe QE2 used in the name somewhere... but the name Crossrail being used since 1975 was it? wow, you have my vote. Well done. :-)
But every point he made can be (and has been in this comments section) debunked. "Elizabeth" is too may syllables: what about "Metropolitan" or "Hammersmith & City"? "Line" means Underground: what about the North London line or Gospel Oak to Barking line? And so on.
Nicely explained Geoff and I totally agree with your logic, let us hope someone somewhere in TfL I guess, will realise the error of the naming.
Either have the signs say "Crossrail - Elizabeth line" or just have them say "Elizabeth line" when you get into the Crossrail tunnels
Who agrees with me on this
1:20
-Metropolitan line
-Hammersmith and city line
-Waterloo and city line
... you see what I’m getting at here
But then again, these are all tube lines
Whatever they call it, I can't wait to come to London to ride it!
Here in the North we call Crossrail either "that fantastic waste of brass (money)", or "flaming blood-sucking southern tripe."
And now they're planning Crossrail 2, when apparently they can't even afford to electrify major intercity lines in the Midlands and North!
Yes, you're absolutely right. I only wish that there'd be somebody there to listen to you.
"Elizabeth Crossrail"
Problem solved.
Midland Mainline, East Coast Main Line, West Coast Mainline, West Highland Line, there are others too.
These names - and others hinted at - have geographical connotations. Crossrail does to a certain extent - but Elizabeth? C'mon!
I agree we should keep it called crossrail. Everyone knows it as that. They left it way to long to give it a name. I will always call it crossrail
I get the “Midland Main Line” from Sheffield to London. That isn’t part of the tube, but it’s still a line.
Agree with you, Geoff. The inspiration for Crossrail is the RER in Paris. The RER isn’t thought of as a metro line by Parisians.
Mode: Crossrail
Line: Elizabeth Line
I have a feeling that most people will call it Crossrail
Why call it after the Queen? What's she got to do with it? She didn't fund it? We funded it!
On the tube map when Cros/Eliz/Purple/Train opens the colour will not be a block colour like for example for the Central or Northern Line. It will be a two thin lines together like the DLR.
Some really good points here Geoff, particularly the distinctions relating to the frequency of trains and the fact that only a fraction of the line actually goes underground. Comments below do however point out that instances of this already exist on the metropolitan line. I feel to make the network simple & user friendly for tourists and the majority of the apathetic public, this is the right choice not to differentiate from other 'lines'.
I agree with a lot of your points here Geoff. If you look at Paris and their own suburban heavy rail service that goes through the centre, the lines are RER A, RER B, RER C, RER D, and RER E. It completely differentiates it from the Metro network there but all have a similar naming scheme to each other to denote they are one longer distance network.
P.S. I like how your purple top matches the main colour of Crossrail!
The Lizzie
+jjfarr72 yuk.
+jjfarr72 Lizzie line, I like it.
El-iz-a-beth. Met-ro-pol-it-an has more syllables.
We just call it the 'Met' - one syllable. Easy.
i dont like it being called the Elizabeth line because it is ANOTHER thing named after Elizabeth II i live between the queen elizabeth bridge and the queen elizabeth olympic park and i live near the queen's theatre i have had enough and now crossrail is going to be called the elizabeth line when that is a few roads away from me elizabeth this elizabeth that eliza-bloody-beth EVERYWHERE i do like the queen but i hate it when she just slaps her name on EVERYTHING.
She didn't slap her name on anything. Others honoured here by naming things after her. If you think a lot of things are named after Queen Elizabeth II it is only a fraction of the things named after queen victoria.
Spencer Wilton ur right about that victoria part because other parts of the world are named after that woman lol but come to the london borough of havering live there for 10 years and then you will see what i mean when i said its like shes slapping her name onto things
The S-train/U-train numbering system I feel could quite well be used. You could even get the same numbering to sort out confusion of the overground and Thameslink. If you want to keep easy distinction between overground, Thameslink and Crossrail then you can do something like ST1, ST2, ST3, SO1, SO2, SO3, SE1, SE2, SE3 or I think less confusing as S1-T,S2-T,S3-T,S4-O,S5-O,S6-O,S7-E,S8-E,S9-E or use pure S numbering alongside existing line naming to alow all necercerry distinction.
The Crossrail project faintly reminds me of the SEPTA Commuter Tunnel in Philly. When it was first propose people thought a new subway was being built. In reality it was connecting two separated railroads in the area One of them ended underground, the other in a elevated terminal similar to London Broad Street. They dug a tunnel from the end of the underground station (now Suburban Station) to a new underground station under the existing elevated terminal (now known as Jefferson Station) then made the tunnel "fishhook" back to the main line that once led into the elevated terminal. (which is known as Reading Terminal Market/Pennsylvania Convention Center.) Til this day some people refer to this tunnel as the "Regional Subway". It's not a subway, it just happens to be a regional railroad under the city.
I completely agree and you have very good points. When I visit London as a tourist, I think of these classes of rail systems: 1) Tube, 2) DLR, 3) Overground, 4) Regional train system.
I have followed the Crosslink project, but am surprised to see they give it a circular Tube logo with a specific colour and the name 'Line". I always thought it was a regional (suburban) railway.
When confusing the Crossrail with a tube line, the result will be that people expect the Elizabeth Line to be like the tube, more or less the same speed, and departing 'all the time' without the need of consulting a timetable.
The new name is sort of downgrading the concept, and it is so stupid to ditch a name that is already universally known and has very high market value!
The name Crosslink is short, appropriate and describing the route: a rail link that crosses through central London, that links something which would otherwise not be linked.
Also, as far as I can see, no tibe lines have ever been named after people. The Victoria Line is actually named after the station. It was inaugurated in 1968 - by Queen Elizabeth II - and not built in Victorian times. If naming something after the Queen, a station would be more appropriate. But I am sure there are already institutions, roads or bridges that are named after her?
The problem now is that it it would be an embarassment to drop the name again. That is one more reason not to name things after living persons.
Named after the station that is named after the person. Besides which, TFL Rail has a roundel, operating suburban services out of Liverpool street, and various other places.
I could imaginie that when Crossrail 2 and 3 are coming up, they will get line-names as well.
Like many others i'm not mad about the name Elizabeth line, but it is possible to have both. My solution would be to use Crossrail as a brand name, so therefore on the signage outside stations and on the the trains, roundals etc and use the name Elizabeth line to denote the route. As there is likely to be a second Crossrail route in the near future, which will need different name, Crossrail could remain the brand name of the network with the line names denoting each route. Undrground - District line, Crossrail - Elizabeth line.
You're happy, I'm happy, we're all happy!!
I have to say your frequency argument is in my opinion, invalid. I live on the Amersham/Chesham Branch of the met line, and by extension to your argument about reading only getting 2 trains per hour and needing a timetable, this system is already in place on the tube.
Since Elizabeth line had been delayed again, let's call the current branding as "TfL Fail" instead of "TfL Rail".
Individual Overground routes are still called ‘lines’ though - e.g. Watford DC Line and East London Line. And apparently Crossrail 2 may be called the Chelsea-Hackney Line
No it needs a real name
I'm American, so I know I have no say in this, whatsoever, but going from your point-of-view, Geoff, changing the name would make sense. Also, thanks for giving the definitions and meanings/examples of the other lines, etc.. That was helpful in understanding what is really going on. :)
Thanks/Cheers
Brennan
Hello Geoff,
I can see your point, but wouldn't it be better if London Overground is also divided in different lines? Because it is now branded as one "line" but in reality there are at least 6 lines. Maybe Crossrail and Overground can be seen as one network with 7 / 8 lines?
And an extra question, which city's with an underground have you visited?
Thanks to you in advance for your answer.
"Not a tube, not stopping at every station...... Are you talking about me?" asked the Metropolitan Line
"no, of course not" said the rest of the tube, "you've got fast, semi-fast and all stations"
I can almost certainly say that there will be a timetable, as it goes over Network Rail.
You're absolutely right - Crossrail will be run by Rail for London (RfL), which is a separate entity from London Underground (LU), but both will be overseen by TfL. It also uses overhead electrification, as opposed to 4th rail traction power systems, and the trains are much, much larger and longer than LU trains. Fundamentally, the re-naming appears to be more of a political move than anything else, and caught everyone by surprise.
+Geofftech I think it's a certain ex-mayor with Prime Ministerial ambitions. It came so suddenly that even Crossrail staff weren't told. Now they have to waste extra public money re-branding all the stations, and, on a budget that's already very tight, is an extremely unnecessary expense. Plus, Crossrail rolls off the tongue, they've spent a very VERY long time promoting it.
I'm actually also rather upset that no public consultation was made about the name. It's a very important aspect of the project in general, and no one was consulted. I think some bad decisions were made as well. The tunnel that's supposed to lead to Crossrail 2 at TCR? It ain't there no more.
All I can hope is that the new mayor won't freeze transport spending. We're working with one of the oldest railways in the world, which still uses miles, yards and chains (but that's another story). It doesn't become efficient overnight.
Maybe they should call it GeoffRail
Aren't all railway lines called 'lines'? If I want to go from Cannon Street to Eden Park, I get a train on the Hayes line.
Outside London, we have the Heart of Wales Line. They're all called 'lines', and always have been.
that people might get confused with metro style schedules is a valid point. But its great that we are calling rail routes lines. Its what they do in Japan and it gives the impression of the entire country running on a nationwide metro system. Which is awesome
totally agree Geoff, not really fond of Elizabeth Line name. Queens already got the jubilee line named after her. lets switch it back to cross rail.
Thank you Geoff, All the points you justified are true. Although dont you think Metropolitan line is also a long one to say as well since it has 5 syllables. But Overall you made good points and agree with you on them. It would be fine for it to be call it the 'Elizabeth Line' IF it was another Tube line that goes through a lot of central stations and go to the outer region like the Central, Jubilee and Bakerloo lines do but it doesnt.
And for those who say Metropolitan line is similar when comes to stations and timetabling. Its not exactly here is why. Fast, Semi-fast and All Stations will stop at all central London stations and its quick, its only the outskirts will change. Crossrail only stops at the overcrowded, upgraded well known stations like Tottenham Court Road and Paddington. Most importantly Metropolitan has the exact same branding with other tubes 'Underground' and has the same colour while Crossrail is fully purple even on the trains and platforms like the Overground and DLR colour brands
I know somewhere on the Underground where it's being referred to as Crossrail: Tottenham Court Road tube station. Something had happened to the tape covering a sign telling people which way to go to it (as you leave it from the Central eastbound platforms) and "Crossrail" is easily visible.
Perhaps what TFL are doing is that the signs that say "Crossrail" will lead you to another station that isn't the tube, and then when you get to this different station it will then sign you inside the station to the different Crossrail Lines
Fair point, I saw the title and thought that you were gonan complain about naming it after a monarch but no. Really well put together argument and people are gonna call it crossrail anyway(I know I am).
Also I think that calling it the Lizzy Line is funny.
As has been said, there’s plenty of other tube lines with just as many syllables or more, two of which you mention directly after you criticism.
Secondly, the Metropolitan Line was originally a railway which happened to go underground, and still has infrequent services at its extremities that mean you need to plan ahead rather than jump on the next tube.
Elizabeth line may as well be another tube line, infact I’m disappointed they are not in the red, white and blue livery and using underground roundels at stations.
Really??
Spot on sir, the application of logic.
There is some very good points in this video, also people who do not know the full project are getting confuse between the Underground and Cross Rail.
Metropolitan line runs to Chesham also twice an hour. And has many directions. It's kinda rail too.
I quite like the way we do things in Milano with the Suburbana, we *do* have a Linea Suburbana (suburban line), but it refers to a single service of the broader railway, so line S1 will serve a set of stations, S2 a different set of stations, S3,4,5,6,7,8,9,11,12,13 again each with its own service. Some of these lines run on the same track for most of their trip, especially so under Milano itself where we have the "passante ferroviario" which is the rough equivalent of the crossrail central section. There, you have what is almost a "metro" service with trains running every 6 minutes or so. The actual lines themselves, though, only run every half hour.
So, I'd be fine with Crossrail as the name, and "elisabeth line" being one of the services running on it.
It will always be the Main and Relief of the Great Western From Reading to London. And just because I am listening as I am typing, the RER translates as Regional Express Network.
This isn't related to the topic though, I've got to say I fricking love what you upload mate! Congrats mate!
I have already thought about that the things you have said and agree with everything. Myself and colleagues at Southeastern refer to it as 'Crossrail' the name has stuck and is much easier to say. I too, give the exmples of the RER in Paris. In London they are celebrating the arrival of this new service but in Paris they have 5 lines which began in 1969, It's a cross between a rail line and underground service a sort of semi-fast metro stopping at major points. Easier names are better for refering to, such as 'Thameslink' as opposed to 'First Capital Connect'. Even when FCC were operating people still said Thameslink.
I love the Berlin "Metro", because its simple!
1. There are no lines who split up.
2. We only have 3 Fair Zones (Inner-Berlin, Outer Berlin and Brandenburg (which isn't Berlin anymore)
3. We have Regios, which are stopping less in the City and are a good alternative to...
4. We have Overground and Underground Lines, which are devided into 15 S-Bahn-Lines ( Overground ) and 9 U-Bahn-Lines ( Underground )
and 5. Evrything is connected and there are no stations, where you have to walk for 5 minutes until you reach another Line (Greens Park -.-)
Its is nearly perfect and I think the London Underground cannot hold up with it.
( But I still like the London Underground aswell ;) )
I am guessing whoever named i it the Elizabeth line, had an eye on a knighthood?
Great discussion-- from here across the pond!
We have the same system as Paris have here in Stockholm. Frequent stopping metro called "Tunnelbana" and a commuter train service which is faster, less frequent stopping and reaching far out of the city called "Pendeltåg"
You don't have trouble saying metropolitan line??
So why not call it "the liz" line ??
Even better, LizRail so it sounds individual from the Tube.
Why did UA-cam wait until 2020 to recommend this to me?
well explained. Cant wait to visit London and see it progress and some of its openings.
1. Crossrail incorporates a large amount of British Rail networks that have existed for generations. To suddenly refer to them as "Underground" or "Tube" would be totally inaccurate.
2. Using the royal family or some royal connection is an easy cop-out used when the people involved can't thing of a good name. A good example was when they build a hospital in Oldchurch Park in Romford then decided to call it "Queens" to avoid confusing it with Oldchurch Hospital on the other side of the road which was due to be demolished anyway.
3. It's just another attempt by TfL to expand its office. When the line was first being planned, it was not going to be administered by TfL (in fact, TfL didn't exist outside of its prior existence as part of the GLC or the London Residual Body). It's just another example of empire building by avaricious bureaucrats.
Crossrail is a good name because it describes exactly what it does; it's a railway designed to cross a large city. Elizabeth already got a line to herself in 1979 when they opened the Jubilee line.
I prefer cross rail
Yeah
Sounds more professional.
The Queen already has the Jubilee Line named in her honour anyway.
I would take Crossrail as a name for a different reason: differentiate it from the existing networks. The Tube was designed to serve London and the periphery (from late 19th to early 20th century), which most parts are by and large considered as London. But as Crossrail is coming along, it is serving the Southeast with London as a focal point.
Reading is a commuter town, which would be more appropriate served by commuter trains in the past, but Crossrail can link up these commuter towns with the destination of commuter more effectively, rather than having to change trains and causing congestions at the interchanges with the "trains" and the Tube.
Thank you for this - it really explains for a Yank why the consternation with the E-Line naming. It's not necessarily anything against Her Majesty, but rather that a) it's a rail, not a line, and b) it's clunky to say.
I totally agree with you (except for that syllable argument). Not only is it a naming question -esp. regarding the type of service-, but also a question of colouring (esp. in the still called "Tube Map"). In the Map TfL have different colours for the different Underground lines. And Names for each of them. Then there are the different DLR routes (a Light Rail System) - all in one colour. Just altogether designated as DLR. And the different Overground routes (a S-Bahn-type Suburban Rail System) - all in one colour. Altogether designated as Overground. And the Tram Routes (a combination of Tram and Light Rail, also known as Traim-Train) - one colour. Simply designated as Tram(link).
And now there is this new project, the Crossrail connection (to be supplemented by a second). A Regional Express like Service (as the German Wikipedia describes it). With its own colour, like the others. And the second route in planning is to get the same colour. So there is no necessity - as you pointed it out - to give it a name.
I think this decision should be reversed. But I guess TfL cannot say "Ah, Her Majesty, we made a slight mistake there, we are going to NOT name that line after you." That wouldn't be good, no. Maybe instead Her Majesty The Queen could go forward and say: "Hey Guys, listen, I'll pass on having this line named after me. So, please, for the sake of usability, just name it Crossrail."
Maybe, Geoff, you could write Her Majesty a letter explaining the problem? (I don't know the rules of conduct in the UK, I'm simply commenting from Germany.)
TfL could (then) actually do something else: They could change the colour of the Crossrail system (maybe just slightly) and change the colour of the Underground Jubilee line into that violet/purple of the "Elizabeth line". Why? Because I think a grey tone may indicate a paused or otherwise out of service line. I know, it is supposed to be Silver for the same Jubilee, but…
Furthermore, after having recoloured the Jubilee line into that purple colour, maybe they'll come up with the great idea of naming it after Her Majesty herself - the Elizabeth line. An Underground line. Formerly known as the Jubilee line. And all is (or are) well again.
How about that?
Forgot one thing! TfL doesn't really seem to know what to call it either:
On their website, when you open the "More…" dropdown menu, you'll see a "TfL Rail" point. When you open that, it is headlined "TfL Rail", mostly talks of TfL - but… For one: On the right-hand side under the contact information for "TfL Rail", and the Twitter Travel Advice with the Twitter handle "@TfLRail", you will find the point "Crossrail queries" that leads you to Crossrail Ltd. for anything about construction.
Plus: In the main overview there is *one" (yes, only one) article on the "Elizabeth Line".
So, what's actually going on there? _TfL Rail_ is the TfL branch for regional rail services through London (as opposed to London Overground, the TfL branch for suburban rail services within London), its construction franchisee is _Crossrail Ltd._, and the _Elizabeth Line_ will only be *one* of the future several services of the TfL branch originally branded (or rather marketed) as _Crossrail_, which by now rather appears like not more than a project name, not 'suitable' for the final brand/service. Right? Or what?
I'm just getting to know London's Transport and am trying to understand. Sometimes -or often-, the local transport map helps. But in this case?
(As previously pointed out.) It's a map originally - or actually - for the Underground service. Whose lines have different colours. But later other services were added: DLR, in a single colour; Overground, in a single colour; Tramlink, in a single colour. And by now in a first step TfL Rail, which in the moment is only one line, but I guess even with several lines in the future this also will be in a single colour.
In that map, the different Underground lines are coded with responding names. But the varying lines of the other services are not differentiated among themselves. Until TfL Rail changes into Crossrail - with the official opening of the complete line - and this first Crossrail line is being names Elizabeth line.
Will it appear under that name (Elizabeth line) in the map? Or under the designation Crossrail? Or will TfL not be renamed?
However: It does not helping the (whole) system and service at all…
Regarding the design of the map, especially the inclusion of the different services, I would suggest the following:
Print one map with the different services (Underground, Overground, DLR, Tramlink, TfL-/Crossrail) and not differentiate the lines within each service. Meaning: like now, just that Underground will not be multicoloured.
And from/to that print single maps for the different services, in which you differentiate the individual lines. Meaning: a multicoloured Underground (only) map, a multicoloured Overground (only) map, and so on. Maybe Tramlink can somehow be integrated into the Underground only map. DLR, I think, can easily go on its own. Maybe, esp. to save paper, an integrated Overground+DLR map is conceivable.
Just a (rough) thought.
Also, as I get it from Wikipedia, the brand "Elizabeth line" shall use a roundel, like the Underground, the Overground, the Trams, etc. So, by the End of 2019 the rail services list of Transport for London will look like the following?
Trams
DLR
Underground
Overground
Elizabeth Line
That, I think, shows the true idiocy of the idea. They should really revoke that renaming. And should stick with Crossrail. And then call this first Crossrail service Crossrail-Elizabeth, or short CR-E.
Now I’m just in the middle of the argument because what would Crossrail 2 be named?
And I kinda like the Elizabeth line name
I thought you were talking rubbish but when I listened I changed my mind. Fair points actually.
A very pedantic and thin argument, it is still a railway 'line' - even if not a Tube service. I don't think most people will care.. and actually will appreciate it being assimilated into the Underground Network... regardless if there is a timetable. Dull.
The Berlin metro uses the S-Bahn which is the distinct service that goes further out and is the railway through the city whereas the U-Bahn is the underground metro service
Geoff, I agree. I also think there is another reason to avoid the Elizabeth Line name change. The Stanmore to Stratford tube line was originally to be called the Fleet Line; it was renamed the Jubilee Line to mark Queen Elizabeth's silver jubilee in 1977 - but missed the event it was supposed to commemorate by two years. I'm not superstitious but I wouldn't like to think that Crossrail turned out to be a posthumous tribute to H.M., bless 'er!
That's not very easy question. As far as I know, Crossrail is in the tunel under the center of London and at the surface around London. However, tube is also at the surface, so you can not distiguish it according to this.
But as I can see on photo's, the major difference is that normal tube is powerd from third rail on side, but crossrail is power from wires above the track as a normal train.
The Jubilee was called the Fleet Line during its construction.
It was indeed.
I think the reason they've done it, and the biggest reason that they shouldn't have, is that people will get on in zone 1-3 thinking their oyster or travel card will cover them because it's just another tube line, and then get stung with penalty fares, or high ones at least when they get off further out.
I will gladly call it Elizabeth Line! And yes! It is part of the tube map!
the amount of thinking your average person does is terrifyingly small (believe me, I work in retail, I say that from experince). "It's underground, it's in a big city, it must be a tube/subway/metro line". You're average nitwit doesn't grasp that there are other kinds of trains in big cities. Heck, even The Discovery Channel is guilty of this. in the first production run of "Extreme Engineering" they did an episode titled "Subways In America" which focus on extacly what it says on the tin, except the centerpiece project of the story was East Side Access, which is a mainline rail project and has just about nothing to do with the subway.
I have to say that I agree with you Geoff. Crossrail - as you point out - crosses London, hence the name. I can only assume that the name was possibly (?) dropped because critics of the scheme - those who seem to enjoy rubbishy by the scheme, especially the costs and budget - push the negatives of the entire project into your mainstream media.
Presumably the naming of "Elizabeth Line" was TfL's way of celebrating Her Majesty's recent 90th birthday.
If TfL had been trying to model the Crossrail project loosely on the French RER system - as Thameslink removes the need to change trains when travelling between Bedford and Brighton, cutting through the capital north - south, with Crossrail being the west -east equivalent, then why change the name?
+Geofftech Abaolutely. Cross rail does exactly what it says on the tin...plus the new rolling stock look nothing like tube stock...
+Geofftech The boat is not named after her though. Do agree on the overall point-Elizabeth Line really doesn't flow