London anomalies

[urbophile]

The Crossrail discussions have drawn attention to this, but it isn't really a matter for any of those threads.

It seems to be asserted that Cross/Liz/Purp is a different sort of animal from Thameslink, as well as from London Overground and Underground. To my mind however Thameslink and Crossrail have the same function and character, in that they are both through routes across central London linking together various outer-suburban routes north and south, east and west. The only difference, apart from the obvious newness and technological glitz of the latter, is that one is firmly part of the National Rail network and the other is TfL managed. They are both the London equivalent of the Paris RER. Therefore it seems to me that they should both be part of the same fares structure (are they or aren't they?), and either both or neither appear on the Tube Map (both surely).

The Underground network has its own character, but also contains an anomaly: the Metropolitan line, apart from the stretch it shares with the Circle, is much more comparable with London Overground or even most Network Rail suburban services. That is a historical accident.

It doesn't matter who owns or runs them but they ought to be treated as an integrated system and operated and marketed as such.

 

[PeterC]

It doesn't matter who owns or runs them but they ought to be treated as an integrated system and operated and marketed as such.

In the past I have been told that integrated branding is impossible. It seems to be considered heretical unless the services are physically combined with the same stock under the same ownership.

 

[AlbertBeale]

The Crossrail discussions have drawn attention to this, but it isn't really a matter for any of those threads.

It seems to be asserted that Cross/Liz/Purp is a different sort of animal from Thameslink, as well as from London Overground and Underground. To my mind however Thameslink and Crossrail have the same function and character, in that they are both through routes across central London linking together various outer-suburban routes north and south, east and west. The only difference, apart from the obvious newness and technological glitz of the latter, is that one is firmly part of the National Rail network and the other is TfL managed. They are both the London equivalent of the Paris RER. Therefore it seems to me that they should both be part of the same fares structure (are they or aren't they?), and either both or neither appear on the Tube Map (both surely).

The Underground network has its own character, but also contains an anomaly: the Metropolitan line, apart from the stretch it shares with the Circle, is much more comparable with London Overground or even most Network Rail suburban services. That is a historical accident.

It doesn't matter who owns or runs them but they ought to be treated as an integrated system and operated and marketed as such.

Absolutely true - the X-Rail/T-Link analogy with the RER in Paris is a good one. (And there too, I think, one is operated by the regional transport system and one by their national rail system.) Irrespective of such ownership technicalities, the central parts of the two in London should be on tube maps as additional through-London or cross-London routes (and which towns 30 miles away or 50 miles away some of the trains end up at isn't of much relevance fo visitors using the tube map). There's no need to distinguish them brand-wise or colour-wise on London maps - one's E-W and one's N-S; conceptually, they "overlay" easily onto the Underground system, and are most easily seen as an adjunct to the Underground as the RER is to the Metro in Paris.

I accept that they might be best with their own branding rather than sharing Overground colour/branding.

 

[norbitonflyer]

RER is run jointly by RATP (most of Lines A and B) and SNCF (parts of Lines A and B, and all of Lines C, D and E)

Having a cross-London line that links up main lines east and west is not a new concept. The Metropolitan Railway had through runniung from the GWR from the outset, and from the GER as soon as it reached Liverpool Street. The Central Line also took over GER and GWR routes in the 1940s.

And the District, at different tiems, reached Windsopr and Southend

 

[Busaholic]

The Crossrail discussions have drawn attention to this, but it isn't really a matter for any of those threads.

It seems to be asserted that Cross/Liz/Purp is a different sort of animal from Thameslink, as well as from London Overground and Underground. To my mind however Thameslink and Crossrail have the same function and character, in that they are both through routes across central London linking together various outer-suburban routes north and south, east and west. The only difference, apart from the obvious newness and technological glitz of the latter, is that one is firmly part of the National Rail network and the other is TfL managed. They are both the London equivalent of the Paris RER. Therefore it seems to me that they should both be part of the same fares structure (are they or aren't they?), and either both or neither appear on the Tube Map (both surely).

The Underground network has its own character, but also contains an anomaly: the Metropolitan line, apart from the stretch it shares with the Circle, is much more comparable with London Overground or even most Network Rail suburban services. That is a historical accident.

It doesn't matter who owns or runs them but they ought to be treated as an integrated system and operated and marketed as such.

You have it in one! Calling it the Elizabeth Line only adds to the confusion. Thameslink and Crossrail are very much the same animal, albeit they are different breeds, and need to be marketed in much the same way and with similar fare structures, though whether Heathrow and Gatwick should both attract such premium fares is open to discussion.

It doesn't help that the Transport Secretary, in the course of his toadying on behalf of the P.M. on air this morning, alluded to 'the new Underground line opening today' on the Today radio programme: can't even get his own subject right!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The Crossrail discussions have drawn attention to this, but it isn't really a matter for any of those threads.

It seems to be asserted that Cross/Liz/Purp is a different sort of animal from Thameslink, as well as from London Overground and Underground. To my mind however Thameslink and Crossrail have the same function and character, in that they are both through routes across central London linking together various outer-suburban routes north and south, east and west. The only difference, apart from the obvious newness and technological glitz of the latter, is that one is firmly part of the National Rail network and the other is TfL managed. They are both the London equivalent of the Paris RER. Therefore it seems to me that they should both be part of the same fares structure (are they or aren't they?), and either both or neither appear on the Tube Map (both surely).

I'm not so convinced they are the same in nature. The similarity is that they have the character of full-size rail trains that happen to cross London.

But in central London, the Lizzie line is a fast metro, operating every few minutes, which essentially provides an 'express tube'. It is very RER-like - to the extent that the RER is an express version of the Paris metro. If I was designing a central London tube map, I'd want to design it around the Lizzie line as the main backbone.

Thameslink in central London is slower than the equivalent Northern Line route Kings Cross-London Bridge. Even in that central section, it has an irregular timetable with some quite long (by tube standards) gaps in the timetable. It's definitely not turn-up-and-go in the sense that the tube is. And then, once you're out of the centre, I would say the only part of Thameslink with any metro like quality is the line towards St Albans - and even that has a low frequency at some of the stations. South of the river, it splits into myriad low-frequency routes, some of which are regional expresses of almost no interest to people travelling within London. If I was designing a central London tube map, I'd probably want to show Thameslink (central section only, perhaps out to West Hampstead) as a connecting rail service, but without particularly highlighting it.

This discussion does though highlight that, because of the haphazard way the rail/tube network has evolved, there isn't really a firm distinction between a couple of different modes which would have been useful in branding/mapping. The tube, the DLR, and national rail are all distinct, but then you have the sub-surface lines, The Elizabeth line, and to some extent now the Overground blurring the distinction between them.

 

[nitten_travell]

Marketing and branding anomalies aside, is it still the case that one can use the new line by touching in/out with a contactless debit card as with all other Tube & DLR stations? Even from the furthest reaches of the line? I ask as that’s probably how visitors to London (like me…) will interpret the revised map.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Thameslink has six stations in Zone 1, Crossrail only five. The TL core handles up to 24tph. That's surely Metro frequency. And TL has longer trains - 12 car on most routes.
The biggest difference is that TL was able to recycle more existing infrastructure, but it was still a huge project - look at London Bridge or Blackfriars.

 

[6Gman]

Marketing and branding anomalies aside, is it still the case that one can use the new line by touching in/out with a contactless debit card as with all other Tube & DLR stations? Even from the furthest reaches of the line? I ask as that’s probably how visitors to London (like me…) will interpret the revised map.

And for us lucky folk with safeguarded travel entitlement can we use a dated box (free) or do we need to use Oyster (cheap, but not free)? And does it differ between the central and outer sections?

 

[NorthOxonian]

In my mind Crossrail isn't quite the same as Thameslink, and is perhaps somewhere between Thameslink and the Overground or Underground. The key factor for me is the proportion of the route outwith London. Crossrail only has two such sections - a fairly long one in the west from Reading to West Drayton, and a much shorter one out to Brentwood and Shenfield in the east. Thameslink, on the other hand, is far more extensive, reaching all the way out to Bedford, Peterborough, and Brighton. I'd say the Sutton loop and route to Sevenoaks are the only parts of Thameslink which are similar in scope to the majority of Crossrail.

Of course it does depend on how you look at things. From an overall network point of view they're clearly different, but their central sections do play a similar role.

 

[AM9]

In my mind Crossrail isn't quite the same as Thameslink, and is perhaps somewhere between Thameslink and the Overground or Underground. The key factor for me is the proportion of the route outwith London. Crossrail only has two such sections - a fairly long one in the west from Reading to West Drayton, and a much shorter one out to Brentwood and Shenfield in the east. Thameslink, on the other hand, is far more extensive, reaching all the way out to Bedford, Peterborough, and Brighton. I'd say the Sutton loop and route to Sevenoaks are the only parts of Thameslink which are similar in scope to the majority of Crossrail.

Of course it does depend on how you look at things. From an overall network point of view they're clearly different, but their central sections do play a similar role.

Unless TfL make it awkward in publicity and route information*, visitors will see Thameslink and the Lizzie in the same way, i.e. short cuts across the core (i.e. the Circle Line). Both lines have frequent enough core services to handle whatever visitor demand there is. Now Thameslink is fully operational and with ATO, transit times for the 5/8 mile from Farringdon to Blackfriars are down to 4 minutes. Transit time for the 4 1/4 miles from Liverpool St to Paddington is 14 minutes. So both lines provide quick leaps across the core, way faster than the corresponding alternatives by SSL or deep tube.
* There's little for TfL to gain by discouraging TL travel through the core, especially as the fare share would be well in their favour anyway.

 

[DC1989]

Do many people use the central core of TL as an 'express tube'?

I checked Farringdon to London Bridge a few minutes ago (21:10) and the first 3 trains are delayed. First train at 21:23 then 21:26 and then 21:39. For me that's far too irregular to be used and I would just get the circle, H&C or metropolitan line and then the northern because I wouldn't need to get my phone out and check.. And I'm not sure it would be any quicker anyway!

Compare that to Liverpool Street to Paddington where there's going to be a train every 150 seconds and I can't see how they can be considered similar

 

[JonathanH]

For me that's far too irregular to be used and I would just get the circle, H&C or metropolitan line and then the northern because I wouldn't need to get my phone out and check.. And I'm not sure it would be any quicker anyway!

Those lines have had severe delays today with gaps bigger than you would have experienced at Thameslink. Obviously that isn't the normal timetable but it isn't that rare an occurrence either.

 

[Edvid]

Do many people use the central core of TL as an 'express tube'?

If you're travelling between between Blackfriars (with entrances on both banks of the Thames) and St Pancras, TL wins easily (even with the irregular gaps, as noted below).

The TL core handles up to 24tph. That's surely Metro frequency.

It'll eventually be 22tph at most (between BFR and STP) in the high peak since the Cambridge - Maidstone East service isn't happening, I believe; off-peak frequency won't be quite that high. ATM there are 19 northbound / 18 southbound departures from BFR / STP respectively between 0800 and 0859, and it's 14tph off-peak with scheduled gaps varying from 2 to 10 minutes (TL stopping patterns and routes outside Zone 1 are significantly more varied than the expected May 2023 Crossrail equivalents).

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Do many people use the central core of TL as an 'express tube'?

If you're travelling between between Blackfriars (with entrances on both banks of the Thames) and St Pancras, TL wins easily (even with the irregular gaps, as noted below).

Sure, but that's not because Thameslink is in any sense 'express' - it isn't, it's very slow in the core. You'll choose TL because if you want to go North from Blackfriars, there is no other sensible option: It's filling in a gap where there are no tube lines. That's in marked contrast to the Elizabeth line, which really is a lot faster than the tube - and will therefore the the one you'll choose if travelling more than a mile or so, even though it runs parallel to and very close to the Central Line.

 

[muddythefish]

You have it in one! Calling it the Elizabeth Line only adds to the confusion. Thameslink and Crossrail are very much the same animal, albeit they are different breeds, and need to be marketed in much the same way and with similar fare structures, though whether Heathrow and Gatwick should both attract such premium fares is open to discussion.

It doesn't help that the Transport Secretary, in the course of his toadying on behalf of the P.M. on air this morning, alluded to 'the new Underground line opening today' on the Today radio programme: can't even get his own subject right!

I was listening to the Shapps interview this morning. He also referred to the London underground as the oldest "subway" system in the world. Yes, really

 

[Mojo]

Do many people use the central core of TL as an 'express tube'?

Except, as said above, it isn't an express version of the Tube, as many journeys are the same or longer. Kings Cross / St Pancras to London Bridge is 14/15 Min vs 10-11 Min via the Northern line. Journey time to Elephant and Castle is the same between TLRailUK and the Northern line. Journeys to Blackfriars or City Thameslink (St Paul's) there is a saving mainly there is no equivalent direct Tube line, you could take the Circle line but it isn't the most sensible route. Another thing pointed out by others is that, even during the day, there can often be some gaps in the service.

 

[AM9]

Except, as said above, it isn't an express version of the Tube, as many journeys are the same or longer. Kings Cross / St Pancras to London Bridge is 14/15 Min vs 10-11 Min via the Northern line. Journey time to Elephant and Castle is the same between TLRailUK and the Northern line. Journeys to Blackfriars or City Thameslink (St Paul's) there is a saving mainly there is no equivalent direct Tube line, you could take the Circle line but it isn't the most sensible route. Another thing pointed out by others is that, even during the day, there can often be some gaps in the service.

Between the peaks, th TL core has something like 15 tph, maybe not quite the Lizzie next year but 'metro' in most peoples mind I'm sure.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 May 2022 ==

I'm not so convinced they are the same in nature. The similarity is that they have the character of full-size rail trains that happen to cross London.

But in central London, the Lizzie line is a fast metro, operating every few minutes, which essentially provides an 'express tube'. It is very RER-like - to the extent that the RER is an express version of the Paris metro. If I was designing a central London tube map, I'd want to design it around the Lizzie line as the main backbone.

Thameslink in central London is slower than the equivalent Northern Line route Kings Cross-London Bridge. Even in that central section, it has an irregular timetable with some quite long (by tube standards) gaps in the timetable. It's definitely not turn-up-and-go in the sense that the tube is. And then, once you're out of the centre, I would say the only part of Thameslink with any metro like quality is the line towards St Albans - and even that has a low frequency at some of the stations. South of the river, it splits into myriad low-frequency routes, some of which are regional expresses of almost no interest to people travelling within London. If I was designing a central London tube map, I'd probably want to show Thameslink (central section only, perhaps out to West Hampstead) as a connecting rail service, but without particularly highlighting it.

This discussion does though highlight that, because of the haphazard way the rail/tube network has evolved, there isn't really a firm distinction between a couple of different modes which would have been useful in branding/mapping. The tube, the DLR, and national rail are all distinct, but then you have the sub-surface lines, The Elizabeth line, and to some extent now the Overground blurring the distinction between them.

In a way the two cross-London lines do mirror the Paris RER lines more than might be assumed:
The Lizzie clearly is like RER-A, - it is a new tunnel built built across central Paris between two ex SNCF suburban lines into the city, just as Crossrail bridges the gap between the GWML and GEML slow lines (i.e. Relief and Electric respectively). It is fairly straight and designed from the outset to have (very) high frequency services.
Thameslink more emulates RER-C, which was fromed from two lines that ran down the Seine Left Bank, needing a very short link to join them into a through route. That line wasn't and still isn't anywhere as fast as the other RERs and is still run by the national 'TOC', SNCF.

 

[Surreytraveller]

And for us lucky folk with safeguarded travel entitlement can we use a dated box (free) or do we need to use Oyster (cheap, but not free)? And does it differ between the central and outer sections?

Its National Rail, so a dated box is valid.
Its TfL, so TfL Staff Oystercards are valid
Its both systems combined

 

[sprunt]

Except, as said above, it isn't an express version of the Tube, as many journeys are the same or longer. Kings Cross / St Pancras to London Bridge is 14/15 Min vs 10-11 Min via the Northern line.

While this is true, it likely still makes sense as an alternative for people arriving at London Bridge who want to get to the Kings Cross/St Pancras area as the faster running of the tube will be more than outweighed by the additional time getting to/from the tube platforms at both London Bridge and Kings Cross.

 

[Mojo]

While this is true, it likely still makes sense as an alternative for people arriving at London Bridge who want to get to the Kings Cross/St Pancras area as the faster running of the tube will be more than outweighed by the additional time getting to/from the tube platforms at both London Bridge and Kings Cross.

The good thing about the Northern line at Kings + is that unlike the other Tube lines which are very close to the ticket hall at one and and a very long walk at the other, the Northern line is fairly easy to access from both the Tube and Northern ticket halls at each end of the platform. Meanwhile the Thameslink platforms are quite out of the way at St Pancras. Similarly at London Bridge, the Northern line platforms are probably no less convenient unless you’re interchanging from other NR services.

 

[AM9]

The good thing about the Northern line at Kings + is that unlike the other Tube lines which are very close to the ticket hall at one and and a very long walk at the other, the Northern line is fairly easy to access from both the Tube and Northern ticket halls at each end of the platform. Meanwhile the Thameslink platforms are quite out of the way at St Pancras. Similarly at London Bridge, the Northern line platforms are probably no less convenient unless you’re interchanging from other NR services.

But Kings Cross St Pancras isn't just Kings Cross. There's a flow from EMR that is dumped conveniently three escalator flights, (or three short lift moves) from platforms A & B where a frequent service (greater than 10 tph off-peak) to London Bridge is available, not usually crowded, with toilets and level boarding. If it's Blackfriars that's wanted, there's an extra 4 tph each way.

 

[swt_passenger]

Marketing and branding anomalies aside, is it still the case that one can use the new line by touching in/out with a contactless debit card as with all other Tube & DLR stations? Even from the furthest reaches of the line? I ask as that’s probably how visitors to London (like me…) will interpret the revised map.

Nothing actually changed regarding the contactless area with the opening. Contactless PAYG was also already available at almost all national rail stations on that map as well. The limitations are with Oyster not being available everywhere.

 

[Kingston Dan]

It's also about the grubbiness and crowds on the tube. I'd rather get Thameslink or any full sized trains with seats and air con than have to stand (or even wait on the platform to get to the edge after several trains). Buses or walking are a better option than the tube in peak periods.