Crossrail name revealed!

[JaJaWa]

Have they said they will have roundels mentioning the lines name on the outside of the trains and stations?

Relinking this from earlier in the thread... https://www.flickr.com/photos/tflpress/sets/72157665012393305

 

[Emblematic]

London Reconnections quoted the cost of rebranding the Fleet line to the Jubilee line as £50,000 in 1977. Which is somewhere north of £300,000 at present value.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" - George Santayana

 

[Cherry_Picker]

It's all a bit ridiculous really. They're going to have to redo loads of signage when there was nothing wrong with the original name in the first place.

It's a £15 billion pound engineering superproject, a few new signposts is a drop in the ocean.

As for the name? I like it. It's very London, it's very British. It's also probably really annoying for the journalists everywhere who had already pencilled in various plays on the phrase 'cross rail' as puntastic headlines for stories about passengers moods whenever there were delays on the line.

 

[jon0844]

I don't get why people shouldn't think of it as a tube line. We know the finer details, but most people will see it as a modern tube (akin to how they'd build a new tube line today) train service.

It's underground in central London and outside elsewhere. What's odd about that?

 

[Taunton]

It might be four syllables but I'm sure it will be pronounced as lizabeth or lizzie line in due course.

So is Vic-to-ri-a, but that's never been reduced to Vicky Line or anything.

 

[Steveman]

I like the name Elizabeth line and see no reason it would be shortened to anything.

 

[ess]

Will it be the Elizabeth Line all the way to Reading, or just in Central London, or Zone 6 (West Drayton)?

 

[adrock1976]

It's a £15 billion pound engineering superproject, a few new signposts is a drop in the ocean.

As for the name? I like it. It's very London, it's very British. It's also probably really annoying for the journalists everywhere who had already pencilled in various plays on the phrase 'cross rail' as puntastic headlines for stories about passengers moods whenever there were delays on the line.

My bold.

Which one is it - London or British?

If the latter, how do I use this new line to travel from my local stations of Springburn or Barnhill to Paisley Gilmour Street when visiting my partner?

When London Crossrail is completed, perhaps it may be the turn of either Glasgow, Aberdeen, Bradford, or Edinburgh to have a Crossrail project next?

 

[hwl]

My bold.

Which one is it - London or British?

If the latter, how do I use this new line to travel from my local stations of Springburn or Barnhill to Paisley Gilmour Street when visiting my partner?

When London Crossrail is completed, perhaps it may be the turn of either Glasgow, Aberdeen, Bradford, or Edinburgh to have a Crossrail project next?

Would Glasgow, Aberdeen, Bradford, or Edinburgh be willing to put up most of the money though?

As they probably won't CR2 is likely to be next.

 

[al.currie93]

Perhaps they need to think about splitting the London Overground into separate lines as well.

The Gospel Oak to Barking line could be renamed the GOBLIN line for starters.

Suggestions for the other routes anyone?

I actually agree with this - I always thought that the name 'London Overground' was thought up in a pub after one too many! I'd definitely resurrect the East London Line for the branches out of Highbury and Islington, and I agree with you on the Goblin Line. For Watford to Euston I'd go with the Watston Line, and I'd mirror the name for the lines coming out of Stratford as the West London Line. Job done

 

[glbotu]

So, just thinking about this, are there going to now be 3 separate TfL Rail networks, ie: Underground, Overground and CrossRail, where this is the first "Elizabeth Line" of "CrossRail", then next one will be the "Dave Line" of "CrossRail" the third the "Bob Line" (names chosen for humorous effect - precisely 0 thought went into them). Or are they just throwing around names willy nilly and we'll have randomly named lines just sort of thrown in there, depending on who's in charge at the time.

 

[Haydn1971]

I was hopeful of Crossrail 1-3 being named Tom, Dick and Harry

 

[Steveman]

So, just thinking about this, are there going to now be 3 separate TfL Rail networks, ie: Underground, Overground and CrossRail, where this is the first "Elizabeth Line" of "CrossRail", then next one will be the "Dave Line" of "CrossRail" the third the "Bob Line" (names chosen for humorous effect - precisely 0 thought went into them). Or are they just throwing around names willy nilly and we'll have randomly named lines just sort of thrown in there, depending on who's in charge at the time.

I wouldn't call the name Elizabeth a name that has just been produced "willy nilly" she is our very long standing monarch after all.

 

[charley_17/7]

Which one is it - London or British?

Aren't the two the same?

Hence why people jokingly refer to London (aka British) Airways.

 

[Cherry_Picker]

My bold.

Which one is it - London or British?

If the latter, how do I use this new line to travel from my local stations of Springburn or Barnhill to Paisley Gilmour Street when visiting my partner?

When London Crossrail is completed, perhaps it may be the turn of either Glasgow, Aberdeen, Bradford, or Edinburgh to have a Crossrail project next?

They aren't mutually exclusive, and given that London the resident population of London is more than double the combined population of those places you listed and probably pushing three times if you include commuters and tourists who also use the system then I wouldn't hold my breath for a regional crossrail either. I suspect you already know all of this and are just being contrary because it's London.

Will it be the Elizabeth Line all the way to Reading, or just in Central London, or Zone 6 (West Drayton)?

The Metropolitan line has quite a few stations outside Greater London and even beyond the M25 so there is precedent for the Elizabeth line to follow suit.

 

[tbtc]

Some of the people moaning that this "different" line on the TfL map are the same ones who complain that the Overground lines are getting too confusing on the maps ("it'll be orange lines everywhere") and that we need to give them different names/ colours to differentiate them better...

Customers will expect (and indeed I have already heard many "news" websites and people calling it a tube line) a London Underground style service with LU standards when it will not be.

Why will it fall short of those standards?

It'll be a line with frequent trains (24tph?), one simple route through central London (with branches at the far ends), Oyster etc will be accepted... I think that that would meet most people's definitions of LU standards?

If it quacks like a duck...

Crossrail seemed perfect for the line and a suitable companion to Thameslink, which is arguably the most similar thing to it currently

If there were only ever going to be one "Crossrail" then I'd agree. But I think that Crossrail 2 will happen, so it makes sense to differentiate things.

24tph and it going underground as well as going outside is pretty much just like the underground in the eyes of the joe public just like everything else was the overland and still is in parts.

I don't get why people shouldn't think of it as a tube line. We know the finer details, but most people will see it as a modern tube (akin to how they'd build a new tube line today) train service.

It's underground in central London and outside elsewhere. What's odd about that?

^^ I agree with both of the above ^^

Most people using it won't worry about the kind of things that enthusiasts obsess about - I wonder what population of people who've used the Underground even appreciate the difference between the "tube" and "SSR"!

I think there is something wrong with that name: It gives no clue as to where the line goes or which places it serves

"Crossrail" doesn't give much of a clue (other than it goes across London from one side to the other, which is true of most Underground lines) and doesn't include the places that it serves in its name.

London Reconnections quoted the cost of rebranding the Fleet line to the Jubilee line as £50,000 in 1977. Which is somewhere north of £300,000 at present value.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" - George Santayana

So far there's a handful of signs up, a couple of years before any trains start running.

Do you honestly think it'll cost over £300,000 to call it the "Elizabeth" line?

It's a £15 billion pound engineering superproject, a few new signposts is a drop in the ocean

Agreed.

When London Crossrail is completed, perhaps it may be the turn of either Glasgow, Aberdeen, Bradford, or Edinburgh to have a Crossrail project next?

Well done for finding another excuse to bring up Glasgow Crossrail...

 

[Sacro]

So is Vic-to-ri-a, but that's never been reduced to Vicky Line or anything.

You've never heard it called the "Vic"?

 

[jon0844]

Plenty of people manage to say Hammersmith and City Line in full (in fact, relatively few shorten it to city, or Hammersmith line) so I doubt this is going to be a major problem.

It's about being used to it, and that takes time. When this appears on route planners, maps, posters etc then I doubt the learning curve will be too great.

Aren't some new signs simply updated with vinyls these days? Won't be that expensive to change things with those will it?

 

[Mojo]

Why will it fall short of those standards?

It'll be a line with frequent trains (24tph?), one simple route through central London (with branches at the far ends), Oyster etc will be accepted... I think that that would meet most people's definitions of LU standards?

If it quacks like a duck...

I suppose we will have to wait and see when the service actually gets running how it will work in practice. However from what I have read so far; in particular with Network Rail's involvement and the rules and procedures which will govern the operation of the service, it will be quite different from a Metro service, which LU/DLR are.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I cant see the twitter pics and hence why I have now asked for a third time have they said that it will be like that outside their trains and stations - and what is the difference between 'Elizabeth' or 'Overground'? apart from the spelling and trains and where they serve?

No other "line" has a roundel. Is the wish to make it clear that it is a distinctive service or to make it more integrated with the rest of the transport system? It isn't consistent with any other service currently operated, if the intention is to change the current standards for all other TfL operated services then that has not been made clear.

 

[northwichcat]

THere's no pont in trying to argue with people about the Monarchy or about UKIP - you'll never change their opinions.

Agreed. The people strongly in favour of the monarchy will see the tourists gathered outside Buckingham Palace for the changing of the guard as people who wouldn't visit London if we didn't have a monarchy. On the other hand those strongly against will point out in Republics such as Germany and Portugal the former royal palaces are the biggest tourist attractions in the country and are bringing in huge amounts of revenue instead of costing the tax payer.

And, if we are going to do it, we'd better get the new name in use now, before it opens.

I wonder how many people will refer to it by it's actual name when it's opened. Apart from on the London Underground passengers rarely talk about the name of the line. If you asked a passenger who boards a Northern Rail service at Barnsley for Sheffield what line they are travelling on I imagine you'd get a blank response.

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

I wonder how many people will refer to it by it's actual name when it's opened. Apart from on the London Underground passengers rarely talk about the name of the line. If you asked a passenger who boards a Northern Rail service at Barnsley for Sheffield what line they are travelling on I imagine you'd get a blank response.

I would

 

[northwichcat]

I would

The minority of passengers who post on a railway forum will probably know but if you picked someone at random what's the chance they would know? Even if they know the names Hallam and Penistone line they might not know if the service they had just boarded had originated from Huddersfield or from Leeds.

 

[JamesRowden]

Perhaps it should have been called the Biddlessenx Line because it would represent all of the counties that it serves from West to East

 

[burneside]

It doesn't. Each country decides where it wants its share spent.

I see we have a few kippers here. Fair enough.

You don't have to be a "kipper" to want out of the EU. That seems to be a common mistake of the In crowd.

 

[quantinghome]

You don't have to be a "kipper" to want out of the EU. That seems to be a common mistake of the In crowd.

I think pretty much everyone (In or Out) realises that kippers are a subset of the Out group. But it's a pretty big subset.

 

[northwichcat]

Another tweet trending on Twitter refers to the announcements on the Elizabeth Line asking passengers to mind the rich/poor gap.

 

[Wolfie]

So is Vic-to-ri-a, but that's never been reduced to Vicky Line or anything.

Really? Virtually everyone I know in London calls it "the Vic line" (and of course it is sister to "the Pic line").....

You've never heard it called the "Vic"?

Yup.. see above!

Plenty of people manage to say Hammersmith and City Line in full (in fact, relatively few shorten it to city, or Hammersmith line) so I doubt this is going to be a major problem.

It's about being used to it, and that takes time. When this appears on route planners, maps, posters etc then I doubt the learning curve will be too great.

Aren't some new signs simply updated with vinyls these days? Won't be that expensive to change things with those will it?

"The H&C" (though probably should be "the 'A & C"!).....

Generally agree otherwise but really can't see them using vinyls on Tottenham Court Road station which is still undergoing its £1Bn rebuild for example...

 

[The Ham]

Agreed. The people strongly in favour of the monarchy will see the tourists gathered outside Buckingham Palace for the changing of the guard as people who wouldn't visit London if we didn't have a monarchy. On the other hand those strongly against will point out in Republics such as Germany and Portugal the former royal palaces are the biggest tourist attractions in the country and are bringing in huge amounts of revenue instead of costing the tax payer.

There is a very interesting video on the Crown Estate's (net contributor to HMRC even after paying the Civil List and subsequently the Sovereign Support Grant) and how the Royalty set it up and what would happen to it if the Government were to ever renege on funding the Royal Family (i.e. the crown estates would revert back to the ownership of the Royal Family). I can't find it just at the moment.

Just out of interest the Sovereign Support Grant is set at 15% of the Crown Estates revenue to the Government.

Then there is the issue of where to house the President (bearing in mind you've just lost all the Royal households) and what savings there maybe compared with having a monarchy (i.e. you would still need to provide them with protection).

Then, even if the UK got rid of the Royal Family there are a lot of places that they would still be head of state for and so they would still need protecting whilst they were using any of their properties in the UK (much in the same way as the police have to provide a certain level of protection to diplomats).

In short the whole lot makes the argument less clear cut as to whether the royal or the republican route is financially cheaper/more expensive.

My view is that as it is working (i.e. the Queen doesn't interfere with politics and lets "her government" get on with making it work/making it a mess (delete as appropriate) and so unless someone can explain why a republic would be better for the way the country then leave what we have in place.

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

There is a very interesting video on the Crown Estate's (net contributor to HMRC even after paying the Civil List and subsequently the Sovereign Support Grant) and how the Royalty set it up and what would happen to it if the Government were to ever renege on funding the Royal Family (i.e. the crown estates would revert back to the ownership of the Royal Family). I can't find it just at the moment.

Just out of interest the Sovereign Support Grant is set at 15% of the Crown Estates revenue to the Government.

Then there is the issue of where to house the President (bearing in mind you've just lost all the Royal households) and what savings there maybe compared with having a monarchy (i.e. you would still need to provide them with protection).

Then, even if the UK got rid of the Royal Family there are a lot of places that they would still be head of state for and so they would still need protecting whilst they were using any of their properties in the UK (much in the same way as the police have to provide a certain level of protection to diplomats).

In short the whole lot makes the argument less clear cut as to whether the royal or the republican route is financially cheaper/more expensive.

My view is that as it is working (i.e. the Queen doesn't interfere with politics and lets "her government" get on with making it work/making it a mess (delete as appropriate) and so unless someone can explain why a republic would be better for the way the country then leave what we have in place.

Not forgetting you would have to re-swear all of the armed forces....

Incidentally, the Queen has come very close to dissolving the government, as she is entitled to do so, when Blair was still in

 

[Bookd]

If you named the line after any Tom, Dick, or Harry they might get ideas above their station.