Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Certes <none@nowhere.net> wrote:
>> On 18/05/2022 23:52, Recliner wrote:
>>> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>> It's because Elizabeth Line is the *mode*, equivalent with Underground,
>>>>> Overground, DLR; whereas Central, Victoria, Piccadilly etc are *lines*
>>>>> within that mode.
>>>>
>>>> So if we can talk about the Underground Central line, can we talk about the
>>>> Elizabeth Line line?
>>>>
>>>> Which is not entirely facetious as presumably there needs be to some way to
>>>> refer to the route in the central London tunnels, as opposed to the parts
>>>> which are the GWML or the GEML. And so maybe an Elizabeth Line service from
>>>> Reading to Shenfield makes use of the GWML, the Elizabeth Line line and the
>>>> GEML.
>>>
>>> Actually, Crossrail uses the GWRL, not the GWML.
>>
>> I've wondered about that, and assumed that the M in GWML[1] means "not a
>> branch" rather than identifying the fast lines from the reliefs.
>
> On the GWR, there are no 'Fast' lines, just Mains and Reliefs.
>
>>
>> [1] or should I write "GWML line"?
>
> Why not just GWR?
>

Only if you then refer to the WCML as the LMSR and the ECML as the LNER,
surely?

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Certes <none@nowhere.net> wrote:
>> On 19/05/2022 00:50, Recliner wrote:
>>> Certes <none@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>>> On 18/05/2022 23:52, Recliner wrote:
>>>>> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> It's because Elizabeth Line is the *mode*, equivalent with Underground,
>>>>>>> Overground, DLR; whereas Central, Victoria, Piccadilly etc are *lines*
>>>>>>> within that mode.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So if we can talk about the Underground Central line, can we talk about the
>>>>>> Elizabeth Line line?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is not entirely facetious as presumably there needs be to some way to
>>>>>> refer to the route in the central London tunnels, as opposed to the parts
>>>>>> which are the GWML or the GEML. And so maybe an Elizabeth Line service from
>>>>>> Reading to Shenfield makes use of the GWML, the Elizabeth Line line and the
>>>>>> GEML.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, Crossrail uses the GWRL, not the GWML.
>>>>
>>>> I've wondered about that, and assumed that the M in GWML[1] means "not a
>>>> branch" rather than identifying the fast lines from the reliefs.
>>>
>>> On the GWR, there are no 'Fast' lines, just Mains and Reliefs.
>>
>> True. I was looking for a synonym for main (non-relief) track pair
>> which couldn't be misinterpreted as meaning main (non-branch) route.
>
> But Crossrail uses the Relief, not the Main lines.
>

They're usually booked to use the relief, but they're not restricted to
them, and can use any line when necessary; which you may have observed
recently when Flying Scotsman failed at Slough (OTTOMH I can't remember
whether any 9xnn went main line rather than reversible through the down
relief platform).

Besides which, the GWML is the name of the entire formation, regardless of
which lines within that formation are being used; just like the SWML, WCML,
ECML, MML, GEML etc.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On 2022-05-18 21:04:01 +0000, NY said:

> "Tweed" <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:t63dl6$ggm$1@dont-email.me...
>> Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>> On 2022-05-18 17:49:41 +0000, Arthur Figgis said:
>>>
>>>> On 18/05/2022 13:07, NY wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'd say they ought to have top-level divisions of rail and bus, with
>>>>> all TfL-operated rail services (Underground, Overground, DLR, Tramlink,
>>>>> Liz Line) grouped together for ticketing, branding and mapping purposes.
>>>>
>>>> Though there is the angels-on-pinheads question of whether trams are
>>>> basic trains or fancy buses. The trams operate more or less as buses
>>>> with off-vehicle card readers.
>>>
>>> But is an HST a DEMU or a push-pull locomotive set?
>>>
>>> Robin
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The latter.
>
>
> I would certainly regard it as the latter, because its motors are in
> the power cars and not under the floors of the passenger carriages
> between one power car and the other.

Just like the Thumpers and Blue Pullmans.

> I've never understood why HSTs are deemed to be pushed/pulled by "power
> cars" and not "diesel-electric locomotives". At one time I thought that
> the distinction was that HSTs' motors were under the carriage floors,
> until I learned that this is not the case.

Because, when built, they were classed as DEMUs, hence the class 252
and 253 designations.

Robin

On 2022-05-18 20:57:57 +0000, Anna Noyd-Dryver said:

> Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>> On 2022-05-18 17:49:41 +0000, Arthur Figgis said:
>>
>>> On 18/05/2022 13:07, NY wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'd say they ought to have top-level divisions of rail and bus, with
>>>> all TfL-operated rail services (Underground, Overground, DLR, Tramlink,
>>>> Liz Line) grouped together for ticketing, branding and mapping purposes.
>>>
>>> Though there is the angels-on-pinheads question of whether trams are
>>> basic trains or fancy buses. The trams operate more or less as buses
>>> with off-vehicle card readers.
>>
>> But is an HST a DEMU or a push-pull locomotive set?
>>
>>
>
> Both and/or neither, IMO.
>
> I've also argued in the past that the top-n-tail class 31/37 sets which
> have operated with various TOCs over the years, better meet the definition
> of "DMU" than an HST does *grin*.

See also, Re450 sets.

Robin

On 2022-05-18 22:07:40 +0000, Theo said:

> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>> It's because Elizabeth Line is the *mode*, equivalent with Underground,
>> Overground, DLR; whereas Central, Victoria, Piccadilly etc are *lines*
>> within that mode.
>
> So if we can talk about the Underground Central line, can we talk about the
> Elizabeth Line line?

No no no, it's the Underground Central line and the Elizabeth line
Elizabeth line.

Robin

On 2022-05-18 20:10:21 +0000, Anna Noyd-Dryver said:

> NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>> "Recliner" <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:t62cdg$shn$1@dont-email.me...
>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 17/05/2022 22:20, Recliner wrote:
>>>>> NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> "Recliner" <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:t60tn7$i4n$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> No surprise here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.mylondon.news/lifestyle/travel/crossrail-new-elizabeth-line-central-23971729
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's a bit of a strong headline for closing on one Saturday.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The decision not to run rail-replacement buses sounds sensible given
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> there are other routes... until you read that "the District line is
>>>>>> part-suspended and the Hammersmith & City line is entirely closed,
>>>>>> adding to
>>>>>> the disruption" on 11 June, day that the Liz Line is closed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The Central line would be the main substitute for Central Liz, plus
>>>>> there's
>>>>> lots of normal bus routes in that area.
>>>>>
>>>> What is the colloquial for the Elizabeth Line -- the Lizzie, the Lizard?
>>>>
>>>> Is there any consensus on this?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not yet, and perhaps there never will be? Personally, I prefer the single
>>> syllable Liz, to go with the Met, Picc and Vic. But I suppose it'll be the
>>
>> It is interesting that current signage refers to "ELIZABETH LINE" whereas
>> all the other lines are referred to as "VICTORIA", "METROPOLITAN" etc (no
>> "LINE") on signs. Presumably that word "LINE" is added to avoid confusion
>> with the name of the current queen. I wonder if it will one day be removed,
>> when Charles or William is king. I wonder if Charles or William will get
>> lines named after them if a new line is built during their reign. Maybe
>> Elizabeth is a special case because she had reigned for over 60 years when
>> Crossrail was renamed Elizabeth (Line). It will be a long time before we
>> have another monarch who reigns so long, unless a monarch dies so young that
>> his/her successor reigns from as young an age as Elizabeth.
>>
>>
>
> It's because Elizabeth Line is the *mode*, equivalent with Underground,
> Overground, DLR; whereas Central, Victoria, Piccadilly etc are *lines*
> within that mode.

TfL have certainly expressed the view that it a "mode" of its own in
the way the Underground, DLR, Overground and so on are "modes", hence
its unique roundel, in the same way that RER is a mode and S-Bahn is a
mode. The problem is that there is no naming distinction between the
mode and the line of that mode, and that the "mode" has "line" in its
name.

> Whether or not that should be the case, will clearly be subject of plenty
> of debate in the future.
>
> Personally l'm inclined to think it should be 'Crossrail', with 'Elizabeth'
> being a line within that mode (thus allowing Crossrail2 to be added in
> future).

That would be sensible. If I were doing things, I'd create a "mode"
that incorporates "metro style services in underground type tunnels
using National Rail infrastructure". We can then have the Elizabeth,
the Thameslink and the Northern City lines on that mode. I would
suggest extremities well beyond "London" or not having a high frequency
service not being included on the core tube map. I would suggest
something like within Zone 6, with a service of not less than 6 per
hour daytime off peak, but with a degree of flexibility for edge cases.

> I also think that the DLR should be divided into 'lines' for the various
> parts of the service pattern.

I think the DLR, Crossrail and Overground modes need to each have a
distinctive line style on the map to which colours can be applied to
indicate lines so that servce patterns can be obviously recognised. If
we need to include Underground, Overground, Crossrail and DLR modes,
that would mean finding four distinct line styles, which might be a
challenge, though.

Robin

"Recliner" <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:t642qu$qas$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>> Which is not entirely facetious as presumably there needs be to some
>>>>>> way to
>>>>>> refer to the route in the central London tunnels, as opposed to the
>>>>>> parts
>>>>>> which are the GWML or the GEML. And so maybe an Elizabeth Line
>>>>>> service from
>>>>>> Reading to Shenfield makes use of the GWML, the Elizabeth Line line
>>>>>> and the
>>>>>> GEML.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, Crossrail uses the GWRL, not the GWML.
>>>>
>>>> I've wondered about that, and assumed that the M in GWML[1] means "not
>>>> a
>>>> branch" rather than identifying the fast lines from the reliefs.
>>>
>>> On the GWR, there are no 'Fast' lines, just Mains and Reliefs.
>>
>> True. I was looking for a synonym for main (non-relief) track pair
>> which couldn't be misinterpreted as meaning main (non-branch) route.
>
> But Crossrail uses the Relief, not the Main lines.

In "Great Western Mail Line", "West Coast Main Line", "East Coast Main
Line", I regard the Main as signifying "non-branch", not as signifying the
main/fast tracks as opposed to the relief/slow tracks. It had never occurred
to me until just now that it *could* be interpreted as "main/fast track".

On 2022-05-19 07:05:58 +0000, Anna Noyd-Dryver said:

> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 18/05/2022 18:49, Arthur Figgis wrote:
>>> On 18/05/2022 13:07, NY wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'd say they ought to have top-level divisions of rail and bus, with
>>>> all TfL-operated rail services (Underground, Overground, DLR,
>>>> Tramlink, Liz Line) grouped together for ticketing, branding and
>>>> mapping purposes.
>>>
>>> Though there is the angels-on-pinheads question of whether trams are
>>> basic trains or fancy buses. The trams operate more or less as buses
>>> with off-vehicle card readers.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I would go with trains as a tram network is a railroad.
>>
>
> I'm currently travelling around Europe and have used a number of town
> tramway systems; IMO from a passenger POV they align more closely with
> buses than trams (often same operator, integrated ticketing, shared stops;
> but also from the POV of "transport onwards from the station through the
> streets"). UK mileage may vary, however, with many systems being converted
> from, or using former, railway alignments, and operation and ticketing
> often being separate from the local bus operator.

The waters are further muddied by things like pre-metro and Stadtbahn
type operations that are on street trams in some places and underground
with metro style stations at others, on the same line.

Robin

Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>> It's because Elizabeth Line is the *mode*, equivalent with Underground,
>>>> Overground, DLR; whereas Central, Victoria, Piccadilly etc are *lines*
>>>> within that mode.
>>>
>>> So if we can talk about the Underground Central line, can we talk about the
>>> Elizabeth Line line?
>>>
>>> Which is not entirely facetious as presumably there needs be to some way to
>>> refer to the route in the central London tunnels, as opposed to the parts
>>> which are the GWML or the GEML. And so maybe an Elizabeth Line service from
>>> Reading to Shenfield makes use of the GWML, the Elizabeth Line line and the
>>> GEML.
>>
>> Actually, Crossrail uses the GWRL, not the GWML.
>>
>>
>
> They usually use the relief lines on the Great Western Main Line, but they
> can, and do, use the main lines when the reliefs are unavailable, for
> example due to disruption, failure or planned engineering work.
>

Incidentally, I was wondering whether it would be practical for HEx to be
merged with Crossrail, and continue to use the Mains for fast trains per
hour, but then join the Crossrail tunnel tracks on the north side of the
formation? Or would that require inefficient flat junctions?

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>> It's because Elizabeth Line is the *mode*, equivalent with Underground,
>>>>> Overground, DLR; whereas Central, Victoria, Piccadilly etc are *lines*
>>>>> within that mode.
>>>>
>>>> So if we can talk about the Underground Central line, can we talk about the
>>>> Elizabeth Line line?
>>>>
>>>> Which is not entirely facetious as presumably there needs be to some way to
>>>> refer to the route in the central London tunnels, as opposed to the parts
>>>> which are the GWML or the GEML. And so maybe an Elizabeth Line service from
>>>> Reading to Shenfield makes use of the GWML, the Elizabeth Line line and the
>>>> GEML.
>>>
>>> Actually, Crossrail uses the GWRL, not the GWML.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> They usually use the relief lines on the Great Western Main Line, but they
>> can, and do, use the main lines when the reliefs are unavailable, for
>> example due to disruption, failure or planned engineering work.
>>
>
> Incidentally, I was wondering whether it would be practical for HEx to be
> merged with Crossrail, and continue to use the Mains for
four
> fast trains per
> hour, but then join the Crossrail tunnel tracks on the north side of the
> formation? Or would that require inefficient flat junctions?
>

Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
> On 2022-05-18 20:57:57 +0000, Anna Noyd-Dryver said:
>
>> Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>> On 2022-05-18 17:49:41 +0000, Arthur Figgis said:
>>>
>>>> On 18/05/2022 13:07, NY wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'd say they ought to have top-level divisions of rail and bus, with
>>>>> all TfL-operated rail services (Underground, Overground, DLR, Tramlink,
>>>>> Liz Line) grouped together for ticketing, branding and mapping purposes.
>>>>
>>>> Though there is the angels-on-pinheads question of whether trams are
>>>> basic trains or fancy buses. The trams operate more or less as buses
>>>> with off-vehicle card readers.
>>>
>>> But is an HST a DEMU or a push-pull locomotive set?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Both and/or neither, IMO.
>>
>> I've also argued in the past that the top-n-tail class 31/37 sets which
>> have operated with various TOCs over the years, better meet the definition
>> of "DMU" than an HST does *grin*.
>
> See also, Re450 sets.
>

Indeed!

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t63jrd$214$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:10:21 on Wed, 18 May
> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>
>>> It is interesting that current signage refers to "ELIZABETH LINE" whereas
>>> all the other lines are referred to as "VICTORIA", "METROPOLITAN" etc (no
>>> "LINE") on signs.
> ...
>>
>> It's because Elizabeth Line is the *mode*, equivalent with Underground,
>> Overground, DLR; whereas Central, Victoria, Piccadilly etc are *lines*
>> within that mode.
>>
>> Whether or not that should be the case, will clearly be subject of plenty
>> of debate in the future.
>
> More strictly (but doesn't sounds so good) "ElizabethRail"? (As in
> MerseyRail, ScotRail, West Midlands Rail...)

LizRail? LizzyRail? BrendaRail?

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

In message <t64q8l$898$3@dont-email.me>, at 07:05:58 on Thu, 19 May
2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 18/05/2022 18:49, Arthur Figgis wrote:
>>> On 18/05/2022 13:07, NY wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'd say they ought to have top-level divisions of rail and bus, with
>>>> all TfL-operated rail services (Underground, Overground, DLR,
>>>> Tramlink, Liz Line) grouped together for ticketing, branding and
>>>> mapping purposes.
>>>
>>> Though there is the angels-on-pinheads question of whether trams are
>>> basic trains or fancy buses. The trams operate more or less as buses
>>> with off-vehicle card readers.
>>
>> I would go with trains as a tram network is a railroad.
>
>I'm currently travelling around Europe and have used a number of town
>tramway systems; IMO from a passenger POV they align more closely with
>buses than trams (often same operator, integrated ticketing, shared stops;
>but also from the POV of "transport onwards from the station through the
>streets"). UK mileage may vary, however, with many systems being converted
>from, or using former, railway alignments, and operation and ticketing
>often being separate from the local bus operator.

The Phase 1 of the NET (Nottingham Tram) was integrated with the bus
ticketing (especially useful for all-day-ticket holders), but to finance
Phase 2 they separated it off. Which is a big reason why I'd probably
not use it at all, were I still living here.

Whether for this, or other, reasons, I understand Phase 2 has been
commercially a flop, with lower than predicted ridership; whereas Phase
1 was a "great success".
--
Roland Perry

In message <t64tmr$am5$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:04:43 on Thu, 19 May
2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>On 2022-05-19 07:05:58 +0000, Anna Noyd-Dryver said:
>
>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 18/05/2022 18:49, Arthur Figgis wrote:
>>>> On 18/05/2022 13:07, NY wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'd say they ought to have top-level divisions of rail and bus,
>>>>>
>>>>> all TfL-operated rail services (Underground, Overground, DLR,
>>>>> Tramlink, Liz Line) grouped together for ticketing, branding and
>>>>> mapping purposes.
>>>> Though there is the angels-on-pinheads question of whether trams
>>>>
>>>> basic trains or fancy buses. The trams operate more or less as buses
>>>> with off-vehicle card readers.
>>>>
>>> I would go with trains as a tram network is a railroad.
>>>
>> I'm currently travelling around Europe and have used a number of
>>town
>> tramway systems; IMO from a passenger POV they align more closely with
>> buses than trams (often same operator, integrated ticketing, shared stops;
>> but also from the POV of "transport onwards from the station through the
>> streets"). UK mileage may vary, however, with many systems being converted
>> from, or using former, railway alignments, and operation and ticketing
>> often being separate from the local bus operator.
>
>The waters are further muddied by things like pre-metro and Stadtbahn
>type operations that are on street trams in some places and underground
>with metro style stations at others, on the same line.

I found it a bit odd in the Brussels Metro, to go sufficiently below the
surface to expect to find proper trains, but discover a tram-stop.
--
Roland Perry

In message <t64rmj$4fr$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:30:27 on Thu, 19 May
2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:

>If we need to include Underground, Overground, Crossrail and DLR modes,

You omitted the "Wombling Free" mode :)
--
Roland Perry

In message <t64q8l$898$2@dont-email.me>, at 07:05:57 on Thu, 19 May
2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>> It's because Elizabeth Line is the *mode*, equivalent with Underground,
>>>> Overground, DLR; whereas Central, Victoria, Piccadilly etc are *lines*
>>>> within that mode.
>>>
>>> So if we can talk about the Underground Central line, can we talk about the
>>> Elizabeth Line line?
>>>
>>> Which is not entirely facetious as presumably there needs be to some way to
>>> refer to the route in the central London tunnels, as opposed to the parts
>>> which are the GWML or the GEML. And so maybe an Elizabeth Line service from
>>> Reading to Shenfield makes use of the GWML, the Elizabeth Line line and the
>>> GEML.
>>
>> Actually, Crossrail uses the GWRL, not the GWML.
>
>They usually use the relief lines on the Great Western Main Line, but they
>can, and do, use the main lines when the reliefs are unavailable, for
>example due to disruption, failure or planned engineering work.

Or even failure of planned engineering work ;)
--
Roland Perry

In message <t6503v$pdc$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:45:51 on Thu, 19 May
2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t63jrd$214$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:10:21 on Wed, 18 May
>> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>
>>>> It is interesting that current signage refers to "ELIZABETH LINE" whereas
>>>> all the other lines are referred to as "VICTORIA", "METROPOLITAN" etc (no
>>>> "LINE") on signs.
>> ...
>>>
>>> It's because Elizabeth Line is the *mode*, equivalent with Underground,
>>> Overground, DLR; whereas Central, Victoria, Piccadilly etc are *lines*
>>> within that mode.
>>>
>>> Whether or not that should be the case, will clearly be subject of plenty
>>> of debate in the future.
>>
>> More strictly (but doesn't sounds so good) "ElizabethRail"? (As in
>> MerseyRail, ScotRail, West Midlands Rail...)
>
>LizRail? LizzyRail? BrendaRail?

We'll have to see what public opinion comes up with. Mindful that "The
Drain" was coined when it was Southern Region in a tube tunnel. Only
becoming part of whatever TfL was called that week, as late in 1994.
--
Roland Perry

On 2022-05-19 08:55:21 +0000, Roland Perry said:

> In message <t64rmj$4fr$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:30:27 on Thu, 19 May
> 2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>
>> If we need to include Underground, Overground, Crossrail and DLR modes,
>
> You omitted the "Wombling Free" mode :)

With good connections to the District line, Tramlink and Thameslink services.

Robin

Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t63jrd$214$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:10:21 on Wed, 18 May
>> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>
>>>> It is interesting that current signage refers to "ELIZABETH LINE" whereas
>>>> all the other lines are referred to as "VICTORIA", "METROPOLITAN" etc (no
>>>> "LINE") on signs.
>> ...
>>>
>>> It's because Elizabeth Line is the *mode*, equivalent with Underground,
>>> Overground, DLR; whereas Central, Victoria, Piccadilly etc are *lines*
>>> within that mode.
>>>
>>> Whether or not that should be the case, will clearly be subject of plenty
>>> of debate in the future.
>>
>> More strictly (but doesn't sounds so good) "ElizabethRail"? (As in
>> MerseyRail, ScotRail, West Midlands Rail...)
>
> LizRail? LizzyRail? BrendaRail?
>

Nicknames tend to catch on if they're short, just one or two syllables.
Equally, full names tend to be shortened if they're inconveniently long
(more than three syllables). The full name of the new line is five
syllables long, so a one or two syllable nickname is inevitable. I'd go
with the Liz, to go with the Picc, Vic, Met and Drain.

On 19/05/2022 10:16, Bob wrote:
> On 2022-05-19 08:55:21 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>
>> In message <t64rmj$4fr$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:30:27 on Thu, 19 May
>> 2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>
>>> If we need to include Underground, Overground, Crossrail and DLR modes,
>>
>> You omitted the "Wombling Free" mode :)
>
> With good connections to the District line, Tramlink and Thameslink
> services.

Not to mention the SWML, as TfL understandably doesn't. I wonder how
many visitors pick up that map at Wimbledon and set off on a convoluted
journey when they could just get a swift mainline train to Waterloo, or
change at Clapham Junction for almost anywhere.

On Thu, 19 May 2022 07:05:59 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:

>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Certes <none@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>> On 19/05/2022 00:50, Recliner wrote:
>>>> Certes <none@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 18/05/2022 23:52, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> It's because Elizabeth Line is the *mode*, equivalent with Underground,
>>>>>>>> Overground, DLR; whereas Central, Victoria, Piccadilly etc are *lines*
>>>>>>>> within that mode.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So if we can talk about the Underground Central line, can we talk about the
>>>>>>> Elizabeth Line line?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which is not entirely facetious as presumably there needs be to some way to
>>>>>>> refer to the route in the central London tunnels, as opposed to the parts
>>>>>>> which are the GWML or the GEML. And so maybe an Elizabeth Line service from
>>>>>>> Reading to Shenfield makes use of the GWML, the Elizabeth Line line and the
>>>>>>> GEML.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually, Crossrail uses the GWRL, not the GWML.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've wondered about that, and assumed that the M in GWML[1] means "not a
>>>>> branch" rather than identifying the fast lines from the reliefs.
>>>>
>>>> On the GWR, there are no 'Fast' lines, just Mains and Reliefs.
>>>
>>> True. I was looking for a synonym for main (non-relief) track pair
>>> which couldn't be misinterpreted as meaning main (non-branch) route.
>>
>> But Crossrail uses the Relief, not the Main lines.
>>
>
>They're usually booked to use the relief, but they're not restricted to
>them, and can use any line when necessary; which you may have observed
>recently when Flying Scotsman failed at Slough (OTTOMH I can't remember
>whether any 9xnn went main line rather than reversible through the down
>relief platform).

From memory, there were examples of both.

>
>Besides which, the GWML is the name of the entire formation, regardless of
>which lines within that formation are being used; just like the SWML, WCML,
>ECML, MML, GEML etc.

In message <t65304$gi5$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:34:59 on Thu, 19 May
2022, Certes <none@nowhere.net> remarked:
>On 19/05/2022 10:16, Bob wrote:
>> On 2022-05-19 08:55:21 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>
>>> In message <t64rmj$4fr$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:30:27 on Thu, 19 May
>>>2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>> If we need to include Underground, Overground, Crossrail and DLR modes,
>>>
>>> You omitted the "Wombling Free" mode :)

>> With good connections to the District line, Tramlink and Thameslink
>>services.
>
>Not to mention the SWML, as TfL understandably doesn't. I wonder how
>many visitors pick up that map at Wimbledon and set off on a convoluted
>journey when they could just get a swift mainline train to Waterloo, or
>change at Clapham Junction for almost anywhere.

See earlier discussions about foreign tourists twice or thrice bitten
and averse to tangling with the commuter metros systems in strange
cities, and willing to pay a small premium for the known quantity of an
airport-express train.
--
Roland Perry

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>> It's because Elizabeth Line is the *mode*, equivalent with Underground,
>>>>> Overground, DLR; whereas Central, Victoria, Piccadilly etc are *lines*
>>>>> within that mode.
>>>>
>>>> So if we can talk about the Underground Central line, can we talk about the
>>>> Elizabeth Line line?
>>>>
>>>> Which is not entirely facetious as presumably there needs be to some way to
>>>> refer to the route in the central London tunnels, as opposed to the parts
>>>> which are the GWML or the GEML. And so maybe an Elizabeth Line service from
>>>> Reading to Shenfield makes use of the GWML, the Elizabeth Line line and the
>>>> GEML.
>>>
>>> Actually, Crossrail uses the GWRL, not the GWML.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> They usually use the relief lines on the Great Western Main Line, but they
>> can, and do, use the main lines when the reliefs are unavailable, for
>> example due to disruption, failure or planned engineering work.
>>
>
> Incidentally, I was wondering whether it would be practical for HEx to be
> merged with Crossrail, and continue to use the Mains for fast trains per
> hour, but then join the Crossrail tunnel tracks on the north side of the
> formation? Or would that require inefficient flat junctions?
>

We've discussed this in the past when I suggested it a few years ago; it's
physically possible, but pathing would probably be difficult - the route
from the tunnels to the main lines at Ladbroke Grove crosses at the last
possible moment, and at present, the main and relief lines into Paddington
are operated more separately than I ever remember them being before [1].
The alternatives would be to cross at Acton West (currently used far less
than previously) or Southall East.

Personally, I'd be inclined to replace the currently rather superfluous E&C
(engine and carriage) line bridge at Ladbroke Grove, with a relief-main
flyover around the same location, as part of the OOC HS2 station works.

[1] main line trains use lines 1-3, relief line trains use lines 4-6; it's
over a year since I used 4-6.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On 2022-05-19 11:55:33 +0000, Anna Noyd-Dryver said:

> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>>> It's because Elizabeth Line is the *mode*, equivalent with Underground,
>>>>>> Overground, DLR; whereas Central, Victoria, Piccadilly etc are *lines*
>>>>>> within that mode.
>>>>>
>>>>> So if we can talk about the Underground Central line, can we talk about the
>>>>> Elizabeth Line line?
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is not entirely facetious as presumably there needs be to some way to
>>>>> refer to the route in the central London tunnels, as opposed to the parts
>>>>> which are the GWML or the GEML. And so maybe an Elizabeth Line service from
>>>>> Reading to Shenfield makes use of the GWML, the Elizabeth Line line and the
>>>>> GEML.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, Crossrail uses the GWRL, not the GWML.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> They usually use the relief lines on the Great Western Main Line, but they
>>> can, and do, use the main lines when the reliefs are unavailable, for
>>> example due to disruption, failure or planned engineering work.
>>>
>>
>> Incidentally, I was wondering whether it would be practical for HEx to be
>> merged with Crossrail, and continue to use the Mains for fast trains per
>> hour, but then join the Crossrail tunnel tracks on the north side of the
>> formation? Or would that require inefficient flat junctions?
>>
>
> We've discussed this in the past when I suggested it a few years ago; it's
> physically possible, but pathing would probably be difficult - the route
> from the tunnels to the main lines at Ladbroke Grove crosses at the last
> possible moment, and at present, the main and relief lines into Paddington
> are operated more separately than I ever remember them being before [1].
> The alternatives would be to cross at Acton West (currently used far less
> than previously) or Southall East.
>
> Personally, I'd be inclined to replace the currently rather superfluous E&C
> (engine and carriage) line bridge at Ladbroke Grove, with a relief-main
> flyover around the same location, as part of the OOC HS2 station works.
>
> [1] main line trains use lines 1-3, relief line trains use lines 4-6; it's
> over a year since I used 4-6.

Out of curiosity, how does route knowledge apply in this kind of
situation? Does driving only on the mains count as being familiar with
the relief lines, or do you need to periodically drive on the releif
lines to retain current "knowledge"? I'm guessing there must be edge
cases on routes where lines are close but not always entirely together.

Robin

On Thu, 19 May 2022 11:55:33 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:

>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>>> It's because Elizabeth Line is the *mode*, equivalent with Underground,
>>>>>> Overground, DLR; whereas Central, Victoria, Piccadilly etc are *lines*
>>>>>> within that mode.
>>>>>
>>>>> So if we can talk about the Underground Central line, can we talk about the
>>>>> Elizabeth Line line?
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is not entirely facetious as presumably there needs be to some way to
>>>>> refer to the route in the central London tunnels, as opposed to the parts
>>>>> which are the GWML or the GEML. And so maybe an Elizabeth Line service from
>>>>> Reading to Shenfield makes use of the GWML, the Elizabeth Line line and the
>>>>> GEML.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, Crossrail uses the GWRL, not the GWML.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> They usually use the relief lines on the Great Western Main Line, but they
>>> can, and do, use the main lines when the reliefs are unavailable, for
>>> example due to disruption, failure or planned engineering work.
>>>
>>
>> Incidentally, I was wondering whether it would be practical for HEx to be
>> merged with Crossrail, and continue to use the Mains for fast trains per
>> hour, but then join the Crossrail tunnel tracks on the north side of the
>> formation? Or would that require inefficient flat junctions?
>>
>
>We've discussed this in the past when I suggested it a few years ago; it's
>physically possible, but pathing would probably be difficult - the route
>from the tunnels to the main lines at Ladbroke Grove crosses at the last
>possible moment, and at present, the main and relief lines into Paddington
>are operated more separately than I ever remember them being before [1].
>The alternatives would be to cross at Acton West (currently used far less
>than previously) or Southall East.
>
>Personally, I'd be inclined to replace the currently rather superfluous E&C
>(engine and carriage) line bridge at Ladbroke Grove, with a relief-main
>flyover around the same location, as part of the OOC HS2 station works.

I wonder if something like that might happen if the idea of a separate, premium-priced HEx is abandoned? As things
stand, some Crossrail trains from the east will auto-reverse in the Westbourne Park reversing sidings, while HEx trains
reverse in the surface platforms. Joining these two services would be more efficient, as well as being better for
passengers.