What is the point of Tfl Rail for now?

[highspeed990]

I know it is the precursor to crossrail but why not leave it with Greater Anglia for now, or at least make it temporarily London Overground? There's something 'off' about having one 'tfl rail'. Not really important, but it is something that has crosses my mind.

 

[DenmarkRail]

Its so they can manage the roll out of the stock, and refurb of stations themselves, rather than letting GA control the roll out of the new stock, and the new stations.

 

[Bald Rick]

It's rather straightforward. The critical issue in the starting up of any new railway is having those who will be operating it involved in the commissioning of all elements of the operation. As Crossrail is a TfL project they sought an operator to run the service for them, and, crucially, bring the new trains and infrastructure into service.

When all the trains are up and running and the tunnel is commissioned into service it will be known as the Elizabeth line. Until then, TfL have branded it differently to differentiate between the often difficult commissioning phase and the final service.

 

[highspeed990]

Its so they can manage the roll out of the stock, and refurb of stations themselves, rather than letting GA control the roll out of the new stock, and the new stations.

I see, but 'tfl rail' sounds lazy and hastily made. It would be better for it to temporarily be London Overground.

 

[Bald Rick]

I see, but 'tfl rail' sounds lazy and hastily made. It would be better for it to temporarily be London Overground.

It wouldn't. Because the inevitable issues that arise would then taint the LO brand. And it will be quite a different operation to LO.

 

[yorkie]

I see, but 'tfl rail' sounds lazy and hastily made. It would be better for it to temporarily be London Overground.

Why involve an operator who won't be operating the trains long term?

Out of interest, are you arguing from an operational point of view, or are you simply saying you don't like the temporary name of the new operator?

 

[najaB]

There's something 'off' about having one 'tfl rail'.

Well, as things stand, commissioning an essentially brand-new cross-London railway is a one-off event, so it seems reasonable for it to have a one-off brand.

 

[highspeed990]

Why involve an operator who won't be operating the trains long term?

Out of interest, are you arguing from an operational point of view, or are you simply saying you don't like the temporary name of the new operator?

Not that I don't like it, but to me it looked like the person who came up with the idea was under pressure and out of options. I also did think it would be more complicated as the London Greater Anglia services are now split between London Overgound, Tfl Rail, and Greater Angia, when before it was just Greater Anglia. Obviously involving 2 new operators is bound to complicate things, but maybe I'm looking at it the wrong way.

 

[class387]

Not that I don't like it, but to me it looked like the person who came up with the idea was under pressure and out of options. I also did think it would be more complicated as the London Greater Anglia services are now split between London Overgound, Tfl Rail, and Greater Angia, when before it was just Greater Anglia. Obviously involving 2 new operators is bound to complicate things, but maybe I'm looking at it the wrong way.

So what would you prefer it to be named?

They probably had more than one person naming their brand, and it is unlikely that they 'ran out of ideas'.

 

[matt_world2004]

It wouldnt be called London Overground because London Overground is run by a different concessionaire to Crossrail

 

[bramling]

I see, but 'tfl rail' sounds lazy and hastily made. It would be better for it to temporarily be London Overground.

I don’t think that would have worked, as firstly it’s a separate concession, and secondly there would then be the issue of disentangling it from the LO brand.

Agree in so far as I don’t really like the TfL Rail brand, but then again I struggle to think of much better. Perhaps they could have gone straight to the final brand, but I can understand why they chose not to.

 

[najaB]

Perhaps they could have gone straight to the final brand, but I can understand why they chose not to.

They definitely didn't want to do that. Since the majority of the public aren't nearly as clued up as us, imagine the complaints/Twitter/Facebook when their Crossrail/Elizabeth Line train rolled up and it was exactly the same clapped out 315 that they caught the week before.

 

[Busaholic]

No-one has mentioned the possible political undertone in 'TfL Rail'. Empire building was ever thus! Please don't anyone try to discern my own views on empire building within TfL from this remark, because you could well be barking up the wrong tree!

 

[Starmill]

I see, but 'tfl rail' sounds lazy and hastily made. It would be better for it to temporarily be London Overground.

Temporarily? Until when? TfL Rail (MTR Crossrail Ltd) began operating the 'Shenfield Metro' services in May 2015. The service was to be branded Crossrail from December 2018. We are now at the end of October 2017 and the brand has been in use for over 2 years, and has only about a year left. Why would there be two re-brands within a year? Maybe if you'd raised this point in 2014 or early 2015 I could understand it but now surely the answer is plain.

 

[PeterC]

It wouldnt be called London Overground because London Overground is run by a different concessionaire to Crossrail

A McDonalds is a McDonalds regardless of who has the concession. Why does London Overground have to be different?

 

[Marklund]

No-one has mentioned the possible political undertone in 'TfL Rail'. Empire building was ever thus! Please don't anyone try to discern my own views on empire building within TfL from this remark, because you could well be barking up the wrong tree!

Oh, TfL is all about empire building!
Change here for National Rail? But LO is National Rail!

 

[Starmill]

A McDonalds is a McDonalds regardless of who has the concession. Why does London Overground have to be different?

Because in McDonalds the offering is comparable everywhere. The service that will run on Crossrail will be very different to the West Anglia 'Metro' service run by London Overground.

 

[highspeed990]

They definitely didn't want to do that. Since the majority of the public aren't nearly as clued up as us, imagine the complaints/Twitter/Facebook when their Crossrail/Elizabeth Line train rolled up and it was exactly the same clapped out 315 that they caught the week before.

I chuckled at this. They'd be expecting a brand new service, but they'd end up ricketing along on a 40 year old train

 

[AlexNL]

London Reconnections have written a piece about the Crossrail branding back in 2014, which is worth a read: Mind the Branding Gap: First Crossrail Services to Launch as TfL Rail.

 

[jon0844]

Should have called it \temp\rail or Elizabeth Line v0.1

 

[Chris M]

The "Elizabeth line" name post-dates "TfL Rail" by quite some time. It was Boris trying to suck up to the Queen and was not planned or expected for very long before the announcement. For example all the covered over signs at Tottenham Court Road say "Crossrail" as that was always going to be the operating name (and many will still call it Crossrail even when it is opened, because it's been going to be called Crossrail since at least the 1980s).
If you haven't seen it, Geoff Marshall's video about why Elizabeth line is a terrible name for it is worth watching.

 

[bramling]

They definitely didn't want to do that. Since the majority of the public aren't nearly as clued up as us, imagine the complaints/Twitter/Facebook when their Crossrail/Elizabeth Line train rolled up and it was exactly the same clapped out 315 that they caught the week before.

I understand the rationale behind this thinking, but I don’t entirely approve. What’s wrong with the scenario you describe? So a few uninitiated people get a one-off disappointment. Not the end of the world is it. It shouldn’t be *that* hard for people to understand that improvements can’t happen overnight.

It may be a can of worms that TFL didn’t think worth opening, but personally I don’t see the issue. In a supposedly mature world this tinkering with branding seems rather silly, it’s not like the final service will be likely to struggle to attract passengers, and the 315 service is hardly like the misery line tag certain lines have picked up in the past.

As I say, I can understand why this situation has arisen, but I don’t really like it. Just my opinion though.

 

[bramling]

I chuckled at this. They'd be expecting a brand new service, but they'd end up ricketing along on a 40 year old train

How awful! Seriously, that scenario is hardly the end of the world...

 

[class387]

How awful! Seriously, that scenario is hardly the end of the world...

But there will be people that pick up on that and that would be negative PR for the 'Elizabeth Line'.

 

[bramling]

But there will be people that pick up on that and that would be negative PR for the 'Elizabeth Line'.

I can't help but come to the conclusion - so what! At the end of the day it won't stop people using Crossrail.

And wouldn't it provide an incentive to ensure the interim service is run as well as possible?

 

[AlterEgo]

I can't help but come to the conclusion - so what! At the end of the day it won't stop people using Crossrail.

And wouldn't it provide an incentive to ensure the interim service is run as well as possible?

Branding is a lot more important than people realise. Look at how much Virgin get away with just because of their strong brand. It’s like a shield.

 

[U-Bahnfreund]

I don’t see why London can’t introduce a brand for all of their suburban railways, regardless whether they are run by a ‘normal’ TOC, under TfL control or something else. Paris has its RER, Brussels has the Train S trein, Copenhague has its S-tog, Prague has its Esko, all major German, Swiss and Austrian cities have their S-Bahn, Spanish cities have their Cercanías and London has its what?

 

[najaB]

Branding is a lot more important than people realise.

Especially when you're talking about the output of a £17B project. People will want to know where their money has gone, seeing the same Class 315 on the same route for two years would've been bound to raise some complaints.

 

[PeterC]

I don’t see why London can’t introduce a brand for all of their suburban railways, regardless whether they are run by a ‘normal’ TOC, under TfL control or something else. Paris has its RER, Brussels has the Train S trein, Copenhague has its S-tog, Prague has its Esko, all major German, Swiss and Austrian cities have their S-Bahn, Spanish cities have their Cercanías and London has its what?

Because the ideas was invented elsewhere of course.

 

[306024]

Branding is a lot more important than people realise. Look at how much Virgin get away with just because of their strong brand. It’s like a shield.

And ‘Virgin’ is just about as ridiculous a name as you can think of, considering the true meaning of the word. At least TfL Rail is relevent.