Elizabeth Line Routeing Points

[crablab]

The Elizabeth Line 'Central Operating Section' (ie. the tunnels under London) has several stations along it.

Some of these preexisted the new route and were expanded to include the Elizabeth Line, other stations were newer (or new to the National Rail network, at least)

For example: Farringdon, Paddington and Liverpool Street, with the routeing point as London Group.

In contrast: Bond Street, Custom House and Canary Wharf are not included in the 'pink pages'.

The COS is also conspicuously missing from the mapped routes (or at least, I can't find it).

This appears to be an omission. Given the entire Elizabeth Line is a National Rail service, the stations along it and the route should likely be included in the Routeing Guide - just like London Overground stations.

I'm not sure how journey planners are handling it right now, but I presume they're treating all the EL COS stations as members of London Group?

This does create some ambiguity, as to how you're supposed to route that way.

 

[JonathanH]

This appears to be an omission. Given the entire Elizabeth Line is a National Rail service, the stations along it and the route should likely be included in the Routeing Guide - just like London Overground stations.

I'm not sure how journey planners are handling it right now, but I presume they're treating all the EL COS stations as members of London Group?

This does create some ambiguity, as to how you're supposed to route that way.

It isn't really ambiguous as the core is effectively being treated as a TfL route for Cross London travel, and tickets haven't been changed following the opening. Therefore, almost all journeys across the Core have existing tickets with a Maltese Cross that are valid on the Elizabeth Line.

Tickets to London Terminals are only valid as far as Paddington from the west and Liverpool Street from the east. Going further requires a ticket to Underground Zone 1. On Oyster / Contactless, mixed mode often applies for journeys from National Rail stations to stations in the core.

Some ambiguity appears to arise on journeys which involve travelling from Abbey Wood.

 

[crablab]

It isn't really ambiguous as the core is effectively being treated as a TfL route for Cross London travel, and tickets haven't been changed following the opening.

"effectively being treated" implies ambiguity as opposed to "explicitly defined as".

Contractually, the Elizabeth Line is a National Rail route which TfL (or their concessionary) operate. This is well established and the NRCoT applies on this railway with the consessionary listed in Appendix A - Priv, Interrail & BoJ are valid on the COS.

Lacking clairty over how NR tickets are to be routed via this line, where they are accepted as valid, is ambiguity.

Tickets to London Terminals are only valid as far as Paddington from the west and Liverpool Street from the east.

I would agree, following the same logic as applied to the Thameslink core.

Going further requires a ticket to Underground Zone 1.

I think this is the position TfL might prefer, but it's not the situation which exists.

Therefore, almost all journeys across the Core have existing tickets with a Maltese Cross

This is the inconsistency that now arises. There are tickets which have a Maltese Cross which now should not have them, as the journey can be made totally on National Rail services.

In just the same way as it's possible to (eg) purchase a Peterborough to Gatwick Advance, which does not include any cross-London validity (as you're going directly via Thameslink).

Some ambiguity appears to arise on journeys which involve travelling from Abbey Wood.

Well this is partly my point...

 

[JonathanH]

In just the same way as it's possible to (eg) purchase a Peterborough to Gatwick Advance, which does not include any cross-London validity (as you're going directly via Thameslink).

Yes, but you can't buy one of those when the Thameslink Core is closed, which creates other issues. Would it really be helpful if the advances between, say, Ipswich and Swindon weren't available when the Elizabeth Line Core is closed.

Apart from Thameslink only advances, some season tickets and fares solely within London, I don't think there are any ordinary tickets for destinations either side of the Thameslink core which don't come with a Maltese Cross.

 

[Starmill]

Which tickets have unclear permitted routes? I'm not sure I'm following.

Perhaps you mean something like a Priv single from Abbey Wood to Bond Street Elizabeth Line on route +Elizabeth Line? I agree this is an entirely ambiguous one as no permitted routes are defined. However...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 May 2025 ==

Yes, but you can't buy one of those when the Thameslink Core is closed, which creates other issues. Would it really be helpful if the advances between, say, Ipswich and Swindon weren't available when the Elizabeth Line Core is closed.

Apart from Thameslink only advances, some season tickets and fares solely within London, I don't think there are any ordinary tickets for destinations either side of the Thameslink core which don't come with a Maltese Cross.

Three literally popped into my head immediately, Slade Green - London St Pancras on route Not Underground, Stratford International - Abbey Wood on route HS1 Not Underground and South Ruislip - West Ealing on route Any Permitted.

And that's the easy ones, there are some much tougher nuts to crack such as where precisely can you use a Cambridge to Stratford International ticket? Or perhaps worse, a customer shows up at City Thameslink and wants to pay cash for a single to Hanwell?

Such generalisations as this are rarely wise!

 

[JonathanH]

Such generalisations as this are rarely wise!

Indeed, yes, sorry, in thinking about the analogy with Thameslink, I was thinking more of things like Gatwick to Luton, which are Cross Thameslink, but still have a Maltese Cross for walk up tickets, though season ticket fares are only through the Core, routed via City Thameslink with no Maltese Cross.

 

[Starmill]

Apologies for the incorrect inclusion of Tilehurst - City Thameslink, that's an example of a completely unrelated problem. I have edited this to South Ruislip - West Ealing which is what I was actually thinking of.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 May 2025 ==

Indeed, yes, sorry, in thinking about the analogy with Thameslink, I was thinking more of things like Gatwick to Luton, which are Cross Thameslink, but still have a Maltese Cross for walk up tickets, though season ticket fares are only through the Core, routed via City Thameslink with no Maltese Cross.

A single from Cambridge to London Bridge on route city Thameslink then perhaps? Are you saying that's not valid at all between Cambridge and London Liverpool Street, say?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 May 2025 ==

Would it really be helpful if the advances between, say, Ipswich and Swindon weren't available when the Elizabeth Line Core is closed.

I don't think this matters, as you can't buy an Advance from Reading to Shenfield or similar (yet)... And you can easily still get advance tickets for a journey like Peterborough to Brighton even with the Thameslink core closed.

 

[Haywain]

There are tickets which have a Maltese Cross which now should not have them, as the journey can be made totally on National Rail services.

There ar large numbers of flows on which tickets are issued with a Maltese Cross and where the journey can be, and isually is, made entirely on National Rail services. Why is it a problem?

season ticket fares are only through the Core, routed via City Thameslink with no Maltese Cross.

Season tickets are not issued with a Maltese Cross.

 

[Starmill]

Season tickets are not issued with a Maltese Cross.

Not supposed to be anyway. Best not ask to hard about e.g. Knebworth - Oakham!

 

[Kilopylae]

I think this is the position TfL might prefer, but it's not the situation which exists.

It's probably more accurate to say it is what exists, even if it "shouldn't". It's what's being enforced.

 

[Starmill]

It's probably more accurate to say it is what exists, even if it "shouldn't". It's what's being enforced.

In terms of what's actually being enforced / pronounced by TfL/MTR management, there are things I personally don't understand.

For example, it's clear enough they will argue that between Hayes & Harlington and Heathrow Airport stations, LU tickets are not valid on Elizabeth line services. Between London Paddington and Abbey Wood, LU tickets of the appropriate zone are valid on Elizabeth line services, often to the exclusion, according to some arguments, of anything else. But what about the rest of the stations that are in a Travelcard zone but not on an inter-available LU route?

This is exactly the sort of humpty-dumpty policy that causes the uncertainty in the first place.

 

[crablab]

often to the exclusion, according to some arguments, of anything else.

In fairness, I have written correspondence from a couple of occasions confirming TfL do agree that NR ticketing rules and the NRCoT applies to the COS.

Acceptance of Interrail and Priv is, I think, undisputed.

This is exactly the sort of humpty-dumpty policy that causes the uncertainty in the first place.

I suppose this is why I'm wondering why there are stations missing from the Routeing Points and the EL COS has no mapped route. It seems confusing, and does create anomalies (discussed above).

There ar large numbers of flows on which tickets are issued with a Maltese Cross and where the journey can be, and isually is, made entirely on National Rail services. Why is it a problem?

It's a fair point

The limits of Maltese Cross validity on the Tube and DLR is fairly unambiguous - 16.4.

However, it's _less_ clear what conditions apply to Maltese Cross validity on NR services within the 'London Zone' and where that begins and ends, given the mixture of mapped routes & 'Maltese Cross validity' on certain flows. There's a National Rail page, but this takes a much stricter view than the NRCoT actually codifies.

eg. some flows have mapped routes via Overground stations or bits of the Thameslink core, but they'll also have Maltese Cross validity too.

As the EL COS is just "missing" from the maps, and some of the stations aren't in the Routeing Points, but they are officially NR stations with CRS codes, it's unclear how you're supposed to interpret that?
Which is why I'm unsure if it's convenient omission. If it was available as a mapped route you could remove the Maltese Cross from those flows, but perhaps I was a little too strong above as I wouldn't want to argue for removing flexible validity which is beneficial to passengers

It's probably more accurate to say it is what exists, even if it "shouldn't". It's what's being enforced.

Enforcement Vs training Vs contractual position Vs political position, are all very conflicted.

 

[Starmill]

In fairness, I have written correspondence from a couple of occasions confirming TfL do agree that NR ticketing rules and the NRCoT applies to the COS.

Acceptance of Interrail and Priv is, I think, undisputed.

Indeed, just so. But I was simply making the point some of the information has strongly suggested otherwise in quotes they've given to the media and in the frequent statements made by staff.

 

[yorkie]

Is there a particular journey that's either contentious, ambiguous, or being looked at?

 

[Starmill]

I suppose this is why I'm wondering why there are stations missing from the Routeing Points and the EL COS has no mapped route. It seems confusing, and does create anomalies (discussed above).

You can kind of argue the same thing happens at, say, Chesham Underground. Or Heathrow Underground. Or quite a few places you can buy tickets to or from with ambiguous route descriptions which are not served by national rail. But perhaps the Elizabeth line stations such as Bond Street are a real unusual example of this where there is a national rail service. There are also the cases where there are no mapped routes because all of the possibilities of routing points fail the fares check.

 

[crablab]

Is there a particular journey that's either contentious, ambiguous, or being looked at?

Well, Slough to Ilford. It's entirely on an NR service with no changes and the NRCoT applies throughout, but there's no mapped route for the bit between Paddington and Liverpool Street so you're relying on the Maltese Cross validity and, as we all know, TfL gatelines have interesting views on how that applies.

Or Slough to Blackheath where 4 maps apply with overlap on the Maltese Cross validity, but nothing for the COS. Could you break your journey at New Cross? Absolutely yes. What about Whitechapel? Well you should be able to.

But perhaps the Elizabeth line stations such as Bond Street are a real unusual example of this where there is a national rail service. There are also the cases where there are no mapped routes because all of the possibilities of routing points fail the fares check.

That's sort of my point, yeah.

It depends if one thinks that Bond Street (and other COS) stations should be a routeing point in their own right, which I think would resolve this issue.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 May 2025 ==

But I was simply making the point some of the information has strongly suggested otherwise in quotes they've given to the media and in the frequent statements made by staff.

Absolutely, yeah. We're on the same page It's frustrating, as the pretence that somehow the train changes contractural status from NR to "Tube" during the ETCS to CBTC transition is just silly.

You have to write them a letter for Delay Repay, the Western branch has to fend for itself during disruption ("tickets accepted on London Buses" - lol)...

 

[yorkie]

Ah, this is a question about break of journey, rather than routeing?

TfL probably won't like people breaking their journey, but I would argue it is legitimate to do so. Be prepared for an argument if trying it!

 

[crablab]

Ah, this is a question about break of journey, rather than routeing?

No It's a discussion about routeing; I was using BoJ as an illustrative example.

I'm well aware of the position with regard to BoJ - I refer you to my other thread on the topic.

 

[Haywain]

It depends if one thinks that Bond Street (and other COS) stations should be a routeing point in their own right, which I think would resolve this issue.

But stations outside of London are not all routeing points, and it's still not clear what "this issue" actually is.

 

[crablab]

But stations outside of London are not all routeing points, and it's still not clear what "this issue" actually is.

No, but those are included in the pink pages with their respective routeing points and you can map routes between them.
This is not possible for the EL COS, which creates this rather unusual situation (eg. Bond Street, as @Starmill highlighted)

 

[yorkie]

No, but those are included in the pink pages with their respective routeing points and you can map routes between them.
This is not possible for the EL COS, which creates this rather unusual situation (eg. Bond Street, as @Starmill highlighted)

For a journey such as Bond Street to Slough on Elizabeth Line, this is issued as Zone U1 London to Slough and the routeing calculation commences from Paddington. There is no routeing calculation taking place from Bond Street itself.

For this particular journey, a routeing engine wouldn't even look at the routeing guide, as it's a through train from Paddington to Slough. If there was a change involved, then it would look at the distance, but still wouldn't even get as far as needing to look up mapped routes. If you did need to look at mapped routes, it would be calculated from London Group.

 

[crablab]

For a journey such as Bond Street to Slough on Elizabeth Line, this is issued as Zone U1 London to Slough and the routeing calculation commences from Paddington.

Thanks for confirming
This seems like another unfortunate fudge in the fares system, as a result of the unfortunate omission of appropriate routeing data.
I note that Thameslink do not have this issue and are able to issue a (eg) Stevenage to Farringdon ticket without involving Zone U1.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 May 2025 ==

If you did need to look at mapped routes, it would be calculated from London Group.

So why not just put it in the pink pages? This is what really confuses me.

 

[yorkie]

Thanks for confirming
This seems like another unfortunate fudge in the fares system, as a result of the unfortunate omission of appropriate routeing data.
I note that Thameslink do not have this issue and are able to issue a (eg) Stevenage to Farringdon ticket without involving Zone U1.

Farringdon does have the same issue for other destinations, e.g. you can't get York to Farringdon so would need to get York to Zone U1 London, but you are right that from stations such as Stevenage, there are fares which are available specifically to Farringdon as a named destination, which are cheaper than to zonal locations. These fares are routed "Not Underground".

TfL wouldn't want similarly cheaper fares to Bond Street etc as, they are very keen to charge as much of a premium as they can get away with, for use of the Crossrail core.

Similarly, TfL charge a huge premium for Heathrow; TfL very much like to have it all their way, by insisting that Elizabeth Line is absolutely not a "tube" line at Heathrow, but most certainly is a "tube" line at Bond Street. The cost of Heathrow to Bond Street is therefore ridiculously high, but you can circumvent that by "splitting".

TfL don't like to play by the rules!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Jun 2025 ==

So why not just put it in the pink pages? This is what really confuses me.

I guess because you require "tube" validity, and the pink pages don't contain a full list of LU stations.

i.e. there is no difference between Bond Street to Slough than Oxford Circus to Slough.

 

[crablab]

TfL very much like to have it all their way, by insisting that Elizabeth Line is absolutely not a "tube" line at Heathrow, but most certainly is a "tube" line at Bond Street.

Well exactly - it's very frustrating.
I suppose I was trying to not to say the next bit out loud...

TfL don't like to play by the rules!

Exactly.

I guess because you require "tube" validity, and the pink pages don't contain a full list of LU stations.

But that's exactly the issue - it's not!

TfL accept that Bond Street is served by a NR service and thus the NRCoT applies, along with Interrail, Priv, BoJ etc.

So why is Bond Street missing from the pink pages? Why is there no routeing map for the COS? If it's accepted that this is an NR service, why is the routeing data missing?

It's very ambiguous.

 

[Starmill]

I do think the whole thing about requiring London Underground validity is interesting in the context of tickets with route Not Underground included in the description. To me there is absolutely nothing written anywhere that suggests that Not Underground needs to be interpreted as Not Underground Not Elizabeth line if it's between Paddington and Abbey Wood. It also depends partly on whether your view is that Not Underground is the same as any operator restrictions or if its actually something which affects routing...

 

[Kilopylae]

If it's accepted that this is an NR service, why is the routeing data missing?

I expect it's just that it isn't "accepted" at all.

TfL has presumably been forced to concede it in separate battles over things like Interrail, but for every domain where there hasn't been a specific fight about it, their silly NR-outside-the-core/LU-within-the-core logic prevails.

 

[miklcct]

It is clear that the "legal" position and the "practical" position do not reconcile here.

Let's hope that this issue will be escalated when people have trouble using their tickets and fixed in the passengers' favour.

 

[MikeWh]

Or perhaps worse, a customer shows up at City Thameslink and wants to pay cash for a single to Hanwell?

Is it worth someone rocking up to City Thameslink ticket office and asking for such a ticket? What do you expect to be offered? I'm certainly up for that one if it would help. 99.99% of people would just use PAYG of course.

TfL wouldn't want similarly cheaper fares to Bond Street etc as, they are very keen to charge as much of a premium as they can get away with, for use of the Crossrail core.

I'm not stubbornly defending TfL at all costs, but as I've said before, who should take the hit on the loss of revenue? Before the EL core opened people would pay a premium to use LU services between London termini. Unlike St Pancras International to City Thameslink, the EL core is operated by a TfL concession and is a competely new piece of kit. A proportion of the ticket cost will go to TfL to allow use of either LU or the EL core. I can't help drawing the conclusion that the mess we are in is in some ways down to decisions being made by a Tory government who hated the Labour London Mayor.

TfL don't like to play by the rules!

This is in many ways another example of the GatEx situation. The rules were put in place when TfL operated the cross London transit system separately to the National Rail network. Now the situation has changed. I don't know what the solutions are, but while I'd love to get cheaper fares across London using the EL core, I accept that somewhere, someone has to pay that revenue. Maybe the first stage is to work towards a situation where TfL set ALL fares within zones 1-6, or even 1-9, and pay GBR to operate services on the lines where they don't. The government seem to want to give more control to Mayors, so perhaps that is where we should be lobbying? A possible second stage would be agreeing a framework where GBR pay TfL to allow through journeys beyond zones 1-6/9.

 

[Watershed]

The omission of Bond Street etc. from the Pink Pages is quite deliberate. Indeed I seem to recall a brief that alluded to this, around the time of the core section's opening. TfL want to treat the core section as an Underground line for ticketing purposes. That's why they didn't want to create any new permitted routes through the core.

They presumably thought that any 'legitimate' cross-London journeys would be permitted anyway by virtue of the Maltese cross, and journeys to/from the 'core' stations could be sold by issuing tickets to/from the relevant London Underground Zones. Obviously that still leaves a number of scenarios which aren't properly addressed, not least of which is how to calculate the cross-London validity.

The absence of an indicated associated Routeing Point doesn't prevent there from being permitted routes by virtue of NRCoT 13.1.1 or 13.1.2 (direct trains and the shortest route). The latter, in particular, would cover quite a large number of journeys, due to the Elizabeth line's route being quite direct.

 

[Starmill]

Indeed I seem to recall a brief that alluded to this, around the time of the core section's opening.

Indeed. The 'magical thinking' accusation that a service which is definitely not a tube line in one tunnel and definitely is in another nearby isn't an exaggeration or a use of creative wording. It was explicitly written that it would need to be treated as a tube line and that it wouldn't be added to the routing guide.