This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Bridges and Tunnels Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of bridges and tunnels on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Bridges and TunnelsWikipedia:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsTemplate:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsBridge and Tunnel Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Civil engineering Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Civil engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Civil engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Civil engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Civil engineeringCivil engineering Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. London High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Trains: Rapid transit / in UK / in London High‑importance Trains Portal London Transport Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated projects or task forces: /  This article is supported by WikiProject Rapid transit (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject London Transport (assessed as Top-importance).

The text pushes the Crossrail view that the line has actually opened, but just as three types of service. In fact, the Reading/Heathrow line and the Essex line are two very old railways that happen to be running Crossrail stock. The only service that can be called Crossrail/Elizabeth is the one between Paddington low level and Stratford, the west end of which notoriously fails to connect with anything else, and with Bond Street closed. To be encyclopedic, we need to acknowledge that, even after all this delay, only a fraction of the Crossrail system is operational. In fact, it's only less slightly operational than Crossrail 2 (where you can most certainly travel from Shepperton to Broxbourne as long as you don't mind changing trains). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.153.209 (talk) 01:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has uploaded a photo of the Northern and Central line station entrance. The Elizabeth line entrance is about 200 metres away on the western corner of Dean Street and Oxford Street. Although it is possible to access the Elizabeth line from the Northern and Central entrance, the walk underground is a lot further than if accessed from Elizabeth line entrance. 109.152.150.186 (talk) 15:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to replace it - take your pick from the Media related to Tottenham Court Road station at Wikimedia Commons on Commons. 18:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Paddington needs to be added to this, as the service from Abbey Wood finishes in the low level station.

I added a subsection about stopping pattern (skipped stops on Reading/Maidenhead branch) but it keeps getting deleted. In my opinion this should go back in, as (a) it is very hard to decrypt which stations are skipped from looking at a long list of stops, and (b) the lists only cover off-peak 10:00 - 16:00 so they are incomplete. MarlowMallard (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:03, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a timetable, nor a travel guide. The frequency details on station and line articles are an overview, and consensus has developed to only show those for off-peak periods which are usually more regular than at peak times. Bazza (talk) 09:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really convinced by this. Skipping stations is unusual on London Tube (only the Metropolitan line and a few closed-Sunday stations do it), so I think the skipping is notable enough to deserve a specific subsection. MarlowMallard (talk) MarlowMallard (talk) 17:54, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think enough can be gleaned from the timetable easily enough. I'm not certain that skipped stations are a necessary addition to the article. [I would comment that EL is not on the Tube, but that's a debate for another time!] Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MarlowMallard Skipping stations is not unusual on many railways. (The Elizabeth line is not a London Underground line.) Bazza (talk) 15:13, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the article was much more informative when it contained this SVG map:

It does an excellent job of showing the Elizabeth Line in context of the entire TfL network. The commuter lines map currently in the article doesn't tell us much, except that the majority of mainline termini have no EL interchange. Why was the SVG full network map removed? Was it because the Liverpool Street connection is out of date? Cnbrb (talk) 10:15, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a fan of that map either. The lines are inaccurate and the map doesn't provide that much information. I have replaced it with a this (geograhical) map that shows the Elizabeth line along with other rail services in London. --PhiH (talk) 21:43, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[This from User:2A01:4B00:87C9:D800:E950:194E:7F74:D11C]

The characteristics of the services from London Paddington and London Liverpool Street are the same, that is, Elizabeth line services generally only operate to/from the National Rail stations in early morning or late evening. So surely the descriptions of the Elizabeth line usage of the corresponding main lines should be symmetrical. Currently they are asymmetric, in that the GWML usage is described as starting at London Paddington but the GEML usage is described as starting at Stratford. The current text is: "along the Great Western Main Line from London Paddington to Reading and Heathrow Airport in the west" / "along the Great Eastern Main Line between Stratford and Shenfield in the east".

The two statements could be restored to symmetry by changing to any of the following:

1. along the Great Western Main Line from London Paddington to Reading and Heathrow Airport in the west / along the Great Eastern Main Line from London Liverpool Street to Shenfield in the east
2. along the Great Western Main Line from Acton Main Line to Reading and Heathrow Airport in the west / along the Great Eastern Main Line from Stratford to Shenfield in the east
3. along the Great Western Main Line to Reading and Heathrow Airport in the west / along the Great Eastern Main Line to Shenfield in the east

[I did my best adjusting the typography Drmies (talk) 18:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)][reply]

Option 3 has been applied to the text of the lead section. So, this topic can be archived. 2A01:4B00:87C9:D800:445A:8A4A:BDC7:41F3 (talk) 00:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have added sentences describing the limited operating hours of the Elizabeth Line. This is pertinent factual information and highlights that this line has limited operating hours compared with other TFL lines. This was reverted, reason cited - "Not timetable" does not justify the reversion. Stating the later start and earlier finish times for Monday to Saturday is not referring to specific times of trains. Clearly no service on a Sunday is also not Timetable information. Before I make a further change I invite @jalonfolf and @10mmsocket to help fashion a way to present this information that is acceptable to all. Richylondon (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, thanks for bringing the discussion here. So I think it is reasonable to distinguish between six day a week and seven day operation - that should be in the article - but I don't think slightly longer operating hours each day are noteworthy. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The fine timetable detail isn't necessary, a simple line like "during the first x months, the line ran Monday to Saturday with slightly shorter hours, to allow work to be completed or whatever a source can prove". It's more about the history of the line - no one in 10 years time will need to know the exact closing/opening time! Turini2 (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"this line has limited operating hours compared with other TFL lines" Noting that this is/will be no longer the case - and therefore it should only be in the initial service section. Sunday service has been running for some time. Turini2 (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Under Service Pattern there are 3 sections - Initial Service, Current Service(from Nov 22) and Planned Service(from May 23)

Under Initial Service I propose this sentence:

Operating hours were limited also, with slightly shorter hours Monday to Saturday no service on Sunday.

Under Current Service I propose this sentence:

There is now a Sunday service and the limited operating hours remain.

Planned Service I propose this sentence:

The operating hours of the line will be extended to provide a full service with early morning and late evening running.

Comments? Richylondon (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest only having the Initial Service sentence - "Operating hours were limited, with service Monday to Saturday only." As above, providing information on why these operating hours were limited would be useful.

The rest isn't relevant and is too much detail, and I would not support the inclusion of it. Turini2 (talk) 18:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me 10mmsocket (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to that wording for the Initial Service section either. But yeah, for various reasons, I don't see a reason for the rest. Jalen Folf (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all, OK I found this explanation for the limited service:

https://inews.co.uk/inews-lifestyle/travel/elizabeth-line-map-run-on-sundays-journey-times-explained-1647836

So I could amend the sentence in the Initial Service section to read:

Operating hours were limited also, with slightly shorter hours Monday to Saturday and no service on Sunday to allow for further testing and software updates to take place.

and include the inews URL citation. Richylondon (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

yes that source looks good - to be more concise, I would suggest "Operating hours were limited, as well as service running Monday to Saturday only - allowing for further testing and software updates to take place" Turini2 (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks will use the more concise wording. Richylondon (talk) 11:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Richylondon Thanks for editing this - a reminder not to mark additional of content as a minor edit. "A good rule of thumb is that edits consisting solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of the content should be flagged as minor edits." WP:MINOR has information on what is and isn't a minor edit. If in doubt, don't tick the box! Turini2 (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Following discussions at Talk:Merseyrail on how to describe their system, this article was compared to, particularly how they both describe merely their toilets as metro-style[1], therefore argued the two are metros. But looking at the history and source used here, is there any source justifying the current high-frequency hybrid urban–suburban rail service or the previous high-frequency hybrid commuter rail and rapid transit service? The source cited TfL justifies neither, failing verification, and apparent WP:SYNTH. The current terminology was added in October 2022 basing (possibly OR) it as an S-bahn and RER type system (neither description in source cited). This article also used "suburban passenger service" or "hybrid commuter rail and rapid transit service" earlier, also using the same source today, although in 2015 that page described Crossrail as a "metro", so guessing this source was never removed when it was actually used years ago.

At the time of the MR discussion last September, I only found high frequency, high capacity service", "commuter rail," " combined metro/suburban rail system" or just "railway", while those found with "hybrid" seem closely worded to Wikipedia at the time and date after it was added here. If there are more authoritative sources please add, but the current description still fails verification (but if there is a non-mirror one, please add!). Neither "hybrid" or "suburban" appears on the cited page, with "urban" being only used for the London cable car. Raised here after the lack of discussion here was used as a reason to look at this article's approach of (apparent) synthesising/OR'ing a description. DankJae 21:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the hybrid wording comes from the closest parallel to the Elizabeth line, the Réseau Express Régional in Paris – linking suburban rail lines with a tunnel across the centre of the city. Looks like the RER article has had that wording since at least 2016. I also don't have a problem with the hybrid wording, regardless – as the Lizzie line is clearly not a metro, nor is it suburban/commuter/regional rail - it's a combination of both! Turini2 (talk) 15:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To quote a few things if that's useful

• the 2002 Crossrail consultation "This is a similar principle to the Paris Réseau Express Régional (RER), constructed over the past 25 years to link suburban residential areas to and across the city centre."
• the 1989 Central London Rail Study "Extension of surface lines to run under the central area - the "Crossrail' concept"

Turini2 (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but still a bit synth my main concern, great if some source exists to back it up (not a Wiki mirror), but the current source doesn't and cannot find non-mirror ones. While you may regard it as a hybrid, we shouldn't if no independent sources or even the operators do. While the Elizabeth Line may be a similar concept to RER, that is vague wording, maybe its principle aim was to be what the RER is from a passenger perspective but nothing specifically about infrastructure or what it exactly is. In the end, we should follow sources on what they specifically use to describe the EL as it is today, not what it looks closest too or inspired by then or now. Although I do understand sources rarely provide a specific description for transit systems. DankJae 20:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson I have reverted your edit, as we do not have a source - as per the above. Turini2 (talk) 15:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• As this has been contested as unverified for some time without resolution, I have knocked back the description so that it's just a railway line. I have also copy-edited the lead, including a cited statement from TfL that it is "in a class of its own". The reader should then understand its sui generis nature. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]