London Banter - View Single Post

Colin Rosenstiel · December 4th 05, 10:25 PM posted to uk.transport.london

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

On 4 Dec 2005 11:48:50 -0800, "TheOneKEA" wrote:

Paul Corfield wrote:
I may be horribly out of date but here goes.

snip

I confess I don't know quite how the interavailable routes work -
i.e. where LU fares apply and the TOC has to get a share. I would
imagine this is based on a composite of sales and ridership
surveys. The existence of ticket gates at places such as Fenchurch
Street will provide some extra data as to journey volumes.

This is the part that I'm most curious about - whilst looking this up
in u.t.l. I came across a thread where someone vehemently stated that
Chiltern receives no revenue whatsoever for trains that run to
Aylesbury via the Metropolitan Line, while someone else stated in
equal fashion that they did. I wondered which statement was true.

Obviously, as you said, the presence of ticket gates and Oyster pads
makes collecting the necessary data much simpler, and thus the
revenue sharing probably follows the actual usage much more closely.

snip

This is probably more complicated because the trains interwork over
LUL tracks either side of NR tracks. People *may* be confusing what
happens to ticket revenue with what gets paid between the parties for
the use of the tracks under a separate agreement. Given that the only
reason why we have Zones 6AB and C is to create higher fares to avoid
a massive step change in the Chiltern fare structure beyond Amersham
then I think you can take it as read that Chiltern clearly do get
revenue for its trains over LU tracks. IIRC Chiltern would not agree
to Zone 6 fares being applied right out to Amersham in the same way as
LU charges to Z6 to Epping and other stations in Essex where it is the
sole operator.

I thought the existence of zones A, B, C & D was because, unlike Essex,
Bucks were too mean to contribute to the cost of the services on the Met.

--
Colin Rosenstiel