On 18 June, 17:31, Mizter T wrote:
On Jun 18, 5:00*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

Mizter T wrote:
Agreed - that is a *monumentally stupid* example.

A far better example would have been Balham (zone 3) to Victoria (zone
1). The Tube PAYG fare is £2.70/peak, £2.20/off-peak. A single rail
fare is £3.10 (within the London zones, all rail fares are conform to
the same fare scale and are all priced zonally, albeit issued on a
point-to-point basis).

But that isn't the full story, as it is only true when comparing single
fares. If (like most pax I imagine) you are clever enough to buy a 'rail'
standard return at £5.30 or off peak return at £4.10 it is less than the
equivalent two PAYG singles. *I don't recall anything in the media that has
looked at that level of detail, it's more normal for them to go off on one
about the £4.00 cash fare (as in the BBC article above)...

Agreed - I kept the example simple and so didn't mention return fares
(I recall posters on 'one'/NXEA advertising their 'increased
acceptance' of Oyster PAYG specifically pointing out that a CDR could
nonetheless be cheaper).

The return fare situation can be complicated further by the existence
of capping too - and there remains the question of how combined LU+NR
journeys would be priced.


Given the relationship between the current caps and the equivalent
travelcard, it's hard to see how there could be a higher cap that
didn't take it over the price of the travelcard.

Or maybe the cap could remain the same, even though singles cost more,
to compensate for the loss of returns?

Before Oyster came along, I always found it odd that an NR journey
could cost so much more than an LU journey while a travelcard was
valid on both.

(I think I will stick to travelcards wherever possible.)