On Jun 18, 7:07*pm, Paul Corfield wrote:

On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 18:07:59 +0100, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

[snip discussion of FGW accepting Oyster PAYG at LU rates]

[...] Sorry for confusing anyone, but you've raised a very valid point, as
to why FGW can take what appears at face value to be a hit on their
expected revenue.

SO... it must have been approved by DfT surely? So why won't they do the
same with the SR Tocs?

My guess is that the FGW situation is tied in with their near loss of
the franchise and the need to chuck in a whole load of cash to improve
service quality. You can see how getting PAYG in and working on FGW at
tube PAYG charge rates would be attractive and probably not a massive
loser for FGW if the demand elasticities are such that they were
reasonably confident of some growth on shoulder peak and off peak
trains. *They might also gain some traffic from the tube at Ealing with
people being willing to take a fast train into Paddington and tube it on
from there rather than slogging in on a District or Central Line just to
pay a lower fare.

Given that they've got gates at a few places part of the infrastructure
was already there plus I suspect TfL paid for the validators at non
gated stations. *It's a bit of no brainer really.


Interesting analysis. I presume that when a passenger enters at Ealing
Broadway and exits at Paddington mainline/H&C gateline, the assumption
is that they've made the journey on FGW as opposed to shuffling round
the Underground network and finishing up at the H&C line platforms at
Paddington (which are now within the fully gated suburban platform
paid-for area).

I think/agree that the mere fact of accepting Oyster PAYG is likely to
increase traffic somewhat. (And - controversially - perhaps even
results in some people paying for their journey when they wouldn't
have previously done so - the ease of Oyster being an attraction.)