It is being reported that the "no ifs not buts" transport fares freeze
has en exposed as undeliverable.

Only applying to journeys made exclusively on TfL metals.

I have no idea how they plan to implement that for interavailable trips
like the one I did earlier this week: Kings Cross St Pancras to
Blackfriars, which you can do both by tube and Thameslink (albeit using
different gatelines at both ends).
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
It is being reported that the "no ifs not buts" transport fares freeze
has en exposed as undeliverable.

Only applying to journeys made exclusively on TfL metals.

I have no idea how they plan to implement that for interavailable trips
like the one I did earlier this week: Kings Cross St Pancras to
Blackfriars, which you can do both by tube and Thameslink (albeit using
different gatelines at both ends).

I presume the freeze will apply only to fares set by TfL. I always assumed
that the freeze would only apply to TfL services, as Khan has no ability to
control non-TfL fares.

I also see he claims to have found enough savings to pay for the first two
years of the freeze, though most of the areas look a bit woolly (apart from
the senior exec pay freeze). For example, reducing agency workers sounds
good, but what happens if you can't replace their presumably valuable
expertise in-house? Do you end up wasting even more money through bad
decisions?

https://www.london.gov.uk/press-rele...s-fares-freeze

In message
-septe
mber.org, at 06:09:52 on Thu, 9 Jun 2016, Recliner
remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
It is being reported that the "no ifs not buts" transport fares freeze
has en exposed as undeliverable.

Only applying to journeys made exclusively on TfL metals.

I have no idea how they plan to implement that for interavailable trips
like the one I did earlier this week: Kings Cross St Pancras to
Blackfriars, which you can do both by tube and Thameslink (albeit using
different gatelines at both ends).

I presume the freeze will apply only to fares set by TfL. I always assumed
that the freeze would only apply to TfL services, as Khan has no ability to
control non-TfL fares.

The impression I get is that it's worse than that, because while TfL may
"set" some fares, they don't get to decide what the non-TfL component
costs. That's an external input.

Thus, another journey I do from time to time - Vauxhall to Westminster
-the ORCATS-alike determinator which much surely exist to apportion the
fare between SWT+TfL (via Waterloo and Jubilee Line) or pure TfL (via
the Victoria and Jubilee lines) must have a component whose revenue
stream is outside their control, viz the National Rail leg from Vauxhall
to Waterloo.

The further out you go, to places like Richmond or Wimbledon, the more
this effect will kick in.

I also see he claims to have found enough savings to pay for the first two
years of the freeze, though most of the areas look a bit woolly (apart from
the senior exec pay freeze). For example, reducing agency workers sounds
good, but what happens if you can't replace their presumably valuable
expertise in-house? Do you end up wasting even more money through bad
decisions?

https://www.london.gov.uk/press-rele...ings-found-to-
fund-mayors-fares-freeze

And if you do things like lay off 100 agency IT contractors, who does
that work? Presumably it's too difficult to recruit permanent
replacements, even that's a category exempt from the hiring freeze.

My own observations of organisations with hiring freezes is that
generally they are too fierce and result in work not being done. This
may have implications for things like further enhancements to the
contactless payments back office.
--
Roland Perry

On 09/06/2016 07:30, Roland Perry wrote:

... at 06:09:52 on Thu, 9 Jun 2016, Recliner
remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
It is being reported that the "no ifs not buts" transport fares freeze
has en exposed as undeliverable.

Only applying to journeys made exclusively on TfL metals.

I have no idea how they plan to implement that for interavailable trips
like the one I did earlier this week: Kings Cross St Pancras to
Blackfriars, which you can do both by tube and Thameslink (albeit using
different gatelines at both ends).

I presume the freeze will apply only to fares set by TfL. I always
assumed that the freeze would only apply to TfL services, as Khan
has no ability to control non-TfL fares.

The impression I get is that it's worse than that, because while TfL may
"set" some fares, they don't get to decide what the non-TfL component
costs. That's an external input.

Thus, another journey I do from time to time - Vauxhall to Westminster
-the ORCATS-alike determinator which much surely exist to apportion the
fare between SWT+TfL (via Waterloo and Jubilee Line) or pure TfL (via
the Victoria and Jubilee lines) must have a component whose revenue
stream is outside their control, viz the National Rail leg from Vauxhall
to Waterloo.

The further out you go, to places like Richmond or Wimbledon, the more
this effect will kick in.

?

There are three PAYG fare scales, and always have been (at least since
NR started accepting Oyster in 2010).

* The TfL fare scale.
* The NR fare scale.
* The through fare scale (NR+TfL journey).

The first is the only one that the Mayor has control over.


Thus for Vauxhall to Westminster, the TfL fare (for travel only on the
Tube) is £2.40 peak or off-peak, or the NR+TfL through fare is £4.10
peak / £3.50 off-peak.

In message , at 08:08:59 on Thu, 9 Jun 2016,
Mizter T remarked:

On 09/06/2016 07:30, Roland Perry wrote:

... at 06:09:52 on Thu, 9 Jun 2016, Recliner
remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
It is being reported that the "no ifs not buts" transport fares freeze
has en exposed as undeliverable.

Only applying to journeys made exclusively on TfL metals.

I have no idea how they plan to implement that for interavailable trips
like the one I did earlier this week: Kings Cross St Pancras to
Blackfriars, which you can do both by tube and Thameslink (albeit using
different gatelines at both ends).

I presume the freeze will apply only to fares set by TfL. I always
assumed that the freeze would only apply to TfL services, as Khan
has no ability to control non-TfL fares.

The impression I get is that it's worse than that, because while TfL may
"set" some fares, they don't get to decide what the non-TfL component
costs. That's an external input.

Thus, another journey I do from time to time - Vauxhall to Westminster
-the ORCATS-alike determinator which much surely exist to apportion the
fare between SWT+TfL (via Waterloo and Jubilee Line) or pure TfL (via
the Victoria and Jubilee lines) must have a component whose revenue
stream is outside their control, viz the National Rail leg from Vauxhall
to Waterloo.

The further out you go, to places like Richmond or Wimbledon, the more
this effect will kick in.

?

There are three PAYG fare scales, and always have been (at least since
NR started accepting Oyster in 2010).

* The TfL fare scale.
* The NR fare scale.
* The through fare scale (NR+TfL journey).

The first is the only one that the Mayor has control over.

Thus for Vauxhall to Westminster, the TfL fare (for travel only on the
Tube) is £2.40 peak or off-peak, or the NR+TfL through fare is £4.10
peak / £3.50 off-peak.

That's OK for single tickets, but what about travelcards (day and
period)? These will be used on a mixture of National Rail and TfL
metals.
--
Roland Perry

On 09/06/2016 08:08, Mizter T wrote:
Thus for Vauxhall to Westminster, the TfL fare (for travel only on the
Tube) is £2.40 peak or off-peak, or the NR+TfL through fare is £4.10
peak / £3.50 off-peak.

These differences, nearly a factor of 2:1 for peak time travel, are
rather excessive, and I've been caught by them one or twice before.
What I wonder is how do they work it out for journeys which one can do
in any of three ways (TfL only, NR only, and both) where there is only a
common gate-line at each end, for example Farringdon to Kentish Town?


--
Clive Page

On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 09:46:26 +0100, Clive Page wrote:

What I wonder is how do they work it out for journeys which one can do
in any of three ways (TfL only, NR only, and both) where there is only a
common gate-line at each end, for example Farringdon to Kentish Town?

In that case it doesn't matter, it is an "interavailable" route and
each operator's tickets are valid on the other (this applies between
West Hampstead and London Bridge or Elephant).

In all cases, the Oyster/contactless fare is whatever it says on:
https://tfl.gov.uk/fares-and-payment...le-fare-finder

....which is £2.90 peak, £2.40 off-peak. The TfL cash fare is £4.90
and it seems from brfares.com that the NR cash fare is £3.30.

Richard.

In article , (Clive Page)
wrote:

On 09/06/2016 08:08, Mizter T wrote:
Thus for Vauxhall to Westminster, the TfL fare (for travel only on the
Tube) is £2.40 peak or off-peak, or the NR+TfL through fare is £4.10
peak / £3.50 off-peak.

These differences, nearly a factor of 2:1 for peak time travel, are
rather excessive, and I've been caught by them one or twice before.
What I wonder is how do they work it out for journeys which one can
do in any of three ways (TfL only, NR only, and both) where there is
only a common gate-line at each end, for example Farringdon to
Kentish Town?

You sum up rather well why a lot of Londoners, especially in South London,
are so ****ed off with the current fares structure and want Overground (with
TfL fares) extended.

The problem is the Government that won't let the TOCs bring their fares down
to TfL levels.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message
-septe
mber.org, at 06:09:52 on Thu, 9 Jun 2016, Recliner
remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
It is being reported that the "no ifs not buts" transport fares freeze
has en exposed as undeliverable.

Only applying to journeys made exclusively on TfL metals.

I have no idea how they plan to implement that for interavailable trips
like the one I did earlier this week: Kings Cross St Pancras to
Blackfriars, which you can do both by tube and Thameslink (albeit using
different gatelines at both ends).

I presume the freeze will apply only to fares set by TfL. I always
assumed
that the freeze would only apply to TfL services, as Khan has no ability
to
control non-TfL fares.

The impression I get is that it's worse than that, because while TfL may
"set" some fares, they don't get to decide what the non-TfL component
costs. That's an external input.

Thus, another journey I do from time to time - Vauxhall to
Westminster -the ORCATS-alike determinator which much surely exist to
apportion the fare between SWT+TfL (via Waterloo and Jubilee Line) or pure
TfL (via the Victoria and Jubilee lines) must have a component whose
revenue stream is outside their control, viz the National Rail leg from
Vauxhall to Waterloo.

The further out you go, to places like Richmond or Wimbledon, the more
this effect will kick in.

I also see he claims to have found enough savings to pay for the first two
years of the freeze, though most of the areas look a bit woolly (apart
from
the senior exec pay freeze). For example, reducing agency workers sounds
good, but what happens if you can't replace their presumably valuable
expertise in-house? Do you end up wasting even more money through bad
decisions?

https://www.london.gov.uk/press-rele...ings-found-to-
fund-mayors-fares-freeze

And if you do things like lay off 100 agency IT contractors, who does that
work? Presumably it's too difficult to recruit permanent replacements,
even that's a category exempt from the hiring freeze.

at a saving of 20K each presumably they aren't going to be laid off, but
(presumably) presented with "employment" contracts.

But then the first year of that saving will disappear into the fees that the
agents charge for a temp to perm transfer

tim

In message , at 09:13:15 on Thu, 9 Jun 2016,
tim... remarked:
And if you do things like lay off 100 agency IT contractors, who does
that work? Presumably it's too difficult to recruit permanent
replacements, even

if - and we don't know this.

that's a category exempt from the hiring freeze.

at a saving of 20K each presumably they aren't going to be laid off,
but (presumably) presented with "employment" contracts.

Why wouldn't they decide to work for someone else who *is* prepared to
pay the extra? (Or they have philosophical objections to being an
employee).
--
Roland Perry