Revenue sharing between TfL and TOCs
 

How is revenue earned from ticket sales for services that pass between
LU and NR metals shared out? I've heard that it's based on a
cross-section of the types and destinations of tickets sold.

Revenue sharing between TfL and TOCs
 

On 4 Dec 2005 11:03:39 -0800, "TheOneKEA" wrote:

How is revenue earned from ticket sales for services that pass between
LU and NR metals shared out? I've heard that it's based on a
cross-section of the types and destinations of tickets sold.

I may be horribly out of date but here goes.

For Travelcards there is the travelcard survey that seeks to model
journeys across the whole network to derive the appropriate share of
trips in order to share out the Travelcard "pot". Oyster card data is
obviously helping to improve TfL's knowledge of travel on its system
with weekly or longer Travelcards.

For through tickets it is simply a question of counting all those that
are issued which is easy enough through all of the computer systems.
Almost all through tickets are summated between a NR fare and a LU one
and it is simply a case of splitting out these values and allocated the
monies. I think the Rail Settlement Plan system called ORCATS did this
but many of the RSP systems have been replaced since I was last involved
in this area to any great extent.

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.

For Oyster Pre-Pay these journeys are obviously logged via the gates and
validators so more sophisticated data is available to determine trip
patterns. This will reduce the reliance on surveys but obviously cannot
be 100% accurate.

All sales attract varying rates of commission depending on ticket types
and who is selling the ticket.

I'm sure other group members can add to the above in greater detail.

--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Revenue sharing between TfL and TOCs
 

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I may be horribly out of date but here goes.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

Revenue sharing between TfL and TOCs
 

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.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Revenue sharing between TfL and TOCs
 

Well Chiltern should stop running if they are so concerned about fair
sharing!!
I did wonder why ZONES 6A-D EXIST! Makes it really expensive to travel out
there with these high fairs applied to the tube user who may not even
realise that Chiltern run to their destinations e.g Amersham (Mind you don't
get it if your travelling to Chesham as that's tube only)

My moan over LOL!


"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
...
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.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Revenue sharing between TfL and TOCs
 

In reply to news post, which Paul Corfield wrote
on Sun, 4 Dec 2005 -
On 4 Dec 2005 11:48:50 -0800, "TheOneKEA" wrote:

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.

The reasons for zones 6A to 6D goes back to the GLC days. These outer
zones were not in the area covered by the GLC but instead come under
Hertfordshire and Buckinghamshire councils. These councils would not
subsidise the fares as the GLC did and so the fares were increased in
these zones. They pre date Chiltern by many years. Today, Ken and the
London assembly do not cover the areas serves by these zones, but TFL
services run out to the area, I assume the higher fares in these areas
are also a result of the non London subsidy. It does though have the
affect of ramping the fares up for Chiltern as you go out into Bucks,
but this is perhaps a side effect.
--
Matthew P Jones - www.amersham.org.uk
My view of the Metropolitan Line www.metroland.org.uk - actually I like it
Don't reply to it will not be read
You can reply to knap AT Nildram dot co dot uk

Revenue sharing between TfL and TOCs
 

Paul Corfield wrote:
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.

The post I read seemed to think that any ticket sold that was
subsequently used to ride a Chiltern service from an LU station did not
result in any revenue being paid to Chiltern. Obviously this shouldn't
be the case, but I was curious as to just what sort of revenue Chiltern
does collect from LU tickets sold along the Met.

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.

Interesting - I never did understand why the lettered zones existed as
they did. It all makes sense now.

Revenue sharing between TfL and TOCs
 

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

Revenue sharing between TfL and TOCs
 

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.

Yes, that is the case IIRC also applying for Hertfordshire CC, serving
other places in the additional zones (Watford, et al.)
--
The presence of this signature shows that this message has been scanned
for misplaced apostrophes by the common sense scanner. However, some
apostrophes may not be included where required due to boredom, gross
negligence, budget cuts, incompetence, stupidity or just plain laziness.
http://www.railwaysonline.co.uk

Revenue sharing between TfL and TOCs
 

"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message
...

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.

Before the Ongar branch shut there were letter zones on the Central Line.
IIRC Epping was in Zone A. I always assumed they moved it into Z6 when it
was left as the sole station on the line outside Z6.

Dave