"Richard J." wrote in message
. uk...
Dave Liney wrote:
"Mizter T" wrote in message
oups.com...

As one of "the rest of the pax" I'll just say that it doesn't sound
like gloating to me. I think it's fair enough that those who work
for a transport organisation to get free travel on that
organisation's services as a perk of the job, just as I'd expect
someone who works for a telecoms company to get a reduced rate
subscription or someone who works for a retailer to get discounts
etc.

Free ... discount ... discount

Doesn't seem to be the same to me.

Not that I mind TfL staff travelling free; compared to the cost of
the Oyster bribery fares it's a raindrop in the ocean of subsidy of
London's public transport.

What are you talking about? London has probably the least subsidised
public transport of any comparable capital city.

Sorry. I thought it was obvious that I was talking about the Oyster fares
being so much lower than non-Oyster fares for the same journey. Regardless
of the relative level of subsidy it will have an impact on the actual
amount. If the Oyster discount were tens of pence it could be seen as a
discount for a less staff-intensive and reusable ticket but, with it being
60% for Z1 tickets and children's prices set where the Oyster daily cap is
actually less than a single cash journey, it looks like a tax on the
ignorant. Not allowing one day travelcards to be loaded on Oyster also
knocks out the argument that it helps reduce the number of paper tickets.

Now it could be that Ken wanted to make TfL fares that much cheaper and
Oyster gave him a vehicle to do it and still maintain that he hasn't for
political reasons. However with Oyster obviously being successful (it could
hardly be otherwise with the pricing differential) I think it is time for
cash fares to start heading down towards, though not reaching, Oyster fares.

And to return to the original thread subject is free travel for railway
employees treated as a benefit in kind by the Inland Revenue?

Dave.

Dave Liney wrote:
"Richard J." wrote in message
. uk...
Dave Liney wrote:
"Mizter T" wrote in message
oups.com...

As one of "the rest of the pax" I'll just say that it doesn't
sound like gloating to me. I think it's fair enough that those who
work
for a transport organisation to get free travel on that
organisation's services as a perk of the job, just as I'd expect
someone who works for a telecoms company to get a reduced rate
subscription or someone who works for a retailer to get discounts
etc.

Free ... discount ... discount

Doesn't seem to be the same to me.

Not that I mind TfL staff travelling free; compared to the cost of
the Oyster bribery fares it's a raindrop in the ocean of subsidy
of London's public transport.

What are you talking about? London has probably the least
subsidised public transport of any comparable capital city.

Sorry. I thought it was obvious that I was talking about the Oyster
fares being so much lower than non-Oyster fares for the same
journey.

No, it wasn't obvious at all. You started ranting about bribery and the
ocean of subsidy when all you really meant, I think, was that you
disagreed for some reason with TfL's price structure. If you want to
talk about that, please start a separate thread. This one's about the
validity of staff passes.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

"Richard J." wrote in message
. uk...
Dave Liney wrote:
"Richard J." wrote in message
. uk...
Dave Liney wrote:
"Mizter T" wrote in message
oups.com...

As one of "the rest of the pax" I'll just say that it doesn't
sound like gloating to me. I think it's fair enough that those who
work
for a transport organisation to get free travel on that
organisation's services as a perk of the job, just as I'd expect
someone who works for a telecoms company to get a reduced rate
subscription or someone who works for a retailer to get discounts
etc.

Free ... discount ... discount

Doesn't seem to be the same to me.

Not that I mind TfL staff travelling free; compared to the cost of
the Oyster bribery fares it's a raindrop in the ocean of subsidy
of London's public transport.

What are you talking about? London has probably the least
subsidised public transport of any comparable capital city.

Sorry. I thought it was obvious that I was talking about the Oyster
fares being so much lower than non-Oyster fares for the same
journey.

No, it wasn't obvious at all. You started ranting about bribery and the
ocean of subsidy when all you really meant, I think, was that you
disagreed for some reason with TfL's price structure. If you want to talk
about that, please start a separate thread. This one's about the validity
of staff passes.

You're quite right that I should have started a different thread. I was
trying to say that despite pointing out how TfL's staff benefit differs from
the others Mizter T mentioned I wasn't objecting to free staff travel, and
it got mixed up with the Oyster fares issue that had been tumbling round in
my head recently.

Getting back on thread though I am curious if free travel outside of getting
to and from a place of work is considered a benefit in kind by the Inland
Revenue as they have recently tightened the rules on the use of company vans
for non-work journeys.

Dave.

Dave Liney wrote:
"Richard J." wrote in message
. uk...
Dave Liney wrote:

Sorry. I thought it was obvious that I was talking about the
Oyster fares being so much lower than non-Oyster fares for the same
journey.

No, it wasn't obvious at all. You started ranting about bribery
and the ocean of subsidy when all you really meant, I think, was
that you disagreed for some reason with TfL's price structure. If
you want to talk about that, please start a separate thread. This
one's about the validity of staff passes.

You're quite right that I should have started a different thread. I
was trying to say that despite pointing out how TfL's staff benefit
differs from the others Mizter T mentioned I wasn't objecting to
free staff travel, and it got mixed up with the Oyster fares issue
that had been tumbling round in my head recently.

Getting back on thread though I am curious if free travel outside
of getting to and from a place of work is considered a benefit in
kind by the Inland Revenue as they have recently tightened the
rules on the use of company vans for non-work journeys.

It's HMRC (HM Customs & Revenue) now, and yes, any free travel benefit,
whether it's a company car or a public transport pass, is normally
taxable, and that includes getting to and from the normal place of work,
unless some special arrangement has been agreed between the employer and
HMRC.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Dave Liney wrote:

"Richard J." wrote in message
. uk...
Dave Liney wrote:

(snip)

Not that I mind TfL staff travelling free; compared to the cost of
the Oyster bribery fares it's a raindrop in the ocean of subsidy of
London's public transport.

What are you talking about? London has probably the least subsidised
public transport of any comparable capital city.

Sorry. I thought it was obvious that I was talking about the Oyster fares
being so much lower than non-Oyster fares for the same journey. Regardless
of the relative level of subsidy it will have an impact on the actual
amount. If the Oyster discount were tens of pence it could be seen as a
discount for a less staff-intensive and reusable ticket but, with it being
60% for Z1 tickets and children's prices set where the Oyster daily cap is
actually less than a single cash journey, it looks like a tax on the
ignorant. Not allowing one day travelcards to be loaded on Oyster also
knocks out the argument that it helps reduce the number of paper tickets.


I'm not going to get involved in the rest of the argument, but instead
address the single point you make at the end of the above paragraph
regarding Day Travelcards and the fact they can't be loaded on Oyster.

There is already a semi-equivalent of Day Travelcards available on
Oyster - it is the daily price capping that kicks in at various levels
when pax are using Oyster PAYG. True, this is only available where
PAYG is accepted - i.e. the LU network, London buses, Tramlink and a
very limited number of National Rail (NR) routes.

And yes, technically speaking the system would be capable of being
configured so that an Oyster card could play host to a Day Travelcard.

However this would just cause *massive confusion* between the Day
Travelcard product and the daily capping product. Apart from the paper
saved from not using paper ticket stock, there'd not really be any
benefit from this arrangement either (apart from the possibility of
some spectacularly confusing and complex arrangement where pax could
use PAYG to extend their journeys to other zones not covered by their
Day Travelcard, but only do so on routes that accepted PAYG - which
would be a nightmarish muddle).

Anyway the TfL master plan is to get Oyster PAYG accepted on all NR
routes in London, in which case daily price capping would apply on all
these routes and there'd no longer be any real distinction between a
priced capped Oyster card (used in PAYG mode) and a Day Travelcard.

Additionally TfL has never claimed that saving paper as one of the
primary reasons for promoting Oyster. It has stated that this is a
secondary benefit, but it's never really shouted about it from the
rooftops.

On 15 Oct, 12:16, Mr Thant
wrote:
On 15 Oct, 02:17, Mizter T wrote:

Whilst Silverlink County gets a mention, Silverlink Metro is notable
by its absence...

It wasn't until somebody complained...

Aha - yes, I see - courtesy of the 'Wayback Machine' - that in April
2007 that page listed Silverlink Metro as being covered by that
change, whilst in May 2007 - hey presto - Silverlink Metro has
vanished from the list.!

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://...onalFares.html

I presume this was your good work.


I guess that TfL is going to roll out LU cash fares on London
Overground at the fares change in January '08, so as to shift people
over onto Oyster PAYG - though that is only a guess. I'm not sure
whether so doing would mess up any of the rest of the rail fares
ecosystem - I can't immediately see any knock-on problems if this were
to happen.

There's a note on this in the last board meeting minutes:
"TfL London Rail and TfL Fares and Ticketing are considering how best
to integrate Overground fares into the TfL fares structure from 11
November, the start of the London Rail Concession. An Oyster
promotional fare is proposed, designed to get passengers used to
Oyster Pay As You Go on a National Rail service that previously did
not accept this form of payment prior to 11 November.
"http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/corporate/Agenda-and-papers(1)...

Hopefully we'll get some more detail from the next meeting, which is
next week.

U


I must admit I had already seen that - but yes, the TfL board papers
are a great way of gathering information, especially when one makes
copious usage of the ''text search' function in Adobe reader.

Regarding the idea of the proposed Oyster promotional fare - I'd guess
that it'd be for the NLL and WLL routes (as on the the DC lines the
standard LU PAYG fare already applies up to H&W - I'd bet that'd be
extended up to Hatch End, though what happens north of there is still
to be revealed, as we've discussed elsewhere on this thread!).

The flexibility to apply promotional fares is indeed one of the
benefits of Oyster. However I'd sound a note of caution about this -
the danger about a promotional fare is that it could lull NLL & WLL
passengers into thinking that Oyster fares would always be as cheap as
they were when first introduced.

However said all that, if TfL do want to hike the NLL/WLL prices for
paper tickets up to LU fare levels (i.e. £3 for non-zone 1 journeys)
in January '08, then an all out offensive to get Oyster cards into
passengers pockets would be beneficial (though I'd imagine that a
great number of NLL & WLL pax already have one). A promotional fare
would form part of this offensive.

I also hope that ticket office staff are being properly trained in the
ways of the Oyster and are going to be ready to cope with it! At the
moment NR ticket offices that deal with Oyster do so on a basic level
- they refer passengers with more complex issues on to an LU ticket
office. I wonder how well the London Overground ticket offices (those
that aren't going to be managed by LU) will handle such issues.

Andy wrote:

On Oct 14, 11:24 am, Mizter T wrote:
Andy wrote:
On Oct 13, 3:59 pm, Mizter T wrote:

It will be interesting to see what happens in November!! I've already
seen that the Oyster readers are installed at Watford Junction. Don't
forget that Bushey also has fast trains to Euston which will be run by
London Midland and that there are often calls by 'mainline' trains at
Wembley Central (although currently Silverlink only stop with their
trains after midnight). Another question will be whether Southern will
accept the Oyster prepay, I would guess that they will from Wembley to
Watford, if London Midland accept it due Govia being involved in both
franchises.

I did forget about the fast trains that stop at Bushey! Thanks for the
reminder. That puts Bushey in the same situation as Watford Junction
with regards to whether the London Midland fast trains will accept
Oyster PAYG then. Out of interest does Bushey have ticket gates
installed?

I never knew about the fast (Silverlink County) trains that call at
Wembley Central in the dead of night. Having just looked at Table 66
of the timetable I find that they stop at these times:

To Euston: M-F 0054, 0421; Sat 0054, 0435, 0530; Sun 0315
ex Euston: M-F 0045, 0147; Sat 0145, 0211; none on sunday
(destination being Northampton or MK Central)

How interesting, I wonder what the logic is behind these stops -
perhaps to provide a means of travel to railway staff who work at the
nearby Wembley depots?


I think that is probably the reason. I think they originally also
provided a later service to all the possible stations on the DC Lines.
When I've used the trains, they've also stopped at Queen's Park,
providing that the main line platforms (only two, on the slow tracks)
are not closed due to engineering work (the engineering work being the
reason that the QP stop isn't advertised and meaning that busses don't
need to be provided). This was a few years ago though.

Yes, I've heard about these late night stops at Queen's Park. There is
some kind of railway building accessed from the down slow lines
platform at QP - is it a signalling centre?

I presume that the late night stops at QP are similarly for the
benefit of railway workers. Is Queen's Park advertised as one of the
calling points on the displays at Euston?

Anyway, if any London Midland trains were to stop at QP there wouldn't
be any need to provide extra Oyster readers for Oyster PAYG users as
(unlike Wembley Central) all the platforms at the station are accessed
from within the existing gateline.


As you say, if London Midland opts in to Oyster PAYG then Oyster
readers would have to be provided at the entrance to the mainline
platforms at Wembley Central to cater for these trains as well I guess
(unless they were somehow excepted from Oyster PAYG acceptance).


They will also need to be provided, if not already the case, as the
eastern entrance to Harrow and Wealdstone. I spent ages trying to find
the Oyster readers coming back from Harrow, only to find that they are
only on Platforms 1/2 (DC lines) and on the bridge. Pay as you go is
valid on the fast trains, but Silverlink don't make it easy to use!!

Yes, I remember this now - I had the exact same problem when I did
that journey using Oyster PAYG quite some time ago! I actually went to
the ticket office and asked just to double-check whether PAYG really
was valid on the fast trains to Euston.

The reason I forgot that quirk is that it has been shrouded in my
memory by another quirk I encountered on arrival at Euston. It was a
peak-time train that didn't arrive at any of the normal suburban
platforms (8-11) but instead arrived at platform 16/17/18 (can't
remember which I must admit). This is presumably normal procedure
during the rush hour, but it left me wondering what the hell I was
supposed to do about touching-out, as the arrival platform wasn't
enclosed within a gateline - did I then have to troop along to the
suburban gateline and touch-out on the reader by the manual side gate?
But then... aha - I saw it - there was a solitary Oyster reader
attached to a concrete column near the ramp out to the station
concourse - very much a facility for those in the know, it would seem.
I was the only person I could see who'd used it!

So I do wonder how many H&W to Euston pax are missing out on using
Oyster PAYG for this journey, or how many only think it is valid on
the DC lines stopping service.

One further point - come H&W is to be managed by TfL under the London
Rail Concession, as opposed to being a London Midland station (and
will actually be managed by LU rather than the concessionaire
MTRLaing). So, one wonders if TfL will just install extra Oyster
readers on the entrances to platforms 5 & 6 - those served by the fast
trains - regardless of what London Midland want! Or indeed whether H&W
will be gated sooner or later?


And then, as you say, there's the question of whether Southern would
accept Oyster PAYG from WJ to Wembley Central.

Indeed there's the question of whether Southern would accept Oyster
PAYG from Clapham Junction, West Brompton and Kensington Olympia to
consider as well given that LO will accept it on their WLL services
from these stations.


I'd forgotten about LO taking over the majority of the trains on the
WLL line.

I can't recall all the details but the South London RUS has a number
of fairly firm proposals for extending these Willesden Jn to Clapham
Jn trains down to Croydon too. And of course TfL wants to increase the
frequency of service too, which would be good.


There's also the issue of the mass confusion that'll occur at Clapham
Junction as lots of pax erroneously use Oyster PAYG to get through the
barriers when only one service from CJ will actually be accepting
Oyster PAYG (the LO service up the WLL to Willesden Jn).

One solution might be what they've done at London Bridge, where Oyster
PAYG is accepted on FCC/Thameslink only but doesn't operate the gates
- passengers have to be let through the manual side gate by staff and
touch-in/out on an Oyster reader on the platform (though the number of
pax actually using Oyster PAYG at London Bridge must be very small
given that most would use the faster Northern line to reach points
north instead).


If this is to be the case, then why have they bothered to fit the
oyster readers to all of the gates at Watford Junction. If Govia
doesn't have to accept Oyster and if all the LO passengers have to go
via the side gate there would be little need for the automatic gates
to be covered. If it is to cover season ticket holders, then this
would imply that Watford Junction Travelcard seasons will be available
on Oyster, unlike at present.

Well, as Oyster readers have been fitted at Watford Junction that
would appear to preclude them copying the 'solution' used at London
Bridge, which is hardly ideal. I only think they can get away with
doing it at London Bridge is because so few pax heading to points
north (or vice versa) on the Thameslink route where Oyster PAYG is
valid - which is only as far as Kentish Town - would actually choose
FCC/Thameslink over the Northern line.

I wonder if the gates at London Bridge would work with a paper LU
single ticket, perhaps I'll try it sometime - though somewhat
confusingly a paper LU ticket is valid as far as West Hampstead
Thameslink rather than just Kentish Town(!) - see page 11 of the TfL
Fares guide:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...-to-fares-and-
tickets-0709.pdf



Also, is it possible that there is still an agreement between LUL and
National Rail in place? Revenue used to be shared, in some form, when
the Bakerloo ran to Watford Junction. Is it possible that tfl can
'force' acceptance of its tickets (i.e. prepay) regardless of the
actual train taken.

Given that, north of Queens Park, traditionally it was BR/NR that set
the fares (I think this dates from when LNWR opened the 'New Lines'
aka the 'DC lines' from Euston to Watford Junction) I don't think TfL
has any power to force acceptance of its tickets from Watford Junction
on the fast London Midland trains.


Well, at the moment, PAYG is valid on the fast trains from Euston to
Harrow, as well as the DC lines, so a precedent of sorts has been set.
Remember, Silverlink didn't have to extend PAYG even to the DC trains
south of Queens Park, but they have done so.

Well, I don't know when acceptance of LU tickets between Queens Park
and Euston dates from (it certainly exists in the 2003 fares guide
that I have to hand). Perhaps this arrangement began in BR days, so
Silverlink might have just inherited it. And acceptance of LU tickets
entails acceptance of Oyster PAYG (though yes, there is the exception
of the West Hampstead Thameslink example I gave above, plus arguably a
few other exceptions).


As Paul Corfield has pointed out it will be difficult to enforce a
situation where Oyster PAYG is only accepted on LO trains and not fast
London Midland trains, given that passengers for both services will
pass through exactly the same gatelines at both WJ and Euston. I guess
there could be a copycat implementation of the far less than ideal
situation I described at London Bridge, and so Oyster PAYG wouldn't
operate the gates at WJ and pax using PAYG have to pass through the
side gate and touch-in/out on a reader on the platform.


Personally I think that this is unworkable. There are only four gates
and a small manual one at Watford Junction. There is nearly always a
queue here of passengers with fares to pay, especially when the Abbey
flyer has just arrived.

I agree - I was just thinking aloud about how, if London Midland
didn't want to accept Oyster PAYG from WJ, it would work in practice -
so I described what happens at London Bridge. Though as I explained
above the situation there is unique in that very few people would
actually want to use Oyster PAYG on Thameslink from London Bridge.

As Oyster readers have been fitted to the gates at WJ, thankfully it
appears that no-one is proposing to do this.



I don't think that the revenue difference will be too great anyway.
Many of the tickets used from Watford Junction to London, both peak
and off-peak, are travelcards and the add on is small. It maybe that
Govia demand a premium fare for prepay exits at Watford and Bushey, to
make up their revenue loss.

The question in my mind is whether any premium demanded by London
Midland/Govia from TfL could be accommodated if TfL were to include WJ
in zone A.


Maybe we will end up with the compromise Zone being B or C in order to
gain for cash from the passengers. Bushey maybe being in Zone A

Could be.


It's obviously be a cleaner, simpler and far preferable situation (at
least from the point of pax) if WJ were to become part of zone A - but
perhaps the premium demanded by London Midland would make it
uneconomic for TfL to do this and absorb the financial hit rather than
passing it on to passengers who used WJ.

It would certainly be easier, but I wonder if the arrangement will be
more like the 'special' zone for Tramlink, with a higher fare from
boundary Zone 6 to Zone W (for Watford) than to Zone A.

I'm not sure that the Tramlink analogy actually works, but if the
fares to/from WJ (and Bushey) are to be higher, I like the idea of a
Zone W - it would be the easiest way of communicating the concept to
punters.

However (and I'm afraid I'm not quite up to date on the latest on
these developments) do bear in mind that other TOCs - specifically
c2c, Chiltern and 'one' - are interested/planning on accepting Oyster
PAYG for other journeys outside of the London zones - for example see
this c2c press release from January:
http://www.c2c-online.co.uk/templates/NewsArticle.aspx?id=668

Thus the idea of extra zones outside the existing 10 (including A-D)
or the possibility of non-zonal fares on Oyster PAYG is perhaps one we
will have to get comfortable about.

Any such questions would of course bring plenty of extra questions
regarding whether capping might be implemented for journeys outside of
the London zones, whether certain TOCs might wish to implement
different peak and off-peak times, who one would turn to if there was
a problem etc etc!



Another question in my mind is how many pax who currently use the Met
line from Watford into central London, because it is cheaper than
travelling via WJ - would then switch to travelling from WJ to take
advantage of the fast trains? This might lead to overcrowding on the
fast trains from WJ, something that London Midland might be wary of.
Perhaps there's not that many price conscious passengers who'd do
this, though there could be a whole load more travelling via WJ if and
when the Met line's Croxley link gets built (the link that would
divert the Met line's Watford branch directly into Watford Junction).

At the moment, I doubt that there would be many passengers switching
from the Met to the mainline. The time penalty of getting to the
Junction from the Met station would be too great. (Stations are a good
15-20 mins walk apart and parking is expensive at Watford Junction). I
doubt that many commuters use the Met station to central London,
although I don't have stats to hand. When (if) the Croxley link gets
built, the balance might, of course, change. With commuters using the
link to go via Watford Junction, rather than sitting on the Met line.


Thanks. I wasn't sure how price concious passengers from Watford would
be - and arguably any such consideration might apply more to off-peak
leisure travellers rather than commuters. But given what you say it's
probably not really a potential issue.

If the Croxley link ever happens there might be something to be said
for having a two tiered fare structure - i.e. where travelling into
central London on the slower Met line would be cheaper than going via
WJ and the fast trains to Euston - as it might balance out demand a
bit. But that's an issue that could be tackled if necessary if and
when the Croxley link ever gets built.

On 16 Oct, 14:16, Mizter T wrote:
And acceptance of LU tickets
entails acceptance of Oyster PAYG (though yes, there is the exception
of the West Hampstead Thameslink example I gave above, plus arguably a
few other exceptions).

Like the whole North London Railway until LO takes over. Only a minor
one, I know...

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On 16 Oct, 16:57, John B wrote:
On 16 Oct, 14:16, Mizter T wrote:

And acceptance of LU tickets
entails acceptance of Oyster PAYG (though yes, there is the exception
of the West Hampstead Thameslink example I gave above, plus arguably a
few other exceptions).

Like the whole North London Railway until LO takes over. Only a minor
one, I know...

--
John Band


Stupidly that's what I actually had in mind! Yes, you're quite right
to pick me up on that one - it's hardly a minor exception, and I'm
guilty as charged.

A quick look back at a few old PDFs would appear to suggest that LU
tickets have been accepted along the whole length of the NLL since
August 2004 - as well as being accepted on the WLL between West
Brompton and Willesden Junction from that time as well.

It would appear that LU tickets have only been accepted on the GOBLIN
since January '07.

What I was trying to do was propose the notion that TOCs must accept
Oyster PAYG on all routes where there has historically been
interavailability of ticketing, such as Liverpool St to Stratford. But
the truth of course is that I'm speculating - I know nothing of the
details nor the legalities of these ticketing interavailibility
agreements.

Of course, historically speaking when it comes to the Bakerloo line
north of Queen's Park ticketing was the domain of BR/NR (i.e. the
fares were set by them), and LU only tickets were not valid. Then,
more recently LU tickets became valid as far as Kenton, one stop short
of H&W - a situation that existed until January '07 - though of course
Oyster PAYG has been valid from H&W from the get-go, AIUI as a result
of an agreement between Silverlink and TfL.

I'd still like to know when acceptance of LU tickets between Queen's
Park and Euston began though.

Mizter T wrote

Anyway the TfL master plan is to get Oyster PAYG accepted on all NR
routes in London, in which case daily price capping would apply on
all
these routes and there'd no longer be any real distinction between a
priced capped Oyster card (used in PAYG mode) and a Day Travelcard.

Except that a Day Travelcard would mean that you wouldn't have to worry
about touching out not working or whatever it is at Wimbledon or
finding validators or journeys that the system thinks took more than 2
hours and other attempts to charge you an additional 4 quid even if you
have already or subsequently reached the price cap.

Ideal for tourists and anyone who dislikes "help" lines.

--
Mike D