On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 09:55:17 -0800 (PST), Mizter T
wrote:

Perhaps this is TfL's fault for moving too fast, or possibly ATOCs
fault for being too stuck in the mud.

Probably the latter, going off past experiences (admittedly a few
years ago now). The train companies in general have always seemed
reluctant to implement any initiative that comes from London.

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:34:24 +0000, James Farrar
wrote:

Probably the latter, going off past experiences (admittedly a few
years ago now). The train companies in general have always seemed
reluctant to implement any initiative that comes from London.

Because those initiatives benefit London, and not always other
passengers.

As an example, since Oyster PAYG became valid on London Midland
"mainline", the 1824 EUS-Northampton has become decidedly busier than
it was before. Presumably the PAYG users were previously using the
Bakerloo to Harrow and Wealdstone.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

"Neil Williams" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:34:24 +0000, James Farrar
wrote:

Probably the latter, going off past experiences (admittedly a few
years ago now). The train companies in general have always seemed
reluctant to implement any initiative that comes from London.

Because those initiatives benefit London, and not always other
passengers.

As an example, since Oyster PAYG became valid on London Midland
"mainline", the 1824 EUS-Northampton has become decidedly busier than
it was before. Presumably the PAYG users were previously using the
Bakerloo to Harrow and Wealdstone.


Also, much as it might seem straightforward to have a London centred zonal
system spreading ever outwards, there will have to be a limit somewhere -
and it might as well be the Greater London boundary as anywhere.

Paul

Paul Scott wrote:

much as it might seem straightforward to have a London centred zonal
system spreading ever outwards, there will have to be a limit somewhere -
and it might as well be the Greater London boundary as anywhere.

Actually ... I rather like the idea of the zones spreading ever
outwards. With Zone 43 including the great arc of Wrexham, Chester,
Warrington, Manchester, Huddersfield, Leeds and Hull, it looks like a
one-zone ticket will be quite good value, though knowing the way that
such boundaries are set, I expect a Chester to Manchester via Knutsford
ticket would have to be a 2-zoner. ;-)
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632915.html
(40 024 at Reading, 17 Jan 1981)

Chris Tolley wrote:
Paul Scott wrote:

much as it might seem straightforward to have a London centred zonal
system spreading ever outwards, there will have to be a limit somewhere -
and it might as well be the Greater London boundary as anywhere.

Actually ... I rather like the idea of the zones spreading ever
outwards. With Zone 43 including the great arc of Wrexham, Chester,
Warrington, Manchester, Huddersfield, Leeds and Hull, it looks like a
one-zone ticket will be quite good value, though knowing the way that
such boundaries are set, I expect a Chester to Manchester via Knutsford
ticket would have to be a 2-zoner. ;-)

Some countries do have a national zone model, where you pay for the
zones you pass through. They use boxes or cells rather than concentric
rings as the zones.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On 24 Jan, 23:43, Arthur Figgis wrote:
Chris Tolley wrote:
Paul Scott wrote:

much as it might seem straightforward to have a London centred zonal
system spreading ever outwards, there will have to be a limit somewhere -
and it might as well be the Greater London boundary as anywhere.

Actually ... I rather like the idea of the zones spreading ever
outwards. With Zone 43 including the great arc of Wrexham, Chester,
Warrington, Manchester, Huddersfield, Leeds and Hull, it looks like a
one-zone ticket will be quite good value, though knowing the way that
such boundaries are set, I expect a Chester to Manchester via Knutsford
ticket would have to be a 2-zoner. ;-)

Some countries do have a national zone model, where you pay for the
zones you pass through. They use boxes or cells rather than concentric
rings as the zones.



This is how things are done in Tyne & Wear - see:
http://www.networkticketing.com/selector.html

or for a more detailed PDF of the above:
http://www.nexus.org.uk/ufs/shared/i...ne_Map_Col.pdf
(though the above PDF map omits some important zonal boundary lines in
the middle of the Tyne river).

Thankfully these don't come into play when you want a day ticket -
they're only relevant for the weekly, monthly or annual multi-
operator

The numbering logic behind the zones seems bizarre at first sight -
the zone numbers ascend in a sort of diagonal sweep from the south
west to the north east of the metropolitan county of T&W. However I
think it may be designed this was to make it easy to issue and -
crucially - verify the validity of tickets with zonal combinations
that are in a row or in a ring (think of a busy bus driver checking
tickets). Note that the Tyne ferry has zone 38 all to itself.

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008, Mizter T wrote:

On 24 Jan, 23:43, Arthur Figgis wrote:
Chris Tolley wrote:
Paul Scott wrote:

much as it might seem straightforward to have a London centred zonal
system spreading ever outwards, there will have to be a limit somewhere -
and it might as well be the Greater London boundary as anywhere.

Actually ... I rather like the idea of the zones spreading ever
outwards. With Zone 43 including the great arc of Wrexham, Chester,
Warrington, Manchester, Huddersfield, Leeds and Hull, it looks like a
one-zone ticket will be quite good value, though knowing the way that
such boundaries are set, I expect a Chester to Manchester via Knutsford
ticket would have to be a 2-zoner. ;-)

Some countries do have a national zone model, where you pay for the
zones you pass through. They use boxes or cells rather than concentric
rings as the zones.

This is how things are done in Tyne & Wear - see:

http://www.nexus.org.uk/ufs/shared/i...ne_Map_Col.pdf

The numbering logic behind the zones seems bizarre at first sight -
the zone numbers ascend in a sort of diagonal sweep from the south
west to the north east of the metropolitan county of T&W.

Surely north west to south east? Oh, you mean like a raster? Yes, i see -
the lines of the raster run SW-NE, and the raster progresses NW-SE.

The diagonal is basically the axis parallel to the Tyne, isn't it? At
least, the downstream reach. It's akin to Stanford's 'logical north'.

However I think it may be designed this was to make it easy to issue and
- crucially - verify the validity of tickets with zonal combinations
that are in a row or in a ring (think of a busy bus driver checking
tickets).

Yes, and each line in the raster has its own leading digit, with the
second digit increasing along it, so that the corresponding zones in each
line are adjacent. Although 58-60 are special cases: they should be 65, 66
and 75, respectively.

It'd be fun to do a version of that map coloured by the orthogonal
elements of the zone numbers; say, number 0x in red to 5x in violet, and
x3 in a pale shade to x9 in a dark one. Or with patterns of dots or
stripes instead of shade, so you can see at a glance how the coordinate
meanders across the map.

Note that the Tyne ferry has zone 38 all to itself.

39. I wonder which zones it counts as being adjacent to? Any which have
piers, i suppose.

The '4 zones in a ring' option is described as 'any 3 zones in a ring plus
one adjacent zone'; does that mean i could have three in a ring and one
touching just one of them? 56, 58, 59 and 60, say?

tom

--
I had no idea it was going to end in such tragedy

Also, much as it might seem straightforward to have a London centred zonal
system spreading ever outwards, there will have to be a limit somewhere -
and it might as well be the Greater London boundary as anywhere.

Paul

Although it isn't the Greater London boundary in quite a few cases
(e.g. Epping and Elstree).

Chiltern Railways have a neat diagram on their trains showing both the
London and Centrocard zones.

I can see the London Zonal system and PAYG eventually spreading to the
inner suburban limits (e.g Hertford, Dartford, Slough, Shenfield) but
not further.

On 23 Jan, 20:36, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:34:24 +0000, James Farrar

wrote:
Probably the latter, going off past experiences (admittedly a few
years ago now). The train companies in general have always seemed
reluctant to implement any initiative that comes from London.

Because those initiatives benefit London, and not always other
passengers.

As an example, since Oyster PAYG became valid on London Midland
"mainline", the 1824 EUS-Northampton has become decidedly busier than
it was before. Presumably the PAYG users were previously using the
Bakerloo to Harrow and Wealdstone.

Neil


But Oyster PAYG has been valid on Silverlink County/London Midland
trains between Euston and Harrow & Wealdstone for ages, indeed (I
think) since Oyster PAYG began back in 2004.

Perhaps more people have gradually become aware that they can use it,
but I certainly don't see the cause and effect relationship that you
are trying to put forward.

Anyway, my perhaps rather blunt opinion on this is that I certainly
don't begrudge the people of Harrow from wanting to get from central
London in 13 minutes non-stop instead of 40 minutes (from Oxford
Circus) all stations on the Bakerloo line.

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 13:21:43 -0800 (PST), Mizter T
wrote:

But Oyster PAYG has been valid on Silverlink County/London Midland
trains between Euston and Harrow & Wealdstone for ages, indeed (I
think) since Oyster PAYG began back in 2004.

You absolutely sure of that? Even if it was, though, it was not
publicised as such.

Anyway, my perhaps rather blunt opinion on this is that I certainly
don't begrudge the people of Harrow from wanting to get from central
London in 13 minutes non-stop instead of 40 minutes (from Oxford
Circus) all stations on the Bakerloo line.

Nor do I, but perhaps differential pricing could have kept locals on
the local services as much as possible. It works from Milton Keynes
Central off-peak.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.