On 31 May, 18:32, Mizter T wrote:
On May 31, 6:13*pm, D DB 90001
wrote:



On 31 May, 14:54, "Andrew Heenan" wrote:

[snip]

The eventual outcome will almost certainly be that all fares totally within
the zones will be based on the TfL system, and at a common price;

Southern have stated previously that they didn't want to make the
fares the same as TfL zonal fares, and I believe they were considering
having different single fares for the South London TOCs, especially
SWT which was refusing to accept oyster at all unless the condition of
them being able to set different fares was met, hence the slow take-up
of Oyster in SWT-land. Not to mention SWT's own brand of smartcard
which is being rolled out soon.

I hope that they drop the argument that fares should be independent,
because this complicates issues further if they don't follow the same
fares as TfL has set in North London for Tube, NR and combinations.

Where on earth did you get the idea that different Oyster PAYG fares
for different TOCs were being seriously considered - I mean, being
considered by the relevant parties, as opposed to just being discussed
by armchair observers completely outside the whole negotiation
process?

I have never come across any suggestion whatsoever that Oyster PAYG
fares on NR would vary by TOC. All the current rail-only fares within
London are now priced on a zonal basis and have been since January '07
- indeed the driver behind this change was Oyster PAYG, and this was
considered an essential precursor to that. (The change was decreed by
DfT Rail on the urging of TfL.)

As I've said elsewhere in this thread, I would not be remotely
surprised to find that Oyster PAYG single fares on NR are exactly the
same as the existing zonal farescale, i.e. not any cheaper than their
paper ticket equivalents. The advantage of Oyster PAYG on NR will thus
be (a) convenience, (b) the potential for capping and (c) the ability
to get automatic ticket extensions through PAYG when travelling beyond
the validity of one's Travelcard.

However, all NR fares on Oyster PAYG will be the same - except for
those journeys where interavailable ticketing applies, e.g. Stratford
to Liverpool Street, where I expect the cheaper LU fare would apply
instead.

I may have misunderstood what I have read, I didn't mean that fares
would vary by TOC, but just be different compared to Tube fares. Is
that closer to the truth? I don't know where I implied in the thread
that the fares would vary by TOC because I know that would be complete
nonsense. Apologies for the confusion!

On 31 May, 20:13, wrote:
Hmm, I'd be surprised it there were many of the 12 car trains making
'extra' stops south of St. Albans during the peak, as the the
deceleration would make them less attractive to the longer distance
commuters.

I'm suggesting there will be 12 car metro services, and potentially
some 8-car outer services, and to a mix of destinations south of the
river. Balancing capacity between inner and outer is going to be the
biggest challenge of the service going forward, and it would daft to
set one particular split in stone by divvying up the fleet and paths
between two companies.

So they do, and every hour now, the former Stevenage via Hertford
services have been extended to Letchworth. I wonder if they plan to
extend peak trains as well, once they get a few more 313s

Not running them was a recommendation from the ECML RUS to free up
peak paths over the flat junction at Hitchin.

U

Mr Thant wrote:
On 31 May, 20:13, wrote:
Hmm, I'd be surprised it there were many of the 12 car trains making
'extra' stops south of St. Albans during the peak, as the the
deceleration would make them less attractive to the longer distance
commuters.

I'm suggesting there will be 12 car metro services, and potentially
some 8-car outer services, and to a mix of destinations south of the
river. Balancing capacity between inner and outer is going to be the
biggest challenge of the service going forward, and it would daft to
set one particular split in stone by divvying up the fleet and paths
between two companies.


I suspect the only likely split of Thameslink compared to the existing setup
is the widely predicted transfer of the Wimbledon - Blackfriars terminators
(SL RUS) back to the South Central division.

Suggesting what might happen based on the current service pattern is a bit
of a waste of time, because by KO2 services will be significantly different.
It would be a bit odd if the planned 12 car metro services providing 4tph
all stations stoppers through the Sydenham corridor to St Pancras Int (SL
RUS Fig 9.5) were not still 'all stations' north of the core surely?
(Notwithstanding the stations that cannot be lengthened for 12 car
services).

I don't honestly see 'transfer to LO' as the panacea anyway. For instance,
IMO the ELLX would work equally well if it had been allocated to Southern,
station manning and train frequency could be specified in a franchise if the
will was there.

Paul S

On 31 May, 22:32, Mr Thant
wrote:
On 31 May, 20:13, wrote:

Hmm, I'd be surprised it there were many of the 12 car trains making
'extra' stops south of St. Albans during the peak, as the the
deceleration would make them less attractive to the longer distance
commuters.

I'm suggesting there will be 12 car metro services, and potentially
some 8-car outer services, and to a mix of destinations south of the
river. Balancing capacity between inner and outer is going to be the
biggest challenge of the service going forward, and it would daft to
set one particular split in stone by divvying up the fleet and paths
between two companies.


I suppose it will depend on how many metro services run via Elephant
and Castle, as this is the route which will retain the short platforms
south of the river. Of course, part of the setting things in stone is
already coming from the use of 8 or 12 car units. My personal view is
that the order should be for a mix of 8 and 4 cars units (if not all 4
car), to give flexibility over having fixed 12 car formations.

So they do, and every hour now, the former Stevenage via Hertford
services have been extended to Letchworth. I wonder if they plan to
extend peak trains as well, once they get a few more 313s

Not running them was a recommendation from the ECML RUS to free up
peak paths over the flat junction at Hitchin.


Hmm, I wonder if the Hitchin flyover, due 2014, will change that.

On 1 June, 11:10, wrote:
I suppose it will depend on how many metro services run via Elephant
and Castle, as this is the route which will retain the short platforms
south of the river.

The plan is to send as many London Bridge services as possible via
Thameslink, so there's likely to be only 6 tph via Elephant, as
proposed by the South London RUS. 6x 8 carriages (48) for the inner
stations is no improvement on today, and also means 10x 12 carriages
(120) on the outer services, which is probably an overprovision, and
more than there'll be fast paths for on the MML.

U

On 1 June, 11:36, Mr Thant
wrote:
On 1 June, 11:10, wrote:

I suppose it will depend on how many metro services run via Elephant
and Castle, as this is the route which will retain the short platforms
south of the river.

The plan is to send as many London Bridge services as possible via
Thameslink, so there's likely to be only 6 tph via Elephant, as
proposed by the South London RUS. 6x 8 carriages (48) for the inner
stations is no improvement on today, and also means 10x 12 carriages
(120) on the outer services, which is probably an overprovision, and
more than there'll be fast paths for on the MML.

U

The DfT Invitation to Tender for the replacement Thameslink stock has
the following diagrams:

59 x 240m trains (= 12 car) and 54 x 160m trains (=8 car). The 160m
trains are split into 15 inner configuration and 39 outer
configuration diagrams (the difference being provision of first class
in the outer units). So, a sizeable quantity of the longer distance
trains will be 8 cars, rather than becoming 12 cars with some of these
will be on the via London Bridge route.

There is also an option to extend the 160m units to 200m to make 10
car equivalent trains (or also to extend to 240m).