"Mizter T" wrote ...
On May 31, 10:34 am, Paul Corfield wrote:
I doubt it is anything to do with "spreading pain" given TfL are funding
it and the expenditure is already late. Surely it's much more to do with
the long lead times for design, procurement, manufacture, installation
and then a thorough testing of all of the systems to make sure fares are
being properly calculated and that supporting transaction data actually
reaches the centre and aligns with what testers say they did?

It would be naive to think of TfL as a bottomless pit of cash; it's very
unlikely they'd just write a cheque for the lot. The basic equipment has
already been designed, and the software written. Years ago. Much more likely
that the cash would be released bit by bit once the TOCS/NR etc. had done
what was agreed and up to spec. TfL's income is divided into taxpayers cash,
and ticket income; while much of that comes in Dec/Jan these days, a lot
doesn't, and spreading spending through the year would be sensible (and
normal) practice.

I've never heard anything to suggest that there's problems with the kit or
obtaining it; individual installations are another matter, of course, and
what may appear simple to the observer might be a very difficult and
expensive job (and vice versa).

Divvying up fares between operators has been done without problems for 150
years; the issue that's different is the fact that TfL's customers have been
paying lower fares (with the zonal system) than National Rail customers
(except in SE London, where TfLs fares have often been higher). So the
fighting has been about resolving that without rioting TfL passengers - or
rioting NR passengers - or TOCs lowering their fares as they face
bankruptcy.

In Ken's day, the aim was to force TOCS to reduce their fare levels to match
TfL's in London; but with Boris (and, to be fair, the buggered economy), we
are likely to see TfL fares increased to NR levels. I'd guess the squabbling
is about how quickly to do this, bearing in mind that different TOCs have
different fare levels, and therefore some are more desperate than others.
One of the magazines did a 'fare per mile' comparison on London metro routes
a while back - fascinating reading!

SW Trains had much of the pain written into their franchise agreement;
niether Southern nor Southeastern did (too long ago), and with only months
left, Southern aren't going to surrender income lightly. And I don't blame
them.
--

Andrew

"Andrew Heenan" wrote in message
...

Divvying up fares between operators has been done without problems for 150
years; the issue that's different is the fact that TfL's customers have
been paying lower fares (with the zonal system) than National Rail
customers (except in SE London, where TfLs fares have often been higher).
So the fighting has been about resolving that without rioting TfL
passengers - or rioting NR passengers - or TOCs lowering their fares as
they face bankruptcy.

It's not the zonal system that has made TfL's prices lower that NR's it is
the substantial Oyster discount. I suspect Ken's desire to bring in lower
fares was a significant driver for Oyster as it allowed him to do so under
the cover of encouraging Oyster.

Even now there are mid-week off-peak return journeys within the zonal system
that are cheaper on NR than TfL/Oyster; there were a lot more before the
introduction of off-peak Oyster fares in the middle of the day.

Comparing single fares on TfL and NR ignores the substantial discount that
NR gives on off-peak day return tickets which are unavailable on TfL.

Dave.