| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Oyster revenue allocation question
A mate and I got into a discussion about how the revenue from the
Oyster card is allocated between participating operators. If I make a journey on a bus at a cost of £1, I assume the £1 goes to the bus operator (possibly with deduction of a service charge). If I then travel on the tube at a cost of £2.20, logically this money would go to London Underground. This brings the total spend to £3.20. Next I travel on DLR with a fare of £2.20. I then make a second journey on the tube. This money can go to London Underground. Total spend is now £5.40. Now suppose I go on DLR with a fare of £2.20. This makes a total of £7.60. At this point the price cap kicks in and the cost is limited to £5.80. I then get on another bus (£1). Who gets paid what? Does the first bus operator and London Underground get paid in full, DLR in part and the second bus operator not get paid at all? Or do they all have their payment scaled back on a pro rata basis? Or do none of them get paid the actual fare and they all take a share of the total Travelcard revenue? Or looking at it another ways If I only make one journey, on a bus, does the bus company keep the £1 or do they get a pre-determined share of the total Oyster money instead? Thanks Scott |
Oyster revenue allocation question
"Scott" wrote in message ... A mate and I got into a discussion about how the revenue from the Oyster card is allocated between participating operators. If I make a journey on a bus at a cost of £1, I assume the £1 goes to the bus operator (possibly with deduction of a service charge). If I then travel on the tube at a cost of £2.20, logically this money would go to London Underground. This brings the total spend to £3.20. Next I travel on DLR with a fare of £2.20. I then make a second journey on the tube. This money can go to London Underground. Total spend is now £5.40. Now suppose I go on DLR with a fare of £2.20. This makes a total of £7.60. At this point the price cap kicks in and the cost is limited to £5.80. I then get on another bus (£1). Who gets paid what? Does the first bus operator and London Underground get paid in full, DLR in part and the second bus operator not get paid at all? Or do they all have their payment scaled back on a pro rata basis? Or do none of them get paid the actual fare and they all take a share of the total Travelcard revenue? Or looking at it another ways If I only make one journey, on a bus, does the bus company keep the £1 or do they get a pre-determined share of the total Oyster money instead? AIUI London operators don't take revenue risk. So all farebox income whether cash fares, paper travelcards, or Oyster goes to TfL who pay operators agreed sums for operating the service. I'm not sure how it works with National Rail TOCs, who do take revenue risk. Peter |
Oyster revenue allocation question
On May 29, 8:37*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote: "Scott" wrote: A mate and I got into a discussion about how the revenue from the Oyster card is allocated between participating operators. *If I make a journey on a bus at a cost of £1, I assume the £1 goes to the bus operator (possibly with deduction of a service charge). *If I then travel on the tube at a cost of £2.20, logically this money would go to London Underground. *This brings the total spend to £3.20. *Next I travel on DLR with a fare of £2.20. *I then make a second journey on the tube. *This money can go to London Underground. *Total spend *is now £5.40. *Now suppose I go on DLR with a fare of £2.20. *This makes a total of £7.60. *At this point the price cap kicks in and the cost is limited to £5.80. *I then get on another bus (£1). Who gets paid what? * Does the first bus operator and London Underground get paid in full, DLR in part and the second bus operator not get paid at all? *Or do they all have their payment scaled back on a *pro rata basis? *Or do none of them get paid the actual fare and they all take a share of the total Travelcard revenue? Or looking at it another ways If I only make one journey, on a bus, does the bus company keep the £1 or do they get a pre-determined share of the total Oyster money instead? AIUI London operators don't take revenue risk. So all farebox income whether cash fares, paper travelcards, or Oyster goes to TfL who pay operators agreed sums for operating the service. I'm not sure how it works with National Rail TOCs, who do take revenue risk. You're absolutely correct in saying that under the current system London bus operators do not take the revenue risk at all. London Buses (the part of TfL that contracts out to bus operators), London Underground, the DLR, London Overground and Croydon Tramlink are all part of the "TfL family" - though I must admit I'm somewhat hazy on how farebox revenue gets divided up internally within the TfL family, i.e. between LU and DLR etc - and I don't think it's as straightforward to say that it just gets divided up as such either. (Also LOROL, the operator of the London Overground network, doesn't take the revenue risk but gets paid an agreed amount according to their performance; on the DLR I think the operator, Serco Docklands, is subject to a similar regime, though I think they might get some of the farebox take - plus there's the infrastructure concessionaires who built and maintain the more recent extensions - e.g. CGL Rail for the Lewisham extension - who I think get payments based on patronage of those sections of the line). Those National Rail TOCs who currently accept Oyster PAYG for at least a part of their routes in London have reached an agreement with TfL - in the case of routes that have interavailable ticketing (easiest example being Stratford to Liverpool Street) I'm not sure they had any choice in the matter, but for other routes where there's no interavailable ticketing (e.g. West Drayton to Paddington) they have done so voluntarily. However without a doubt one of the major issues in the ongoing negotiations to get all TOCs to accept Oyster PAYG across London is how farebox revenue will be allocated - and the issue is not just how much should go to the 'National Rail' TOCs as such but also to which specific TOC it should go. |
Oyster revenue allocation question
On 29 May, 22:09, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Fri, 29 May 2009 20:31:27 +0100, Scott wrote: A mate and I got into a discussion about how the revenue from the Oyster card is allocated between participating operators. *If I make a journey on a bus at a cost of £1, I assume the £1 goes to the bus operator (possibly with deduction of a service charge). *If I then travel on the tube at a cost of £2.20, logically this money would go to London Underground. *This brings the total spend to £3.20. *Next I travel on DLR with a fare of £2.20. *I then make a second journey on the tube. *This money can go to London Underground. *Total spend *is now £5.40. *Now suppose I go on DLR with a fare of £2.20. *This makes a total of £7.60. *At this point the price cap kicks in and the cost is limited to £5.80. *I then get on another bus (£1). Who gets paid what? * Does the first bus operator and London Underground get paid in full, DLR in part and the second bus operator not get paid at all? *Or do they all have their payment scaled back on a *pro rata basis? *Or do none of them get paid the actual fare and they all take a share of the total Travelcard revenue? Or looking at it another ways If I only make one journey, on a bus, does the bus company keep the £1 or do they get a pre-determined share of the total Oyster money instead? As others have stated the fare revenue for TfL provided or contracted services goes to TfL directly. *Payments are made to the operators (such as bus companies) based on a contracted fee which is adjusted up or down according to the performance of the service. *I believe DLR works on the same basis with Serco who operate the service being paid on a performance adjusted fee basis. * As Mizter T indicated there are two sections where infrastructure is also privately provided on DLR so a separate fee is paid the consortia who built and maintain the Lewisham and Woolwich extensions. I believe this is also a performance (availability) based fee although the Lewisham line was originally based on a "shadow toll" whereby there was effectively a ridership based incentive as an amount would be paid for every passenger carried. *However given the consortia had no right to set DLR fares there was not really a direct linkage between ridership and what the consortia controlled. The Overground concession is similar to DLR whereby all revenue goes to TfL and LOROL (the operator) is paid a fee subject to performance of the services and a range of other service attributes. I believe there is some financial upside for LOROL if performance reaches very high levels and also if there are very low levels of revenue fraud. As LUL is not operated "on contract" then it has its own budget for revenue and operating costs but this is set by TfL and the money collected from ticket sales still goes forward to TfL for allocation and apportionment in accordance with the various agreements for the different products. I am not entirely sure what happens with the PAYG revenue as there are parallels with the Travelcard "pot" given the use of capping but NR participation is much lower. *Clearly many journeys are accurately recorded via PAYG and it is possible to see which operator is used in many circumstances. *In some cases it is not possible to see what route is taken (Highbury to Richmond via LUL or via Overground) so there must be an element of apportionment in addition to the ability to allocate individual trips. *I will have a look at the TfL intranet to see if a PAYG apportionment document exists as there was certainly a document explaining how Travelcard revenue is apportioned (via a Travelcard survey process which defines the modal and then operator split). *If I find some more info I'll post a follow up. Where Oyster travel is against a Travelcard held on the Oyster card then the total revenue is shared as per the Travelcard Agreement factors. You also need to bare in mind that there are other flows of money for single and return tickets and also through tickets between LUL and NR which have their own agreed rules for apportioning revenue and payment of commission for the ticket selling activity. *Oyster PAYG cuts in to this area as it will typically displace cash sales and you have the issue of cash being paid up front and then being "drawn down" from the card balances (at passenger level). *Nonetheless if a journey has happened on a TOC train where PAYG is valid then some revenue has to reach the TOC. *I do not know what the nature of the agreements is for TOC acceptance of PAYG but I would guess it is some sort of combination of provisions from both the Through Ticketing Agreement and also the Travelcard agreement (given the daily capping element). -- Paul C Cheers for that info, I was wondering about this issue myself and couldn't really work out how it would work. You mentioned that singles and returns vary from travelcards, and in the same vein oyster capped journeys also vary from oyster singles, but with Oyster you do have more information about the journeys than travelcards, so revenue allocation *could* potentially be more representative. LOROL, DLR, and LUL journeys can all be grouped under their seperate headings, but I find the revenue allocation for NR operators much more confusing, and I'm starting to see why take-up of Oyster PAYG acceptance in South London is taking so long, they can't quite decide how to work the system. There are 2 main options. They could A) put all Oyster PAYG revenue into one fares pot and then divvy it up in whatever way they like, which would be agreed with the operator before (which probably being discussed now) or B) allocate revenue based on which operator was used for the journey, so if the Oyster is used on LUL and NR equally, then it would be half and half, or if the journey was 3/4 LUL and 1/4 NR then the revenue from that individual journey would be divvied up on the same basis. Obviously it is easier for multiple tube line journeys, because they are all LUL, and this revenue doesn't need to be allocated per line because it is all grouped. NR is a lot more complicated and I can't quite work it out, whether the powers that be have thought this through or not remains unknown. The easiest way to solve the problem would be to adopt a LOROL style approach to ALL suburban services in London, whereby the service frequency and operations are determined by TfL and operated under contract by the respective TOCs. This way they would remove the revenue-risk nonsense from the TOC and the fares etc would be determined by TfL and collected for TfL. The more difficult (by far) option would be to allocate fares on a similar basis to the national rail model, whereby fares (oyster or otherwise) are based on the route taken and the operator on that route. So if the route was Southern only then southern would get the revenue from the single fare. (This analysis only concerns single fares at this point). Then if the route was operated by multiple TOCs then you would divvy up the fares based on the same theory as national rail tickets which divide the fare based on the number of seats and services provided on that route etc. This would be difficult, to say the least, but at least *possible* ish. Oyster capping however would add another complication to the mix because the single fare which previously would have been wholly allocated to a particular TOC would now be reduced since the oyster reductions for further journeys are 0. To be honest it would be easier at this stage to *give up* as it were, and simply adopt a travelcard revenue allocation method. But maybe it could be possible to only divide up the total revenue between the operators used and the operators not used on this occasion get nothing? Not sure if this would make the revenue allocation skewed on Oyster/non-Oyster routes though. Southern seem to be gaining oyster readers at many of the stations I have visited recently, so they are going to be accepting oyster PAYG soon presumably, the main barrier to implementation being revenue allocation, and not lack of Oyster readers. Well, that's my tuppence worth, I would go on, but that's enough I think!!!! |
Oyster revenue allocation question
"D DB 90001" wrote The easiest way to solve the problem would be to adopt a LOROL style approach to ALL suburban services in London, whereby the service frequency and operations are determined by TfL and operated under contract by the respective TOCs. But wouldn't that effectively mean that almost the entire rail network in the south-east would be decided by TfL - a body controlled by the mayor of just part of that network? Most south-east services are to, from, through London. |
Oyster revenue allocation question
On 30 May, 23:38, "Richardr" wrote:
"D DB 90001" wrote The easiest way to solve the problem would be to adopt a LOROL style approach to ALL suburban services in London, whereby the service frequency and operations are determined by TfL and operated under contract by the respective TOCs. But wouldn't that effectively mean that almost the entire rail network in the south-east would be decided by TfL - a body controlled by the mayor of just part of that network? Most south-east services are to, from, through London. Ah, I was only referring to Z1-6 services which usually terminate inside zone 6, but I didn't take account of services which terminate at South London Termini and call at a Z6 station only, but no intermediate stations. I didn't think that through, forgetting about the journey opportunities which you have at East Croydon for example, which would be oyster payg compatible, but also have fast services that would inevitably have to be included in the oyster system. That probably wouldn't work as I thought then. However, I still think that local suburban services that *do* terminate inside of Z1-6 or at stations such as Sevenoaks or Dartford just outside Z6 should be managed by TfL, just like all bus routes, even those which run outside of London but are mainly inside Z1-6, are managed and run by TfL. Frankly because TfL are more likely to get better results than other local authorities or DfT. |
Oyster revenue allocation question
|
Oyster revenue allocation question
"D DB 90001" wrote However, I still think that local suburban services that *do* terminate inside of Z1-6 or at stations such as Sevenoaks or Dartford just outside Z6 should be managed by TfL, just like all bus routes, even those which run outside of London but are mainly inside Z1-6, are managed and run by TfL. Frankly because TfL are more likely to get better results than other local authorities or DfT. But the capacity on the roads isn't constrained in the same way as that on the railways. I believe that a lot of London commuter routes run at pretty much capacity at peak times. Allowing one part of the route to determine what happens there fixes what happens elsewhere. Take Thameslink, for example, which stops and potentially stops at a lot of London stations. If the Mayor of London had sole rights to determine stopping patterns in London, then he would, quite rightly for him and his electors, choose patterns wanted by his constituents, which I would imagine would mean stopping all trains at all stops in Greater London. Thus those passengers from outside London, e.g. Brighton and Bedford, would get a massive deterioration in service. I can't see why letting London alone decide the Thameslink timetable in its own interests is such the bonus you think to Brighton or Bedford people? Isn't it the same for most south-east routes - nearly all of which are designed mainly for non-Londoners to get to and from London, or share tracks with such a route? |
Oyster revenue allocation question
"D DB 90001" wrote:
Southern seem to be gaining oyster readers at many of the stations I have visited recently, so they are going to be accepting oyster PAYG soon presumably, the main barrier to implementation being revenue allocation, and not lack of Oyster readers. Revenue allocation is not the issue now - the agreements have been made operator by operator, not line by line; so Southerns deal was made before they started installing readers on non-shared stations. Much more likely that installation is being phased to spread the financial pain, and where possible to tie in with other work. It's not the readers that are expensive, but installing them and making them part of the system. There's even planning issues; though they may appear random, someone has decided where they should go. The apparent randomness may indicate shortcuts to share cable runs with other items, etc., etc. -- Andrew |
Oyster revenue allocation question
"D DB 90001" wrote
The easiest way to solve the problem would be to adopt a LOROL style approach to ALL suburban services in London, whereby the service frequency and operations are determined by TfL and operated under contract by the respective TOCs. Ken planned to do exactly that, and there is a certain logic to London controlling its own 'metro' services (as Liverspool and many foreign cities do). The understanding was that as each franchise came up for renewal, TfL would negotiate for appropriate lines to be transferred and upgraded by LOROL. For example, there discussions with DaFT when the new 'south central' franchise document was drawn up, eg about the South London Line. Nothing happened, but I don't know if that was Boris' cooling on the idea, money not being available to upgrade to LOROL standards (about half a billion, at a guess) - or the more prosaic reason that with Thameslink wrecking London Bridge for a few years, this was not the time (it's short franchise, anyway!). But watch carefully as each London Franchise comes up for grabs ... -- Andrew Interviewer: Tonight I'm interviewing that famous nurse, Florence Nightingale Tommy Cooper (dressed as a nurse): Sir Florence Nightingale Interviewer: *Sir* Florence Nightingale? Tommy Cooper: I'm a Night Nurse Campaign For The Real Tommy Cooper |
Oyster revenue allocation question
On May 31, 10:12*am, "Andrew Heenan" wrote: "D DB 90001" wrote: Southern seem to be gaining oyster readers at many of the stations I have visited recently, so they are going to be accepting oyster PAYG soon presumably, the main barrier to implementation being revenue allocation, and not lack of Oyster readers. Revenue allocation is not the issue now - the agreements have been made operator by operator, not line by line; so Southerns deal was made before they started installing readers on non-shared stations. Bzzt... that's basically all wrong Andrew! With regards to the limited number of existing National Rail (NR) routes that accept Oyster PAYG - e.g. FGW, c2c - then agreement has indeed been reached individually between the TOC and TfL. However with regards to the rest of the network, all the London TOCs are negotiating through ATOC with TfL to reach an agreement - this appears to have been tortuous, and as yet no word has come out that the final agreement has actually been signed. Much more likely that installation is being phased to spread the financial pain, and where possible to tie in with other work. It's not the readers that are expensive, but installing them and making them part of the system. There's even planning issues; though they may appear random, someone has decided where they should go. The apparent randomness may indicate shortcuts to share cable runs with other items, etc., etc. See my comments above. Installation of Oyster readers at NR stations does at least show that the TOCs ha eventually agreed in principle to the inevitable, i.e. accepting Oyster PAYG. But the nitty gritty dirty detail of revenue allocation is almost certainly what's holding everything up. |
Oyster revenue allocation question
D DB 90001 writes:
Oyster capping however would add another complication to the mix because the single fare which previously would have been wholly allocated to a particular TOC would now be reduced since the oyster reductions for further journeys are 0. To be honest it would be easier at this stage to *give up* as it were, and simply adopt a travelcard revenue allocation method. But maybe it could be possible to only divide up the total revenue between the operators used and the operators not used on this occasion get nothing? Not sure if this would make the revenue allocation skewed on Oyster/non-Oyster routes though. Would it not be possible to adopt a system whereby once the cap is reached, each operator gets the proportion of the capped fair according to usage. So if (for simplicity of illustration) all single fares were £1 and the cap £5 and someone makes 2 journeys on operator A and 1 on operator B, operator A would get £2 and operator B £1. If the cap is reached and the person makes 4 journey on operator A and 2 on operator B, then operator A would get £5 x 4/6 = £3.33 and operator B £5 x 2/6 = £1.67. |
Oyster revenue allocation question
On 31 May, 09:03, "Richardr" wrote:
"D DB 90001" wrote However, I still think that local suburban services that *do* terminate inside of Z1-6 or at stations such as Sevenoaks or Dartford just outside Z6 should be managed by TfL, just like all bus routes, even those which run outside of London but are mainly inside Z1-6, are managed and run by TfL. Frankly because TfL are more likely to get better results than other local authorities or DfT. But the capacity on the roads isn't constrained in the same way as that on the railways. I believe that a lot of London commuter routes run at pretty much capacity at peak times. Allowing one part of the route to determine what happens there fixes what happens elsewhere. Take Thameslink, for example, which stops and potentially stops at a lot of London stations. If the Mayor of London had sole rights to determine stopping patterns in London, then he would, quite rightly for him and his electors, choose patterns wanted by his constituents, which I would imagine would mean stopping all trains at all stops in Greater London. Thus those passengers from outside London, e.g. Brighton and Bedford, would get a massive deterioration in service. I can't see why letting London alone decide the Thameslink timetable in its own interests is such the bonus you think to Brighton or Bedford people? Isn't it the same for most south-east routes - nearly all of which are designed mainly for non-Londoners to get to and from London, or share tracks with such a route? ....which is why all the different service patterns should probably largely have their own tracks. Strange as it is to hold the WCML up as a paragon of "doing it right", but aside from the missing stop at Willesden Junction and having the lines grouped by use not direction, it works so extremely well that all you could do to improve it, probably, is to add the aforementioned two things above. Perhaps reduce headways to squeeze in a few more peak trains...but that's about it. All because the London stopping pattern in the Urban / Inner Suburban "New" lines doesn't affect the Inner / Outer Suburban "Slow" lines, which in turn doesn't affect the Intercity "Fast" lines. Pairing by direction would let you potentially run a service that dealt with the inner suburbans properly. Currently the New lines are too long, forcing you to change to the Slow line services at Harrow for a reasonable journey time, which being on opposite sides of the footbridge and with a poor service frequency, means dangerous crowds scrambling across it to get between them. Ideally, the trains would be the things doing the moves between lines, not the passengers, or at the very least, it would offer a cross-platform interchange. Put in a shared platform loop between the New and Slow lines where possible and the New lines' services could then be multiplied and sped up with non- stopping services (or more WJ-EUS shuttles), making stops at Harrow for outer surburbans less important. That would give a better service for Londoners without impacting on those living beyond Watford. The new shuttle services being run between Watford Junction and Euston in the peaks show this sort of solution can work, but they will forever be constrained by the fact that the slow lines are primarily outer suburban services who want to run fast between Watford and Euston. Same goes for the former GCML. Jubilee covers the all-stations Urban stops, the Met covers the Inner and Outer Suburbans, and Chiltern covers the remnants of the Intercity option. Mixing with the fast Mets north of Harrow is fine given the lack of route north of Aylesbury and the option of diverting via Princes Riseborough....but if it did ever pick up more services north of there that became popular, maybe quad- tracking from Watford South Junction to Amersham or wherever the Met terminates might be worthwhile. Or, for simplicity, give Chiltern everything north of Moor Park, and let them fund quad tracks...thinking about it, might make a better case for electrifying it too, if they have their own dedicated tracks all the way. |
Oyster revenue allocation question
"Mizter T" wrote ...
Bzzt... that's basically all wrong Andrew! With regards to the limited number of existing National Rail (NR) routes that accept Oyster PAYG - e.g. FGW, c2c - then agreement has indeed been reached individually between the TOC and TfL. However with regards to the rest of the network, all the London TOCs are negotiating through ATOC with TfL to reach an agreement - this appears to have been tortuous, and as yet no word has come out that the final agreement has actually been signed. Are you sure? I'm happy to accept that I could be wrong about the details of the players - ATOC / TfL / Franchisee, etc., but I find it hard to believe they are starting installation before the deal is totally done; I've certainly read nothing in the national or railway press to suggest that; and with the overlapping of routes and operators, that could take forever, with passengers being unable to predict what a journey would cost in the meantime. My reading suggests that the arguments have been about the *formula* for payment, not about line-by-line. But if you know better, I withdraw my comments (you usually do!). Andrew Much more likely that installation is being phased to spread the financial pain, and where possible to tie in with other work. It's not the readers that are expensive, but installing them and making them part of the system. There's even planning issues; though they may appear random, someone has decided where they should go. The apparent randomness may indicate shortcuts to share cable runs with other items, etc., etc. See my comments above. Installation of Oyster readers at NR stations does at least show that the TOCs ha eventually agreed in principle to the inevitable, i.e. accepting Oyster PAYG. But the nitty gritty dirty detail of revenue allocation is almost certainly what's holding everything up. |
Oyster revenue allocation question
On May 31, 10:34*am, Paul Corfield wrote: On Sun, 31 May 2009 10:12:53 +0100, "Andrew Heenan" wrote: "D DB 90001" wrote: Southern seem to be gaining oyster readers at many of the stations I have visited recently, so they are going to be accepting oyster PAYG soon presumably, the main barrier to implementation being revenue allocation, and not lack of Oyster readers. Revenue allocation is not the issue now - the agreements have been made operator by operator, not line by line; so Southerns deal was made before they started installing readers on non-shared stations. Was it? *How do you know? * All the official statements seem to indicate that the commercial agreements over fares and money have dragged behind agreement to install the equipment. *The latter is (relatively) non controversial given TfL are stumping up the cash. Indeed. Much more likely that installation is being phased to spread the financial pain, and where possible to tie in with other work. It's not the readers that are expensive, but installing them and making them part of the system. There's even planning issues; though they may appear random, someone has decided where they should go. The apparent randomness may indicate shortcuts to share cable runs with other items, etc., etc. 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? Also I think installation started when the masterplan was for switch- on to happen earlier rather than later, i.e. some time this year (IIRC summer was being mooted at one point). Re testing - I really can't see how much on the ground testing is going to be possible though, realistically speaking. As soon as the Oyster readers are turned on, people will start wanting to use them - and even if they are adorned with notices or covered up, people would still here the beep and see someone (i.e. the tester) using the reader and jump to the conclusion that they could use it too. If there is to be a testing period I'd think it'd have to be fairly short. But maybe I've got that all wrong. Do you work on the NR roll out of Oyster? I believe Mr Heenan does not! |
Oyster revenue allocation question
"Mizter T" wrote ...
Do you work on the NR roll out of Oyster? I believe Mr Heenan does not! Correct! (stop being right already!) Andrew |
Oyster revenue allocation question
"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 |
Oyster revenue allocation question
On 31 May, 09:03, "Richardr" wrote:
"D DB 90001" wrote However, I still think that local suburban services that *do* terminate inside of Z1-6 or at stations such as Sevenoaks or Dartford just outside Z6 should be managed by TfL, just like all bus routes, even those which run outside of London but are mainly inside Z1-6, are managed and run by TfL. Frankly because TfL are more likely to get better results than other local authorities or DfT. But the capacity on the roads isn't constrained in the same way as that on the railways. I believe that a lot of London commuter routes run at pretty much capacity at peak times. Allowing one part of the route to determine what happens there fixes what happens elsewhere. Take Thameslink, for example, which stops and potentially stops at a lot of London stations. If the Mayor of London had sole rights to determine stopping patterns in London, then he would, quite rightly for him and his electors, choose patterns wanted by his constituents, which I would imagine would mean stopping all trains at all stops in Greater London. Thus those passengers from outside London, e.g. Brighton and Bedford, would get a massive deterioration in service. I can't see why letting London alone decide the Thameslink timetable in its own interests is such the bonus you think to Brighton or Bedford people? Isn't it the same for most south-east routes - nearly all of which are designed mainly for non-Londoners to get to and from London, or share tracks with such a route? OK, yes, TfL controlling Thameslink probably wouldn't be a good idea, but then I was suggesting that Thameslink would be included because I would have classified thameslink as an outer London service, because the main core services on thameslink only call at the major London termini at STP, Farringdon, Blackfriars and London Bridge, and then East Croydon only, not calling at the intermediate stations, and a fair proportion of the route is outside Z1-6, so it would be classified as a local London suburban service. The problem is that this problem in differentiating the services between London Suburban and outer-London services that happen to call at some, but not a lot of London stations is not always obvious. |
Oyster revenue allocation question
On 31 May, 10:33, Graham Murray wrote:
D DB 90001 writes: Oyster capping however would add another complication to the mix because the single fare which previously would have been wholly allocated to a particular TOC would now be reduced since the oyster reductions for further journeys are 0. To be honest it would be easier at this stage to *give up* as it were, and simply adopt a travelcard revenue allocation method. But maybe it could be possible to only divide up the total revenue between the operators used and the operators not used on this occasion get nothing? Not sure if this would make the revenue allocation skewed on Oyster/non-Oyster routes though. Would it not be possible to adopt a system whereby once the cap is reached, each operator gets the proportion of the capped fair according to usage. So if (for simplicity of illustration) all single fares were £1 and the cap £5 and someone makes 2 journeys on operator A and 1 on operator B, operator A would get £2 and operator B £1. If the cap is reached and the person makes 4 journey on operator A and 2 on operator B, then operator A would get £5 x 4/6 = £3.33 and operator B £5 x 2/6 = £1.67. Potentially that could work, but would operator A get more than operator B if the journey was twice as long (and would it be in terms of distance or time?). |
Oyster revenue allocation question
On 31 May, 10:39, Jamie Thompson wrote:
On 31 May, 09:03, "Richardr" wrote: "D DB 90001" wrote However, I still think that local suburban services that *do* terminate inside of Z1-6 or at stations such as Sevenoaks or Dartford just outside Z6 should be managed by TfL, just like all bus routes, even those which run outside of London but are mainly inside Z1-6, are managed and run by TfL. Frankly because TfL are more likely to get better results than other local authorities or DfT. But the capacity on the roads isn't constrained in the same way as that on the railways. I believe that a lot of London commuter routes run at pretty much capacity at peak times. Allowing one part of the route to determine what happens there fixes what happens elsewhere. Take Thameslink, for example, which stops and potentially stops at a lot of London stations. If the Mayor of London had sole rights to determine stopping patterns in London, then he would, quite rightly for him and his electors, choose patterns wanted by his constituents, which I would imagine would mean stopping all trains at all stops in Greater London. Thus those passengers from outside London, e.g. Brighton and Bedford, would get a massive deterioration in service. I can't see why letting London alone decide the Thameslink timetable in its own interests is such the bonus you think to Brighton or Bedford people? Isn't it the same for most south-east routes - nearly all of which are designed mainly for non-Londoners to get to and from London, or share tracks with such a route? ...which is why all the different service patterns should probably largely have their own tracks. Strange as it is to hold the WCML up as a paragon of "doing it right", but aside from the missing stop at Willesden Junction and having the lines grouped by use not direction, it works so extremely well that all you could do to improve it, probably, is to add the aforementioned two things above. Perhaps reduce headways to squeeze in a few more peak trains...but that's about it. All because the London stopping pattern in the Urban / Inner Suburban "New" lines doesn't affect the Inner / Outer Suburban "Slow" lines, which in turn doesn't affect the Intercity "Fast" lines. Pairing by direction would let you potentially run a service that dealt with the inner suburbans properly. Currently the New lines are too long, forcing you to change to the Slow line services at Harrow for a reasonable journey time, which being on opposite sides of the footbridge and with a poor service frequency, means dangerous crowds scrambling across it to get between them. Ideally, the trains would be the things doing the moves between lines, not the passengers, or at the very least, it would offer a cross-platform interchange. Put in a shared platform loop between the New and Slow lines where possible and the New lines' services could then be multiplied and sped up with non- stopping services (or more WJ-EUS shuttles), making stops at Harrow for outer surburbans less important. That would give a better service for Londoners without impacting on those living beyond Watford. The new shuttle services being run between Watford Junction and Euston in the peaks show this sort of solution can work, but they will forever be constrained by the fact that the slow lines are primarily outer suburban services who want to run fast between Watford and Euston. The WCML differentiates relatively well between the fasts and the slows, because Virgin trains do not run any services which call at any other station inside Z1-6 apart from London Euston, so they would be exempt from all of the Oyster PAYG issues. There is the minor issue of journeys from Harrow-on-the-Hill, which raises more complications because if you touch in there and out at London Euston the journey could potentially be done on London Overground too, so the revenue has to be divided between the 2 TOCs. |
Oyster revenue allocation question
On 31 May, 11:58, D DB 90001 wrote:
On 31 May, 09:03, "Richardr" wrote: "D DB 90001" wrote However, I still think that local suburban services that *do* terminate inside of Z1-6 or at stations such as Sevenoaks or Dartford just outside Z6 should be managed by TfL, just like all bus routes, even those which run outside of London but are mainly inside Z1-6, are managed and run by TfL. Frankly because TfL are more likely to get better results than other local authorities or DfT. But the capacity on the roads isn't constrained in the same way as that on the railways. I believe that a lot of London commuter routes run at pretty much capacity at peak times. Allowing one part of the route to determine what happens there fixes what happens elsewhere. Take Thameslink, for example, which stops and potentially stops at a lot of London stations. If the Mayor of London had sole rights to determine stopping patterns in London, then he would, quite rightly for him and his electors, choose patterns wanted by his constituents, which I would imagine would mean stopping all trains at all stops in Greater London. Thus those passengers from outside London, e.g. Brighton and Bedford, would get a massive deterioration in service. I can't see why letting London alone decide the Thameslink timetable in its own interests is such the bonus you think to Brighton or Bedford people? Isn't it the same for most south-east routes - nearly all of which are designed mainly for non-Londoners to get to and from London, or share tracks with such a route? OK, yes, TfL controlling Thameslink probably wouldn't be a good idea, but then I was suggesting that Thameslink would be included because I would have classified thameslink as an outer London service, because the main core services on thameslink only call at the major London termini at STP, Farringdon, Blackfriars and London Bridge, and then East Croydon only, not calling at the intermediate stations, and a fair proportion of the route is outside Z1-6, so it would be classified as a local London suburban service. The problem is that this problem in differentiating the services between London Suburban and outer-London services that happen to call at some, but not a lot of London stations is not always obvious. Oops, terrible typo there, I meant to say: OK, yes, TfL controlling Thameslink probably wouldn't be a good idea, but then I **wasn't** suggesting that Thameslink would be included because I would have classified thameslink as an outer London service, because the main core services on thameslink only call at the major London termini at STP, Farringdon, Blackfriars and London Bridge, and then East Croydon only, not calling at the intermediate stations, and a fair proportion of the route is outside Z1-6, so it would be classified as a local London suburban service. |
Oyster revenue allocation question
Take Thameslink, for example, which stops and potentially stops at a lot
of London stations. If the Mayor of London had sole rights to determine stopping patterns in London, then he would, quite rightly for him and his electors, choose patterns wanted by his constituents, which I would imagine would mean stopping all trains at all stops in Greater London. Thus those passengers from outside London, e.g. Brighton and Bedford, would get a massive deterioration in service. Thameslink already has two quite separate services, the metro (via the Sutton Loop), and the Bedford to Brighton. It would make perfect sense for LOROL to control the metro service, but not the long distance. LOROL would then take a chair at the timetabling meetings and negotiate paths liek everyone else. LOROL can share lines with other services just like the other TOCs do. -- Andrew http://www.kwoted.com/ "If A is success in life, then A = x + y + z. Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut." ~ Albert Einstein |
Oyster revenue allocation question
On 31 May, 13:02, "Andrew Heenan" wrote:
Thameslink already has two quite separate services, the metro (via the Sutton Loop), and the Bedford to Brighton. It would make perfect sense for LOROL to control the metro service, but not the long distance. Except late at night when the trains run all stops Bedford - St P, and during the peaks when the service patterns get complicated. They also share stock and depots and drivers. It would take a major reorganisation to try to run the metro service as a separate operation. The FCC GN side has a much clearer separation between inner and outer services, with separate stock and termini, and to a large extent, separate tracks. Few if any inner trains run north of Welwyn/Stevenage (via Hertford), for example. U |
Oyster revenue allocation question
D DB 90001 writes:
On 31 May, 10:33, Graham Murray wrote: D DB 90001 writes: Would it not be possible to adopt a system whereby once the cap is reached, each operator gets the proportion of the capped fair according to usage. So if (for simplicity of illustration) all single fares were £1 and the cap £5 and someone makes 2 journeys on operator A and 1 on operator B, operator A would get £2 and operator B £1. If the cap is reached and the person makes 4 journey on operator A and 2 on operator B, then operator A would get £5 x 4/6 = £3.33 and operator B £5 x 2/6 = £1.67. Potentially that could work, but would operator A get more than operator B if the journey was twice as long (and would it be in terms of distance or time?). That is a result of the simplification. In practice I would expect the sharing to done on ratio of the cost of uncapped fares for journeys made on each operator. So, in my examples, if each journey on operator A still cost £1 but those on operator B cost £2, then in the capped case each operator would have received £2.50 as the total 'uncapped' fare would have been £4 for each operator. |
Oyster revenue allocation question
"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. |
Oyster revenue allocation question
"Andrew Heenan" wrote Thameslink already has two quite separate services, the metro (via the Sutton Loop), and the Bedford to Brighton. It would make perfect sense for LOROL to control the metro service, but not the long distance. LOROL would then take a chair at the timetabling meetings and negotiate paths liek everyone else. LOROL can share lines with other services just like the other TOCs do. But then that doesn't solve the revenue allocation question, which is what this discussion is about, it just moves it. You have even more shared journeys between the privately owned and run Bedford to Brighton service and the TfL service. What's more, it is then in the interests of the privately run Bedford trains to stop at, say, Mill Hill, Hendon, West Hampstead, and Kentish Town, for example, purely to share in the revenue from those stations, even though that pattern isn't optimal for anyone outside of Greater London. |
Oyster revenue allocation question
"Richardr" wrote ...
"Andrew Heenan" wrote Thameslink already has two quite separate services, the metro (via the Sutton Loop), and the Bedford to Brighton. It would make perfect sense for LOROL to control the metro service, but not the long distance. LOROL would then take a chair at the timetabling meetings and negotiate paths liek everyone else. LOROL can share lines with other services just like the other TOCs do. But then that doesn't solve the revenue allocation question, which is what this discussion is about, it just moves it. You have even more shared journeys between the privately owned and run Bedford to Brighton service and the TfL service. What's more, it is then in the interests of the privately run Bedford trains to stop at, say, Mill Hill, Hendon, West Hampstead, and Kentish Town, for example, purely to share in the revenue from those stations, even though that pattern isn't optimal for anyone outside of Greater London. The post I responded to widened the discussion (as have others and your post), to cover the effects on service. The divvying of fares is currently an issue because TfL and NR have historically assesed fares in very different ways; Oyster with zones, NR with cheap day returns, etc., etc., It's an issue because the different stakeholders unsurprisingly want the best outcome. But it really isn't a make or break for London's railways; eventually they'll come up with a formula (sadly much more complex than those proposed in this thread), and life will go on, with Oysters for all. 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; journeys reaching outside the zones will continue as now - and, either way, the Railway_Clearing_House's successors will continue to divide the spondulux successfully they have continuously since 1842 on the national network. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_Clearing_House Whether TfL takes on more metro services is quite separate, and will (almost inevitably) happen at some point. The only really interesting thing about the squabble is that it has highlighted the variation in NR fares around London, and this has been used as an excuse (for example) to further raise Southeastern's fares, conveniently forgetting that the main reason that they're historically low, is that they've generally provided a relatively poor, very slow service. What's more, it is then in the interests of the privately run Bedford trains to stop at, say, Mill Hill, Hendon, West Hampstead, and Kentish Town, for example, purely to share in the revenue from those stations, even though that pattern isn't optimal for anyone outside of Greater London. Not so; filling their trains with local passengers for a few bob will deny the space to long distance travellers, and lose them pounds. Longer distance operators generally hate short distance passengers, and it's only anomolies in the system (eg Virgins protection against competition on the WCML) that leads to stupid stopping patterns. -- Andrew |
Oyster revenue allocation question
On May 31, 2:54*pm, "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; journeys reaching outside the zones will continue as now - and, either way, the Railway_Clearing_House's successors *will continue to divide the spondulux successfully they have continuously since 1842 on the national network. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_Clearing_House Wow, Andrew - you do so love bringing a confident sense of certainty when there's no real justification for it, and hence you end up making wrongheaded assumptions or jumping to simplistic conclusions. Re the idea that "all fares within the zones will be based on the TfL system" - in actual fact there's been some evidence to suggest that when Oyster PAYG is accepted across NR in London, the farescale adopted for single fares will be exactly the same as that which currently applies to NR in London (which is now uniform across all TOCs for journeys within the zones) - in other words Oyster PAYG won't offer a straightforward price advantage over buying paper tickets, and it will be more expensive than Tube PAYG fares. In particular this appeared on the Southeastern TOC's website until very recently - it ain't there any more as the website has been redesigned, but that doesn't mean it no longer applies: ---quote--- 27. Do you accept Oyster cards on your network? We do already accept season tickets on Oyster on our network (within the valid zones) but we do not currently accept Oyster pay as you go (PAYG). We are working with Transport for London (TfL) to introduce PAYG which requires significant investment with additional validators needed, automatic ticket gates at some stations, etc. It's envisaged we'll be able to introduce Oyster PAYG sometime in 2010. But it's important to say that Oyster PAYG will not be cheaper than our usual rail fares. ---/quote--- You can still see this via Google's cache of the page (accurate as of 16 May '09): http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache....co.uk/faq.php We shall see what happens in the end, but I'd be *very* surprised to see the PAYG farescale for LU and NR being the same - it's not really in the interests of the TOCs who would be subject to pressure from the Mayor over fares changes (and the Mayor might well be looking more at the LU situation with regards to fares, given the Mayor's direct control of LU), and also the Mayor wouldn't like it as (s)he'd have less freedom of manoeuvre with regards to LU fares if they also applied to NR as well as the TOCs and DfT would want a say. (Sure, NR fares in London are already set centrally - but by DfT Rail, not TfL - it is done in consultation with TfL, but the TOCs also have an input, and this arrangement is less subject to fares becoming a bit of a political football as they could be under the Mayor.) Re the Railway Clearing House reference - the Rail Settlement Plan (RSP), part of ATOC, currently divides up the money from rail tickets. The division of Travelcard monies is more complicated, involving both RSP and TfL. However the notion that RSP itself will divide up monies from Oyster PAYG use in London doesn't appear to be backed up by anything - sure, perhaps some of the formulas used by RSP will also be used as a basis for divvying up money from the Oyster PAYG pot when it comes to National Rail services, but TfL itself will be (as it already is) the 'clearing house' when it comes to Oyster PAYG. Whether TfL takes on more metro services is quite separate, and will (almost inevitably) happen at some point. Only if London, in the form of the Mayor, pushes for it. Ken was very keen, Boris seems disinterested. The only really interesting thing about the squabble is that it has highlighted the variation in NR fares around London, and this has been used as an excuse (for example) to further raise Southeastern's fares, conveniently forgetting that the main reason that they're historically low, is that they've generally provided a relatively poor, very slow service. There are no variations now - all single and return rail-only fares within London are priced on a zonal basis (though still issued on a point-to-point basis) and have been since January 2007 - meanwhile season ticket rail-only fares have been subject to a more gradual process of alignment that started in January '07 and will be complete at the January 2010 fares change. |
Oyster revenue allocation question
|
Oyster revenue allocation question
On May 31, 1:33*pm, Mr Thant
wrote: On 31 May, 13:02, "Andrew Heenan" wrote: Thameslink already has two quite separate services, the metro (via the Sutton Loop), and the Bedford to Brighton. It would make perfect sense for LOROL to control the metro service, but not the long distance. Except late at night when the trains run all stops Bedford - St P, and during the peaks when the service patterns get complicated. They also share stock and depots and drivers. It would take a major reorganisation to try to run the metro service as a separate operation. But isn't the eventual plan that the suburban services will gain new 8 car trains, whilst the longer distance services will gain 12 car trains. This will lead to a separation in the rolling stock at least. The question is surely whether the service has to be completely separate or whether the suburban section can be specified by TfL as a signatory to the franchise, with a suitable arrangement of fare allocations. The FCC GN side has a much clearer separation between inner and outer services, with separate stock and termini, and to a large extent, separate tracks. Few if any inner trains run north of Welwyn/Stevenage (via Hertford), for example. There are a few inner suburban trains that run to / from Letchworth during the peaks. The situation will be more complex when 'Thameslink' services are expanded onto the ECML at the end of the rebuild schemes. |
Oyster revenue allocation question
On 31 May, 13:02, "Andrew Heenan" wrote:
Take Thameslink, for example, which stops and potentially stops at a lot of London stations. If the Mayor of London had sole rights to determine stopping patterns in London, then he would, quite rightly for him and his electors, choose patterns wanted by his constituents, which I would imagine would mean stopping all trains at all stops in Greater London. Thus those passengers from outside London, e.g. Brighton and Bedford, would get a massive deterioration in service. Thameslink already has two quite separate services, the metro (via the Sutton Loop), and the Bedford to Brighton. It would make perfect sense for LOROL to control the metro service, but not the long distance. LOROL would then take a chair at the timetabling meetings and negotiate paths liek everyone else. *LOROL can share lines with other services just like the other TOCs do. -- Andrewhttp://www.kwoted.com/ "If A is success in life, then A = x + y + z. Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut." ~ Albert Einstein Yes, that's what I meant. Thank you for that clarification! |
Oyster revenue allocation question
On 31 May, 14:54, "Andrew Heenan" wrote:
"Richardr" wrote ... "Andrew Heenan" wrote Thameslink already has two quite separate services, the metro (via the Sutton Loop), and the Bedford to Brighton. It would make perfect sense for LOROL to control the metro service, but not the long distance. LOROL would then take a chair at the timetabling meetings and negotiate paths liek everyone else. *LOROL can share lines with other services just like the other TOCs do. But then that doesn't solve the revenue allocation question, which is what this discussion is about, it just moves it. You have even more shared journeys between the privately owned and run Bedford to Brighton service and the TfL service. What's more, it is then in the interests of the privately run Bedford trains to stop at, say, Mill Hill, Hendon, West Hampstead, and Kentish Town, for example, purely to share in the revenue from those stations, even though that pattern isn't optimal for anyone outside of Greater London. The post I responded to widened the discussion (as have others and your post), to cover the effects on service. The divvying of fares is currently an issue because TfL and NR have historically assesed fares in very different ways; Oyster with zones, NR with cheap day returns, etc., etc., It's an issue because the different stakeholders unsurprisingly want the best outcome. But it really isn't a make or break for London's railways; eventually they'll come up with a formula (sadly much more complex than those proposed in this thread), and life will go on, with Oysters for all. 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. journeys reaching outside the zones will continue as now - and, either way, the Railway_Clearing_House's successors *will continue to divide the spondulux successfully they have continuously since 1842 on the national network. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_Clearing_House Whether TfL takes on more metro services is quite separate, and will (almost inevitably) happen at some point. Yes, I agree |
Oyster revenue allocation question
"Mizter T" wrote ...
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; journeys reaching outside the zones will continue as now - and, either way, the Railway_Clearing_House's successors will continue to divide the spondulux successfully they have continuously since 1842 on the national network. Wow, Andrew - you do so love bringing a confident sense of certainty when there's no real justification for it, and hence you end up making wrongheaded assumptions or jumping to simplistic conclusions. Re the idea that "all fares within the zones will be based on the TfL system" - in actual fact there's been some evidence to suggest that when Oyster PAYG is accepted across NR in London, the farescale adopted for single fares will be exactly the same as that which currently applies to NR in London (which is now uniform across all TOCs for journeys within the zones) - in other words Oyster PAYG won't offer a straightforward price advantage over buying paper tickets, and it will be more expensive than Tube PAYG fares. Snippy! I've as much right to speculate as you, and have no less evidence to back it up (ie none). The key words are "eventual outcome" - not what is now, and not what temporary compromises may be reached shortly; ultimately, the re-issuing of franchises will allow for a long term solution, and in Southern's case, probably the one after next. I'll take a bet with you that once the dust settles, fares *entirely within London's zonal area* become flat rate, zone-based fares, and the same on train / LOROL / Tube. Because it's clearly the most sensible, least confusing, and, if Oyster is to work (2012 etc), the only way to avoid never ending complaints of being overcharged. The one exception to the above that is conceivable (long term, still), is overground fares being higher than tube; it would be stupid, and unfair of those south of the river, but if they need a stupid compromise to silence ATOC (often the way, sadly), that could be it. But still uniform, zone based - because it makes sense. ATOC doesn't want it, the TOCs won't care (it'll be costed into franchise), but passengers will gain; it will be transparent. I envisage no advantage to PAYG, paper tickets or anything else; just one system for Londoners on London's trains. And it has to happen sooner or later for LOROL to function properly. £1.00 ? -- Andrew "She plays the tuba. It is the only instrument capable of imitating a distress call." |
Oyster revenue allocation question
On 31 May, 17:50, wrote:
On May 31, 1:33*pm, Mr Thant wrote: On 31 May, 13:02, "Andrew Heenan" wrote: Thameslink already has two quite separate services, the metro (via the Sutton Loop), and the Bedford to Brighton. It would make perfect sense for LOROL to control the metro service, but not the long distance. Except late at night when the trains run all stops Bedford - St P, and during the peaks when the service patterns get complicated. They also share stock and depots and drivers. It would take a major reorganisation to try to run the metro service as a separate operation. But isn't the eventual plan that the suburban services will gain new 8 car trains, whilst the longer distance services will gain 12 car trains. This will lead to a separation in the rolling stock at least. The question is surely whether the service has to be completely separate or whether the suburban section can be specified by TfL as a signatory to the franchise, with a suitable arrangement of fare allocations. I would imagine that it might be better to create a new LOROL operator for South London similar to LOROL in the North, maybe renamed to LOROL 2 with the services operated under contract to TfL on a strictly no revenue-risk basis. These could be branded Overground similarly to the North London services. Then these could be differentiated from the Southern, SWT and Southeastern services and meet the minimum requirement for metro-frequency in the suburbs which Overground will eventually meet on all routes. However, unfortunately there would still be the problem of other Southern, Southeastern and Thameslink services which would call at very few London Stations, but would still have to accept oyster. Thus rebranding and restructuring Suburban services in South London in a similar manor to Overground in the North while being beneficial in other aspects, would not solve the problem of revenue allocation because there would still be other operators not directly controlled under TfL. So they are going to have to come to an agreement with the 4 south London TOCs which do not currently accept Oyster yet. |
Oyster revenue allocation question
Thameslink already has two quite separate services, the metro (via the
Sutton Loop), and the Bedford to Brighton. It would make perfect sense for LOROL to control the metro service, but not the long distance. Except late at night when the trains run all stops Bedford - St P, and during the peaks when the service patterns get complicated. They also share stock and depots and drivers. It would take a major reorganisation to try to run the metro service as a separate operation. Not so. Since Govia days, their has been designated stock, and while there are exceptions, diagrams, trains and drivers could very easily be separated. By the time TL2000 is complete, there will be three, maybe four depots involved, so if sharing was too painful, one could be separated out. It really wouldn't be difficult, and would allow Boris' Lorol Map to look much better, while service levels (and possibly times) needn't change immediately at all; next would be the South London, followed by the Moorgate services, that neither WAGN nor CursedGroup have ever cared about. In fact there's really no reason why London shouldn't have its own network of all-stations-metro trains. Is there? And I'm sure the TOCS would be happy not be pressured to match LOROL's standards of station staffing ... Yes, it'll take years; it may even take a non-tory mayor or two. |
Oyster revenue allocation question
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. |
Oyster revenue allocation question
On 31 May, 17:50, wrote:
But isn't the eventual plan that the suburban services will gain new 8 car trains, whilst the longer distance services will gain 12 car trains. This will lead to a separation in the rolling stock at least. Things we know: - All trains via London Bridge will be 12 car, to maximize capacity - All (or most) trains via Elephant will be 8 car, due to platform lengths at the inner south London stations - All trains stopping at Kentish Town or Cricklewood will need to be 8 car, due to platform lengths. - All other inner (and outer) stations are being lengthened to 12 cars I think the likely outcome is off-peak, the "metro" services are 8 cars and call all stops, but during the peaks many of the 12 car trains make various calls at the inner MML stations (except KT and CW). The question is surely whether the service has to be completely separate or whether the suburban section can be specified by TfL as a signatory to the franchise, with a suitable arrangement of fare allocations. Exactly. Splitting the operations between separate companies doesn't necessarily make much sense. There are a few inner suburban trains that run to / from Letchworth during the peaks. Checking the new timetable, they now only do this during the off- peaks. I thought they'd stopped doing ti completely. U |
Oyster revenue allocation question
"D DB 90001" wrote ...
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. Don't worry about Southern; fine company though they are, they are in the tail end of a franchise, and won't do anything to take financial risks at this stage. Things will change with the new owner (hopefully Southern!), because it'll be written in.... .... hopefully better than SWT, who had a franchise commitment to be ITSO compliant, AND accept Oyster. While ITSO and Oyster remain incompatible (though I hear rumours that progress is being made). SWT's predicament is one reason I'm confident of a sensible solution (eventually). Although they cocked it up, there was a serious attempt to write it into contract that the TOC would be sensible. Shame about the loopholes, as Mr Souter loves 'em! -- Andrew http://twitter.com/Quadrille |
Oyster revenue allocation question
On May 31, 6:21*pm, D DB 90001
wrote: On 31 May, 17:50, wrote: On May 31, 1:33*pm, Mr Thant wrote: On 31 May, 13:02, "Andrew Heenan" wrote: Thameslink already has two quite separate services, the metro (via the Sutton Loop), and the Bedford to Brighton. It would make perfect sense for LOROL to control the metro service, but not the long distance. Except late at night when the trains run all stops Bedford - St P, and during the peaks when the service patterns get complicated. They also share stock and depots and drivers. It would take a major reorganisation to try to run the metro service as a separate operation. But isn't the eventual plan that the suburban services will gain new 8 car trains, whilst the longer distance services will gain 12 car trains. This will lead to a separation in the rolling stock at least. The question is surely whether the service has to be completely separate or whether the suburban section can be specified by TfL as a signatory to the franchise, with a suitable arrangement of fare allocations. I would imagine that it might be better to create a new LOROL operator for South London similar to LOROL in the North, maybe renamed to LOROL 2 with the services operated under contract to TfL on a strictly no revenue-risk basis. These could be branded Overground similarly to the North London services. Then these could be differentiated from the Southern, SWT and Southeastern services and meet the minimum requirement for metro-frequency in the suburbs which Overground will eventually meet on all routes. However, unfortunately there would still be the problem of other Southern, Southeastern and Thameslink services which would call at very few London Stations, but would still have to accept oyster. Thus rebranding and restructuring Suburban services in South London in a similar manor to Overground in the North while being beneficial in other aspects, would not solve the problem of revenue allocation because there would still be other operators not directly controlled under TfL. So they are going to have to come to an agreement with the 4 south London TOCs which do not currently accept Oyster yet. This is not such a big problem, as London Midland already do this, PAYG being valid from Watford Junction, Bushey and Harrow & Wealdstone on long distance services. I think it was basically the pressure of being the only TOC not accepting PAYG that forced their hand, with Southern having accepted PAYG from the start of London Overground operations. |
Oyster revenue allocation question
On May 31, 6:32*pm, Mr Thant
wrote: On 31 May, 17:50, wrote: But isn't the eventual plan that the suburban services will gain new 8 car trains, whilst the longer distance services will gain 12 car trains. This will lead to a separation in the rolling stock at least. Things we know: - All trains via London Bridge will be 12 car, to maximize capacity - All (or most) trains via Elephant will be 8 car, due to platform lengths at the inner south London stations - All trains stopping at Kentish Town or Cricklewood will need to be 8 car, due to platform lengths. - All other inner (and outer) stations are being lengthened to 12 cars I think the likely outcome is off-peak, the "metro" services are 8 cars and call all stops, but during the peaks many of the 12 car trains make various calls at the inner MML stations (except KT and CW). 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'd think that the split between outer and inner suburban services will be similar to now, but with extra 12 car trains running on the outer suburban ECML services, where platforms are to be lengthened to 12 car. Of course, there may be more stops in these services just before and after the core peak periods and there might be some inner suburban 12 car trains running on routes which can take them south of the river. The question is surely whether the service has to be completely separate or whether the suburban section can be specified by TfL as a signatory to the franchise, with a suitable arrangement of fare allocations. Exactly. Splitting the operations between separate companies doesn't necessarily make much sense. There are a few inner suburban trains that run to / from Letchworth during the peaks. Checking the new timetable, they now only do this during the off- peaks. I thought they'd stopped doing ti completely. 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 |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:26 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk