Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
As any fule kno, the southern TOCs are insisting on PAYG fares being
higher than Tube fares: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8107537.stm But the BBC has managed to pick the most radically stupid example it could possibly have chosen: [begin quote] For example, between Finsbury Park and King's Cross it costs £2.20 on the Tube whereas it costs £4.00 on rail. [end quote] 1) rail and tube tickets are interavailable between FPK and KGX 2) hence the fare is gbp4 because that's the Tube paper ticket fare for a Z12 single journey 3) ...and Oyster PAYG is ALREADY VALID between FPK and KGX at the gbp2.20 fare! I despair... -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() On Jun 18, 4:00*pm, John B wrote: As any fule kno, the southern TOCs are insisting on PAYG fares being higher than Tube fares: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8107537.stm But the BBC has managed to pick the most radically stupid example it could possibly have chosen: [begin quote] For example, between Finsbury Park and King's Cross it costs £2.20 on the Tube whereas it costs £4.00 on rail. [end quote] 1) rail and tube tickets are interavailable between FPK and KGX 2) hence the fare is gbp4 because that's the Tube paper ticket fare for a Z12 single journey 3) ...and Oyster PAYG is ALREADY VALID between FPK and KGX at the gbp2.20 fare! I despair... Agreed - that is a *monumentally stupid* example. A far better example would have been Balham (zone 3) to Victoria (zone 1). The Tube PAYG fare is £2.70/peak, £2.20/off-peak. A single rail fare is £3.10 (within the London zones, all rail fares are conform to the same fare scale and are all priced zonally, albeit issued on a point-to-point basis). This comment is interesting: ---quote--- The mayor said that although he "shared the aspiration" for a single unified pay-as-you-go scale across London, fares on national rail services in London are set by the train operators. ---/quote--- Well, not quite - as I've said, rail fares across London all now conform to the same zonal fare scale as decreed by DfT Rail - this change was implemented in January '07 as a precursor to the (eventual) acceptance of Oyster PAYG on NR in London. TfL got DfT to make that change - presumably however the TOCs got some input into setting these base fares in 2007, and since then these fares have risen with inflation (though I suppose the TOCs could lobby an acquiescent government to raise them above a mere keeping-pace-with-inflation increase). Anyway one can only assume it is this fare scale that the TOCs want to use for their Oyster PAYG on NR fares - which hardly comes as any big surprise to be honest. Presumably there's no mechanism for the DfT insisting upon the TOCs offering lower fares for Oyster PAYG journeys (even if the DfT were so minded to do, which they wouldn't be)... unless the DfT unilaterally changed the underlying zonal fare scale for rail fares in London (i.e. to match the Tube PAYG fare scale), but I'd assume that when these were introduced, the deal agreed between the DfT and the TOCs was that (excluding inflation tracking changes) this fare scale could only change by mutual agreement - and the TOCs are hardly going to agree to lower fares. Plus the TOCs were never going to be happy about effectively handing over control of their fares to the Mayor, which is what a universal fare scale for London could ensue - unless there was a mechanism devised whereby both TfL and NR had an input into deciding the universal fare scale. But one can imagine them pulling in opposite directions - the TOCs wanting to raise fares, the Mayor wanting to hold them steady or lower them (see Ken holding Tube fares at the same level from one year to the next). Even if the Mayor was open to putting up fares, I can see a distinct unwillingness to surrender the ability to directly set fares to a new mechanism whereby said fares were negotiated by TfL and the TOCs together - setting fares is one of the direct levers the Mayor has, and it's something that has a direct effect on Londonders who use TfL services (i.e. a good proportion of one's electorate). |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mizter T wrote:
Agreed - that is a *monumentally stupid* example. A far better example would have been Balham (zone 3) to Victoria (zone 1). The Tube PAYG fare is £2.70/peak, £2.20/off-peak. A single rail fare is £3.10 (within the London zones, all rail fares are conform to the same fare scale and are all priced zonally, albeit issued on a point-to-point basis). But that isn't the full story, as it is only true when comparing single fares. If (like most pax I imagine) you are clever enough to buy a 'rail' standard return at £5.30 or off peak return at £4.10 it is less than the equivalent two PAYG singles. I don't recall anything in the media that has looked at that level of detail, it's more normal for them to go off on one about the £4.00 cash fare (as in the BBC article above)... So there is possibly an opportunity for the TOCs to move to LU like fare scales within the zones on a cost neutral basis by switching to a singles only system? Swings and roundabouts, slightly cheaper singles but no returns... Paul S |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() On Jun 18, 5:00*pm, "Paul Scott" wrote: Mizter T wrote: Agreed - that is a *monumentally stupid* example. A far better example would have been Balham (zone 3) to Victoria (zone 1). The Tube PAYG fare is £2.70/peak, £2.20/off-peak. A single rail fare is £3.10 (within the London zones, all rail fares are conform to the same fare scale and are all priced zonally, albeit issued on a point-to-point basis). But that isn't the full story, as it is only true when comparing single fares. If (like most pax I imagine) you are clever enough to buy a 'rail' standard return at £5.30 or off peak return at £4.10 it is less than the equivalent two PAYG singles. *I don't recall anything in the media that has looked at that level of detail, it's more normal for them to go off on one about the £4.00 cash fare (as in the BBC article above)... Agreed - I kept the example simple and so didn't mention return fares (I recall posters on 'one'/NXEA advertising their 'increased acceptance' of Oyster PAYG specifically pointing out that a CDR could nonetheless be cheaper). The return fare situation can be complicated further by the existence of capping too - and there remains the question of how combined LU+NR journeys would be priced. So there is possibly an opportunity for the TOCs to move to LU like fare scales within the zones on a cost neutral basis by switching to a singles only system? Swings and roundabouts, slightly cheaper singles but no returns... I have thought of this before - however they ditched return tickets, then that could perhaps have adverse knock-on effects - e.g. people arriving at the Surbiton ticket office and asking for a return from Esher, or going to Knockholt and asking for returns from Dunton Green or Sevenoaks. I didn't really follow the story at the time (though I've been intending to look into it ever since), but there was a bit of a controversy when London Overground took over from Silverlink Metro and initially ditched a number of CDR fares - only to have to reinstate at least some of them after complaints were made (presumably these were journeys for which 2x PAYG single fare was a significant increase over the CDR). Afraid I'm hazy on the details - but that's perhaps an example of how an LU-like single fares only policy didn't translate too well when they tried to apply it elsewhere. |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 18 June, 17:31, Mizter T wrote:
On Jun 18, 5:00*pm, "Paul Scott" wrote: Mizter T wrote: Agreed - that is a *monumentally stupid* example. A far better example would have been Balham (zone 3) to Victoria (zone 1). The Tube PAYG fare is £2.70/peak, £2.20/off-peak. A single rail fare is £3.10 (within the London zones, all rail fares are conform to the same fare scale and are all priced zonally, albeit issued on a point-to-point basis). But that isn't the full story, as it is only true when comparing single fares. If (like most pax I imagine) you are clever enough to buy a 'rail' standard return at £5.30 or off peak return at £4.10 it is less than the equivalent two PAYG singles. *I don't recall anything in the media that has looked at that level of detail, it's more normal for them to go off on one about the £4.00 cash fare (as in the BBC article above)... Agreed - I kept the example simple and so didn't mention return fares (I recall posters on 'one'/NXEA advertising their 'increased acceptance' of Oyster PAYG specifically pointing out that a CDR could nonetheless be cheaper). The return fare situation can be complicated further by the existence of capping too - and there remains the question of how combined LU+NR journeys would be priced. Given the relationship between the current caps and the equivalent travelcard, it's hard to see how there could be a higher cap that didn't take it over the price of the travelcard. Or maybe the cap could remain the same, even though singles cost more, to compensate for the loss of returns? Before Oyster came along, I always found it odd that an NR journey could cost so much more than an LU journey while a travelcard was valid on both. (I think I will stick to travelcards wherever possible.) |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() On Jun 18, 7:23*pm, MIG wrote: On 18 June, 17:31, Mizter T wrote: On Jun 18, 5:00*pm, "Paul Scott" wrote: Mizter T wrote: Agreed - that is a *monumentally stupid* example. A far better example would have been Balham (zone 3) to Victoria (zone 1). The Tube PAYG fare is £2.70/peak, £2.20/off-peak. A single rail fare is £3.10 (within the London zones, all rail fares are conform to the same fare scale and are all priced zonally, albeit issued on a point-to-point basis). But that isn't the full story, as it is only true when comparing single fares. If (like most pax I imagine) you are clever enough to buy a 'rail' standard return at £5.30 or off peak return at £4.10 it is less than the equivalent two PAYG singles. *I don't recall anything in the media that has looked at that level of detail, it's more normal for them to go off on one about the £4.00 cash fare (as in the BBC article above)... Agreed - I kept the example simple and so didn't mention return fares (I recall posters on 'one'/NXEA advertising their 'increased acceptance' of Oyster PAYG specifically pointing out that a CDR could nonetheless be cheaper). The return fare situation can be complicated further by the existence of capping too - and there remains the question of how combined LU+NR journeys would be priced. Given the relationship between the current caps and the equivalent travelcard, it's hard to see how there could be a higher cap that didn't take it over the price of the travelcard. Though I didn't suggest there would or could be a higher cap above the cost of a Travelcard - in fact I'm in agreement that there couldn't possibly be a higher cap that was more costly than the equivalent Day Travelcard, as any such thing would be completely nonsensical. In out recent discussion here I outlined a couple of possible scenarios - either... (a) that there are two capping levels - that is a TfL cap and then a more expensive TfL+NR cap which is the same price as the equivalent Day Travelcard, (b) or there is a single capping level, which is either marginally cheaper (i.e. 50p less) than the equivalent Day Travelcard, or is priced the same as the equivalent Day Travelcard. Paul C replied, the gist of his response was that option (b) was the only sensible choice as otherwise things would simply be too complicated for the punter. I absolutely agree with this analysis - the question is thus whether the capping level is a bit cheaper or the same price as the equivalent Day Travelcards. I think TfL would obviously like to keep that marginal price advantage as it's something of a a sales pitch for Oyster PAYG - but the flip-side is whether that would leave TfL out of pocket when it comes to the formula for settling payments with the TOCs, or whether the TOCs would be willing to go along with a marginally cheaper cap too (bearing in mind that Oyster isn't 'their baby', so they care less about its success). Or maybe the cap could remain the same, even though singles cost more, to compensate for the loss of returns? See above. I don't see any fundamental change in the capping levels - they've always been tied to the price of their quasi-equivalent Day Travelcards (initially the same price, but very soon after - the second year of PAYG perhaps - the 50p differential was introduced). Before Oyster came along, I always found it odd that an NR journey could cost so much more than an LU journey while a travelcard was valid on both. Just in general? (In which case, yes I agree that the Day Travelcard - the off-peak variety at least- has always offered fairly good value.) Of course pre-2007, there was no pan-London zonal fare structure for NR journeys - different TOCs priced journeys of similar distances quite differently. (I think I will stick to travelcards wherever possible.) If capping on Oyster PAYG means that you'll never pay more than the equivalent Day Travelcard (or possibly 50p less), could pay less if you don't reach the caps, and lets you do things like travel in the peak and add the peak fare on top of an off-peak cap, I can't see the downside. (OK, OK - there's the 'big brother' element that some people might get concerned about, and the potential for having ones journey time out if one is just interested in 'track bashing', photographing, trainspotting or whatever instead of making an A-to-B journey - but for the normal traveller these considerations aren't significant.) |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mizter T wrote:
On Jun 18, 4:00 pm, John B wrote: ... I despair... Agreed - that is a *monumentally stupid* example. A far better example would have been Balham (zone 3) to Victoria (zone 1). The Tube PAYG fare is £2.70/peak, £2.20/off-peak. A single rail fare is £3.10 (within the London zones, all rail fares are conform to the same fare scale and are all priced zonally, albeit issued on a point-to-point basis). The worst examples are likely to be in the suburbs, where comparing, say, a Z3 to Z4 tube, north-of-river-TOC PAYG and south-of-river-TOC PAYG is likely to provoke howls of outrage from the people who, let's face it, are waiting longest anyway. The example I'd toss out would be Chiswick-Brentford (SWT), Chiswick Park-Boston Manor (Tube) and Acton Main Line-Hanwell (FGW), all Z3-Z4 trips over broadly similar distances (2, 4 and 3 stops respectively). I know the first one is £2.10, the second is £1.10 and I'm pretty sure the third is £1.10 as well, although I'm open to correction. Can anyone confirm; are the existing National Rail PAYG schemes all on the Tube fare scale even when you aren't going between Tube stations? Tom |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Tom Barry wrote:
The example I'd toss out would be Chiswick-Brentford (SWT), Chiswick Park-Boston Manor (Tube) and Acton Main Line-Hanwell (FGW), all Z3-Z4 trips over broadly similar distances (2, 4 and 3 stops respectively). I know the first one is £2.10, the second is £1.10 and I'm pretty sure the third is £1.10 as well, although I'm open to correction. Can anyone confirm; are the existing National Rail PAYG schemes all on the Tube fare scale even when you aren't going between Tube stations? In fact NREs shows exactly the same fares for the SWT and FGW examples. Which is as you'd expect, as although the FGW journey has PAYG it is not a dual availability LU/NR route, ie the cash single isn't £4.00 like the Finsbury Park - Kings Cross BBC example... Paul S |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() I know the first one is £2.10, the second is £1.10 and I'm pretty sure the third is £1.10 as well, although I'm open to correction. Can anyone confirm; are the existing National Rail PAYG schemes all on the Tube fare scale even when you aren't going between Tube stations? In fact NREs shows exactly the same fares for the SWT and FGW examples. Which is as you'd expect, as although the FGW journey has PAYG it is not a dual availability LU/NR route, ie the cash single isn't *£4.00 like the Finsbury Park - Kings Cross BBC example... I have travelled Hayes & Harlinhgton - Hanwell (ZZ5-4) several times and been charged £1.10 PAYG. nationalrail.co.uk offers £2.10 Anytime Single and £3.10 (?!) Off-Peak Single for the same journey. |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
David wrote:
I have travelled Hayes & Harlinhgton - Hanwell (ZZ5-4) several times and been charged £1.10 PAYG. nationalrail.co.uk offers £2.10 Anytime Single and £3.10 (?!) Off-Peak Single for the same journey. £3.10 is the Offpeak return, the Anytime return is £3.70. You mustn't have read it correctly... Paul S |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
ELL Train Reporting Numbers | London Transport | |||
Has anyone had any luck reporting street faults on websites? | London Transport | |||
Reporting a dangerous bus driver? | London Transport | |||
'Dirtiest' tube line (air quality) | London Transport | |||
Quality Portuguese Translations | London Transport |