Single fare from 2nd Jan
 

Peter Smyth wrote:

Forest Gate (NR) - Wanstead Park (NR) (20)

Ah confirmation that this *is* a valid interchange on a through ticket. I'd
always wondered about that one (

However I don't see Manor Park - Woodgrange Park listed - is that because
the five minute walk is considered too long, the interchange in Forest Gate
or some other factor?

Single fare from 2nd Jan
 

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 18:51:31 -0000, "Peter Smyth"
wrote:

Here they are

[big huge OSI list]

Thanks for that - duly saved. There are some very interesting
combinations on that list. It also throws up some options I would not
have deduced such as interchange between halves of NR termini, Bromley
South - Bromley North plus allowing Waterloo East to Embankment as an
OSI via the Thames footbridge.


Looking at the 21 permutations at Waterloo and Waterloo East, I see there is
no OSI between Jubilee and LU (Bakerloo/Northern) - will this be because
there is full interchange behind the gateline? Or might it just be missing?

One that I think has been mentioned before but doesn't appear is the two
Edgware Rd LU stations - of course now they are not shown as an interchange
anymore this is less important?

I thought some of the longer 'NR - NR' OSIs are a little unexpected, such as
Paddington/Marylebone, and Euston/St Pancras/Kings Cross - but they're
logical if they've assumed that some pax will walk and bypass the
underground...

Paul S

Single fare from 2nd Jan
 

In article ,
(Peter Smyth) wrote:

"Chris" wrote in message
...
On 9 Dec, 02:04, Barry Salter wrote:
Paul Corfield wrote:
I haven't attempted to work out the numbers but there will be a
considerable increase in OSIs and their complexity come 2/1/10. As
an
example just think about Waterloo NR, Waterloo W&C, Waterloo LUL,
Waterloo East and Southwark. Potentially all one complex! - whether
it ends up as one I can't say.

Conveniently, a list of OSIs from 2nd January has now appeared on
"The Manual"[1] and there are just under 200 pairs given.

Well, don't keep us in suspense, Barry - you can answer Paul's
query....

Here they are
[list snipped]

Not between Putney and East Putney, I see.

Waterloo East (NR) - Embankment (LU) (30)
Waterloo (NR) - Embankment (LU) (25)

A reasonable OSI for NR to Embankment I suppose, but why is less time
allowed from the main station than the slightly closer Waterloo East?

King's Cross St. Pancras Met (LU) - King's Cross St. Pancras Tube
(LU) (15)
King's Cross St. Pancras Tube (LU) - King's Cross St. Pancras Met
(LU) (15)

These are OSIs not involving gatelines (see comment elsewhere in the
thread from Paul).

King's Cross (NR) - St Pancras International (NR) (20)

Chortle NR assume a _minimum_ connection time of 40 minutes for this!

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Single fare from 2nd Jan
 

On 9 Dec, 22:48, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 16:22:23 -0600,
wrote:

Not between Putney and East Putney, I see.

An interesting point - are any existing NR tickets routed via that
interchange? * Richmond to Wimbledon?

Waterloo East (NR) - Embankment (LU) (30)
Waterloo *(NR) - Embankment (LU) (25)

A reasonable OSI for NR to Embankment I suppose, but why is less time
allowed from the main station than the slightly closer Waterloo East?

I think I'd argue that Waterloo East is actually slightly further away.

More importantly, the main, and sometimes only, route to Waterloo East
is to go through Waterloo first. It's the walking route that matters;
not the crowfly distance.

Single fare from 2nd Jan
 

In article
,
(MIG) wrote:

On 9 Dec, 22:48, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 16:22:23 -0600,
wrote:

Not between Putney and East Putney, I see.

An interesting point - are any existing NR tickets routed via that
interchange? * Richmond to Wimbledon?

I only mentioned it because it's been raised here and Putney is my home
town. I think I said at the time I couldn't see what plausible routes
would use it.

Waterloo East (NR) - Embankment (LU) (30)
Waterloo *(NR) - Embankment (LU) (25)

A reasonable OSI for NR to Embankment I suppose, but why is less time
allowed from the main station than the slightly closer Waterloo East?

I think I'd argue that Waterloo East is actually slightly further
away.

More importantly, the main, and sometimes only, route to Waterloo East
is to go through Waterloo first. It's the walking route that matters;
not the crowfly distance.

I thought there was a route via Waterloo Road (past the Wellington)?
That's the on I thought might be shorter. There's not much in it either
way, hence my surprise at there being a difference.

King's Cross (NR) - St Pancras International (NR) (20)

Chortle NR assume a _minimum_ connection time of 40 minutes for
this!

To walk across a road or to go down some steps, along a corridor
and up
an escalator? I guess if you'd never done it before then maybe 20
mins
is a bit tight.
--
Paul C

I thought I'd mentioned running into the connection allowance nonsense
some time back. I was having trouble booking from Cambridge to Ashford via
the South Eastern preview service.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Single fare from 2nd Jan
 

On 10 Dec, 00:34, wrote:
In article
,

(MIG) wrote:
On 9 Dec, 22:48, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 16:22:23 -0600,
wrote:

Not between Putney and East Putney, I see.

An interesting point - are any existing NR tickets routed via that
interchange? * Richmond to Wimbledon?

I only mentioned it because it's been raised here and Putney is my home
town. I think I said at the time I couldn't see what plausible routes
would use it.

Waterloo East (NR) - Embankment (LU) (30)
Waterloo *(NR) - Embankment (LU) (25)

A reasonable OSI for NR to Embankment I suppose, but why is less time
allowed from the main station than the slightly closer Waterloo East?

I think I'd argue that Waterloo East is actually slightly further
away.

More importantly, the main, and sometimes only, route to Waterloo East
is to go through Waterloo first. *It's the walking route that matters;
not the crowfly distance.

I thought there was a route via Waterloo Road (past the Wellington)?
That's the on I thought might be shorter. There's not much in it either
way, hence my surprise at there being a difference.

That would involve more road crossing, and I'd agree with Paul that
it's still slightly further anyway.

I'd use the that other entrance, if you mean the one in Sandall
Street, if I was approaching from the east side of Waterloo Bridge,
but not from Embankment, which would lead me to the relatively
pedestrian-friendly route through Waterloo main.

It's also closed earlier, presumably to avoid the staircase being
filled with dossers or something. (Not related to that thought, I
passed Tom Winsor on that staircase once.)

Single fare from 2nd Jan
 

In article
,
(MIG) wrote:

On 10 Dec, 00:34, wrote:
In article
,

(MIG) wrote:
On 9 Dec, 22:48, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 16:22:23 -0600,
wrote:

Waterloo East (NR) - Embankment (LU) (30)
Waterloo *(NR) - Embankment (LU) (25)

A reasonable OSI for NR to Embankment I suppose, but why is less
time allowed from the main station than the slightly closer
Waterloo East?

I think I'd argue that Waterloo East is actually slightly further
away.

More importantly, the main, and sometimes only, route to Waterloo
East is to go through Waterloo first. *It's the walking route that
matters; not the crowfly distance.

I thought there was a route via Waterloo Road (past the Wellington)?
That's the on I thought might be shorter. There's not much in it
either way, hence my surprise at there being a difference.

That would involve more road crossing, and I'd agree with Paul that
it's still slightly further anyway.

I'd use the that other entrance, if you mean the one in Sandall
Street, if I was approaching from the east side of Waterloo Bridge,
but not from Embankment, which would lead me to the relatively
pedestrian-friendly route through Waterloo main.

It's also closed earlier, presumably to avoid the staircase being
filled with dossers or something. (Not related to that thought, I
passed Tom Winsor on that staircase once.)

Maybe you're right. I suppose it's the routes we know. I always thought
the route from the main station to Hungerford Bridge was badly messed
about when walkways were added and removed or blocked over the years.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Single fare from 2nd Jan
 

On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 22:42:15 +0000, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 21:40:37 -0000, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 18:51:31 -0000, "Peter Smyth"
wrote:

Here they are

[big huge OSI list]

Looking at the 21 permutations at Waterloo and Waterloo East, I see there is
no OSI between Jubilee and LU (Bakerloo/Northern) - will this be because
there is full interchange behind the gateline? Or might it just be missing?

I would contend that it is not missing. It is simply that there is a
full and proper interchange within the gated area that is the shortest
route between those lines. There isn't an OSI today so there is no
compelling reason why there should be one in January.

It would be nice if there was an OSI at London Bridge for step free
interchange between the Northern and Jubilee. At the moment I'm fairly
certain that requires going via the street and an extra journey.

David

Single fare from 2nd Jan
 

On 10 Dec, 09:49, wrote:
In article
,





(MIG) wrote:
On 10 Dec, 00:34, wrote:
In article
,

(MIG) wrote:
On 9 Dec, 22:48, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 16:22:23 -0600,
wrote:

Waterloo East (NR) - Embankment (LU) (30)
Waterloo *(NR) - Embankment (LU) (25)

A reasonable OSI for NR to Embankment I suppose, but why is less
time allowed from the main station than the slightly closer
Waterloo East?

I think I'd argue that Waterloo East is actually slightly further
away.

More importantly, the main, and sometimes only, route to Waterloo
East is to go through Waterloo first. *It's the walking route that
matters; not the crowfly distance.

I thought there was a route via Waterloo Road (past the Wellington)?
That's the on I thought might be shorter. There's not much in it
either way, hence my surprise at there being a difference.

That would involve more road crossing, and I'd agree with Paul that
it's still slightly further anyway.

I'd use the that other entrance, if you mean the one in Sandall
Street, if I was approaching from the east side of Waterloo Bridge,
but not from Embankment, which would lead me to the relatively
pedestrian-friendly route through Waterloo main.

It's also closed earlier, presumably to avoid the staircase being
filled with dossers or something. *(Not related to that thought, I
passed Tom Winsor on that staircase once.)

Maybe you're right. I suppose it's the routes we know. I always thought
the route from the main station to Hungerford Bridge was badly messed
about when walkways were added and removed or blocked over the years.


It has been messed about, but I think it's pretty good now.

Single fare from 2nd Jan
 

"Paul Corfield" wrote in message

On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 12:38:43 -0000, "Recliner"
wrote:

I was agreeably surprised to discover yesterday that the Kings Cross
St Pancras LU station remain an OSI, even though it's no longer
necessary. I went to have a look at the new northern ticket office,
exiting from one of the old LU gatelines and re-entering a few
minutes later via the new northern gateline. My Oyster fare to the
station was zeroed out as it's treated as an OSI, even though I
could have changed LU lines without passing any gatelines.

Well it has to remain an OSI because PAYG is valid on GN services to
Finsbury Park and PAYG is valid on FCC to West Hampstead and south to
Elephant and LOB. As these parts of the Kings Cross complex have
separate gatelines then the LU site has to remain a OSI too.

Yes, I knew about those, and have taken advantage of them in the past,
but I was surprised to find that OSI still applied even to pure LU
transfers. I hadn't thought of the MIP lifts issue, though.