In message , at 12:29:36 on Fri, 2 Mar 2012,
Mizter T remarked:
Oyster is already being extended to Shenfield as part of the new AGA
franchise. It's not on the map yet (stops at Harold Wood).

ISTR it WAS scheduled to start last month.

GA are probably engaging in a protracted negotiation with over
commercial terms (fares, revenue apportionment etc) with TfL - I'm just
thinking of the epic battle to finally get Oyster PAYG accepted across
NR in London (where it certainly wasn't TfL being the ones dragging
their feet).

I don't see why it's complicated, they already accept it as far as
Harold Wood.
--
Roland Perry

On Mar 2, 11:40*am, Mizter T wrote:
On 02/03/2012 09:36, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 09:20:29 on Fri, 2
Mar 2012, Walter Briscoe remarked:
Neither Marlow nor Maidenhead is in the Oyster area.
I trust Crossrail will alter that for those who live so long.

Wonkypedia says it will, but without any citations to back it up.

Another reason why specifying Reading as the initial western terminus
might have been a "touch too far".

I don't think a ticketing system will drive the decision as to where
Crossrail will terminate at all.

The Crossrail service will be run by TfL, perhaps on a concession basis
a la London Overground - when LO started (when TfL took over
responsibility for the old Silverlink Metro routes), TfL implemented
Oyster PAYG across the whole LO network including to Watford Junction -
(outside of Greater London, and outside TfL's zone 9).

London Midland is responsible for setting fares to/from WJ, and
initially Oyster PAYG was effectively an LO-only ticket to/from WJ - the
problem being that there were shared LM and LO gatelines at WJ and
Euston, so the only way to enforce this was on-train ticket checks.

This basically forced LM's hand to accept Oyster PAYG to/from WJ on
their own services - they did so after a week or two, and now Oyster
PAYG fares to/from WJ are I think essentially set by LM (or at least in
conjunction with them), rather than being set by TfL.

More likely due to DfT not considering the possibility that Oyster
acceptance would be needed when drawing up the franchise
specification. LM are certainly involved in the much high pricing for
Oyster from Watford Junction and for people in certain parts of
Watford Bushey is a bit cheaper (TfL setting the fares) at the cost of
having a lower frequency.


I imagine a large reason for this rather less than ideal (albeit very
short lived) situation was that London Midland was itself a brand new
franchisee, taking over Silverlink County services at the same time as
TfL took over Silverlink Metro services.


Also adding to the pressure on London Midland, at the time, was
Southern taking Oyster from day one on the Watford - Croydon route. So
London Midland had to allow Oyster users to access the same platforms.
Without Oyster readers for on-train staff, it would have been very
difficult to catch all the passengers on a stopping LM Euston train as
Oyster was already valid from Harrow.

Point being, if Crossrail's going to Reading, then TfL will take Oyster
PAYG acceptance with it there - and the GWML operator will have to
accept Oyster PAYG to/from Reading. (Apart from anything else I'd be
pretty sure that DfT Rail would make this a franchise commitment.)


It may be possible to have the Intercity services priced differently
to the local Crossrail services and then there would be no reason for
the GWML operator to take Oyster, assuming Crossrail takes over all
the services on the relief lines. The Intercity services already have
different peak hour validity, which causes peak hour crowding the the
slower trains which use the relief lines for part of their journey.

On Mar 2, 11:53*am, wrote:
On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 11:40:41 +0000

Mizter T wrote:
Point being, if Crossrail's going to Reading, then TfL will take Oyster
PAYG acceptance with it there - and the GWML operator will have to
accept Oyster PAYG to/from Reading. (Apart from anything else I'd be
pretty sure that DfT Rail would make this a franchise commitment.)

I wonder if its a good idea for crossrail to go as far out as it will. The
longer a line is the less reliable it becomes as there are more opportunities
for failure - look at thameslink.

An alternative view is the extending the Crossrail to Reading would
allow Crossrail to take (nearly) all the slots on the relief lines
allowing simplification of the service pattern as will be happening at
the eastern end. The problems with Thameslink are more due to the
complex network in the south of London, with many junctions to
negotiate.


Is crossrail being built to take the pressure off the central line or is it meant to be simply an east-west thameslink
service?


Surely it is designed to do both, linking the extremities into central
London better as well as relieving the Central line.

On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 06:05:41 -0800 (PST)
Andy wrote:
Is crossrail being built to take the pressure off the central line or is =
it meant to be simply an east-west thameslink
service?


Surely it is designed to do both, linking the extremities into central
London better as well as relieving the Central line.

Not necessarily. It depends on the frequency of trains. If there's only
going to be a train every 15 or 30 minutes in the centre then I suspect
anyone who wants to do a tube length journey - say from paddington to
farringdon - will just use the tube. And thats assuming they don't stiff
passengers for "special" fares for the "priviledge" of using it as per
heathrow connect.

B2003

at 06:01:07 on Fri, 2 Mar 2012, Andy remarked:

The [Reading] Intercity services already have
different peak hour validity, which causes peak hour crowding the the
slower trains which use the relief lines for part of their journey.

That's been the case for as long as I can remember (1978).

Not accepting Oyster on the "Intercity" services would be akin to EMT
not accepting them on a hypothetical extension of Oyster to
Luton/Bedford. Which is not an impossible situation based on prior form
(eg apparently they don't accept Groupsave on that part of the route).
--
Roland Perry

On Mar 2, 2:52*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 06:05:41 -0800 (PST)

Andy wrote:
Is crossrail being built to take the pressure off the central line or is =
it meant to be simply an east-west thameslink
service?

Surely it is designed to do both, linking the extremities into central
London better as well as relieving the Central line.

Not necessarily. It depends on the frequency of trains. If there's only
going to be a train every 15 or 30 minutes in the centre then I suspect
anyone who wants to do a tube length journey - say from paddington to
farringdon - will just use the tube. And thats assuming they don't stiff
passengers for "special" fares for the "priviledge" of using it as per
heathrow connect.


But there are not going to only be trains every 15 or 30 minutes in
the centre. There are going to be 24 tph in the centre during the
peaks.

On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 14:52:19 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 06:05:41 -0800 (PST)
Andy wrote:
Is crossrail being built to take the pressure off the central line or is =
it meant to be simply an east-west thameslink
service?


Surely it is designed to do both, linking the extremities into central
London better as well as relieving the Central line.

Not necessarily. It depends on the frequency of trains. If there's only
going to be a train every 15 or 30 minutes in the centre then I suspect
anyone who wants to do a tube length journey - say from paddington to
farringdon - will just use the tube. And thats assuming they don't stiff
passengers for "special" fares for the "priviledge" of using it as per
heathrow connect.

There aren't any special fares for using Heathrow Connect between
Paddington and H&H. The "special fares", as you put it, apply to any
trains using BAA's tunnel into Heathrow.

In article , (Mizter T) wrote:

Point being, if Crossrail's going to Reading, then TfL will take
Oyster PAYG acceptance with it there - and the GWML operator will
have to accept Oyster PAYG to/from Reading. (Apart from anything else
I'd be pretty sure that DfT Rail would make this a franchise
commitment.)

The missing factor in you rational assumptions is the DfT obsession that
Oyster was "not invented here". Look what they said to FCC when they
attempted to extend Oyster to Hertford North while allowing Greater Anglia
to extend Oyster to Hertford East. :-(

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message of Fri, 2 Mar
2012 18:32:35 in uk.transport.london,
writes
In article , (Mizter T) wrote:

Point being, if Crossrail's going to Reading, then TfL will take
Oyster PAYG acceptance with it there - and the GWML operator will
have to accept Oyster PAYG to/from Reading. (Apart from anything else
I'd be pretty sure that DfT Rail would make this a franchise
commitment.)

The missing factor in you rational assumptions is the DfT obsession that
Oyster was "not invented here". Look what they said to FCC when they
attempted to extend Oyster to Hertford North while allowing Greater Anglia
to extend Oyster to Hertford East. :-(


What was that?
I imagine you are thinking of one or more URLs or even a Google search.
--
Walter Briscoe

In article ,
(Walter Briscoe) wrote:

In message of Fri, 2 Mar
2012 18:32:35 in uk.transport.london,
writes
In article , (Mizter T)
wrote:

Point being, if Crossrail's going to Reading, then TfL will take
Oyster PAYG acceptance with it there - and the GWML operator will
have to accept Oyster PAYG to/from Reading. (Apart from anything else
I'd be pretty sure that DfT Rail would make this a franchise
commitment.)

The missing factor in you rational assumptions is the DfT obsession that
Oyster was "not invented here". Look what they said to FCC when they
attempted to extend Oyster to Hertford North while allowing Greater
Anglia to extend Oyster to Hertford East. :-(

What was that?
I imagine you are thinking of one or more URLs or even a Google
search.

News reports by Roger Ford in Modern Railways and direct from DfT on the
award of the Greater Anglia franchise.

--
Colin Rosenstiel