Why is LU separate from National Rail?
 

When British Rail was created, what were the reasons for not making the
London Underground part of it?

Doesn't the existence of two very separate railway networks in London make
travelling in or across London harder (when separate fares and/or tickets
are needed), less well informed (due to relative lack of public knowledge of
the ability to make many journeys by NR instead of/as well as by LU, or vice
versa), and more expensive (due to missed economies of scale in management,
staffing and many other areas) than could be the case with one merged
network? What mitigating circumstances are there?

A metro system that is part of the National Rail network seems to work
perfectly well in Liverpool. Are there reasons why it wouldn't in London?

(Genuine questions from a puzzled non-expert.)

Why is LU separate from National Rail?
 

When British Rail was created, what were the reasons for not making the
London Underground part of it?


For a few years they were both part of the British Transport Commission
(1950s), then split again. Why? - it's all part of the political football that
public transport has been throughout the 20th Century. With the morons now in
power, things look set to continue the same way.

Doesn't the existence of two very separate railway networks in London make
travelling in or across London harder (when separate fares and/or tickets
are needed), less well informed (due to relative lack of public knowledge of
the ability to make many journeys by NR instead of/as well as by LU, or vice
versa), and more expensive (due to missed economies of scale in management,
staffing and many other areas) than could be the case with one merged
network? What mitigating circumstances are there?

A metro system that is part of the National Rail network seems to work
perfectly well in Liverpool. Are there reasons why it wouldn't in London?

(Genuine questions from a puzzled non-expert.)


Yes, well it's even worse now that different parts of the Underground are owned
and/or maintained by different private companies.

Ask John Prescott why, when in Opposition, he said and did everything to oppose
all privatisation on principle, and now is quite content to allow privatisation
to continue and fragment the Underground in a way the Tories would never even
have dared for fear of Labour squeals.

Labour seem to be too busy harassing foxhunters to give a damn about the
Undergound.

Marc.

Why is LU separate from National Rail?
 

In message , Chris Henderson
writes

When British Rail was created, what were the reasons for not making the
London Underground part of it?

I should think that one of the reasons was that it would have meant
splitting control of the underground service from the bus, coach, tram
and trolleybus network.

Doesn't the existence of two very separate railway networks in London make
travelling in or across London harder (when separate fares and/or tickets
are needed),

I think there's more integration than you imply - I almost always use a
travelcard in the capital, which is valid on tube, NR, buses, etc. - and
there's not really much duplication of staff between the systems.

Historically, the first level of integration was always between
underground and road forms of transport - that long pre-dates the 1948
nationalisation.

But there is certainly a need for better integration of NR into the rest
of London's transport system and there do at last seem to be some moves
in that direction. But there will always be compromises, since NR serves
an awful lot more than just London.

--
Paul Terry

Why is LU separate from National Rail?
 

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:21:11 +0000 (UTC), "Chris Henderson"
wrote:

When British Rail was created, what were the reasons for not making the
London Underground part of it?

London's Transport has always been treated differently from the rest of
the country. This is simply the consequence of politics and the need to
secure votes in London. How you treat the travelling public in London
has a big impact at the ballot box.

The fact that the systems are in, a number of ways, very different also
has ramifications as to how they were / are built, owned and operated.

Perhaps you'd like to ask the Department of Transport why they opted to
sell the Waterloo and City line to LUL when the main line railway was
privatised rather than turn LUL into a franchise and sell it off?

Doesn't the existence of two very separate railway networks in London make
travelling in or across London harder (when separate fares and/or tickets
are needed),

You obviously do not appreciate that there is extensive through
ticketing between the systems and that such has existed for many, many
years. The fact that people do not ask for through tickets is not
necessarily anything to do with the organisation or ownership of the
railway companies. You can buy a ticket from Aberdeen to Worthing that
works via the LUL system.

less well informed (due to relative lack of public knowledge of
the ability to make many journeys by NR instead of/as well as by LU, or vice
versa),

please provide evidence to support this assertion as I don't understand
what you are trying to say. Why the public don't understand things can
result from a whole range of factors that are completely outside the
scope of railway management(s).

and more expensive (due to missed economies of scale in management,
staffing and many other areas) than could be the case with one merged
network? What mitigating circumstances are there?

Please evidence your argument that LU being owned by the main line
railway would be more "efficient".

A metro system that is part of the National Rail network seems to work
perfectly well in Liverpool. Are there reasons why it wouldn't in London?

You call the Merseyrail system a Metro? Interesting. If it "works" have
you considered why it has been franchised on a completely different
basis to the rest of the National Rail network and why Merseyside PTE
are trying as hard as they can to gain control of the tracks and signals
from Network Rail?

Are you also saying that the Tyne and Wear Metro, Glasgow Underground,
Midland Metro, Nottingham NET, Sheffield Supertram and Croydon Tramlink
don't "work"?

What is it about the national network that makes you imagine that it
"works" better than any other separately owned rail system in the UK?

(Genuine questions from a puzzled non-expert.)

Out of curiosity why are you asking the questions? for research?

You seem to be assuming that big is always beautiful. It's not
necessarily the case. Your arguments about everything being one system
could apply equally to the SNCF Suburban network, RER and Metro in Paris
and yet they all work extremely well despite being separate - even where
one RER line is run by SNCF north of Gare du Nord and by RATP (the Paris
version of Transport for London) south thereof. The drivers change over
on each trip - doesn't stop the service running properly. You need to
explain why your view of efficiency seems to be financially based with
the maximum efficiencies and least cost. This does not always give the
best customer service or most effective operation - ask the Japanese as
their cost base for their railways is not based on lowest cost. It is
based on zero breakdowns and the maximum ability to move large numbers
of people over long distances as quickly and safely as possible.


--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Why is LU separate from National Rail?
 

In message , Paul Corfield
writes

You obviously do not appreciate that there is extensive through
ticketing between the systems and that such has existed for many, many
years. The fact that people do not ask for through tickets is not
necessarily anything to do with the organisation or ownership of the
railway companies. You can buy a ticket from Aberdeen to Worthing that
works via the LUL system.

The trouble is, it's all very well getting through travel between London
terminals but you can't get a through ticket from a NationalRail station
to somewhere on the LUL network or vice-versa, except for standard day
returns to zone 1/2.

This leads to the silly situation where, if I want to travel from home
in Alton to a tube station in zone 4, its cheaper to buy a single to
Waterloo and a zone 1-4 single when I get there than to buy a travelcard
at Alton, and if I want to travel from the station in zone 4 to Alton, I
have to buy the ticket for the main line part of the journey from the
ticket office at Waterloo, because the LUL ticket office at the origin
station can't sell it.

There's also lots of silly differences, for example, I can buy an
all-zones travelcard with my Disabled railcard at a NationalRail station
and get one for a travelling companion at the same discounted price, yet
buying the same travelcard from a LUL station with the same railcard, I
can't get a discounted ticket for my companion.

What we need is for all LUL ticket offices to be brought up to the
standard of those on National Rail, able to sell any ticket that an NR
ticket office can sell with the same conditions and discounts.
Meanwhile, NR ticket offices should be able to sell through tickets to
any zone on LU.
--
Spyke
Address is valid, but messages are treated as junk. The opinions I express do
not necessarily reflect those of the educational institution from which I post.

Why is LU separate from National Rail?
 

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 22:37:49 +0100, Spyke wrote:

There's also lots of silly differences, for example, I can buy an
all-zones travelcard with my Disabled railcard at a NationalRail station
and get one for a travelling companion at the same discounted price, yet
buying the same travelcard from a LUL station with the same railcard, I
can't get a discounted ticket for my companion.

While I don't object to it per-se (as I benefit from it :) ), why *is*
Railcard discount available on a London Travelcard?

After all, such a discount is not available on Merseytravel Saveaways,
GMPTE Wayfarers, Rail Rangers or Daysavers, nor to my knowledge on any
other PTE-sponsored one-day tickets, all of which have a similar
reason for existence and validity as the London Travelcard.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To e-mail use neil at the above domain

Why is LU separate from National Rail?
 

"Chris Henderson" wrote in message
...
When British Rail was created, what were the reasons for not making the
London Underground part of it?

Doesn't the existence of two very separate railway networks in London make
travelling in or across London harder (when separate fares and/or tickets
are needed), less well informed (due to relative lack of public knowledge
of the ability to make many journeys by NR instead of/as well as by LU, or
vice versa), and more expensive (due to missed economies of scale in
management, staffing and many other areas) than could be the case with one
merged network? What mitigating circumstances are there?

A metro system that is part of the National Rail network seems to work
perfectly well in Liverpool. Are there reasons why it wouldn't in London?

(Genuine questions from a puzzled non-expert.)

The split of LUL from NR does indeed impede integrated transport in London
due to the numerous ticketing differences and splits in responsibility. One
such inconvenience at the moment is the inability to use Oyster Pre-Pay on
NR services within Greater London.

The Government has recognised the need for further integration and is
proposing to give the Mayor of London / TfL greater powers over Suburban
Rail services in the Greater London area. This should result in a common
fare structure, integrated publicity / maps etc. and a common point of
reference for passengers.

Technically there are very many differences between the NR & LUL networks, &
the huge short term cost involved in trying to merge the structures will
probably mean they will always stay seperate, as any eventual savings will
never be realised within a single mayoral term or Government.

Why is LU separate from National Rail?
 

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 22:37:49 +0100, Spyke wrote:

In message , Paul Corfield
writes

You obviously do not appreciate that there is extensive through
ticketing between the systems and that such has existed for many, many
years. The fact that people do not ask for through tickets is not
necessarily anything to do with the organisation or ownership of the
railway companies. You can buy a ticket from Aberdeen to Worthing that
works via the LUL system.

The trouble is, it's all very well getting through travel between London
terminals but you can't get a through ticket from a NationalRail station
to somewhere on the LUL network or vice-versa, except for standard day
returns to zone 1/2.

I'm probably out of date but I thought any NR Station could issue to any
combination of "U" zones.

checks

well I've just looked up the ATOC National Fares Manual on the web and
it says that you can issue to any U Zone combination as well as to the
"out county" LU stations like Chesham. Don't see that there is any
problem there then apart from the knowledge or willingness of the
operating staff.

This leads to the silly situation where, if I want to travel from home
in Alton to a tube station in zone 4, its cheaper to buy a single to
Waterloo and a zone 1-4 single when I get there than to buy a travelcard
at Alton, and if I want to travel from the station in zone 4 to Alton, I
have to buy the ticket for the main line part of the journey from the
ticket office at Waterloo, because the LUL ticket office at the origin
station can't sell it.

I think Alton need to learn how to press some buttons on their APTIS or
whatever is in ticket office. You are, of course, correct about the LU
station.

There's also lots of silly differences, for example, I can buy an
all-zones travelcard with my Disabled railcard at a NationalRail station
and get one for a travelling companion at the same discounted price, yet
buying the same travelcard from a LUL station with the same railcard, I
can't get a discounted ticket for my companion.

Not sure what to say about that as it does seem a bit inequitable. These
things are getting dealt with slowly but surely.

What we need is for all LUL ticket offices to be brought up to the
standard of those on National Rail, able to sell any ticket that an NR
ticket office can sell with the same conditions and discounts.
Meanwhile, NR ticket offices should be able to sell through tickets to
any zone on LU.

Sorry I fundamentally disagree with this. There are quite bad enough
queues at many LU stations without adding on the huge transactional cost
(in time and money) of being able to buy a Saver return to Fort William
on a Scotrail mega granny discount complete with a reservation for a
sleeper for the return trip. It makes no sense whatsoever for LU to be
retailing such products.

The volume of tickets sold for those NR destinations which are deemed to
be popular enough to be included from LU ticket offices is woefully
small. The cost vs the benefit does not make sense.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Why is LU separate from National Rail?
 

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 00:06:10 +0100, Paul Corfield
wrote:
[...] There are quite bad enough
queues at many LU stations without adding on the huge transactional cost
(in time and money) of being able to buy a Saver return to Fort William
on a Scotrail mega granny discount complete with a reservation for a
sleeper for the return trip. It makes no sense whatsoever for LU to be
retailing such products.

Agreed, but as you said, all NR stations in the old Network SouthEast
area could learn how to sell tickets to Underground zones (or make all
Travelcard area destination fares zonal at the same fare as LU). The
range of fares in the south east is very simple, I'd say easy to sell
at any Underground ticket office. Do they not get their 9% of a sale,
like a TOC?

There is already much integration but it stops short; still, I don't
see why the same organisation would need to run both operations, IMHO
this isn't necessary for, or even the meaning of, transport
integration.

Richard.

Why is LU separate from National Rail?
 

In message , Paul Corfield
writes

The trouble is, it's all very well getting through travel between London
terminals but you can't get a through ticket from a NationalRail station
to somewhere on the LUL network or vice-versa, except for standard day
returns to zone 1/2.

I'm probably out of date but I thought any NR Station could issue to any
combination of "U" zones.

Thanks, I wasn't aware of this. To be fair on Alton's ticket staff, I
hadn't actually tried them but I was looking up the fares for this
particular journey on Qjump, which offers me the All Zones TC and Zone
1/Zone 1&2 but nothing else. I'd also never seen anything apart from
these on machines and was under the impression that they simply weren't
available.
Am I right in thinking, however, that these fares are only available as
Standard Day Returns/Singles and are therefore usually still more
expensive than the equivalent cheap day fare to the terminal + LUL fare.


What we need is for all LUL ticket offices to be brought up to the
standard of those on National Rail, able to sell any ticket that an NR
ticket office can sell with the same conditions and discounts.
Meanwhile, NR ticket offices should be able to sell through tickets to
any zone on LU.

Sorry I fundamentally disagree with this. There are quite bad enough
queues at many LU stations without adding on the huge transactional cost
(in time and money) of being able to buy a Saver return to Fort William
on a Scotrail mega granny discount complete with a reservation for a
sleeper for the return trip. It makes no sense whatsoever for LU to be
retailing such products.

The volume of tickets sold for those NR destinations which are deemed to
be popular enough to be included from LU ticket offices is woefully
small. The cost vs the benefit does not make sense.

I see your point regarding queues, but at least increase the options
available by allowing them to sell the standard range of Cheap Day,
Standard Day and Saver tickets on the condition that reservations,
Virgin Value type tickets and other such complications aren't allowed
(the phone/Internet is perfectly adequate for these anyway).
At least configure the self-service machines to sell them as, with well
designed software, it shouldn't take any longer to get a return to an NR
destination than to a LUL one.
Also, not allowing through tickets to be bought from LU stations merely
displaces the queues to the NR ticket offices, and can lead to the same
person having to queue twice, once for their tube ticket and again for
their national rail ticket.

I suspect the reason LUL ticket offices that can sell tickets to NR
destinations don't sell many, is because people simply don't know that
these tickets are available.
--
Spyke
Address is valid, but messages are treated as junk. The opinions I express do
not necessarily reflect those of the educational institution from which I post.

Why is LU separate from National Rail?
 

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 22:37:49 +0100, Spyke wrote:

There's also lots of silly differences, for example, I can buy an
all-zones travelcard with my Disabled railcard at a NationalRail station
and get one for a travelling companion at the same discounted price, yet
buying the same travelcard from a LUL station with the same railcard, I
can't get a discounted ticket for my companion.

What we need is for all LUL ticket offices to be brought up to the
standard of those on National Rail, able to sell any ticket that an NR
ticket office can sell with the same conditions and discounts.
Meanwhile, NR ticket offices should be able to sell through tickets to
any zone on LU.

When I asked TfL about this, they replied:

I can appreciate the points you raise. Indeed, I can confirm that Richmond
station, including the ticket office, is 'owned' by South West Trains so
only their ticketing range is available from this station. The situation is
the same at Gunnersbury and Kew Gardens stations. There are also other
similar situations elsewhere on the tube network. This can cause a problem
for bus ticket sales - either Bus Savers or Bus Passes - as National Rail
stations do not sell these tickets. All tube stations (owned by LU) do sell
the full range of bus tickets as do all high street Ticket Stops (eg:
newsagents). The latter are especially important in locations such as
Richmond, or any other National Rail-managed stations.

This is basically historical and down to the fact that we cannot provide a
fully integrated approach to transport in London as we are not responsible
for the National Rail network. The Mayor, and TfL, are keen to take more
control of the National Rail network in London to help improve these
services. The rationalisation of the fares systems of both networks would be
a major advantage should we be given these powers. I am sure part of this
work would involve the roll-out of the sales of bus tickets at these
locations to provide some uniformity across London.

The plans to hand control of London's rail services to TfL forms part of the
government's recent white paper on the future of the UK's rail network. We
hope to be handed more control in due course.

Why is LU separate from National Rail?
 

"Marc Brett" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 22:37:49 +0100, Spyke wrote:

There's also lots of silly differences, for example, I can buy an
all-zones travelcard with my Disabled railcard at a NationalRail station
and get one for a travelling companion at the same discounted price, yet
buying the same travelcard from a LUL station with the same railcard, I
can't get a discounted ticket for my companion.

What we need is for all LUL ticket offices to be brought up to the
standard of those on National Rail, able to sell any ticket that an NR
ticket office can sell with the same conditions and discounts.
Meanwhile, NR ticket offices should be able to sell through tickets to
any zone on LU.

When I asked TfL about this, they replied:

I can appreciate the points you raise. Indeed, I can confirm that Richmond
station, including the ticket office, is 'owned' by South West Trains so
only their ticketing range is available from this station. The situation
is
the same at Gunnersbury and Kew Gardens stations. There are also other
similar situations elsewhere on the tube network. This can cause a problem
for bus ticket sales - either Bus Savers or Bus Passes - as National Rail
stations do not sell these tickets. All tube stations (owned by LU) do
sell
the full range of bus tickets as do all high street Ticket Stops (eg:
newsagents). The latter are especially important in locations such as
Richmond, or any other National Rail-managed stations.

That sounds crazy to me - the only way in which Bus Savers and Bus Passes
can be sold at NR stations is for TfL to take them over? Do they think we
are really that naive? I suspect they are quite happy for the current
situation to prevail if it helps them make a case for taking over parts of
the NR network. Of course they could come to an arrangement with rail
operators to sell these tickets; they are clearly not trying very hard.

This is basically historical and down to the fact that we cannot provide a
fully integrated approach to transport in London as we are not responsible
for the National Rail network. The Mayor, and TfL, are keen to take more
control of the National Rail network in London to help improve these
services. The rationalisation of the fares systems of both networks would
be
a major advantage should we be given these powers. I am sure part of this
work would involve the roll-out of the sales of bus tickets at these
locations to provide some uniformity across London.

"The rationalisation of the fares systems of both networks would be
a major advantage" ...to TfL I assume. I am sure this will mean all sorts
of Cheap Day Deturn tickets and rail-only season tickets etc. disappear and
be replaced with higher 'zonal' fares or Travelcards.

I travel from a Zone 6 station to London by SET and pay for a rail-only
season ticket which is all I need, saving £50 per month on the cost of the
Z1-6 Travelcard.

I do not believe that the current fares system is that bad; the Travelcard
is the result of an integrated fares policy for the Greater London area.
Now they want yet more "simplification" of other fares, and that will simply
be to raise more revenue.

The plans to hand control of London's rail services to TfL forms part of
the
government's recent white paper on the future of the UK's rail network. We
hope to be handed more control in due course.

I bet they do.

Why is LU separate from National Rail?
 

Rich Mallard wrote:
"Marc Brett" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 22:37:49 +0100, Spyke wrote:


There's also lots of silly differences, for example, I can buy an
all-zones travelcard with my Disabled railcard at a NationalRail station
and get one for a travelling companion at the same discounted price, yet
buying the same travelcard from a LUL station with the same railcard, I
can't get a discounted ticket for my companion.

What we need is for all LUL ticket offices to be brought up to the
standard of those on National Rail, able to sell any ticket that an NR
ticket office can sell with the same conditions and discounts.
Meanwhile, NR ticket offices should be able to sell through tickets to
any zone on LU.

When I asked TfL about this, they replied:

I can appreciate the points you raise. Indeed, I can confirm that Richmond
station, including the ticket office, is 'owned' by South West Trains so
only their ticketing range is available from this station. The situation

is

the same at Gunnersbury and Kew Gardens stations. There are also other
similar situations elsewhere on the tube network. This can cause a problem
for bus ticket sales - either Bus Savers or Bus Passes - as National Rail
stations do not sell these tickets. All tube stations (owned by LU) do

sell

the full range of bus tickets as do all high street Ticket Stops (eg:
newsagents). The latter are especially important in locations such as
Richmond, or any other National Rail-managed stations.


That sounds crazy to me - the only way in which Bus Savers and Bus Passes
can be sold at NR stations is for TfL to take them over? Do they think we
are really that naive? I suspect they are quite happy for the current
situation to prevail if it helps them make a case for taking over parts of
the NR network. Of course they could come to an arrangement with rail
operators to sell these tickets; they are clearly not trying very hard.


This is basically historical and down to the fact that we cannot provide a
fully integrated approach to transport in London as we are not responsible
for the National Rail network. The Mayor, and TfL, are keen to take more
control of the National Rail network in London to help improve these
services. The rationalisation of the fares systems of both networks would

be

a major advantage should we be given these powers. I am sure part of this
work would involve the roll-out of the sales of bus tickets at these
locations to provide some uniformity across London.


"The rationalisation of the fares systems of both networks would be
a major advantage" ...to TfL I assume. I am sure this will mean all sorts
of Cheap Day Deturn tickets and rail-only season tickets etc. disappear and
be replaced with higher 'zonal' fares or Travelcards.

I travel from a Zone 6 station to London by SET and pay for a rail-only
season ticket which is all I need, saving £50 per month on the cost of the
Z1-6 Travelcard.

I do not believe that the current fares system is that bad; the Travelcard
is the result of an integrated fares policy for the Greater London area.
Now they want yet more "simplification" of other fares, and that will simply
be to raise more revenue.

The Travelcard system works well enough for multiple trips but the
current fares fall down for integrated trips (i.e. Tube & rail) on
single journeys. For example, Gloucester Road to Wandsworth Road
involves a £1.60 Oyster Prepay journey in Zone 1 to Victoria followed by
a £1-ish journey on National Rail. Under the zonal system, that journey
would only cost £2.00.

Some sort of fares alteration would benefit a significant number of
users in inner London areas served by National Rail but not London
Underground. The abolition of CDRs isn't a requirement but CDR prices
could be meaningfully incorporated into a system which doesn't penalise
modal transfer. I believe TfL already have plans to introduce some sort
of discount via Oyster for combined bus/tube journeys.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

Why is LU separate from National Rail?
 

In article , Rich Mallard
writes
That sounds crazy to me - the only way in which Bus Savers and Bus Passes
can be sold at NR stations is for TfL to take them over?

No: the only way in which TfL can ensure that they are sold at NR
stations is to take them over.

You should be writing to SWT and asking *them* why they aren't selling
the tickets.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

Why is LU separate from National Rail?
 

"Colin" wrote in message ...
"Chris Henderson" wrote in message
...
When British Rail was created, what were the reasons for not making the
London Underground part of it?

Doesn't the existence of two very separate railway networks in London make
travelling in or across London harder (when separate fares and/or tickets
are needed), less well informed (due to relative lack of public knowledge
of the ability to make many journeys by NR instead of/as well as by LU, or
vice versa), and more expensive (due to missed economies of scale in
management, staffing and many other areas) than could be the case with one
merged network? What mitigating circumstances are there?

A metro system that is part of the National Rail network seems to work
perfectly well in Liverpool. Are there reasons why it wouldn't in London?

(Genuine questions from a puzzled non-expert.)

The split of LUL from NR does indeed impede integrated transport in London
due to the numerous ticketing differences and splits in responsibility. One
such inconvenience at the moment is the inability to use Oyster Pre-Pay on
NR services within Greater London.

The Government has recognised the need for further integration and is
proposing to give the Mayor of London / TfL greater powers over Suburban
Rail services in the Greater London area. This should result in a common
fare structure, integrated publicity / maps etc. and a common point of
reference for passengers.

Technically there are very many differences between the NR & LUL networks, &
the huge short term cost involved in trying to merge the structures will
probably mean they will always stay seperate, as any eventual savings will
never be realised within a single mayoral term or Government.

Surely, regardless of the politics, it is a good idea to keep
Network-Rail separate from London Underground. The two are actually
quite different types of business and the Underground actually carries
more passengers per day in London than Network Rail does over the
whole country - albeit over shorter distances in most cases. I
nevertheless welcome TfL getting more control over the surbarban
services which do need to be better integrated with the Underground.

If you gave Network Rail control over LUL tracks they just wouldn't be
able to cope with it - they have enough on their plate as it is.
Integrating the two organisations would be a pointless exercise.
Integrated transport is better served by co-operation between the
various organisations involved, not takeovers.

Why is LU separate from National Rail?
 

"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message ...
In article , Rich Mallard
writes
That sounds crazy to me - the only way in which Bus Savers and Bus Passes
can be sold at NR stations is for TfL to take them over?

No: the only way in which TfL can ensure that they are sold at NR
stations is to take them over.

You should be writing to SWT and asking *them* why they aren't selling
the tickets.

Or write to Alistair Darling and ask him to make it a condition of all
future rail franchises.

Why is LU separate from National Rail?
 

If anyone should take anyone over, NR should take over the tube. It is
ridiculous that I can't walk into a tube station and buy a Saver
Return to Leicester.

Why is LU separate from National Rail?
 

"Chris Henderson" wrote in message ...
A metro system that is part of the National Rail network seems to work
perfectly well in Liverpool. Are there reasons why it wouldn't in London?

But its not a metro system is it. Its just a load of old BR track lumped
together and rebranded as a metro. You could do the same to half a dozen
different suburban lines in cities around the country.

B2003

Why is LU separate from National Rail?
 

Boltar wrote to uk.transport.london on Mon, 4 Oct 2004:

"Chris Henderson" wrote in message
...
A metro system that is part of the National Rail network seems to work
perfectly well in Liverpool. Are there reasons why it wouldn't in London?

But its not a metro system is it. Its just a load of old BR track lumped
together and rebranded as a metro. You could do the same to half a dozen
different suburban lines in cities around the country.

They've done it in South London, where they call it the "Overground
Network" at the moment; at one stage it was South London Metro.
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 26 September 2004

Why is LU separate from National Rail?
 

On 3 Oct 2004 13:21:29 -0700 James said...

If anyone should take anyone over, NR should take over the tube. It is
ridiculous that I can't walk into a tube station and buy a Saver
Return to Leicester.

Assuming of course facilities at Tube stations would be enhanced to
provide the (complex) sale of NR products. Imagine how two or three
ticket windows at say Leicester Square tube station would cope with
people wanting to book things like cheap Virgin Value fares in addition
to selling TfL tickets.

--
Phil Richards
London, UK
Home page: http://www.philrichards1.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk

Why is LU separate from National Rail?
 

On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 16:41:28 +0100 Clive D. W. Feather clive@on-the-
train.demon.co.uk said...

That sounds crazy to me - the only way in which Bus Savers and Bus Passes
can be sold at NR stations is for TfL to take them over?

No: the only way in which TfL can ensure that they are sold at NR
stations is to take them over.

You should be writing to SWT and asking *them* why they aren't selling
the tickets.

It could be done, NR stations could effectively become "Pass Agents" like
newsagents shops throughout London and sell TfL products albeit with
another machine at each window.

However I suspect the accountants and auditors of the TOCs somehow won't
allow it as it....

--
Phil Richards
London, UK
Home page: http://www.philrichards1.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk

Why is LU separate from National Rail?
 

"Rich Mallard" wrote in message ...

"The rationalisation of the fares systems of both networks would be
a major advantage" ...to TfL I assume. I am sure this will mean all sorts
of Cheap Day Deturn tickets and rail-only season tickets etc. disappear and
be replaced with higher 'zonal' fares or Travelcards.

Interesting point - I notice that LT fares apply to all Bakerloo Line
destinations except if travelling to/from Harrow & Wealdstone, in
which case NR's rate applies between Kenton and Harrow & Wealdstone;
wonder if this bit is cheaper/dearer per mile? Also, do separate NR
and LU fares exist between, say, Amersham and Harrow-on-the-Hill, and
if so, which is cheaper?

David E. Belcher

Why is LU separate from National Rail?
 

David E. Belcher wrote:
"Rich Mallard" wrote in message ...


"The rationalisation of the fares systems of both networks would be
a major advantage" ...to TfL I assume. I am sure this will mean all sorts
of Cheap Day Deturn tickets and rail-only season tickets etc. disappear and
be replaced with higher 'zonal' fares or Travelcards.


Interesting point - I notice that LT fares apply to all Bakerloo Line
destinations except if travelling to/from Harrow & Wealdstone, in
which case NR's rate applies between Kenton and Harrow & Wealdstone;
wonder if this bit is cheaper/dearer per mile? Also, do separate NR
and LU fares exist between, say, Amersham and Harrow-on-the-Hill, and
if so, which is cheaper?

David E. Belcher

Comparing fares from NRES Online at www.nationalrail.co.uk/planmyjourney
and TfL Journey Planner at www.journeyplanner.org gives:

NR: Standard Day Single £2.90
TfL: Single (Zones D-5) £2.90

NR: Cheap Day Return £4.10
Standard Day Return £5.80

Obviously the standard return prices are the same (as TfL don't really
do returns, just two singles), but the CDR is significantly cheaper -
and you can get railcard discounts too presumably.

The only problem is, how do you buy a CDR between Amersham & Harrow?
There's no NR ticket office at either station.

As for Harrow & Wealdstone to Kenton, the NR single (SDS) price is £1.70
whereas an LU zonal single would be £1.50 (£1.30 Oyster weekdays,
£1.00 weekends). A CDR is £2.00 where a normal LU fare would be £3.00.
(SDR is £2.90).

If you so desired, you could also buy a First Day Return between these
two stations, a journey of around 5 minutes each way, for £16.80.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

Why is LU separate from National Rail?
 

Annabel Smyth wrote in message ...
Boltar wrote to uk.transport.london on Mon, 4 Oct 2004:

"Chris Henderson" wrote in message
...
A metro system that is part of the National Rail network seems to work
perfectly well in Liverpool. Are there reasons why it wouldn't in London?

But its not a metro system is it. Its just a load of old BR track lumped
together and rebranded as a metro. You could do the same to half a dozen
different suburban lines in cities around the country.

They've done it in South London, where they call it the "Overground
Network" at the moment; at one stage it was South London Metro.

For those who might be interested the London Transport Users Committee
has done some research recently on both stations jointly served by
London Underground and on rail fares policy in London. To view this
work please visit http://www.ltuc.org.uk/document_list.php?category_id=85

Why is LU separate from National Rail?
 

On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 15:56:12 +0100, Dave Arquati wrote:

David E. Belcher wrote:
"Rich Mallard" wrote in message ...


"The rationalisation of the fares systems of both networks would be
a major advantage" ...to TfL I assume. I am sure this will mean all sorts
of Cheap Day Deturn tickets and rail-only season tickets etc. disappear and
be replaced with higher 'zonal' fares or Travelcards.


Interesting point - I notice that LT fares apply to all Bakerloo Line
destinations except if travelling to/from Harrow & Wealdstone, in
which case NR's rate applies between Kenton and Harrow & Wealdstone;
wonder if this bit is cheaper/dearer per mile?

As for Harrow & Wealdstone to Kenton, the NR single (SDS) price is £1.70
whereas an LU zonal single would be £1.50 (£1.30 Oyster weekdays,
£1.00 weekends). A CDR is £2.00 where a normal LU fare would be £3.00.
(SDR is £2.90).

If you so desired, you could also buy a First Day Return between these
two stations, a journey of around 5 minutes each way, for £16.80.

Harrow and Wealdstone is, I believe, excluded as it is a priced station
used for the compilation of other NR fares on the line out of Euston.
Therefore if it went to the TfL farescale all fares would probably fall
thus making the revenue compensation payable to Silverlink huge and an
inappropriate use of TfL's money.

Oyster pre-pay is valid to Harrow and Wealdstone though so you can get
the discounted rates.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Why is LU separate from National Rail?
 

On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 22:52:06 +0100, Phil Richards
wrote:

On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 16:41:28 +0100 Clive D. W. Feather clive@on-the-
train.demon.co.uk said...

That sounds crazy to me - the only way in which Bus Savers and Bus Passes
can be sold at NR stations is for TfL to take them over?

No: the only way in which TfL can ensure that they are sold at NR
stations is to take them over.

You should be writing to SWT and asking *them* why they aren't selling
the tickets.

It could be done, NR stations could effectively become "Pass Agents" like
newsagents shops throughout London and sell TfL products albeit with
another machine at each window.

However I suspect the accountants and auditors of the TOCs somehow won't
allow it as it....

....competes with their profits? In their tiny privatized competitive mindset,
if they facilitate other modes of transport, they are cutting your own throats.

Why is LU separate from National Rail?
 

On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 02:05:53 +0100 Marc Brett
said...

It could be done, NR stations could effectively become "Pass Agents" like
newsagents shops throughout London and sell TfL products albeit with
another machine at each window.

However I suspect the accountants and auditors of the TOCs somehow won't
allow it as it....

...competes with their profits? In their tiny privatized competitive mindset,
if they facilitate other modes of transport, they are cutting your own throats.

I'm not sure exact commission amounts, but your local friendly Pass Agent
will still have to be paid a reasonable amount to make it worthwhile for
him. It's probably more to do with having monetary takings split over two
ticket issuing systems that will cause the NR ticket offices to throw a
few wobblers....

--
Phil Richards
London, UK
Home page: http://www.philrichards1.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk

Why is LU separate from National Rail?
 

"Boltar" wrote in message
om...
"Chris Henderson" wrote in message
...
A metro system that is part of the National Rail network seems to work
perfectly well in Liverpool. Are there reasons why it wouldn't in London?

But its not a metro system is it. Its just a load of old BR track lumped
together and rebranded as a metro. You could do the same to half a dozen
different suburban lines in cities around the country.

It didn't seem much different in practice to the Tyne & Wear metro (the only
other one I'm familiar with) - a similar proportion of it is undeground.

And since when was the whole of the London Underground designed as one metro
system? My knowledge is patchy but I know most of the eastern end of the
Central Line was BR track until 1945 or thereabouts.

Why is LU separate from National Rail?
 

"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:21:11 +0000 (UTC), "Chris Henderson"
wrote:
less well informed (due to relative lack of public knowledge of
the ability to make many journeys by NR instead of/as well as by LU, or
vice
versa),

please provide evidence to support this assertion as I don't understand
what you are trying to say. Why the public don't understand things can
result from a whole range of factors that are completely outside the
scope of railway management(s).

I'm saying that a good number people have a limited or non-existent
awareness of suburban National Rail services in London, because the Tube map
is so widely believed to be the definitive guide.

and more expensive (due to missed economies of scale in management,
staffing and many other areas) than could be the case with one merged
network? What mitigating circumstances are there?

Please evidence your argument that LU being owned by the main line
railway would be more "efficient".

I can't "evidence" it as such, but as a general principle, needless
duplication of management, staffing structures, communications systems and
so on tends to be inefficient.

A metro system that is part of the National Rail network seems to work
perfectly well in Liverpool. Are there reasons why it wouldn't in London?

You call the Merseyrail system a Metro? Interesting.

Why, shouldn't I?

(Genuine questions from a puzzled non-expert.)

Out of curiosity why are you asking the questions? for research?

No. Because of my own curiosity. It occurred to me after using Merseyrail
for the first time recently, which I hadn't realised in advance was NR, a
pleasant surprise which made things simpler.

You're generally being distinctly aggressive with me considering I made it
perfectly clear that I'm *not* an expert and I'm asking genuine questions
out of pure curiosity.

Why is LU separate from National Rail?
 

"Chris Henderson" wrote in message ...
"Boltar" wrote in message
om...
"Chris Henderson" wrote in message
...
A metro system that is part of the National Rail network seems to work
perfectly well in Liverpool. Are there reasons why it wouldn't in London?

But its not a metro system is it. Its just a load of old BR track lumped
together and rebranded as a metro. You could do the same to half a dozen
different suburban lines in cities around the country.

It didn't seem much different in practice to the Tyne & Wear metro (the only
other one I'm familiar with) - a similar proportion of it is undeground.

Yes , but at least that has some route specifically built as a metro and runs
metro type rolling stock with metro type frequencies.


And since when was the whole of the London Underground designed as one metro
system? My knowledge is patchy but I know most of the eastern end of the
Central Line was BR track until 1945 or thereabouts.

Indeed. But then they went and built another 5 miles of tube gauge tunnel
from leytonstone. Anyway, theres always a grey area with the definition of
a metro as in all things. But you have to admit that a system such as
liverpools that uses mainline rolling stock , is 99% above ground and runs
intercity is not exactly a metro in the sense that most people would describe
one (they're limited to a single city for a start!). Some natty rebranding
doesn't really change that.

B2003