[x-posted to uk.transport.london]
[original post at uk.railway]

wrote:

(snip quoted previous posts which included mention of a
new Borisism, "Oysterisation")

The problem mentioned in the Evening Standard last night was that
South West Trains wanted to have its own fare structure and was in
franchise negotiations with the Department for Transport.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...ils/article.do

"SWT wants to apply its own, more expensive, fares structure, and has
other demands to which TfL is unable to agree. As things stand, it
would only accept Oyster pay-as-you-go if readers across the Tube, bus
and rail network were compatible with planned ITSO transport
smartcards."

Given that South West Trains already doesn't have sole control of its
fares within Zones 1 to 6, I assume that this must mean that they
think the TfL Oyster fare structure is too low. However, I am minded
of the comment on South Eastern's website that Oyster fares on their
network would not be cheaper than paper fares. It would be
interesting to know what the revenue impact has been for operators
such as c2c, NXEA (West Anglia side) [1] or FGW where the TfL Oyster
scale has been adopted fairly comprehensively within London

http://www.southeasternrailway.co.uk...&q=90#answered

I guess we won't know how the fares are to be set for a few months
yet.


OK, so the Southeastern website says that Oyster PAYG fares for
journeys on their network aren't going to be any cheaper, i.e. they're
going to cost as much as their current (i.e. paper ticket) fares. And
their current (i.e. paper ticket) fares for journeys wholly within the
London zones have, since 2 January *2007* (i.e. over two years ago),
been set on a central basis by the DfT on the basis of zonal pricing -
i.e. tickets are priced according to what zones are travelled through,
though the actual tickets themselves are still issued on a point-to-
point basis. (The justification given for this at the time is that it
was in preparation for the introduction of Oyster PAYG, which indeed
it was.)

Crucially this applies across National Rail (NR) in London - in other
words to *all* TOCs, including SWT.

So, if we are to assume that what the Southeastern website says is
correct, these pan-London zonally priced fares that currently apply to
conventional paper tickets will also form the basis for the Oyster
PAYG fares for National Rail journeys as well. (These pan-London fares
are set centrally by DfT Rail, but I presume that both TfL and the
TOCs have a degree of input into the decision on the level of those
fares.)

So what SWT appear to be arguing for is utterly nonsensical - the ES
article suggests they want to charge a higher Oyster PAYG fare than
the other London TOCs, but that translates as either meaning that...
(a) SWT want to charge more for Oyster PAYG fares than conventional
paper tickets - which would just be ridiculous, or...
(b) SWT want to opt-out of the pan-London standard fare scale system
altogether, which is also ridiculous.

The latter point is ridiculous because SWT doesn't have any choice on
the matter - the pan-London fares are imposed on the TOCs by the DfT,
and I understand that each franchise was specifically altered so as to
make this a requirement.

So, *if* the ES article is to be taken at face value, my conclusion
would be that SWT are just playing awkward. Why might they do that
though? Well, their new franchise agreement obliged them to set up an
ITSO-based smartcard ticketing system from scratch, the first TOC to
have to do this. However AIUI the aforementioned franchise agreement
didn't spell out how this new smartcard system would play nice with
Oyster when it came to London. I would therefore contend that SWT are
after some kind of special treatment here. One example could be help
in rolling out readers/validators at stations that can cope with both
their own ITSO-based smartcards and also Oyster cards.

The other thing to say is that the ES article might have managed to
mangle things up somewhat. However it would appear that SWT is somehow
causing problems here - which is kind of funny, because when the new
South Western franchise was awarded there was some speculation that
its smartcard ticketing requirement might mean that Oyster PAYG
acceptance could piggyback on the new system which in turn would mean
that SWT would be one of the first TOCs to accept Oyster PAYG. This
somewhat suggests that it could turn out to be the last holdout!

Mizter T wrote

The other thing to say is that the ES article might have managed to
mangle things up somewhat. However it would appear that SWT is
somehow
causing problems here - which is kind of funny, because when the new

The problem may be with journeys that use both SWT and Tube (and indeed
with journeys that might). The present rail & tube fairs are quite
expensive compared with NR only and Tube only are they not ?

SWT may suspect they will get less income than in the paper tickets era
since with paper it is clearer who sold the ticket and whose route was
used.

--
Mike D

On Jan 12, 2:03*pm, "Michael R N Dolbear" wrote:
Mizter T wrote



The other thing to say is that the ES article might have managed to
mangle things up somewhat. However it would appear that SWT is
somehow
causing problems here - which is kind of funny, because when the new

The problem may be with journeys that use both SWT and Tube (and indeed
with journeys that might). The present rail & tube fairs are quite
expensive compared with NR only and Tube only are they not ?

SWT may suspect they will get less income than in the paper tickets era
since with paper it is clearer who sold the ticket and whose route was
used.

I was wondering if SWT was the only TOC affected by new NR Oyster
routes which can also be covered by LU (ie there is already a price
between those stations).

But of course the New Crosses will create similar situations, as do
Wimbledon to Blackfriars, Brixton or Balham to Victoria etc.

I was wondering if SWT was the only TOC affected by new NR Oyster
routes which can also be covered by LU (ie there is already a price
between those stations).

But of course the New Crosses will create similar situations, as do
Wimbledon to Blackfriars, Brixton or Balham to Victoria etc.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Balham isn't so affected by this as there are seperate gatelines, and
no gate free interchange route.

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 06:38:33 -0800 (PST), Matthew Dickinson
wrote:



I was wondering if SWT was the only TOC affected by new NR Oyster
routes which can also be covered by LU (ie there is already a price
between those stations).

But of course the New Crosses will create similar situations, as do
Wimbledon to Blackfriars, Brixton or Balham to Victoria etc.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Balham isn't so affected by this as there are seperate gatelines, and
no gate free interchange route.

Balham, gateline to the South.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDZdpdRYtII

On 12 Jan, 14:03, "Michael R N Dolbear" wrote:

Mizter T wrote:

The other thing to say is that the ES article might have managed to
mangle things up somewhat. However it would appear that SWT is
somehow causing problems here - [...]

The problem may be with journeys that use both SWT and Tube (and indeed
with journeys that might). The present rail & tube fairs are quite
expensive compared with NR only and Tube only are they not ?

They are. They are called 'Tube/Train' fares and are a relatively
recent innovation (though there were other types of through fares
available beforehand) - annoyingly whilst there is a public list of
the 2008 fares I haven't found one of the new 2009 fares.

They are only really any good for single journeys, plus in a whole
number of common scenarios a paper rail ticket plus Oyster PAYG for
the Tube journey works out cheaper.

How 'the system' will deal with combined NR + Tube journeys is one of
the things that is unclear, and yes |'m sure it has been one of the
issues that the TOCs have been negotiating with TfL about.

I don't think one can presume that the existing paper 'Tube/Train'
fares will form the basis for how Oyster PAYG journeys will be charged
- especially given what I said above about how combining a single rail
fare plus Oyster PAYG for the Tube can be cheaper than a through 'Tube/
Train' fare.


SWT may suspect they will get less income than in the paper tickets era
since with paper it is clearer who sold the ticket and whose route was
used.

I'm quite sure that SWT and the other TOCs have been full of such
concerns, and that the commercial negotiations with regards to revenue
apportionment have reached a byzantine level of mind-numbing
complexity! This is in a sense the RSP's ORCATs being devised all
over again, though perhaps with participants who are rather wary of
each other and their motivations.

This could be accentuated by the TOCs not really trusting TfL as a
fair broker (or fair broker) in their revenue apportionment role,
whilst TfL is cautious of the unbridled commercial ethos of the TOCs
in pushing for as much as they can possibly get.

I dare say some of the negotiators may never want to see a spreadsheet
again!

On 12 Jan, 14:12, MIG wrote:

(snip)

I was wondering if SWT was the only TOC affected by new NR Oyster
routes which can also be covered by LU (ie there is already a price
between those stations).

[Those stations being Clapham Jn, Richmond and Wimbledon]


But of course the New Crosses will create similar situations, as do
Wimbledon to Blackfriars, Brixton or Balham to Victoria etc.


Different LU and NR fares can be charged for many of these journeys so
long as a passenger passes through a separate gatelines, as they would
do in many such scenarios e.g. the New Crosses to London Bridge/ Canon
Street/ Charing Cross. (The data from the respective gates can also
help with revenue apportionment.)

There are of course a number of exceptions - from the New Crosses
someone could take an NR train to London Bridge and then a Thameslink
train to Farringdon and then either exit the system there or continue
onwards by Tube, or otherwise they could (in the future) take a LO
East London Line train and connect in with the Tube network (one can
safely assume that London Overground will continue to follow the LU
pricing structure as opposed to the new NR one).

Which is where I suppose the horrendously complicated negotiations
come in!

On 12 Jan, 14:41, Christopher A. Lee wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 06:38:33 -0800 (PST), Matthew Dickinson

wrote:

I was wondering if SWT was the only TOC affected by new NR Oyster
routes which can also be covered by LU (ie there is already a price
between those stations).

But of course the New Crosses will create similar situations, as do
Wimbledon to Blackfriars, Brixton or Balham to Victoria etc.

Balham isn't so affected by this as there are seperate gatelines, and
no gate free interchange route.

Balham, gateline to the South.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDZdpdRYtII

Excellent stuff!

A few years back there were plans for a trial whereby Southern were to
accept Oyster PAYG between Balham and Victoria (i.e. on the NR route),
but nothing came of it.

On 12 Jan, 15:01, Mizter T wrote:
On 12 Jan, 14:03, "Michael R N Dolbear" wrote:

Mizter T wrote:

The other thing to say is that the ES article might have managed to
mangle things up somewhat. However it would appear that SWT is
somehow causing problems here - [...]

The problem may be with journeys that use both SWT and Tube (and indeed
with journeys that might). The present rail & tube fairs are quite
expensive compared with NR only and Tube only are they not ?

They are. They are called 'Tube/Train' fares and are a relatively
recent innovation (though there were other types of through fares
available beforehand) - annoyingly whilst there is a public list of
the 2008 fares I haven't found one of the new 2009 fares.


They can be found at

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tickets/faresa...ares/2892.aspx

On 12 Jan, 15:24, Matthew Dickinson
wrote:

On 12 Jan, 15:01, Mizter T wrote:

On 12 Jan, 14:03, "Michael R N Dolbear" wrote:

Mizter T wrote:

The other thing to say is that the ES article might have managed to
mangle things up somewhat. However it would appear that SWT is
somehow causing problems here - [...]

The problem may be with journeys that use both SWT and Tube (and indeed
with journeys that might). The present rail & tube fairs are quite
expensive compared with NR only and Tube only are they not ?

They are. They are called 'Tube/Train' fares and are a relatively
recent innovation (though there were other types of through fares
available beforehand) - annoyingly whilst there is a public list of
the 2008 fares I haven't found one of the new 2009 fares.

They can be found at

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tickets/faresa...ares/2892.aspx

Thanks very much Matthew. I feel stupid now! I don't think I'd checked
the TfL website, because I don't remember the 'Tube/Train' fares
appearing on it last year - knowing my attention to detail they
probably did!

Taking an example of a zone 3 station - say Streatham Common - to a
central London Tube station - say Euston.

A single rail ticket to 'London Terminals' is £3.10 - so let's say out
passenger went to London Bridge - then an Tube journey for zone 1 with
Oyster PAYG is £1.60 (both peak and off-peak). Total cost £4.70.

Meanwhile the Tube/Train fare for three zones inc. z1 costs £5.10.

One might say there is a benefit of the latter Tube/Train fare, in
that the passenger can get off their NR train at Balham (zone 3) and
get on to the Tube network there. However if they're planning on doing
this they might as well buy a single from Streatham Common to Balham
at £1.70 then use Oyster PAYG for the Tube fare, which would be
£2.70/£2.20 (peak/off-peak) - so a total cost of £4.40, or £3.90 off-
peak.

So I think I'm basically right in saying that these Tube/Train fares
are more expensive than buying a paper rail ticket plus using Oyster
PAYG for the Tube journey. Obviously that only works if one has an
Oyster card, and that's all before one factors in Railcard or Priv
discounts.