I noticed in one of last night's London freesheets that Ken is now taking a
different tack after his recent let off from a FGW penalty fare last week,
don't think I've missed a thread on it...

He appeared to be trying to turn things round into the usual TOC bashing
exercise, along the lines of 'I tried to get FGW to install barriers etc
years ago etc'. But on the route in question FGW DO accept PAYG, but only
as far as West Drayton, and clearly Slough is outside the 'zones'.

Now whenever the remaining TOCs [1] start accepting Oyster PAYG, there will
always be edge cases such as Slough, and all those other dormitory towns
that are just outside the zones, which are outside TfL's current ambit.

So what is the answer? In the expectation that Ken will eventually be able
to keep the issue alive by regularly attempting to make PAYG journeys to
places like Windsor, Weybridge, Epsom etc etc?

Whatever happens there will have to be cut off points somewhere, and as we
have discussed before, an ever expanding orbital zone system centred on
London isn't right for local journeys across the whole country, is it...

[1- let's not repeat all the discussions about reasons for the delay
please]

Paul S

On 24 Mar, 13:52, "Paul Scott" wrote:
I noticed in one of last night's London freesheets that Ken is now taking a
different tack after his recent let off from a FGW penalty fare last week,
don't think I've missed a thread on it...

He appeared to be trying to turn things round into the usual TOC bashing
exercise, along the lines of 'I tried to get FGW to install barriers etc
years ago etc'. *But on the route in question FGW DO accept PAYG, but only
as far as West Drayton, and clearly Slough is outside the 'zones'.

Now whenever the remaining TOCs [1] *start accepting Oyster PAYG, there will
always be edge cases such as Slough, and all those other dormitory towns
that are just outside the zones, which are outside TfL's current ambit.

So what is the answer? In the expectation that Ken will eventually be able
to keep the issue alive by regularly attempting to make PAYG journeys to
places like Windsor, Weybridge, Epsom etc etc?

Whatever happens there will have to be cut off points somewhere, and as we
have discussed before, an ever expanding orbital zone system centred on
London isn't right for local journeys across the whole country, is it...


I think the correct approach is to have PAYG as far as the terminal
point on the inner suburban 'all stations' services. So far, Watford
Junction meets that criterion and spots like Slough, St. Albans,
Welwyn Garden City, Hertford (maybe both ways), Shenfield, Grays,
Dartford, Sevenoaks, Windsor (maybe both ways again) might be a good
idea. Of course, on some routes, there are no inner-suburban only
services. On some routes, such as Southern, the inner suburban
services already only run in the zones and so nothing would need to be
done.

On Mar 24, 2:10 pm, wrote:
On 24 Mar, 13:52, "Paul Scott" wrote:



I noticed in one of last night's London freesheets that Ken is now taking a
different tack after his recent let off from a FGW penalty fare last week,
don't think I've missed a thread on it...

He appeared to be trying to turn things round into the usual TOC bashing
exercise, along the lines of 'I tried to get FGW to install barriers etc
years ago etc'. But on the route in question FGW DO accept PAYG, but only
as far as West Drayton, and clearly Slough is outside the 'zones'.

Now whenever the remaining TOCs [1] start accepting Oyster PAYG, there will
always be edge cases such as Slough, and all those other dormitory towns
that are just outside the zones, which are outside TfL's current ambit.

So what is the answer? In the expectation that Ken will eventually be able
to keep the issue alive by regularly attempting to make PAYG journeys to
places like Windsor, Weybridge, Epsom etc etc?

Whatever happens there will have to be cut off points somewhere, and as we
have discussed before, an ever expanding orbital zone system centred on
London isn't right for local journeys across the whole country, is it...

I think the correct approach is to have PAYG as far as the terminal
point on the inner suburban 'all stations' services. So far, Watford
Junction meets that criterion and spots like Slough, St. Albans,
Welwyn Garden City, Hertford (maybe both ways), Shenfield, Grays,
Dartford, Sevenoaks, Windsor (maybe both ways again) might be a good
idea. Of course, on some routes, there are no inner-suburban only
services. On some routes, such as Southern, the inner suburban
services already only run in the zones and so nothing would need to be
done.

I saw the same piece - think it was the London Lite.

Reading between the lines I got the impression that Ken's point was
his normal one - that FGW et al enjoy collecting penalty fares (and
excess ticketing values) from travellers far too much to reform their
ticketing practices without a serious kick up the arse.

Although why he felt that a letter to the Daily Mail (which appears to
be the original source) was a good way of getting this across is
beyond me. They're hardly his biggest fans.

wrote:

I think the correct approach is to have PAYG as far as the terminal
point on the inner suburban 'all stations' services. So far, Watford
Junction meets that criterion and spots like Slough, St. Albans,
Welwyn Garden City, Hertford (maybe both ways), Shenfield, Grays,
Dartford, Sevenoaks, Windsor (maybe both ways again) might be a good
idea. Of course, on some routes, there are no inner-suburban only
services. On some routes, such as Southern, the inner suburban
services already only run in the zones and so nothing would need to be
done.

Ah but what is an "inner suburban all stations" service? Southern have all
station services running as far as Horsham (a double complication as it's on
two routes) and SWT have similar to Guildford, again a station served by
many routes.

wrote:

Reading between the lines I got the impression that Ken's point was
his normal one - that FGW et al enjoy collecting penalty fares (and
excess ticketing values) from travellers far too much to reform their
ticketing practices without a serious kick up the arse.

Although why he felt that a letter to the Daily Mail (which appears to
be the original source) was a good way of getting this across is
beyond me. They're hardly his biggest fans.

The article is at:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...traveller.html

Where I don't understand this is that Paddington is hardly some obscure
suburban station with a solitary ticket machine that's easily vandalised.
Livingstone was in the same situation as many others - gets there late
because of tube delays and bad personal time management and though he could
wing it. If the barrier staff and inspectors aren't singing from the same
hymn sheet then he'd have a point, but to turn it into a rant about TOCs not
taking up Oyster doesn't make for the best. It's fairly typical
Livingstone - ignore the very real technical and logistical problems, some
of which TfL didn't have, call the companies greedy for needing more time,
and completely ignore the fact that his own obsession with Oyster has caused
problems for passengers by forcing up non-Oyster fares when Oyster is not
yet usuable for everyone.

On Mar 24, 10:22*pm, "Tim Roll-Pickering" T.C.Roll-
wrote:
wrote:
I think the correct approach is to have PAYG as far as the terminal
point on the inner suburban 'all stations' services. So far, Watford
Junction meets that criterion and spots like Slough, St. Albans,
Welwyn Garden City, Hertford (maybe both ways), Shenfield, Grays,
Dartford, Sevenoaks, Windsor (maybe both ways again) might be a good
idea. Of course, on some routes, there are no inner-suburban only
services. On some routes, such as Southern, the inner suburban
services already only run in the zones and so nothing would need to be
done.

Ah but what is an "inner suburban all stations" service? Southern have all
station services running as far as Horsham (a double complication as it's on
two routes) and SWT have similar to Guildford, again a station served by
many routes.

Most of the Horsham services are not all stations from London, but fast
(ish) to Croydon for those via Three Bridges or Fast from Sutton -
Horsham for the other route (Peak services are different of course).
Horsham is a bit further than I had in mind, because of the fast
sections. Guildford is more complex, but there, most of the via Woking
services are not all stations, just the via Leatherhead ones; here
Woking might be the spot. As the OP mentioned, there will always be
boundary problems

wrote:

Ah but what is an "inner suburban all stations" service? Southern have
all
station services running as far as Horsham (a double complication as
it's on
two routes) and SWT have similar to Guildford, again a station served by
many routes.

Most of the Horsham services are not all stations from London, but fast
(ish) to Croydon for those via Three Bridges or Fast from Sutton -
Horsham for the other route (Peak services are different of course).

Ah - I'm originally from Epsom so focus on that side. In my experience the
fasts and stoppings on the routes running through Epsom frequently get
rearranged depending on the ever changing requirements between Sutton and
Clapham Junction. From the passenger perspective there isn't much that
distinguishes the desinations as such - Horsham is only one more stop away
than West Croydon. Dorking certainly couldn't be simply designated a fast
only service station and beyond that there are only three more stations
before Horsham.

Horsham is a bit further than I had in mind, because of the fast
sections. Guildford is more complex, but there, most of the via Woking
services are not all stations, just the via Leatherhead ones; here
Woking might be the spot. As the OP mentioned, there will always be
boundary problems

Yes again the Epsom perspective is one of predominantly all-station services
on that line. I don't think you can very easily draw any workable line
before Guildford - which was, IIRC, the end point for the old "South Western
Lines" services out of Waterloo in the Network South East era. Making Epsom
or Effingham Junction the stop point would be a rather arbitary selection
IMHO.

On 24 Mar, 22:54, "Tim Roll-Pickering"
wrote:
wrote:
Reading between the lines I got the impression that Ken's point was
his normal one - that FGW et al enjoy collecting penalty fares (and
excess ticketing values) from travellers far too much to reform their
ticketing practices without a serious kick up the arse.
Although why he felt that a letter to the Daily Mail (which appears to
be the original source) was a good way of getting this across is
beyond me. They're hardly his biggest fans.

The article is at:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...y-rail-fare-fi...

Where I don't understand this is that Paddington is hardly some obscure
suburban station with a solitary ticket machine that's easily vandalised.
Livingstone was in the same situation as many others - gets there late
because of tube delays and bad personal time management and though he could
wing it. If the barrier staff and inspectors aren't singing from the same
hymn sheet then he'd have a point, but to turn it into a rant about TOCs not
taking up Oyster doesn't make for the best. It's fairly typical
Livingstone - ignore the very real technical and logistical problems, some
of which TfL didn't have, call the companies greedy for needing more time,
and completely ignore the fact that his own obsession with Oyster has caused
problems for passengers by forcing up non-Oyster fares when Oyster is not
yet usuable for everyone.

It highlights the problem with the current policy of not allowing
remote issue from self-service ticket machines. Somewhere like
Paddington should have a machine that reads a season ticket, sees that
it is valid to a station somewhere down the line and then allows issue
of a ticket issued at West Drayton or Boundary Zone 6 (or any other
location). All too often, someone who can pass through the barriers
at the London terminal with a ticket not valid for their full journey
will get away with not buying the extension.

I appreciate that there is a risk that someone would buy a ticket from
London to Ealing and another from Twyford to Reading but that is what
on-train inspection of tickets is about (when the conductor can pass
through the train). If someone was that determined, they could buy
two short range singles in advance online anyway.

Jonathan

wrote:

It highlights the problem with the current policy of not allowing
remote issue from self-service ticket machines. Somewhere like
Paddington should have a machine that reads a season ticket, sees that
it is valid to a station somewhere down the line and then allows issue
of a ticket issued at West Drayton or Boundary Zone 6 (or any other
location). All too often, someone who can pass through the barriers
at the London terminal with a ticket not valid for their full journey
will get away with not buying the extension.

Except that there's no mention of the extension problem (which I fully agree
with as expressed on other threads) and the £7.50 quoted is the Anytime Day
Single fare for Paddington to Slough. Livingstone sounds like he was
travelling on Oyster PAYG on the tube and transferring to a regular fare.

Another point he might not wish to answer is the poor availability of tube
and train combination fares from tube stations. But again his mantra as
Mayor was "everyone must use Oyster PAYG" and whack fares up to punish those
who dared to have travel requirements that PAYG is useless for.

Now if he had focused on the problems of season tickets he'd get a lot more
sympathy, especially as what is a simple purchase in itself usually takes
ages because of queues by tourists asking for complicated stuff, but this
isn't the situation he was in.

On 24 Mar, 19:56, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:52:34 -0000, "Paul Scott"

wrote:
I noticed in one of last night's London freesheets that Ken is now taking a
different tack after his recent let off from a FGW penalty fare last week,
don't think I've missed a thread on it...

He appeared to be trying to turn things round into the usual TOC bashing
exercise, along the lines of 'I tried to get FGW to install barriers etc
years ago etc'. *But on the route in question FGW DO accept PAYG, but only
as far as West Drayton, and clearly Slough is outside the 'zones'.

Yes but his point (from what I have read) was that it is hypocritical of
the TOCs to cut back on ticket selling capacity or take ages to
implement genuine ticketing improvements (like PAYG) and at the same
time run a very strict enforcement regime. Whether people agree with
that view or not is a moot point given he's not Mayor. Now we don't know
if FGW exercised discretion based on who Ken is or whether they simply
did the same for him that they'd do for anyone in the same
circumstances. Hopefully the latter but who knows?

If that is his point, then I agree with it. I've lost count of how
many times I've objected to the fact that more effort is put into
catching people without tickets than is put into making tickets
conveniently available.

But I have no sympathy with him as the person who was Mayor when TfL
decided to impose £4 penalty fares to coerce people to use Oyster
PAYG, and put their fingers in ears and went "la la la" when people
pointed out that Oyster was not yet fully available, however much they
wished it to be. Has he now only just noticed that it doesn't even
cover journeys covered by travelcards, let alone to places like Slough?