"Richardr" wrote ...
"Andrew Heenan" wrote
Thameslink already has two quite separate services, the metro (via the
Sutton Loop), and the Bedford to Brighton. It would make perfect sense
for LOROL to control the metro service, but not the long distance. LOROL
would then take a chair at the timetabling meetings and negotiate paths
liek everyone else. LOROL can share lines with other services just like
the other TOCs do.
But then that doesn't solve the revenue allocation question, which is what
this discussion is about, it just moves it.
You have even more shared journeys between the privately owned and run
Bedford to Brighton service and the TfL service.
What's more, it is then in the interests of the privately run Bedford
trains to stop at, say, Mill Hill, Hendon, West Hampstead, and Kentish
Town, for example, purely to share in the revenue from those stations,
even though that pattern isn't optimal for anyone outside of Greater
London.

The post I responded to widened the discussion (as have others and your
post), to cover the effects on service.

The divvying of fares is currently an issue because TfL and NR have
historically assesed fares in very different ways; Oyster with zones, NR
with cheap day returns, etc., etc., It's an issue because the different
stakeholders unsurprisingly want the best outcome.

But it really isn't a make or break for London's railways; eventually
they'll come up with a formula (sadly much more complex than those proposed
in this thread), and life will go on, with Oysters for all.

The eventual outcome will almost certainly be that all fares totally within
the zones will be based on the TfL system, and at a common price; journeys
reaching outside the zones will continue as now - and, either way, the
Railway_Clearing_House's successors will continue to divide the spondulux
successfully they have continuously since 1842 on the national network.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_Clearing_House

Whether TfL takes on more metro services is quite separate, and will (almost
inevitably) happen at some point.

The only really interesting thing about the squabble is that it has
highlighted the variation in NR fares around London, and this has been used
as an excuse (for example) to further raise Southeastern's fares,
conveniently forgetting that the main reason that they're historically low,
is that they've generally provided a relatively poor, very slow service.

What's more, it is then in the interests of the privately run Bedford
trains to stop at, say, Mill Hill, Hendon, West Hampstead, and Kentish
Town, for example, purely to share in the revenue from those stations,
even though that pattern isn't optimal for anyone outside of Greater
London.

Not so; filling their trains with local passengers for a few bob will deny
the space to long distance travellers, and lose them pounds. Longer distance
operators generally hate short distance passengers, and it's only anomolies
in the system (eg Virgins protection against competition on the WCML) that
leads to stupid stopping patterns.


--

Andrew