On 31 May, 13:02, "Andrew Heenan" wrote:
Take Thameslink, for example, which stops and potentially stops at a lot
of
London stations. If the Mayor of London had sole rights to determine
stopping patterns in London, then he would, quite rightly for him and his
electors, choose patterns wanted by his constituents, which I would
imagine
would mean stopping all trains at all stops in Greater London. Thus those
passengers from outside London, e.g. Brighton and Bedford, would get a
massive deterioration in service.

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.
--

Andrewhttp://www.kwoted.com/

"If A is success in life, then A = x + y + z.
Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut." ~ Albert Einstein

Yes, that's what I meant. Thank you for that clarification!

On 31 May, 14:54, "Andrew Heenan" wrote:
"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;

Southern have stated previously that they didn't want to make the
fares the same as TfL zonal fares, and I believe they were considering
having different single fares for the South London TOCs, especially
SWT which was refusing to accept oyster at all unless the condition of
them being able to set different fares was met, hence the slow take-up
of Oyster in SWT-land. Not to mention SWT's own brand of smartcard
which is being rolled out soon.

I hope that they drop the argument that fares should be independent,
because this complicates issues further if they don't follow the same
fares as TfL has set in North London for Tube, NR and combinations.

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.

Yes, I agree

"Mizter T" wrote ...
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.

Wow, Andrew - you do so love bringing a confident sense of certainty
when there's no real justification for it, and hence you end up making
wrongheaded assumptions or jumping to simplistic conclusions.

Re the idea that "all fares within the zones will be based on the TfL
system" - in actual fact there's been some evidence to suggest that
when Oyster PAYG is accepted across NR in London, the farescale
adopted for single fares will be exactly the same as that which
currently applies to NR in London (which is now uniform across all
TOCs for journeys within the zones) - in other words Oyster PAYG won't
offer a straightforward price advantage over buying paper tickets, and
it will be more expensive than Tube PAYG fares.

Snippy!
I've as much right to speculate as you, and have no less evidence to back it
up (ie none).
The key words are "eventual outcome" - not what is now, and not what
temporary compromises may be reached shortly; ultimately, the re-issuing of
franchises will allow for a long term solution, and in Southern's case,
probably the one after next.

I'll take a bet with you that once the dust settles, fares *entirely within
London's zonal area* become flat rate, zone-based fares, and the same on
train / LOROL / Tube. Because it's clearly the most sensible, least
confusing, and, if Oyster is to work (2012 etc), the only way to avoid never
ending complaints of being overcharged.

The one exception to the above that is conceivable (long term, still), is
overground fares being higher than tube; it would be stupid, and unfair of
those south of the river, but if they need a stupid compromise to silence
ATOC (often the way, sadly), that could be it. But still uniform, zone
based - because it makes sense.

ATOC doesn't want it, the TOCs won't care (it'll be costed into franchise),
but passengers will gain; it will be transparent.

I envisage no advantage to PAYG, paper tickets or anything else; just one
system for Londoners on London's trains.

And it has to happen sooner or later for LOROL to function properly.

£1.00 ?
--

Andrew

"She plays the tuba.
It is the only instrument capable
of imitating a distress call."

On 31 May, 17:50, wrote:
On May 31, 1:33*pm, Mr Thant
wrote:

On 31 May, 13:02, "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.

Except late at night when the trains run all stops Bedford - St P, and
during the peaks when the service patterns get complicated. They also
share stock and depots and drivers. It would take a major
reorganisation to try to run the metro service as a separate
operation.

But isn't the eventual plan that the suburban services will gain new 8
car trains, whilst the longer distance services will gain 12 car
trains. This will lead to a separation in the rolling stock at least.
The question is surely whether the service has to be completely
separate or whether the suburban section can be specified by TfL as a
signatory to the franchise, with a suitable arrangement of fare
allocations.

I would imagine that it might be better to create a new LOROL operator
for South London similar to LOROL in the North, maybe renamed to LOROL
2 with the services operated under contract to TfL on a strictly no
revenue-risk basis. These could be branded Overground similarly to the
North London services. Then these could be differentiated from the
Southern, SWT and Southeastern services and meet the minimum
requirement for metro-frequency in the suburbs which Overground will
eventually meet on all routes.

However, unfortunately there would still be the problem of other
Southern, Southeastern and Thameslink services which would call at
very few London Stations, but would still have to accept oyster. Thus
rebranding and restructuring Suburban services in South London in a
similar manor to Overground in the North while being beneficial in
other aspects, would not solve the problem of revenue allocation
because there would still be other operators not directly controlled
under TfL. So they are going to have to come to an agreement with the
4 south London TOCs which do not currently accept Oyster yet.

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.
Except late at night when the trains run all stops Bedford - St P, and
during the peaks when the service patterns get complicated. They also
share stock and depots and drivers. It would take a major
reorganisation to try to run the metro service as a separate
operation.

Not so.
Since Govia days, their has been designated stock, and while there are
exceptions, diagrams, trains and drivers could very easily be separated. By
the time TL2000 is complete, there will be three, maybe four depots
involved, so if sharing was too painful, one could be separated out.

It really wouldn't be difficult, and would allow Boris' Lorol Map to look
much better, while service levels (and possibly times) needn't change
immediately at all; next would be the South London, followed by the Moorgate
services, that neither WAGN nor CursedGroup have ever cared about. In fact
there's really no reason why London shouldn't have its own network of
all-stations-metro trains. Is there? And I'm sure the TOCS would be happy
not be pressured to match LOROL's standards of station staffing ...

Yes, it'll take years; it may even take a non-tory mayor or two.

On May 31, 6:13*pm, D DB 90001
wrote:

On 31 May, 14:54, "Andrew Heenan" wrote:

[snip]

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;

Southern have stated previously that they didn't want to make the
fares the same as TfL zonal fares, and I believe they were considering
having different single fares for the South London TOCs, especially
SWT which was refusing to accept oyster at all unless the condition of
them being able to set different fares was met, hence the slow take-up
of Oyster in SWT-land. Not to mention SWT's own brand of smartcard
which is being rolled out soon.

I hope that they drop the argument that fares should be independent,
because this complicates issues further if they don't follow the same
fares as TfL has set in North London for Tube, NR and combinations.


Where on earth did you get the idea that different Oyster PAYG fares
for different TOCs were being seriously considered - I mean, being
considered by the relevant parties, as opposed to just being discussed
by armchair observers completely outside the whole negotiation
process?

I have never come across any suggestion whatsoever that Oyster PAYG
fares on NR would vary by TOC. All the current rail-only fares within
London are now priced on a zonal basis and have been since January '07
- indeed the driver behind this change was Oyster PAYG, and this was
considered an essential precursor to that. (The change was decreed by
DfT Rail on the urging of TfL.)

As I've said elsewhere in this thread, I would not be remotely
surprised to find that Oyster PAYG single fares on NR are exactly the
same as the existing zonal farescale, i.e. not any cheaper than their
paper ticket equivalents. The advantage of Oyster PAYG on NR will thus
be (a) convenience, (b) the potential for capping and (c) the ability
to get automatic ticket extensions through PAYG when travelling beyond
the validity of one's Travelcard.

However, all NR fares on Oyster PAYG will be the same - except for
those journeys where interavailable ticketing applies, e.g. Stratford
to Liverpool Street, where I expect the cheaper LU fare would apply
instead.

On 31 May, 17:50, wrote:
But isn't the eventual plan that the suburban services will gain new 8
car trains, whilst the longer distance services will gain 12 car
trains. This will lead to a separation in the rolling stock at least.

Things we know:
- All trains via London Bridge will be 12 car, to maximize capacity
- All (or most) trains via Elephant will be 8 car, due to platform
lengths at the inner south London stations
- All trains stopping at Kentish Town or Cricklewood will need to be 8
car, due to platform lengths.
- All other inner (and outer) stations are being lengthened to 12 cars

I think the likely outcome is off-peak, the "metro" services are 8
cars and call all stops, but during the peaks many of the 12 car
trains make various calls at the inner MML stations (except KT and
CW).

The question is surely whether the service has to be completely
separate or whether the suburban section can be specified by TfL as a
signatory to the franchise, with a suitable arrangement of fare
allocations.

Exactly. Splitting the operations between separate companies doesn't
necessarily make much sense.

There are a few inner suburban trains that run to / from Letchworth
during the peaks.

Checking the new timetable, they now only do this during the off-
peaks. I thought they'd stopped doing ti completely.

U

"D DB 90001" wrote ...
Southern have stated previously that they didn't want to make the
fares the same as TfL zonal fares, and I believe they were considering
having different single fares for the South London TOCs, especially
SWT which was refusing to accept oyster at all unless the condition of
them being able to set different fares was met, hence the slow take-up
of Oyster in SWT-land. Not to mention SWT's own brand of smartcard
which is being rolled out soon.
I hope that they drop the argument that fares should be independent,
because this complicates issues further if they don't follow the same
fares as TfL has set in North London for Tube, NR and combinations.

Don't worry about Southern; fine company though they are, they are in the
tail end of a franchise, and won't do anything to take financial risks at
this stage. Things will change with the new owner (hopefully Southern!),
because it'll be written in....

.... hopefully better than SWT, who had a franchise commitment to be ITSO
compliant, AND accept Oyster. While ITSO and Oyster remain incompatible
(though I hear rumours that progress is being made). SWT's predicament is
one reason I'm confident of a sensible solution (eventually). Although they
cocked it up, there was a serious attempt to write it into contract that the
TOC would be sensible. Shame about the loopholes, as Mr Souter loves 'em!
--

Andrew

http://twitter.com/Quadrille

On May 31, 6:21*pm, D DB 90001
wrote:
On 31 May, 17:50, wrote:





On May 31, 1:33*pm, Mr Thant
wrote:

On 31 May, 13:02, "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.

Except late at night when the trains run all stops Bedford - St P, and
during the peaks when the service patterns get complicated. They also
share stock and depots and drivers. It would take a major
reorganisation to try to run the metro service as a separate
operation.

But isn't the eventual plan that the suburban services will gain new 8
car trains, whilst the longer distance services will gain 12 car
trains. This will lead to a separation in the rolling stock at least.
The question is surely whether the service has to be completely
separate or whether the suburban section can be specified by TfL as a
signatory to the franchise, with a suitable arrangement of fare
allocations.

I would imagine that it might be better to create a new LOROL operator
for South London similar to LOROL in the North, maybe renamed to LOROL
2 with the services operated under contract to TfL on a strictly no
revenue-risk basis. These could be branded Overground similarly to the
North London services. Then these could be differentiated from the
Southern, SWT and Southeastern services and meet the minimum
requirement for metro-frequency in the suburbs which Overground will
eventually meet on all routes.

However, unfortunately there would still be the problem of other
Southern, Southeastern and Thameslink services which would call at
very few London Stations, but would still have to accept oyster. Thus
rebranding and restructuring Suburban services in South London in a
similar manor to Overground in the North while being beneficial in
other aspects, would not solve the problem of revenue allocation
because there would still be other operators not directly controlled
under TfL. So they are going to have to come to an agreement with the
4 south London TOCs which do not currently accept Oyster yet.

This is not such a big problem, as London Midland already do this,
PAYG being valid from Watford Junction, Bushey and Harrow & Wealdstone
on long distance services. I think it was basically the pressure of
being the only TOC not accepting PAYG that forced their hand, with
Southern having accepted PAYG from the start of London Overground
operations.

On May 31, 6:32*pm, Mr Thant
wrote:
On 31 May, 17:50, wrote:

But isn't the eventual plan that the suburban services will gain new 8
car trains, whilst the longer distance services will gain 12 car
trains. This will lead to a separation in the rolling stock at least.

Things we know:
- All trains via London Bridge will be 12 car, to maximize capacity
- All (or most) trains via Elephant will be 8 car, due to platform
lengths at the inner south London stations
- All trains stopping at Kentish Town or Cricklewood will need to be 8
car, due to platform lengths.
- All other inner (and outer) stations are being lengthened to 12 cars

I think the likely outcome is off-peak, the "metro" services are 8
cars and call all stops, but during the peaks many of the 12 car
trains make various calls at the inner MML stations (except KT and
CW).


Hmm, I'd be surprised it there were many of the 12 car trains making
'extra' stops south of St. Albans during the peak, as the the
deceleration would make them less attractive to the longer distance
commuters. I'd think that the split between outer and inner suburban
services will be similar to now, but with extra 12 car trains running
on the outer suburban ECML services, where platforms are to be
lengthened to 12 car. Of course, there may be more stops in these
services just before and after the core peak periods and there might
be some inner suburban 12 car trains running on routes which can take
them south of the river.

The question is surely whether the service has to be completely
separate or whether the suburban section can be specified by TfL as a
signatory to the franchise, with a suitable arrangement of fare
allocations.

Exactly. Splitting the operations between separate companies doesn't
necessarily make much sense.

There are a few inner suburban trains that run to / from Letchworth
during the peaks.

Checking the new timetable, they now only do this during the off-
peaks. I thought they'd stopped doing ti completely.


So they do, and every hour now, the former Stevenage via Hertford
services have been extended to Letchworth. I wonder if they plan to
extend peak trains as well, once they get a few more 313s