Quality reporting on Oyster PAYG
 

David wrote:

I have travelled Hayes & Harlinhgton - Hanwell (ZZ5-4) several times
and been charged £1.10 PAYG.
nationalrail.co.uk offers £2.10 Anytime Single and £3.10 (?!) Off-Peak
Single for the same journey.

£3.10 is the Offpeak return, the Anytime return is £3.70. You mustn't have
read it correctly...

Paul S

Quality reporting on Oyster PAYG
 

On Jun 18, 5:17 pm, "Paul Scott" wrote:

Tom Barry wrote:

The example I'd toss out would be Chiswick-Brentford (SWT), Chiswick
Park-Boston Manor (Tube) and Acton Main Line-Hanwell (FGW), all Z3-Z4
trips over broadly similar distances (2, 4 and 3 stops respectively).
I know the first one is £2.10, the second is £1.10 and I'm pretty
sure the third is £1.10 as well, although I'm open to correction. Can
anyone confirm; are the existing National Rail PAYG schemes all
on the Tube fare scale even when you aren't going between Tube
stations?

In fact NREs shows exactly the same fares for the SWT and FGW examples.
Which is as you'd expect, as although the FGW journey has PAYG it is not a
dual availability LU/NR route, ie the cash single isn't £4.00 like the
Finsbury Park - Kings Cross BBC example...


Sorry Paul but the above is all wrong!

First off, Tom Barry's SWT Chiswick-Brentford fare example isn't a PAYG
fare, as PAYG ain't valid on SWT yet - it's just the standard rail single
fare (granted he didn't make this clear).

Also, NRE shows the FGW Acton Main Line to Hanwell fare as being £2.10 (not
£1.10), which is correct as that's the zonally priced z3 to z4 rail fare.

Thirdly, you can check all Oyster PAYG single fares on the 'Fare finder' on
TfL's website he
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/tickets/fa...09/farefinder/

This confirms that an Acton Main Line to Hanwell PAYG fare is £1.10 - so
Oyster PAYG users save a quid over buying a paper single rail ticket. For
this journey, an Anytime Day Return is £3.70 and an Off-Peak Day Return is
£3.10, so using Oyster PAYG for a return journey would still work out
cheaper.

The $64,000 question is whether FGW will stick with the LU farescale, or
switch over to the NR farescale. The same question applies elsewhere north
of the Thames where TOCs already accept Oyster PAYG (though presumably where
interavailable ticketing applies, the LU farescale trumps any other
considerations).

Quality reporting on Oyster PAYG
 

Mizter T wrote:
On Jun 18, 5:17 pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

In fact NREs shows exactly the same fares for the SWT and FGW
examples. Which is as you'd expect, as although the FGW journey has
PAYG it is not a dual availability LU/NR route, ie the cash single
isn't £4.00 like the Finsbury Park - Kings Cross BBC example...


Sorry Paul but the above is all wrong!

First off, Tom Barry's SWT Chiswick-Brentford fare example isn't a
PAYG fare, as PAYG ain't valid on SWT yet - it's just the standard
rail single fare (granted he didn't make this clear).


Yes my mistake, it shows a normal NR cash fare, not an LU cash fare - which
as discussed ^^^ is what comes up on a dual ticketed route on the NREs
screen. Sorry for confusing anyone, but you've raised a very valid point, as
to why FGW can take what appears at face value to be a hit on their expected
revenue.

SO... it must have been approved by DfT surely? So why won't they do the
same with the SR Tocs?

Paul S

Quality reporting on Oyster PAYG
 

On Jun 18, 6:07 pm, "Paul Scott" wrote:

Mizter T wrote:

On Jun 18, 5:17 pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
In fact NREs shows exactly the same fares for the SWT and FGW
examples. Which is as you'd expect, as although the FGW journey has
PAYG it is not a dual availability LU/NR route, ie the cash single
isn't £4.00 like the Finsbury Park - Kings Cross BBC example...

Sorry Paul but the above is all wrong!

First off, Tom Barry's SWT Chiswick-Brentford fare example isn't a
PAYG fare, as PAYG ain't valid on SWT yet - it's just the standard
rail single fare (granted he didn't make this clear).

Yes my mistake, it shows a normal NR cash fare, not an LU cash fare -
which
as discussed ^^^ is what comes up on a dual ticketed route on the NREs
screen. Sorry for confusing anyone, but you've raised a very valid point,
as
to why FGW can take what appears at face value to be a hit on their
expected
revenue.

SO... it must have been approved by DfT surely? So why won't they do the
same with the SR Tocs?

From everything I've read and heard, those TOCs that have already agreed to
accept Oyster PAYG for at least portions of their routes (above and beyond
what's required for ticketing interavailability) decided to do so on their
own initiative, and subsequently negotiated and reached amicable terms with
TfL with regards to recompense for this (TfL obviously being very keen for
this to happen) - DfT was as far as I can see nothing to do with it, though
you make a good point as presumably they must have given such moves their
blessing. However it certainly didn't happen as a result of the DfT
dictating to these TOCs (such as FGW) that they must accept Oyster PAYG.

FGW is perhaps the most interesting example of this happening, as they're
the least enmeshed with the Underground network of all the
north-of-the-river TOCs yet they accept Oyster PAYG on their routes
throughout the London zones. Sure, c2c and Chiltern accept it throughout the
zones as well these days - but their routes are very much entangled with the
Underground network.

By the by, the map of current Oyster PAYG acceptance on NR can be found here
(PDF):
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...ional-rail.pdf

Quality reporting on Oyster PAYG
 

On 18 June, 17:44, Mizter T wrote:
On Jun 18, 5:08*pm, Tom Barry wrote:





Mizter T wrote:
On Jun 18, 4:00 pm, John B wrote:
...

I despair...

Agreed - that is a *monumentally stupid* example.

A far better example would have been Balham (zone 3) to Victoria (zone
1). The Tube PAYG fare is £2.70/peak, £2.20/off-peak. A single rail
fare is £3.10 (within the London zones, all rail fares are conform to
the same fare scale and are all priced zonally, albeit issued on a
point-to-point basis).

The worst examples are likely to be in the suburbs, where comparing,
say, a Z3 to Z4 tube, north-of-river-TOC PAYG and south-of-river-TOC
PAYG is likely to provoke howls of outrage from the people who, let's
face it, are waiting longest anyway.

Woah there - don't simply presume those north-of-river TOCs that
currently accept Oyster PAYG will necessarily stay on the cheaper LU
farescale (though I think it would be fair to assume that
straightforward interavailable journeys - easiest example being
Stratford to Liverpool St - would stay on the Tube fare scale, though
that does then beg the question as to how a Maryland to Liverpool St
journey would be charged - if it's the higher NR fare scale then
that'd encourage people to just walk to Stratford instead.)

To throw this question into sharp relief, perhaps the easiest question
to ask is whether FGW will stay on the LU PAYG farescale, or decide to
shift over to the higher NR PAYG farescale?



The example I'd toss out would be Chiswick-Brentford (SWT), Chiswick
Park-Boston Manor (Tube) and Acton Main Line-Hanwell (FGW), all Z3-Z4
trips over broadly similar distances (2, 4 and 3 stops respectively). *I
know the first one is £2.10, the second is £1.10 and I'm pretty sure the
third is £1.10 as well, although I'm open to correction. *Can anyone
confirm; are the existing National Rail PAYG schemes all on the Tube
fare scale even when you aren't going between Tube stations?

[The £2.10 Chiswick-Brentford fare being the paper rail fare]

Yes - all the existing NR PAYG schemes are all on the LU farescale,
even if you don't go anywhere near an LU station. As I ponder above,
the question is whether they'll stay that way.

Would any interavailability agreement override that option?

Another thought: does any current PAYG acceptance incorporate an
interavailability agreement, but future PAYG maybe being negotiated in
a different way?

Quality reporting on Oyster PAYG
 

FGW is perhaps the most interesting example of this happening, as they're
the least enmeshed with the Underground network of all the
north-of-the-river TOCs yet they accept Oyster PAYG on their routes
throughout the London zones. Sure, c2c and Chiltern accept it throughout the
zones as well these days - but their routes are very much entangled with the
Underground network.

By the by, the map of current Oyster PAYG acceptance on NR can be found here
(PDF):http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...on-nationa...- Hide quoted text -


While there isn't any FGW interavailability, the common gatelines at
Paddington, Ealing Broadway & Greenford would make it tricky to change
from the LUL PAYG rates.

Quality reporting on Oyster PAYG
 

On 18 June, 17:31, Mizter T wrote:
On Jun 18, 5:00*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

Mizter T wrote:
Agreed - that is a *monumentally stupid* example.

A far better example would have been Balham (zone 3) to Victoria (zone
1). The Tube PAYG fare is £2.70/peak, £2.20/off-peak. A single rail
fare is £3.10 (within the London zones, all rail fares are conform to
the same fare scale and are all priced zonally, albeit issued on a
point-to-point basis).

But that isn't the full story, as it is only true when comparing single
fares. If (like most pax I imagine) you are clever enough to buy a 'rail'
standard return at £5.30 or off peak return at £4.10 it is less than the
equivalent two PAYG singles. *I don't recall anything in the media that has
looked at that level of detail, it's more normal for them to go off on one
about the £4.00 cash fare (as in the BBC article above)...

Agreed - I kept the example simple and so didn't mention return fares
(I recall posters on 'one'/NXEA advertising their 'increased
acceptance' of Oyster PAYG specifically pointing out that a CDR could
nonetheless be cheaper).

The return fare situation can be complicated further by the existence
of capping too - and there remains the question of how combined LU+NR
journeys would be priced.


Given the relationship between the current caps and the equivalent
travelcard, it's hard to see how there could be a higher cap that
didn't take it over the price of the travelcard.

Or maybe the cap could remain the same, even though singles cost more,
to compensate for the loss of returns?

Before Oyster came along, I always found it odd that an NR journey
could cost so much more than an LU journey while a travelcard was
valid on both.

(I think I will stick to travelcards wherever possible.)

Quality reporting on Oyster PAYG
 

On Jun 18, 7:23*pm, MIG wrote:

On 18 June, 17:31, Mizter T wrote:

On Jun 18, 5:00*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

Mizter T wrote:
Agreed - that is a *monumentally stupid* example.

A far better example would have been Balham (zone 3) to Victoria (zone
1). The Tube PAYG fare is £2.70/peak, £2.20/off-peak. A single rail
fare is £3.10 (within the London zones, all rail fares are conform to
the same fare scale and are all priced zonally, albeit issued on a
point-to-point basis).

But that isn't the full story, as it is only true when comparing single
fares. If (like most pax I imagine) you are clever enough to buy a 'rail'
standard return at £5.30 or off peak return at £4.10 it is less than the
equivalent two PAYG singles. *I don't recall anything in the media that has
looked at that level of detail, it's more normal for them to go off on one
about the £4.00 cash fare (as in the BBC article above)...

Agreed - I kept the example simple and so didn't mention return fares
(I recall posters on 'one'/NXEA advertising their 'increased
acceptance' of Oyster PAYG specifically pointing out that a CDR could
nonetheless be cheaper).

The return fare situation can be complicated further by the existence
of capping too - and there remains the question of how combined LU+NR
journeys would be priced.

Given the relationship between the current caps and the equivalent
travelcard, it's hard to see how there could be a higher cap that
didn't take it over the price of the travelcard.

Though I didn't suggest there would or could be a higher cap above the
cost of a Travelcard - in fact I'm in agreement that there couldn't
possibly be a higher cap that was more costly than the equivalent Day
Travelcard, as any such thing would be completely nonsensical.

In out recent discussion here I outlined a couple of possible
scenarios - either...
(a) that there are two capping levels - that is a TfL cap and then a
more expensive TfL+NR cap which is the same price as the equivalent
Day Travelcard,
(b) or there is a single capping level, which is either marginally
cheaper (i.e. 50p less) than the equivalent Day Travelcard, or is
priced the same as the equivalent Day Travelcard.

Paul C replied, the gist of his response was that option (b) was the
only sensible choice as otherwise things would simply be too
complicated for the punter. I absolutely agree with this analysis -
the question is thus whether the capping level is a bit cheaper or the
same price as the equivalent Day Travelcards. I think TfL would
obviously like to keep that marginal price advantage as it's something
of a a sales pitch for Oyster PAYG - but the flip-side is whether that
would leave TfL out of pocket when it comes to the formula for
settling payments with the TOCs, or whether the TOCs would be willing
to go along with a marginally cheaper cap too (bearing in mind that
Oyster isn't 'their baby', so they care less about its success).


Or maybe the cap could remain the same, even though singles cost more,
to compensate for the loss of returns?

See above. I don't see any fundamental change in the capping levels -
they've always been tied to the price of their quasi-equivalent Day
Travelcards (initially the same price, but very soon after - the
second year of PAYG perhaps - the 50p differential was introduced).


Before Oyster came along, I always found it odd that an NR journey
could cost so much more than an LU journey while a travelcard was
valid on both.

Just in general? (In which case, yes I agree that the Day Travelcard -
the off-peak variety at least- has always offered fairly good value.)

Of course pre-2007, there was no pan-London zonal fare structure for
NR journeys - different TOCs priced journeys of similar distances
quite differently.


(I think I will stick to travelcards wherever possible.)

If capping on Oyster PAYG means that you'll never pay more than the
equivalent Day Travelcard (or possibly 50p less), could pay less if
you don't reach the caps, and lets you do things like travel in the
peak and add the peak fare on top of an off-peak cap, I can't see the
downside.

(OK, OK - there's the 'big brother' element that some people might get
concerned about, and the potential for having ones journey time out if
one is just interested in 'track bashing', photographing,
trainspotting or whatever instead of making an A-to-B journey - but
for the normal traveller these considerations aren't significant.)

Quality reporting on Oyster PAYG
 

On Jun 18, 7:08*pm, MatthewD wrote:

FGW is perhaps the most interesting example of this happening, as they're
the least enmeshed with the Underground network of all the
north-of-the-river TOCs yet they accept Oyster PAYG on their routes
throughout the London zones. Sure, c2c and Chiltern accept it throughout the
zones as well these days - but their routes are very much entangled with the
Underground network.

By the by, the map of current Oyster PAYG acceptance on NR can be found here
(PDF):
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...ional-rail.pdf

While there isn't any FGW interavailability, the common gatelines at
Paddington, Ealing Broadway & Greenford would make it tricky to change
from the LUL PAYG rates.

True - at least for journeys between those three stations. But FGW
could decide to charge the higher NR PAYG farescale for other journeys
- or if that led to too many anomalies (e.g. Acton Main Line to
Paddington being more expensive than Ealing B'way to Paddington) then
perhaps for journeys beyond West Ealing on the GWML they could adopt
the higher NR PAYG farescale.

Quality reporting on Oyster PAYG
 

On Jun 18, 7:07*pm, Paul Corfield wrote:

On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 18:07:59 +0100, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

[snip discussion of FGW accepting Oyster PAYG at LU rates]

[...] Sorry for confusing anyone, but you've raised a very valid point, as
to why FGW can take what appears at face value to be a hit on their
expected revenue.

SO... it must have been approved by DfT surely? So why won't they do the
same with the SR Tocs?

My guess is that the FGW situation is tied in with their near loss of
the franchise and the need to chuck in a whole load of cash to improve
service quality. You can see how getting PAYG in and working on FGW at
tube PAYG charge rates would be attractive and probably not a massive
loser for FGW if the demand elasticities are such that they were
reasonably confident of some growth on shoulder peak and off peak
trains. *They might also gain some traffic from the tube at Ealing with
people being willing to take a fast train into Paddington and tube it on
from there rather than slogging in on a District or Central Line just to
pay a lower fare.

Given that they've got gates at a few places part of the infrastructure
was already there plus I suspect TfL paid for the validators at non
gated stations. *It's a bit of no brainer really.


Interesting analysis. I presume that when a passenger enters at Ealing
Broadway and exits at Paddington mainline/H&C gateline, the assumption
is that they've made the journey on FGW as opposed to shuffling round
the Underground network and finishing up at the H&C line platforms at
Paddington (which are now within the fully gated suburban platform
paid-for area).

I think/agree that the mere fact of accepting Oyster PAYG is likely to
increase traffic somewhat. (And - controversially - perhaps even
results in some people paying for their journey when they wouldn't
have previously done so - the ease of Oyster being an attraction.)