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).

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

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.

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?

On Jun 18, 7:06*pm, MIG wrote:

On 18 June, 17:44, Mizter T wrote:

On Jun 18, 5:08*pm, Tom Barry wrote:

[snip]

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?

Yes, I would think ticket interavailability trumps all else.

By the by, it's a bit of an uneven thing, this ticketing
interavailability stuff - for example the TOCs have to fall into line
and charge £4 single cash fares when there's interavailability with
LU. This already leads to some ambiguities - e.g. from White Hart
Lane, Bruce Grove and Norhumberland Park (all zone 3 stations), a
single rail fare to Liverpool Street is £3.10 (as per the zonally
priced NR farescale), and from Wood Street (zone 4) it costs £3.70 -
however from Seven Sisters, Tottenham Hale and Walthamstow Central
it's £4 as NXEA has to fall into line with LU's fares. Of course the
answer is simply to use Oyster PAYG from the latter three stations and
pay £270/peak or £2.20/off-peak.

And, just to make things more interesting, the Off-peak Day Return
(aka CDR) fare from Seven Sisters, Tottenham Hale and Walthamstow
Central is £4.10 - why? Because this is the fare for a CDR from zone 3
to zone 1 according to the pan-London NR farescale! So paper fares
from these stations actually utilise both farescales. (This is all
according to NRE.)

However, for reasons unknown, there are no return fares showing for
Stratford to Liverpool Street - which on interavailability terms I
would have thought is basically the same as the three Tottenham/
Walthamstow way stations. Perhaps the crucial difference is simply
that the Central line directly links Stratford to Liverpool Street
too, whereas one wouldn't use the Tube to get from the Tottenham/
Walthamstow stations to Liverpool Street.


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

Errr... maybe! (A translation of which is "search me, I dunno!")

John B wrote:
As any fule kno, the southern TOCs are insisting on PAYG fares being
higher than Tube fares:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8107537.stm

But the BBC has managed to pick the most radically stupid example it
could possibly have chosen:

[begin quote]
For example, between Finsbury Park and King's Cross it costs £2.20 on
the Tube whereas it costs £4.00 on rail.
[end quote]

1) rail and tube tickets are interavailable between FPK and KGX
2) hence the fare is gbp4 because that's the Tube paper ticket fare
for a Z12 single journey
3) ...and Oyster PAYG is ALREADY VALID between FPK and KGX at the
gbp2.20 fare!

I despair...

Agree - although perhaps it is Caroline Pidgeon who doesn't understand that
there are joint ticketing arrangements already in place?

Whatever, I've brought this 'factual error' to their attention via the BBC
'contact us' page...

Paul S

On Jun 18, 4:41*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

John B wrote:
As any fule kno, the southern TOCs are insisting on PAYG fares being
higher than Tube fares:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8107537.stm

But the BBC has managed to pick the most radically stupid example it
could possibly have chosen:

[begin quote]
For example, between Finsbury Park and King's Cross it costs £2.20 on
the Tube whereas it costs £4.00 on rail.
[end quote]

1) rail and tube tickets are interavailable between FPK and KGX
2) hence the fare is gbp4 because that's the Tube paper ticket fare
for a Z12 single journey
3) ...and Oyster PAYG is ALREADY VALID between FPK and KGX at the
gbp2.20 fare!

I despair...

Agree - although perhaps it is Caroline Pidgeon who doesn't understand that
there are joint ticketing arrangements already in place?

Whatever, I've brought this 'factual error' to their attention via the BBC
'contact us' page...


Thanks - we shall see if they manage to comprehend it...

*If* it was in fact Caroline Pidgeon's error, I don't think it's one
that would be made by Val Shawcross (Chair of the Assembly Transport
Cttee), who very much comes across as being on the ball about her
brief.

This story almost certainly emanates from the LibDem machine - nothing
wrong with that in and of itself I suppose, though it is a bit of an
opportunity to bash the Mayor for something essentially outside of his
control. I long ago gave up on any thought of a universal fare scale -
indeed I'm not sure I ever thought it was a realistic aspiration - and
settled on the prospect of PAYG fares on NR being the same price as
their paper equivalents. The push for a universal fare scale can wait
for another day (if indeed it ever comes) - simply getting PAYG up and
running on the railways is the first order of priority.

That said, for normal Londoners who have not been observing the
ongoing saga of PAYG on NR, the expectation that PAYG fares would be
the same on Tube and NR is totally understandable. The LibDems appear
to simply be tapping into this sentiment.