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.

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?

Tom

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...

Paul S

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...

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.

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

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, 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

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.

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.

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.)