|
|
Post by matthieu1221 on Jan 28, 2024 15:06:56 GMT
Yet again a gesture that will benefit few in South London, yet we pay for! This Mayor just screws over Outer South London time and time again! How exactly does it screw you over? Because of the lack of progress Overgroundisation meaning that a lot of South London is not under TfL fares and thus doesn't benefit from any of this.
Unfortunately the reaction seems to not be to call for further pushes to Overgroundisation but just to complain that the rest of London gets to benefit.
It's what doomed the Fares Fair policy of the early 80s.
According to the media though Khan is trying to convince NR operators to do the same. Tough luck. The DfT would have to approve it likely and I don't see it happening.
|
|
|
|
Post by matthieu1221 on Jan 28, 2024 15:16:28 GMT
It’s so pointless and barely a saving. If these workers aren’t travelling into Central London from the suburbs on a Friday to go the office they sure as f**k aren’t going in for a drink or dinner. They’ll stay local or just stay at home. If they have to pay for childcare the three days they are in the office they definitely aren’t paying for an extra evening. Central London is a cesspit full of protesters and tourists. I suspect the hope will be either get people back to the office more days a week or move some people from Tuesdays / Wednesdays / Thursday working to different days including Friday to balance the days. I think it will fail. In that case it would be more useful to do Monday where according to station entry/exit data, it tends to be quieter than Fridays. I think it's a bit of that but also as stated, to get people to spend their money a little more which is easier if they are already out in the office during the day. |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Jan 28, 2024 15:39:26 GMT
Yet again a gesture that will benefit few in South London, yet we pay for! This Mayor just screws over Outer South London time and time again! How exactly does it screw you over? Because so far zero approach has been made on the National Rail side. So he is just creating false sound bytes to try and look good pre election when many will see zero benefit. |
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jan 28, 2024 15:53:37 GMT
How exactly does it screw you over? Because of the lack of progress Overgroundisation meaning that a lot of South London is not under TfL fares and thus doesn't benefit from any of this.
Unfortunately the reaction seems to not be to call for further pushes to Overgroundisation but just to complain that the rest of London gets to benefit.
It's what doomed the Fares Fair policy of the early 80s.
According to the media though Khan is trying to convince NR operators to do the same. Tough luck. The DfT would have to approve it likely and I don't see it happening.
There are so many inconsistencies with tube/rail fares in London. Really the same fare system should apply to all trains within Greater London. Another inconsistency I've found is when travelling into a terminal station - sometimes on Oyster you are charged more if then changing onto a short tube journey within Zone 1, than if just tapping out at that terminal. Should be the same fare from Station X to anywhere in Zone 1. But also with zones, some stations may be close together but with different fares, or at quite different distances from Central London but fall within the same zone. A good example of this is the outer Metropolitan Line stations, when compared to nearby WCML stations on the Overground & London Northwestern. And there's the question of which stations outside of Greater London benefit from Oyster. If it is valid to places like Reading, Amersham and Luton, then ideally Oyster should also cover stations to High Wycombe, Tring and St Albans Abbey. I think we generally need to rework the whole zones structure, categorise by distance rather than which line a station happens to be on, and have fewer zones in total to simplify the fares, something like: Z1 - Central London (similar to the current zone 1) Z2 - Inner London (up to places like Ealing Broadway, Walthamstow etc) Z3 - Outer London (up to the Greater London border) Z4 - Just over the border (places like Watford, Dartford etc, which are often still within the M25) Z5 - Outside of London (up to Gatwick, Reading etc) And finally, while I can see it could be a complicated process to take over more surburban rail services, as part of the Overground or something similar, could a compromise perhaps be for such services to carry TFL branding, even if still run bas part of other rail franchises like Thameslink, SWR etc? And also simplify service patterns as much as possible. There are plenty of rail routes that are very useful, but non-regular passengers will often take slower routes using TFL-run trains, which are included on the tube map and better promoted/signposted. And considering the success of the Elizabeth Line, I think Thameslink could benefit from being fully run by TFL, and properly branded as another Crossrail, but with some of the longer-distance routes swapped for more suburban ones (similar distances to Reading/Shenfield). Putting it on the Tube Map has helped, but this can still be misleading, for example stations like New Barnet are only served by Thameslink in the peaks. |
|
edvid
Conductor
Posts: 114
|
Post by edvid on Jan 28, 2024 16:34:57 GMT
And there's the question of which stations outside of Greater London benefit from Oyster. If it is valid to places like Reading, Amersham and Luton, then ideally Oyster should also cover stations to High Wycombe, Tring and St Albans Abbey. Only one of your existing examples accept Oyster, that being Amersham. Reading (and indeed up to Iver) are contactless PAYG only, as are Luton Airport Parkway and the DART link (Luton and Leagrave are outside that area entirely). The Oyster system ceased expansion in 2019 for reasons I've mentioned in a post on RailUK Forums. There is a scheme to expand contactless PAYG, and your three future examples are in the first phase of it (come June 2024, assuming no further delays). Further Oyster expansion would depend on a new-generation system being delivered by the Proteus Contract beforehand. |
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jan 28, 2024 16:50:37 GMT
Note the word - "trial". Friday passenger numbers on the Underground are still only at 73% of pre-covid levels, and the trial will have to either increase passenger journeys to make up for the shortfall in reduced fares, or provide tangible benefits to the wider economy (notably the hospitality sector). Abolishing peak fares can work. Avanti West Coast removed the Friday afternoon peak without losing revenue, which also spread demand more evenly throughout the afternoon and evening to match capacity more closely. The 19.00 London Euston - Manchester Piccadilly on a Friday used to be notorious for severe overcrowding as the first off-peak evening train, now it is no busier than any other departure. |
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Jan 28, 2024 18:44:20 GMT
Note the word - "trial". Friday passenger numbers on the Underground are still only at 73% of pre-covid levels, and the trial will have to either increase passenger journeys to make up for the shortfall in reduced fares, or provide tangible benefits to the wider economy (notably the hospitality sector). Abolishing peak fares can work. Avanti West Coast removed the Friday afternoon peak without losing revenue, which also spread demand more evenly throughout the afternoon and evening to match capacity more closely. The 19.00 London Euston - Manchester Piccadilly on a Friday used to be notorious for severe overcrowding as the first off-peak evening train, now it is no busier than any other departure. What are you talking about? Everyone loves to pay over the odds for standing up for 45 mins before the train served Milton Keynes, roasting alive due to the sheer numbers onboard the carriages and paying for a reserved seat you can't access. And if you were lucky enough to do so before the journey began and there's someone in your seat, having to avoid a verbal battle from others saying "I paid for a seat but someone's in mine." I mean no insult but that's probably the quickest I've ever gotten PTSD from reading a comment! Thank heavens I travel earlier now and mostly LNER it up to Leeds to head to Manchester. I still refuse to pay Avanti's premium fares for its less than premium service after the Virgin contract ended. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jan 28, 2024 18:51:34 GMT
Note the word - "trial". Friday passenger numbers on the Underground are still only at 73% of pre-covid levels, and the trial will have to either increase passenger journeys to make up for the shortfall in reduced fares, or provide tangible benefits to the wider economy (notably the hospitality sector). Abolishing peak fares can work. Avanti West Coast removed the Friday afternoon peak without losing revenue, which also spread demand more evenly throughout the afternoon and evening to match capacity more closely. The 19.00 London Euston - Manchester Piccadilly on a Friday used to be notorious for severe overcrowding as the first off-peak evening train, now it is no busier than any other departure. What are you talking about? Everyone loves to pay over the odds for standing up for 45 mins before the train served Milton Keynes, roasting alive due to the sheer numbers onboard the carriages and paying for a reserved seat you can't access. And if you were lucky enough to do so before the journey began and there's someone in your seat, having to avoid a verbal battle from others saying "I paid for a seat but someone's in mine." I mean no insult but that's probably the quickest I've ever gotten PTSD from reading a comment! Thank heavens I travel earlier now and mostly LNER it up to Leeds to head to Manchester. I still refuse to pay Avanti's premium fares for its less than premium service after the Virgin contract ended. If you book the fare early enough chances are British Airways will give you a cheaper, more comfortable and a faster journey into Manchester. The decline of Avanti from Virgin days is truly something to lament. It was a service worth using, even if the fares were high you'd feel like you get your moneys worth. |
|
|
|
Post by matthieu1221 on Jan 28, 2024 20:14:28 GMT
So a proper press release was finally published on the Mayor of London website. Of note, one bit caveat down in the 'notes to editors':
So looks like rather than discuss, agree and announce, they've gone for the 'announce publicly and use public opinion to force the DfT into agreeing' strategy.
|
|
|
|
Post by matthieu1221 on Jan 28, 2024 20:17:47 GMT
Because of the lack of progress Overgroundisation meaning that a lot of South London is not under TfL fares and thus doesn't benefit from any of this.
Unfortunately the reaction seems to not be to call for further pushes to Overgroundisation but just to complain that the rest of London gets to benefit.
It's what doomed the Fares Fair policy of the early 80s.
According to the media though Khan is trying to convince NR operators to do the same. Tough luck. The DfT would have to approve it likely and I don't see it happening.
There are so many inconsistencies with tube/rail fares in London. Really the same fare system should apply to all trains within Greater London. Another inconsistency I've found is when travelling into a terminal station - sometimes on Oyster you are charged more if then changing onto a short tube journey within Zone 1, than if just tapping out at that terminal. Should be the same fare from Station X to anywhere in Zone 1.But also with zones, some stations may be close together but with different fares, or at quite different distances from Central London but fall within the same zone. A good example of this is the outer Metropolitan Line stations, when compared to nearby WCML stations on the Overground & London Northwestern. And there's the question of which stations outside of Greater London benefit from Oyster. If it is valid to places like Reading, Amersham and Luton, then ideally Oyster should also cover stations to High Wycombe, Tring and St Albans Abbey. I think we generally need to rework the whole zones structure, categorise by distance rather than which line a station happens to be on, and have fewer zones in total to simplify the fares, something like: Z1 - Central London (similar to the current zone 1) Z2 - Inner London (up to places like Ealing Broadway, Walthamstow etc) Z3 - Outer London (up to the Greater London border) Z4 - Just over the border (places like Watford, Dartford etc, which are often still within the M25) Z5 - Outside of London (up to Gatwick, Reading etc) And finally, while I can see it could be a complicated process to take over more surburban rail services, as part of the Overground or something similar, could a compromise perhaps be for such services to carry TFL branding, even if still run bas part of other rail franchises like Thameslink, SWR etc? And also simplify service patterns as much as possible. There are plenty of rail routes that are very useful, but non-regular passengers will often take slower routes using TFL-run trains, which are included on the tube map and better promoted/signposted. And considering the success of the Elizabeth Line, I think Thameslink could benefit from being fully run by TFL, and properly branded as another Crossrail, but with some of the longer-distance routes swapped for more suburban ones (similar distances to Reading/Shenfield). Putting it on the Tube Map has helped, but this can still be misleading, for example stations like New Barnet are only served by Thameslink in the peaks. The part I've highlighted in yellow is because of the 'premium' associated with mixing NR and TfL travel. It isn't a Station X to Zone 1 trip for the purposes of fare calculation but Station X to Terminus in Zone 1 using NR added to a premium of changing to a TfL journey to complete the journey in Z1 (which is still cheaper I believe than it being counted as a totally separate journey). |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Jan 28, 2024 22:46:18 GMT
It’s so pointless and barely a saving. If these workers aren’t travelling into Central London from the suburbs on a Friday to go the office they sure as f**k aren’t going in for a drink or dinner. They’ll stay local or just stay at home. If they have to pay for childcare the three days they are in the office they definitely aren’t paying for an extra evening. Central London is a cesspit full of protesters and tourists. Nothing but an election gimmic, also the Green Party said the same thing about it being a gimmic |
|
|
|
Post by matthieu1221 on Jan 29, 2024 11:49:55 GMT
And there's the question of which stations outside of Greater London benefit from Oyster. If it is valid to places like Reading, Amersham and Luton, then ideally Oyster should also cover stations to High Wycombe, Tring and St Albans Abbey. Only one of your existing examples accept Oyster, that being Amersham. Reading (and indeed up to Iver) are contactless PAYG only, as are Luton Airport Parkway and the DART link (Luton and Leagrave are outside that area entirely). The Oyster system ceased expansion in 2019 for reasons I've mentioned in a post on RailUK Forums. There is a scheme to expand contactless PAYG, and your three future examples are in the first phase of it (come June 2024, assuming no further delays). Further Oyster expansion would depend on a new-generation system being delivered by the Proteus Contract beforehand. This is slightly off topic, but would you happen to know if the Oyster replacement will be similar to what Singapore has tried (and then u-turned on). As in no physical value is stored on the physical card itself and everything is done back end like Contactless?
|
|
edvid
Conductor
Posts: 114
|
Post by edvid on Jan 29, 2024 12:34:17 GMT
Only one of your existing examples accept Oyster, that being Amersham. Reading (and indeed up to Iver) are contactless PAYG only, as are Luton Airport Parkway and the DART link (Luton and Leagrave are outside that area entirely). The Oyster system ceased expansion in 2019 for reasons I've mentioned in a post on RailUK Forums. There is a scheme to expand contactless PAYG, and your three future examples are in the first phase of it (come June 2024, assuming no further delays). Further Oyster expansion would depend on a new-generation system being delivered by the Proteus Contract beforehand. This is slightly off topic, but would you happen to know if the Oyster replacement will be similar to what Singapore has tried (and then u-turned on). As in no physical value is stored on the physical card itself and everything is done back end like Contactless?
Yes, I believe so. The child-of-Prestige tender notice outlines what is quite a meaty set of tasks - account-based ticketing (AKA the new-gen Oyster), iBus2-related activities, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by matthieu1221 on Jan 29, 2024 13:45:22 GMT
This is slightly off topic, but would you happen to know if the Oyster replacement will be similar to what Singapore has tried (and then u-turned on). As in no physical value is stored on the physical card itself and everything is done back end like Contactless?
Yes, I believe so. The child-of-Prestige tender notice outlines what is quite a meaty set of tasks - account-based ticketing (AKA the new-gen Oyster), iBus2-related activities, etc. Thanks for the link. Looks like it’ll indeed be like in SG so there’ll be a lag between topping up your card and the value appearing, no balance shown when paying very likely among other changes. On the other hand this means no more zonal limitations. They seem to be aware that it’ll be challenging and seems to be more of a long term goal to work towards than be implemented immediately with the rest of Proteus. |
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Jan 29, 2024 15:41:15 GMT
The Mayor took such a tone-deaf approach to the concerns of surrounding counties about the effect on them of ULEZ that it has probably finally killed off any residual chance of suburban NR services coming under TfL's wing.
|
|
