|
|
Post by matthieu1221 on Nov 6, 2024 17:28:05 GMT
I clearly did not pay much attention to the SL4 consultation as I did not know that it will be 8 mins until I saw a recent post. Two questions, is that the highest frequency for a new route in say last 20 years? Additionally, having gone back to the consultation I also seemed to have missed that it looks like it will be similar to SL6. Is that the case? i.e. stops at every stop and then has a non-stop section and then stops at some more stops. That would be a shame but would explain the frequency a bit more. For the second, yes. Non stop between Sun-in-the-Sands roundabout and Orchard Place.
For the first, probably because it contributes to the (lowered) bph commitment for the Silvertown Tunnel.
|
|
|
|
Post by yunus on Nov 8, 2024 23:04:46 GMT
On LVF how can you tell if a odd vehicle working is real or a login?
For example, it shows an Metrocity EV working on the 385 & 397 this summer gone.
|
|
|
|
Post by schedcomp on Nov 8, 2024 23:34:51 GMT
Yet it remains well within the letter of the law. www.gov.uk/guidance/drivers-hours-passenger-vehicles/2-great-britain-domestic-rulesI suspect a good many drivers would be happy to have the rules changed in their favour. Even EU hours which are slightly more restrictive allow for extended periods at the wheel and consecutive days of work. The operator would seek to maximise the driving time in pursuit of economy and profit. There is nothing to be gained in the long term from exhausting your driving force, accepting liability for their fatigue-related accidents and possibly paying out very considerable fines. Many drivers suffer from stress and take extended sick leave. That adds to the costs of running the business and providing the service. The question is where does one draw the line? As a professional (coach / bus) driver I would be happy to suggest a maximum period at the wheel of 4h 30m followed by a minimum of 30 minutes rest, then another period of no more than 4h 30m. That does not quite cover the full "working day" when rosters are based in some cases upon one-driver-one-bus working from first service until last between around 07.30 and 18.00. With two breaks or suitable non-driving intervals that falls within the 10-hour domestic limit currently. That is what we worked to some of the time; early morning and evening trips were on a two-shift system. Consecutive days is another thing. A five-day stint should be the most without one day of complete rest. Not 13 as is allowed currently. But again that impacts upon the ability to offer a one-drover-one-bus six-days-a-week minimum cost service which is what some contracts and possibly some commercial services require. The true cost of providing a bus service is far higher than many suppose. More drivers working fewer hours may well cost more in wages but may equally cost a lot less in down-time for accident-damaged vehicles and staff sickness. Swings and roundabouts. Let's get the industry off th efairgournd ride altogether and onto a safe and sound footing. Thought I'd reply to these but mainy the first one! So let me get this straight nobody shoud drive for more than 5 days in a row, huum.... So in week 1 I have Saturday and Sunday off, work 5 days, Saturday and Sunday off, work 5 days Saturday and Sunday off. Does anyone on here notice the problem?! To meet this unrealistic demand, buses will only run on Monday to Friday. Whilst it may not seem good to Mon-Fri office workers the most common bus rota pattern in London is this 4 line pattern (I hope this aligns): Sa Su M T W H F R R R R R R R R The 4 day weekends are popular but note this rota pattern relies on 2 jobs Sunday and 3 every other day. Another way not to work 5 days in a row (whilst supporting a full mon-sun service) will be to split rests and not have 2 days off together and I can assure you this is universally unpopular and also considered fatiguing. In other words working more than 5 days consecutively is the lesser evil! Personally I prefer to have my days off together! And onto the subject of split rests, which are unpopular, they have been increasing as tfl has been reducing mon-sat frequencues and increasing Sunday. If you run buses on the same frequency every day, invariably the duty count will be similar (disregarding small changes due to run time reductions on sat and sun). If I have 15 duties every day to cover the standard 4 line rota pattern above only covers 15 mon sat jobs and 10 Sunday but at 20 lines (5 x 4 line patterns). This leaves 5 entire Sunday jobs uncovered and a driver made redundant. The only rota patterm that covers 15 duties every day without making a driver redundant is this. Sa SU M T W H F R R R R R R R R R R R R R R 5 duties are covered every day, so 7 lines times 3 = 21 drivers, all duties covered. The split rest on Mon Wed is not popular but on the positive side there are 2 4 day weekends in 7 weeks, rather than 1 in 4 on the normal pattern. There is another rota pattern covering 5 duties daily without a split mon wed rest but it only has 2 3 day weekends at the end of the rota and is less popular, as drivers like the 4 day weekends. Rota patterns are a product of the duties that need to be covered whilst recognising that buses are a 7 day a week seevice. |
|
|
|
Post by schedcomp on Nov 8, 2024 23:37:57 GMT
Yet it remains well within the letter of the law. www.gov.uk/guidance/drivers-hours-passenger-vehicles/2-great-britain-domestic-rulesI suspect a good many drivers would be happy to have the rules changed in their favour. Even EU hours which are slightly more restrictive allow for extended periods at the wheel and consecutive days of work. The operator would seek to maximise the driving time in pursuit of economy and profit. There is nothing to be gained in the long term from exhausting your driving force, accepting liability for their fatigue-related accidents and possibly paying out very considerable fines. Many drivers suffer from stress and take extended sick leave. That adds to the costs of running the business and providing the service. The question is where does one draw the line? As a professional (coach / bus) driver I would be happy to suggest a maximum period at the wheel of 4h 30m followed by a minimum of 30 minutes rest, then another period of no more than 4h 30m. That does not quite cover the full "working day" when rosters are based in some cases upon one-driver-one-bus working from first service until last between around 07.30 and 18.00. With two breaks or suitable non-driving intervals that falls within the 10-hour domestic limit currently. That is what we worked to some of the time; early morning and evening trips were on a two-shift system. Consecutive days is another thing. A five-day stint should be the most without one day of complete rest. Not 13 as is allowed currently. But again that impacts upon the ability to offer a one-drover-one-bus six-days-a-week minimum cost service which is what some contracts and possibly some commercial services require. The true cost of providing a bus service is far higher than many suppose. More drivers working fewer hours may well cost more in wages but may equally cost a lot less in down-time for accident-damaged vehicles and staff sickness. Swings and roundabouts. Let's get the industry off th efairgournd ride altogether and onto a safe and sound footing. Thought I'd reply to these but mainy the first one! So let me get this straight nobody shoud drive for more than 5 days in a row, huum.... So in week 1 I have Saturday and Sunday off, work 5 days, Saturday and Sunday off, work 5 days Saturday and Sunday off. Does anyone on here notice the problem?! To meet this unrealistic demand, buses will only run on Monday to Friday. Whilst it may not seem good to Mon-Fri office workers the most common bus rota pattern in London is this 4 line pattern (I hope this aligns): Sa Su M T W H F R R R R R R R R The 4 day weekends are popular but note this rota pattern relies on 2 jobs Sunday and 3 every other day. Another way not to work 5 days in a row (whilst supporting a full mon-sun service) will be to split rests and not have 2 days off together and I can assure you this is universally unpopular and also considered fatiguing. In other words working more than 5 days consecutively is the lesser evil! Personally I prefer to have my days off together! And onto the subject of split rests, which are unpopular, they have been increasing as tfl has been reducing mon-sat frequencues and increasing Sunday. If you run buses on the same frequency every day, invariably the duty count will be similar (disregarding small changes due to run time reductions on sat and sun). If I have 15 duties every day to cover the standard 4 line rota pattern above only covers 15 mon sat jobs and 10 Sunday but at 20 lines (5 x 4 line patterns). This leaves 5 entire Sunday jobs uncovered and a driver made redundant. The only rota patterm that covers 15 duties every day without making a driver redundant is this. Sa SU M T W H F R R R R R R R R R R R R R R 5 duties are covered every day, so 7 lines times 3 = 21 drivers, all duties covered. The split rest on Mon Wed is not popular but on the positive side there are 2 4 day weekends in 7 weeks, rather than 1 in 4 on the normal pattern. There is another rota pattern covering 5 duties daily without a split mon wed rest but it only has 2 3 day weekends at the end of the rota and is less popular, as drivers like the 4 day weekends. Rota patterns are a product of the duties that need to be covered whilst recognising that buses are a 7 day a week seevice. And it didnt line up!! SA SU M T W H F R R W W W W W W R R W W W W W W W R R W W W W W W W R R W W R R W W W W W W R R W W W W W W W R R R R W W W W W W W R W R W W W W W W W R R R R W W W W W |
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Nov 9, 2024 23:38:54 GMT
Before they scrapped bus fares and people paid the drivers to get on the bus. Did the bus bus drivers keep the money or did they had to give it to the garage?
|
|
|
|
Post by ibus246 on Nov 9, 2024 23:54:45 GMT
Before they scrapped bus fares and people paid the drivers to get on the bus. Did the bus bus drivers keep the money or did they had to give it to the garage? I.e profiteer from it? No. The money belongs to the company which in turn belong to TfL. It was paid in at the end of every shift. Strange question, it’s like saying do the people working at Tesco on the checkout keep the takings. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Nov 10, 2024 0:43:57 GMT
Before they scrapped bus fares and people paid the drivers to get on the bus. Did the bus bus drivers keep the money or did they had to give it to the garage? Why would you think the drivers kept the money? |
|
|
|
Post by kmkcheng on Nov 10, 2024 18:40:00 GMT
Before they scrapped bus fares and people paid the drivers to get on the bus. Did the bus bus drivers keep the money or did they had to give it to the garage? They carried a cash tray with them which they got at the start of shift and returned at the end. My dad had a shop in Sudbury and we were friends with one of the X drivers who drove the 18. He use to exchange his coins with us to give us change for our till. He was probably the only driver to go back to the garage with a light cash tray and lots of notes. |
|
|
|
Post by gwiwer on Nov 11, 2024 12:41:48 GMT
Where the driver or conductor took the fares this money had to be paid in at the end of the duty. A waybill remains a legal requirement as it always has been to reconcile fares taken with cash paid. Electronic waybills have been the norm for some time but the driver or conductor once had to manually complete a form at the end of every trip - not every shift - every single trip. That got very tedious on short runs of just a few minutes. You had to enter the number of singles, returns and other ticket types, check against the machine to confirm the total number sold and then write in the cash value. Any shortfall when you paid in was claimed from your pocket or wages and any overs were treated as an error (by LT at least) who still kept the money but marked you down for inaccurate change-giving.
Where turnstiles or fareboxes were in use the cash vault was normally emptied by garage staff when the bus ran in at the end of its day. No tickets were issued (other than from Autofare machines on DMS / SMS vehicles in their earlier years) so there was no reconciliation and passenger numbers were calculated based on cash taken. The system allowed for passes and such things as Red Bus Rovers; the driver had a release button to allow you through the turnstile or was supposed to press a "Pass" button if allowing you entry to a farebox vehicle.
Drivers / conductors were not permitted to keep the takings beyond the end of their duties - and it was never their own money - with certain very limited exceptions. LT Country Area had a small number of out-stations such as Holmbury St. Mary where vehicle and driver both lived overnight. The arrangement at Holmbury was that both early and late turn drivers retained the takings overnight (or even over the weekend) and paid in at DS garage on theor next working day during a break between trips scheduled there for that purpose.
Beyond the LT area much the same applied where ever you went although in very rural areas it was normal for the driver to keep the fares for as much as a week before paying the lot in at a post office or bank. Some small owner-operators would have used the cash to buy fuel or pay wages without physically banking it but still had to account for every ticket sold through the waybill.
Failure to pay in was always treated as a very serious offence. It was regarded as theft and often meant you had worked your last shift. When employed by a non-London operator I once signed on in the morning to find a colleague being spoken to by the duty supervisor and a police officer. He had failed to pay in the previous day. We learned later that the takings were found at his home and it was said that he was in financial difficulties. He never returned to work.
|
|
|
|
Post by riverside on Nov 11, 2024 19:12:28 GMT
Where the driver or conductor took the fares this money had to be paid in at the end of the duty. A waybill remains a legal requirement as it always has been to reconcile fares taken with cash paid. Electronic waybills have been the norm for some time but the driver or conductor once had to manually complete a form at the end of every trip - not every shift - every single trip. That got very tedious on short runs of just a few minutes. You had to enter the number of singles, returns and other ticket types, check against the machine to confirm the total number sold and then write in the cash value. Any shortfall when you paid in was claimed from your pocket or wages and any overs were treated as an error (by LT at least) who still kept the money but marked you down for inaccurate change-giving. Where turnstiles or fareboxes were in use the cash vault was normally emptied by garage staff when the bus ran in at the end of its day. No tickets were issued (other than from Autofare machines on DMS / SMS vehicles in their earlier years) so there was no reconciliation and passenger numbers were calculated based on cash taken. The system allowed for passes and such things as Red Bus Rovers; the driver had a release button to allow you through the turnstile or was supposed to press a "Pass" button if allowing you entry to a farebox vehicle. Drivers / conductors were not permitted to keep the takings beyond the end of their duties - and it was never their own money - with certain very limited exceptions. LT Country Area had a small number of out-stations such as Holmbury St. Mary where vehicle and driver both lived overnight. The arrangement at Holmbury was that both early and late turn drivers retained the takings overnight (or even over the weekend) and paid in at DS garage on theor next working day during a break between trips scheduled there for that purpose. Beyond the LT area much the same applied where ever you went although in very rural areas it was normal for the driver to keep the fares for as much as a week before paying the lot in at a post office or bank. Some small owner-operators would have used the cash to buy fuel or pay wages without physically banking it but still had to account for every ticket sold through the waybill. Failure to pay in was always treated as a very serious offence. It was regarded as theft and often meant you had worked your last shift. When employed by a non-London operator I once signed on in the morning to find a colleague being spoken to by the duty supervisor and a police officer. He had failed to pay in the previous day. We learned later that the takings were found at his home and it was said that he was in financial difficulties. He never returned to work. The prefix lettered suburban flat fare routes were operated with a flat fare when introduced by London Transport. The initial system of passengers having to pass through one of two turnstiles was found to be impractical. Most of the routes then operated with the Johnson farebox system. No tickets were issued. Drivers had no access to the farebox, so the money was in theory secure, but like any system there will usually be an inbuilt weakness. In the evening when the buses ran into the garage a conductor, usually of long service was assigned to remove the whole box from the bus and wheel it on a trolley into the garage output.This task was assigned to senior conductors as I suppose it was considered to be a form of fare collection. It was then the responsibility of the garage inspector to unlock the bottom of the box and declare the takings. As no tickets were issued the system relied on the honesty of the garage inspector. In the early 1980s when I was working at Stamford Brook Garage, the LT revenue office must have noticed a pattern emerging regarding takings on the E3. Every now and then the takings were lower than expected. I don't know by what margin, but large enough to warrant an investigation. When staffing records were checked a pattern emerged that the lower takings always seemed to happen when the same garage inspector was on the evening/night duty. One evening unannounced plain clothes revenue inspectors arrived at the run in area of the garage. They identified themselves to the conductor who was removing the fareboxes that evening. They warned the member of staff that they must not tell anybody else of their presence. On this evening when each E3 came in the revenue inspectors unlocked each box on the bus, counted the money, resealed the box and told the conductor to wheel the boxes in the normal way into the output where the box would be handed over to the garage inspector to count in the as usual. Needless to say that the figures entered by the garage inspector for the Stamford Brook E3 takings were significantly less then the amount physically counted by the revenue team as the buses ran in. The garage inspector was immediately suspended and then sacked. A very foolish thing to do and the sad thing was the culprit to all intents and purposes was an extremely pleasant and helpful member of staff. Why he was tempted I do not know, but LT did take revenue control very seriously. In the 1970s in the days of graduated fares and frequent fare rises it became very costly and arduous to continually change the ticket machines. It was decided that in stead of a monetary value being printed on tickets, there would be a letter and notices on the buses would tell passengers which letter corresponded to which fare. Lots of passengers took no notice of the letter printed on their tickets and some drivers caught onto this. The main deterent to crews trying to game the system was that at any time a travelling revenue inspector could board a bus to check tickets. If there were any discrepancies the driver/operator or conductor would be held responsible. The ticket checks tended to be mainly on the busier routes and also routes that passed a garage that had a particularly good canteen for the inspectors' breaks. Remote routes were unlikely to see much checking and some of these were presumed to have more reliable staff of long service. I presume somebody in the revenue office at 55 Broadway thought that takings on the RF routes running out of Kingston Garage such as the 218 and 219 (Kingston to Staines via Laleham and Weybridge respectively) were depressed. On one particular day a huge number of revenue inspectors swooped on the routes and sure enough they found that lots of wrong tickets had been issued and a number of staff were dismissed as a result. |
|
|
|
Post by gwiwer on Nov 11, 2024 22:03:22 GMT
Whilst not condoning wrongful nor unlawful actions those routes were among many "out-county' ones which had non-standard fares applied. These were higher than the LT "Central Area" standard rates but lower than the "Country Area" ones and applied, generally, where red buses ran outside the then-defined London County Council boundary into the Shires and "green bus" territory. Crews should have been well aware of the fares which in any case were (or should, to comply with the law) have been displayed on the vehicles. RFs, which ran the 218 / 219, carried the fare chart inside the destination blind box facing down the gangway; in any case of dispute crews and passengers could readily check the correct fare to be charged.
Long before the change to letter codes for fare values it was necessary to issue combinations of tickets for some fares especially from Gibson machines which had a limited range of options. These should have had the code C/M or COM printed rather than the S or C (single / child) for a solo ticket. Some fares into Hertfordshire and Surrey were on the higher scale - on the 279 for example, where you might have had a passenger boarding in Smithfield for Hammond Street - and were not within the scope of the Gibson machine so required combination tickets to be used. London Country inherited a goodly number of Gibsons and wasn't able to change them all quickly. I remember being issued a Golden Rover as five 15p tickets in a long strip! Once the conductors got Setrights they could issue a single 75p ticket as could their one-man colleagues using Almex machines. Code V2 for a Golden Rover.
|
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Nov 12, 2024 8:54:52 GMT
Whilst not condoning wrongful nor unlawful actions those routes were among many "out-county' ones which had non-standard fares applied. These were higher than the LT "Central Area" standard rates but lower than the "Country Area" ones and applied, generally, where red buses ran outside the then-defined London County Council boundary into the Shires and "green bus" territory. Crews should have been well aware of the fares which in any case were (or should, to comply with the law) have been displayed on the vehicles. RFs, which ran the 218 / 219, carried the fare chart inside the destination blind box facing down the gangway; in any case of dispute crews and passengers could readily check the correct fare to be charged. Long before the change to letter codes for fare values it was necessary to issue combinations of tickets for some fares especially from Gibson machines which had a limited range of options. These should have had the code C/M or COM printed rather than the S or C (single / child) for a solo ticket. Some fares into Hertfordshire and Surrey were on the higher scale - on the 279 for example, where you might have had a passenger boarding in Smithfield for Hammond Street - and were not within the scope of the Gibson machine so required combination tickets to be used. London Country inherited a goodly number of Gibsons and wasn't able to change them all quickly. I remember being issued a Golden Rover as five 15p tickets in a long strip! Once the conductors got Setrights they could issue a single 75p ticket as could their one-man colleagues using Almex machines. Code V2 for a Golden Rover. When did the more standardised flat fares come in? I remember in 90s the 60p and 80p fare depending on how far you went and I think I remember people being charged £1 to go to Highdown on the 80 which at the time was considered outside Zones. |
|
|
|
Post by kmkcheng on Nov 12, 2024 10:39:57 GMT
Whilst not condoning wrongful nor unlawful actions those routes were among many "out-county' ones which had non-standard fares applied. These were higher than the LT "Central Area" standard rates but lower than the "Country Area" ones and applied, generally, where red buses ran outside the then-defined London County Council boundary into the Shires and "green bus" territory. Crews should have been well aware of the fares which in any case were (or should, to comply with the law) have been displayed on the vehicles. RFs, which ran the 218 / 219, carried the fare chart inside the destination blind box facing down the gangway; in any case of dispute crews and passengers could readily check the correct fare to be charged. Long before the change to letter codes for fare values it was necessary to issue combinations of tickets for some fares especially from Gibson machines which had a limited range of options. These should have had the code C/M or COM printed rather than the S or C (single / child) for a solo ticket. Some fares into Hertfordshire and Surrey were on the higher scale - on the 279 for example, where you might have had a passenger boarding in Smithfield for Hammond Street - and were not within the scope of the Gibson machine so required combination tickets to be used. London Country inherited a goodly number of Gibsons and wasn't able to change them all quickly. I remember being issued a Golden Rover as five 15p tickets in a long strip! Once the conductors got Setrights they could issue a single 75p ticket as could their one-man colleagues using Almex machines. Code V2 for a Golden Rover. When did the more standardised flat fares come in? I remember in 90s the 60p and 80p fare depending on how far you went and I think I remember people being charged £1 to go to Highdown on the 80 which at the time was considered outside Zones. I think it was around 2000 when the cash fare was about £1. I remember just before that when I was in college that I paid the short hop fare. |
|
|
|
Post by gwiwer on Nov 12, 2024 10:58:42 GMT
Whilst not condoning wrongful nor unlawful actions those routes were among many "out-county' ones which had non-standard fares applied. These were higher than the LT "Central Area" standard rates but lower than the "Country Area" ones and applied, generally, where red buses ran outside the then-defined London County Council boundary into the Shires and "green bus" territory. Crews should have been well aware of the fares which in any case were (or should, to comply with the law) have been displayed on the vehicles. RFs, which ran the 218 / 219, carried the fare chart inside the destination blind box facing down the gangway; in any case of dispute crews and passengers could readily check the correct fare to be charged. Long before the change to letter codes for fare values it was necessary to issue combinations of tickets for some fares especially from Gibson machines which had a limited range of options. These should have had the code C/M or COM printed rather than the S or C (single / child) for a solo ticket. Some fares into Hertfordshire and Surrey were on the higher scale - on the 279 for example, where you might have had a passenger boarding in Smithfield for Hammond Street - and were not within the scope of the Gibson machine so required combination tickets to be used. London Country inherited a goodly number of Gibsons and wasn't able to change them all quickly. I remember being issued a Golden Rover as five 15p tickets in a long strip! Once the conductors got Setrights they could issue a single 75p ticket as could their one-man colleagues using Almex machines. Code V2 for a Golden Rover. When did the more standardised flat fares come in? I remember in 90s the 60p and 80p fare depending on how far you went and I think I remember people being charged £1 to go to Highdown on the 80 which at the time was considered outside Zones. In 1981 the Ken Livingstone-led Greater London Council promised cheaper fares across the GLC region under the banner "Fares Fair". Tube fares were slashed by around 30% (some by more, some less) and bus fares became a standard 25p outside of the central area. Whilst certain law lords decreed that the politics and methodology of that was unlawful it was to prove the birthplace of two very important developments. Zonal rather than distance-travelled fares and the Travelcard. London opted for three and later four zones with drivers (and still a goodly number of conductors) taking fares and who could charge the appropriate "country" fares where required. Instead of hopping on a bus and asking the conductor for your destination (or for the fare value, if known), it became more common to simply ask for "two please" for you and your travelling companion. Fare zones are a very coarse system of graduated per-distance charging but have become widely accepted in many urban areas. The system has also been applied in some places to very much wider areas with very mixed success. The Australian State of Victoria uses 82 zones to cover almost the same land area as England and for all public transport options within it. It requires so much of the back-end that each tag-on and tag-off is noticeably slow. When 95% of journeys are made within Zones 1 and / or 2 that has caused a lot of criticism; the system still needs to interrogate your Myki card to determine whether you have in fact travelled from Zone 82 via Zone 1 to Zone 36 for example. It has also become necessary to offer a "free tram zone" within the CBD as the sheer numbers of passengers boarding and alighting is way beyond the system's ability to cope in a meaningful time. It is not uncommon for 100 to alight (and need to tag off) then another 100 to board (and tag on) at a single stop for example. London has opted for the flat-fare option on buses since the advent of electronic charging. It could have used zones but this relies upon 100% of users tagging on and off as the system requires. As in Melbourne the numbers can be quite high and the bus network would grind to a halt if it were tried. Hand in hand with TfL pulling in to operate almost exclusively within its own boundary the need for "country fares" has largely been eradicated. The 405 and 465 are the most honourable exceptions still charging less for end-to-end rides deep into Surrey than London & Country ever did. Dorking to Kingston is currently £1.75 but was at one time I believe over £5. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 12, 2024 13:00:33 GMT
Whilst not condoning wrongful nor unlawful actions those routes were among many "out-county' ones which had non-standard fares applied. These were higher than the LT "Central Area" standard rates but lower than the "Country Area" ones and applied, generally, where red buses ran outside the then-defined London County Council boundary into the Shires and "green bus" territory. Crews should have been well aware of the fares which in any case were (or should, to comply with the law) have been displayed on the vehicles. RFs, which ran the 218 / 219, carried the fare chart inside the destination blind box facing down the gangway; in any case of dispute crews and passengers could readily check the correct fare to be charged. Long before the change to letter codes for fare values it was necessary to issue combinations of tickets for some fares especially from Gibson machines which had a limited range of options. These should have had the code C/M or COM printed rather than the S or C (single / child) for a solo ticket. Some fares into Hertfordshire and Surrey were on the higher scale - on the 279 for example, where you might have had a passenger boarding in Smithfield for Hammond Street - and were not within the scope of the Gibson machine so required combination tickets to be used. London Country inherited a goodly number of Gibsons and wasn't able to change them all quickly. I remember being issued a Golden Rover as five 15p tickets in a long strip! Once the conductors got Setrights they could issue a single 75p ticket as could their one-man colleagues using Almex machines. Code V2 for a Golden Rover. When did the more standardised flat fares come in? I remember in 90s the 60p and 80p fare depending on how far you went and I think I remember people being charged £1 to go to Highdown on the 80 which at the time was considered outside Zones. I remember it being 40p for kids and 70p for adults but never paid 60p or 80p - was that an outer zone thing? |
|
