Elizabeth line ticketing

[Watershed]

The "easiest" way to enforce this is to change the NRCoT to exclude Elizabeth line service and refer it to TfL, making it no longer part of National Rail, like excluding onward travel by ship / etc.

The problem is that normal NRCoT validity is still needed for the eastern and western branches. Otherwise you'd have to start making NR tickets "interavailable" with EL services - very messy.

 

[Alex365Dash]

The "easiest" way to enforce this is to change the NRCoT to exclude Elizabeth line service and refer it to TfL, making it no longer part of National Rail, like excluding onward travel by ship / etc.

Removing its status as a National Rail service seems unnecessary, when Condition 16.4 can be changed to something more resembling the following (added in bold):

Tickets valid for travel across in London using Transport for London services do not entitle you to break your journey on London Underground, Elizabeth line services between Paddington and Abbey Wood and/or the Docklands Light Railway, unless your Ticket is a Season Ticket, a Zonal Ticket valid for your journey or a travelcard covering the Zones in which you are travelling.

 

[Mainline421]

...or they could just allow break of journey, no real reason not to.

 

[AM9]

...or they could just allow break of journey, no real reason not to.

That would allow a through ticket to be used as a unidirectional Travelcard on the line. I can see that TfL shouldn't accept that.

 

[A Challenge]

That would allow a through ticket to be used as a unidirectional Travelcard on the line. I can see that TfL shouldn't accept that.

How is break of journey on the Elizabeth line any different to on the rest of the national network, even the Thameslink core allows break of journey?

 

[JonathanH]

How is break of journey on the Elizabeth line any different to on the rest of the national network, even the Thameslink core allows break of journey?

TfL are treating the core as not being part of the 'national network'.

 

[miklcct]

TfL are treating the core as not being part of the 'national network'.

National Rail is currently treating the core being part of the national network.

If I buy a National Rail ticket which is sold under NRCoT, Elizabeth line, being a TOC under National Rail, has no authority to override it.

 

[bicbasher]

Are refunds to delay of journey the same as LU or the same as London Overground in the core?

 

[Class800]

It would be interesting to see what happens in practice with All Line Rovers in the core - as opposed to what we think should happen.

 

[Watershed]

That would allow a through ticket to be used as a unidirectional Travelcard on the line. I can see that TfL shouldn't accept that.

Err, how so? If you're breaking your journey, you'd pass through a barrier line and thus it would be evident from the magstripe/smartcard data where you did that.

Really, it's no different to any other stretch of line in terms of the "revenue risk" it presents.

TfL are treating the core as not being part of the 'national network'.

Quite inexplicably so. And despite accepting that BoJ is permitted on the East London Line, for instance (as it is on Thameslink).

It would be interesting to see what happens in practice with All Line Rovers in the core - as opposed to what we think should happen.

ALRs are valid on all EL services and TfL accept this. Quite how they can maintain a straight facing saying this, and yet claiming other National Rail tickets aren't valid... I do not know.

 

[A Challenge]

TfL are treating the core as not being part of the 'national network'.

That's not a reason they shouldn't accept it though, its just a reason why they don't.

 

[Deerfold]

TfL are treating the core as not being part of the 'national network'.

Except where they're treating it as if it is.

 

[transportphoto]

It would be interesting to see what happens in practice with All Line Rovers in the core - as opposed to what we think should happen.

I’d hope they’d be accepted. They were included in the list of valid passes in the launch retail briefing provided to staff alongside:

• Britrail Pass
• Interrail
• All Line Rover
• FIP Coupons
• Staff Travel dated “boxes”
• Status Pass

 

[KenA]

The interesting think is what will happen to this mess when The Great British Railways take full control. Part of their remit is to simplify rail fare and allow through ticketing

The Elizabeth line as well is an oddity it is a National rail network liner but operate by TfL

It will cost TfL a lot with concessionary passes as it appear they will be accepted anywhere on the Elizabet line and that means out to Reading

 

[JonathanH]

The interesting think is what will happen to this mess when The Great British Railways take full control. Part of their remit is to simplify rail fare and allow through ticketing

A lot of the practical issues (but not higher prices) could go away with a 2010-style implementation of PAYG in 2024 over a wider area - eg where 'paper' tickets are largely withdrawn / only available on an anytime basis in the wider area so PAYG is cheaper.

 

[Wallsendmag]

A lot of the practical issues (but not higher prices) could go away with a 2010-style implementation of PAYG in 2024 over a wider area - eg where 'paper' tickets are largely withdrawn / only available on an anytime basis in the wider area so PAYG is cheaper.

Which is supplied by.......

 

[JonathanH]

Which is supplied by.......

...TfL acting as supplier DfT so they can set the terms. Bingo.

 

[KenA]

The Elizabeth line as the original name Crossrail suggested links the Great Eastern main Line to the Great Western. It should really have been kept away from TfL

If you want to travel to Heathrow now the way most will go is GA to Liverpool street and then the the Elizabeth line. If from Southend or Clacton you would change to the Elizabeth line at Shenfield

 

[Wolfie]

The Elizabeth line as the original name Crossrail suggested links the Great Eastern main Line to the Great Western. It should really have been kept away from TfL

If you want to travel to Heathrow now the way most will go is GA to Liverpool street and then the the Elizabeth line. If from Southend or Clacton you would change to the Elizabeth line at Shenfield

The Elizabeth line was built for and by London for its purposes. It is not a second Thameslink providing regional links. Why does everyone on here seem to assume that London should fund everywhere?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Elizabeth line was built for and by London for its purposes. It is not a second Thameslink providing regional links. Why does everyone on here seem to assume that London should fund everywhere?

Welcome to Crossrail

Crossrail Ltd has delivered the Elizabeth line - a new railway for London and the South East, running from Reading and Heathrow in the west, through 42km of new tunnels under London to Shenfield and Abbey Wood in the east. The Elizabeth line has 41 accessible stations including 10 major new...

www.crossrail.co.uk

By far the largest funder was central Government. So no, it's not just "for London, by London".

 

[Wolfie]

Welcome to Crossrail

Crossrail Ltd has delivered the Elizabeth line - a new railway for London and the South East, running from Reading and Heathrow in the west, through 42km of new tunnels under London to Shenfield and Abbey Wood in the east. The Elizabeth line has 41 accessible stations including 10 major new...

www.crossrail.co.uk

By far the largest funder was central Government. So no, it's not just "for London, by London".

True that from the document you offer DfT directly or indirectly provided about 40% of the funding plus loans amounting to about another 20%.

The remainder came from London sources. I trust that will happen country-wide going forward. Seeing folk expect cuts in London and at the same time full national funding (including a substantial London contribution) for schemes in their area is getting increasingly tedious.

 

[Bletchleyite]

True that from the document you offer DfT directly or indirectly provided about 40% of the funding plus loans amounting to about another 20%.

The remainder came from London sources. I trust that will happen country-wide going forward. Seeing folk expect cuts in London and at the same time full national funding (including a substantial London contribution) for schemes in their area is getting increasingly tedious.

TfL doesn't need to make substantive bus cuts. It just needs to increase the bus fare to a more commercial level, then it could have as many bus services as it wants because they'd make a profit.

Crikey, the single, one vehicle bus fare in London fifteen years ago was £2, and lots of people were paying that. Oyster reduced it substantially and it never crept back up. A bus fare of £2.50 now with connections allowed would still be excellent value and cheaper than most cities outside London but would put TfL's bus operations on a far steadier financial footing.

But Khan prefers to whine and politick than to find practical solutions. He would rather cut peoples' services to make a point than allow them to pay a little more and keep them.

 

[Wolfie]

TfL doesn't need to make substantive bus cuts. It just needs to increase the bus fare to a more commercial level, then it could have as many bus services as it wants because they'd make a profit.

Crikey, the single, one vehicle bus fare in London fifteen years ago was £2, and lots of people were paying that. Oyster reduced it substantially and it never crept back up. A bus fare of £2.50 now with connections allowed would still be excellent value and cheaper than most cities outside London but would put TfL's bus operations on a far steadier financial footing.

But Khan prefers to whine and politick than to find practical solutions. He would rather cut peoples' services to make a point than allow them to pay a little more and keep them.

You are assuming that the loadings would stay the same. Look at loadings outside London with your "commercial" fares - you basically want to break the only decent bus network in the UK. Instead people will use the tube if the cost is similar.

 

[bakerstreet]

TfL doesn't need to make substantive bus cuts. It just needs to increase the bus fare to a more commercial level, then it could have as many bus services as it wants because they'd make a profit.

Crikey, the single, one vehicle bus fare in London fifteen years ago was £2, and lots of people were paying that. Oyster reduced it substantially and it never crept back up. A bus fare of £2.50 now with connections allowed would still be excellent value and cheaper than most cities outside London but would put TfL's bus operations on a far steadier financial footing.

But Khan prefers to whine and politick than to find practical solutions. He would rather cut peoples' services to make a point than allow them to pay a little more and keep them.

Do you mean the fare was £2 cash?

By quoting a £2 fare I’m not entirely sure that you are quoting like for like here.

I do not ever remember paying £2 on an Oyster, or a bus saver.

My memory tells me that £2 was the premium cash fare.

In early 2000s I remember a pack of bus saver tickets which equated to 65p per journey, and £1 if you paid cash on the bus.

Then there was some sort of 2 zone system - 70p cash outside the centre, £1 inside the centre.

Then Oyster was £1. Then 80p off peak, £1.00 peak for a while. Then became the same fare peak / off peak.

The £2 you are quoting was, from memory, the cash fare to encourage Oyster use. It was not the regular fare any more than the paper single tube ticket is the regular fare.

This was in the run up to the street side ticket machines in the centre of London (yellow route numbers at bus stops) when cash ceased to be accepted.

Addition

I’ve just found the bus fare history from Londonist which is usually reasonably accurate.

Bus single fare: Oyster PAYG (peak)

2004: 70p
2005: £1
2006: £1
2007: £1
2008: 90p
2009: £1
2010: £1.20
2011: £1.30
2012 (original): £1.40
2012 (revised): £1.35
2013: £1.40
2014: £1.45
2015: £1.50
2016: £1.50

Source https://londonist.com/2011/11/london-transport-fares-2000-2012

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, the fare was £2 cash, and lots of people paid it. Bus Savers were a minority pursuit. Those travelling frequently mostly used Bus Passes or Travelcards.

You are assuming that the loadings would stay the same. Look at loadings outside London with your "commercial" fares - you basicakky want to break the only decent bus network in the UK. Instead people will use the tube if the cost is similar.

If the Tube is appropriate for their journey, they should use the Tube and those bus routes should go, give or take the need for accessibility for wheelchair users which would take some thought. Buses should not duplicate rail unless there is a compelling other reason to do that. In an integrated transport system, that really is an utter waste of money.

Binning off the 205 as son-of-Stationlink might be just about the only sensible one there, because it pretty much in its entirety duplicates the Circle/Hammersmith and City Line. There are no doubt also some routes duplicating the Elizabeth Line which should go as a result.

 

[bakerstreet]

Yes, the fare was £2 cash, and lots of people paid it. Bus Savers were a minority pursuit. Those travelling frequently mostly used Bus Passes or Travelcards.

Evidence please for “bus savers were a minority pursuit. “ and definition of “lots” of people paid the £2 bus fare.

I’m sure there were many sales of £2 fares but what was the ratio of £2 fares to 65p fares.

Bus savers were available from every ticketing newsagent and up to more than halved the cost of a bus fare.

I do not remember it being any more a minority pursuit than the Oyster, which also significantly under cut the £2 cash fare.

 

[Wolfie]

Yes, the fare was £2 cash, and lots of people paid it. Bus Savers were a minority pursuit. Those travelling frequently mostly used Bus Passes or Travelcards.



If the Tube is appropriate for their journey, they should use the Tube and those bus routes should go, give or take the need for accessibility for wheelchair users which would take some thought. Buses should not duplicate rail unless there is a compelling other reason to do that. In an integrated transport system, that really is an utter waste of money.

Binning off the 205 as son-of-Stationlink might be just about the only sensible one there, because it pretty much in its entirety duplicates the Circle/Hammersmith and City Line. There are no doubt also some routes duplicating the Elizabeth Line which should go as a result.

I assume that you have ensured that, like the bus, all of those Tube stations have full disabled access......

Evidence please for “bus savers were a minority pursuit. “
They were available from every ticketing newsagent and up to more than halved the cost of a bus fare.
I do not remember it being any more a minority pursuit than the Oyster.

Exactly

Do you mean the fare was £2 cash?

By quoting a £2 fare I’m not entirely sure that you are quoting like for like here.

I do not ever remember paying £2 on an Oyster, or a bus saver.

My memory tells me that £2 was the premium cash fare.

In early 2000s I remember a pack of bus saver tickets which equated to 65p per journey, and £1 if you paid cash on the bus.

Then there was some sort of 2 zone system - 70p cash outside the centre, £1 inside the centre.

Then Oyster was £1. Then 80p off peak, £1.20 peak for a while. Then became the same fare peak / off peak.

The £2 you are quoting was, from memory, the cash fare to encourage Oyster use. It was not the regular fare any more than the paper single tube ticket is the regular fare.

This was in the run up to the street side ticket machines in the centre of London (yellow route numbers at bus stops) when cash ceased to be accepted.

Addition

I’ve just found the bus fare history from Londonist which is usually reasonably accurate.

Bus single fare: Oyster PAYG (peak)

2004: 70p
2005: £1
2006: £1
2007: £1
2008: 90p
2009: £1
2010: £1.20
2011: £1.30
2012 (original): £1.40
2012 (revised): £1.35
2013: £1.40
2014: £1.45
2015: £1.50
2016: £1.50

Source https://londonist.com/2011/11/london-transport-fares-2000-2012

TY. I was pretty sure, having used London buses pretty much daily for over 30 years, that someone was playing fast and loose with facts.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I assume that you have ensured that, like the bus, all of those Tube stations have full disabled access......

A double decker bus every 10 minutes is not necessarily the best answer to accessibility issues. Taxis at the Tube fare (or free if a Freedom Pass is held) would be cheaper to provide and more convenient.

 

[APT618S]

It would be interesting to see what happens in practice with All Line Rovers in the core - as opposed to what we think should happen.

My ALR actually opened the gates on the Elizabeth line entrance at Paddington (both exit and entrance) even though ALRs never open the gates on the mainline stn.

 

[Leisurefirst]

Yes, the fare was £2 cash, and lots of people paid it. Bus Savers were a minority pursuit. Those travelling frequently mostly used Bus Passes or Travelcards.



If the Tube is appropriate for their journey, they should use the Tube and those bus routes should go, give or take the need for accessibility for wheelchair users which would take some thought. Buses should not duplicate rail unless there is a compelling other reason to do that. In an integrated transport system, that really is an utter waste of money.

Binning off the 205 as son-of-Stationlink might be just about the only sensible one there, because it pretty much in its entirety duplicates the Circle/Hammersmith and City Line. There are no doubt also some routes duplicating the Elizabeth Line which should go as a result.

The 205 is a whole heap of fun when the Circle/H&C isn't running at weekends seeing as TflL never provide a replacement bus for anything west of Tower Hill.
Also it's not just wheelchair users who need it, there are plenty of people who have great difficulty with stairs with no step-free access at Edgware Road, Baker Street, Great Portland Street, Euston Square Eastbound, Liverpool Street Westbound or with walking from the stations to their eventual destination.