You could have used the Bakerloo passage and the underground ticket line if the ticket gate staff member had been persistent.
Was the problem at the barriers at the Paddington Low Level (Elizabeth Line) gateline or at the High Level station gateline?
The low level Elizabeth Line gates.
File a complaint to tfl. The only way these people are going to learn is when the complaints stack up
I have witnessed National Rail tickets being rejected on numerous occasions at these gates. Causes queues which is frustrating. Perhaps they have them set up to not automatically open?
Maybe they're trying to catch people with London Terminals tickets travelling across London
Nothing showing on signalmaps other than a full compliment of units at Plumstead sidings.
tfl.gov.uk
The whole Elizabeth line branding is nonsense. The Elizabeth line line not being a tube line because it isn't, coupled with fares confusing of 'but it's the tube, what do you mean contactless isn't valid to Maidenhead?' and so on - it's perfectly manageable for regular commuters, but for anyone unfamiliar with the area, the obsession with putting the Queen's name on it, despite the historical precedent, has really made a mess of things.
Fair enough, I honestly hadn't checked. I just brought it up as I greeted some American visitors recently who, unable to buy a ticket as the ticket office was closed and machines weren't working, used contactless to get from Fenchurch Street to Southend Central, to receive a telling off at the other end. Simple when you know, disconcerting when you don't.
What would the prices actually be if charged at the LO scale?
Fairer, in short. There wouldn't be the mixed mode tax that currently applies if part of your journey is priced on one of non-LU compatible scales (e.g. journeys from west of West Drayton or east of Stratford).
Is it a tax? Is it not just trying allocate the fare revenue to Tfl/non TFL services in a fairer way. I suppose the fares could be all the same with transfer payments being made between TfL and Dft/TOCs to make up the difference. I'm not sure the appropriate tax payers would be happy about that.
BAA built the Heathrow tunnels didn't they? Why shouldn't they make money of the use of their private assets? I'm sure they would be happy to sell them to NR/State for an appropriate price. Or do you support the expropriation of private property?
The term tax is just a colloquialism, but if walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
It was initially a joint BAA-BR project. BAA later bought out BR's 20% stake.
What's the plan for the weekends between now and then? COS just sitting unused?
I’ve thought this too.
There was actually an intervention by the ORR meaning that the charges are a lot lower than they would otherwise have been. HAL (Heathrow Airport Ltd - it hasn’t been BAA for a few years now) originally wanted to charge £735 per train on the Heathrow spur based upon the original Crossrail timetable. Based upon the number of forecast train movements this was made up of a £597.30 (in 2015, so would have been lower dependent on more trains) investment recovery charge called the “fixed track access charge,” and £138.40 operational expenditure charge (“common cost charge”). The ORR argued that the investment recovery charge was not able to be passed on, so HAL requested a judicial review, which was dismissed.
What travel had you already done? It could be unknown differences in boundary fares for single and mixed mode.
Yes . Good example. The 'mixed mode tax' used to cause widespread resentment in London that people in places without a tube (like most of South London) paid more to get into the centre for a less frequent service and the bother of changing.
The charging framework for the Heathrow Spur is regulated to prevent disproportionate track access charges.
