National Infrastructure Plan

[fgwrich]

Evening Standard mentioned St Albans and Guildford, but we already know from earlier discussions that it will include WGC and Hertford North. I presume it also means Hertford East too.

The paper says Boris wants to extend it further outside still. I wonder how they'll work out the fares, as I can't imagine they're going to extend the zones that far out (as in beyond stations like WGC). It would make sense to extend Oyster to cover the whole FCC route, and many other routes that terminate in London (non Intercity).

If it's going to Guildford and Reading, i wonder if Basingstoke will see it too?

 

[jon0844]

I can't find any documentation that explains the Oyster roll out (it doesn't even seem to be in the NIP document). It's obviously been known about for some considerable time though - especially considering the new gates along the FCC route are not only Oyster-ready, they've actually had the Oyster hardware fitted and are already on (albeit with a red light, such that they won't validate cards).

I know that on here it was suggested that this was impossible to achieve, and it would be after the Olympics if at all, but I have to assume it will now happen before the Olympics... so surely there's documentation to give some details of the stations, and how the fares will be charged. If the zones are being extended, that's quite a big deal too.

 

[swt_passenger]

The Chancellor didn't actually mention it in terms of extending Oyster PAYG, but in terms of "extend flexible smart ticketing across London and the South East" - page 20 section 2.4 of the infrastructure plan. ITSO is already decided upon outside London and is well underway, except for minor Oyster extensions as already proposed. Likewise TfL are altering their systems to be ITSO compatible as well. The Evening Standard (and probably Boris) would probably find all that too difficult to understand - hence the headlines... :roll:

As discussed regularly, people's PAYG balances would have to be significantly higher to work as far out as Reading, what with a single Anytime fare of around £20.00 - an ITSO/Oyster compatible season should work OK though.

 

[Class172]

Personally, I don't see how Bromsgrove will justify all the trains it will get as part of the Cross-city extension.

Following electrification it will have 3tph on stopping Cross-city services and an additional 1tph on BHM-HFD runs; I have used Bromsgrove myself and it is not as busy as other nearby stations (no names mentioned). I would rather see Barnt Green used as an interchange station than Bromsgrove as it is more ideally situated for trains to Redditch.

Following this I don't think then deserves to be served at all by the peak hour 'extra' BHM-GMV services.

Surely it would just be easier to give the line 2tph throughout the day to at least Worcester.

 

[jon0844]

I would hope that Cubic could upgrade the card readers on the gates fairly easily, and everything else is just software that Joe Public doesn't need to worry about.

I am all for an ITSO card system, and hope one day that it could be used nationwide (even perhaps abroad). But for now, Oyster will suit me fine and if I have to put a bit more money on it then so be it.

After all, I'd need that money to buy a ticket anyway so it's not as if I need to place thousands on it. With auto topup, I could simply have it set to keep enough credit only for the next time I use it (and I can always cash in the credit if necessary).

From January I'll be travelling pretty rarely, so I'll probably make do with a carnet pack (off-peak) but these expire after 90 days. I really do think I'll be better off with prepay, especially as it lets you change your travel arrangements at any time - unlike buying the right tickets before you set off, or simply playing safe with a Travelcard.

 

[swt_passenger]

I am all for an ITSO card system, and hope one day that it could be used nationwide (even perhaps abroad). But for now, Oyster will suit me fine and if I have to put a bit more money on it then so be it.

The Oyster PAYG system charges a maximum cash fare on entry, which is the equivalent of the maximum single fare for the time of day (peak or offpeak).

But TfL treat a cross London journey as a loss leader, because such a small proportion are known to take place, in comparison to journies to and from Z1. What I'm saying here is that TfL are quite happy to charge for only half of a West Drayton to Upminster Z6 > Z1 > Z6 through journey.

Somehow though I can't see a National Rail journey from Reading to Southend being charged the same as Reading to Paddington.

So a hypothetical Oyster PAYG style touch in at Reading would need to deduct not only the maximum possible fare to Zone 1, but as you've similarly extended the system all over the south east, you'd have to deduct the maximum fare possible to the other extremity - which could easily be double that - around £40 would have to be deducted on entry.

 

[jon0844]

They simply won't be able to do that though - as nobody would use it. They're going to have to compromise and run the risk of losing money, or think up another solution - like restricting how many uncompleted journeys you can make (in case people simply touch in to pay the max fare, knowing it's cheaper than the actual fare - and not touching out).

I am not sure what will be done, but they'll never 'sell' the requirement to have £40 on your Oyster card. £10 perhaps, or maybe £15.

Could RPIs be given new 'wands' that are location aware, such that when checking a ticket, it will effectively ensure that a higher fare is charged if it's scanned beyond the maximum fare amount?

 

[ntg]

Here's a BBC article about Oyster to WGC, Hertford North and St Albans. Hertford East is mentioned here. And it looks imminent, "February 2012".

The Oyster PAYG system charges a maximum cash fare on entry, which is the equivalent of the maximum single fare for the time of day (peak or offpeak).

But TfL treat a cross London journey as a loss leader, because such a small proportion are known to take place, in comparison to journies to and from Z1. What I'm saying here is that TfL are quite happy to charge for only half of a West Drayton to Upminster Z6 > Z1 > Z6 through journey.

Somehow though I can't see a National Rail journey from Reading to Southend being charged the same as Reading to Paddington.

So a hypothetical Oyster PAYG style touch in at Reading would need to deduct not only the maximum possible fare to Zone 1, but as you've similarly extended the system all over the south east, you'd have to deduct the maximum fare possible to the other extremity - which could easily be double that - around £40 would have to be deducted on entry.

It could probably be enforced by making all yellow oyster readers function as pink, mid-journey readers to regulate journeys by dividing them into modules with (£20) the maximum fare for any given London terminal to home counties terminal and (£7.40) the maximum London fare.

Or introduce a new Oyster card that is necessarily linked to bank account that automatically tops up when balance becomes negative.

 

[charlee]

As ususal the South west is forgotten about.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

As ususal the South west is forgotten about.

Well apart from Tavistock what else is there really to do?

 

[tbtc]

As ususal the South west is forgotten about.

You've got rid of half your Pacers - I'd be celebrating if the same could be said of these parts

 

[swt_passenger]

They simply won't be able to do that though - as nobody would use it.

That's exactly why it won't happen, which is what I'm trying to say...

 

[swtandgw]

You've got rid of half your Pacers - I'd be celebrating if the same could be said of these parts

Yet we're still yet going to be stuck with the same HSTs until at least the 2030s. If I ran the National Infrastructure Plan, I would have included the whole South West in the whole Great Western modernisation plans and wired the whole line from Newbury (where the electrification will currently terminate at the moment) all the way to Penzance and introduce purely-electric IEPs and new-build EMUs for services (Bombardier UK of course) where there would not be enough ex-Thameslink units to cover.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Yet we're still yet going to be stuck with the same HSTs until at least the 2030s. If I ran the National Infrastructure Plan, I would have included the whole South West in the whole Great Western modernisation plans and wired the whole line from Newbury (where the electrification will currently terminate at the moment) all the way to Penzance and introduce purely-electric IEPs and new-build EMUs for services (Bombardier UK of course) where there would not be enough ex-Thameslink units to cover.

Could be worse they could replace the HSTS with voyagers....

 

[Nym]

*bangs his head on the desk again and again*

NO LDPE BOMBARDIER STOCK IS BUILT IN THE UK!!!

Stop favouring this canadian company that only operates an assembly plant in the UK that they don't want to...

Why not favour the company who bases a significant amount of their R&D in the UK, and employs specialist maintenance crews for every class it creates. (And pays them a damn good wage compared to ToCs!)

 

[swtandgw]

Could be worse they could replace the HSTS with voyagers....

I probably would have guessed by then, they'll be refurbished, and hopefully, that awful smell from the toilets would be eliminated. I nearly got smothered by the fumes when I was coming back from Bristol Temple Meads, having to stand by the doorways since the whole train was packed like sardines! Also, since there are plans to convert them into EDMUs, it could open up possibilities to wire up Devon & Cornwall after all.

 

[Mojo]

As ususal the South west is forgotten about.

Indeed. Yet again proves what a damp squib many of the local politicians in the South West are, and have been for years. Strange really when you consider the high calibre of local MPs (at least in Greater Bristol).

The Lib Dems in Bristol have been flirting with the idea of a bonkers busway and road building for years and have finally gotten the chance they wanted, to attempt to prove this inferior mode of transport on a route with minimal public transport demand. Meanwhile the leaders of the PTEs and good local authorities like Nottingham are practically forcing down the doors of the ministers' offices.

Attending council meetings and speaking with local councillors it's like some of them are on a different planet. You wouldn't think Greater Bristol was the only English subregion aside from London in the European top forty in terms of GDP, or an area that the highest growth in GDP per capita of any major city in England outside London. Their failure to stick up for the South West has lead to many areas in the North trampling all over them.

 

[jopsuk]

Cambridge News has got all excited over the idea of 125mph trains to Cambridge. Despite this being old news. Also, it won't offer much in the way of improved journey times, it'll rather make the pathing easier for the planners when trying to fit the commuter and intercity services around each other.

 

[Nym]

Really, so it's not in the Growth Regions of the North West or West Midlands then?

There was me thinking all these high tech industries moving to Brum, Manchester, Leeds and Preston didn't contribute to the GDP at all...

 

[LE Greys]

Cambridge News has got all excited over the idea of 125mph trains to Cambridge. Despite this being old news. Also, it won't offer much in the way of improved journey times, it'll rather make the pathing easier for the planners when trying to fit the commuter and intercity services around each other.

I'm beginning to wonder whether it would be easier for East Coast to operate them, using ECML stock on fill-in turns (although it would obviously require more stock first). That way, there would be no need to have the somewhat ridiculous sight of an IEP calling all stations from Hatfield to Cambridge. East Coast could handle the Peterborough commuter fasts just as easily.

Of course, it would still be more sensible to send the Cambridge fasts to Liverpool Street after the next round of improvements.

 

[sprinterguy]

I'm beginning to wonder whether it would be easier for East Coast to operate them, using ECML stock on fill-in turns (although it would obviously require more stock first). That way, there would be no need to have the somewhat ridiculous sight of an IEP calling all stations from Hatfield to Cambridge. East Coast could handle the Peterborough commuter fasts just as easily.

Of course, it would still be more sensible to send the Cambridge fasts to Liverpool Street after the next round of improvements.

After a lot of the Great Northern services have been amalgamated into the "Greater Thameslink" operation, it could be a possibility that the remaining inner-suburban services could join the London Overground operation, and the longer distance semi-fasts to Peterborough and Cambridge could become part of the East Coast franchise, which would give East Coast a greater "mix" of services. It works quite happily in my head anyway...

 

[jopsuk]

I'm beginning to wonder whether it would be easier for East Coast to operate them, using ECML stock on fill-in turns (although it would obviously require more stock first). That way, there would be no need to have the somewhat ridiculous sight of an IEP calling all stations from Hatfield to Cambridge. East Coast could handle the Peterborough commuter fasts just as easily.

Of course, it would still be more sensible to send the Cambridge fasts to Liverpool Street after the next round of improvements.

As far as I can tell, the "slow" and "semi fast" Cambridge trains are to be run using Thameslink stock- off peak it would only be the half hourly "Cambridge Express" (with hourly extension to Kings Lynn) that would use the five-car IEP (presumably usually in double formation, with splitting to Kings Lynn, a bit like most services now using 2*4-car Networker formations), with the seating layout "optimised" for commuters, not long distance.

 

[tbtc]

Yet we're still yet going to be stuck with the same HSTs until at least the 2030s. If I ran the National Infrastructure Plan, I would have included the whole South West in the whole Great Western modernisation plans and wired the whole line from Newbury (where the electrification will currently terminate at the moment) all the way to Penzance and introduce purely-electric IEPs and new-build EMUs for services (Bombardier UK of course) where there would not be enough ex-Thameslink units to cover.

Same HSTs that will be part of the East Coast Main Line, Midland Main Line and Cross Country services for many years to come too.

Apart from the electrification announcement (as far as Bristol etc), the scrapping of the 142s, the return of the 180s, the generous numbers of additional 150s and the extended HSTs, the Great Western region hasn't had much good news recently...

 

[Philip Elliott]

The only 'rail' project announced for the East Midlands was the rebuilding of London Road bridge in Derby - to carry heavier road traffic:roll:

 

[Nym]

You just had East Midlands Parkway...

 

[MidnightFlyer]

You just had East Midlands Parkway...

To be fair a new station a couple of years ago doesn't really change matters that much. If there was no new investment in the North West, I doubt any of us would like it if we were told that we'd just had a new station built at Buckshaw!