TOCs selling incorrect tickets for Elizabeth Line services?

[Horizon22]

That's not the major clause.
The major reason was Heathrow Airport Rail Tunnel has high access charge, thus Heathrow service are in premium.
The "peak" fare issue just be the cream on top of the expensive cake.

Yes I’m aware of the background, but TfL decided recently to adapt fares for all modes to Heathrow as an additional revenue stream.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Nov 2022 ==

If this is the case TfL violates consumer law.

Hardly; it’s just poor description of a product more than anything. It should be amended though of course to prevent confusion. The ticketing has been badly handled since the central section opened.

 

[cactustwirly]

I think likely is:


B) Despite it's in Travelcard zone 6, Heathrow Rail is not part of London Underground, just like the case of National Rail stations do not accept LU zone ticket as destination except it's enroute.

That is an especially weak argument, especially when on the same service through the core, only Underground tickets are accepted

 

[James H]

This is calling out for someone on the London Assembly to get their teeth into.

 

[Wolfie]

If this is the case TfL violates consumer law.

Absolutely and will in due course likely face a Gatwick-style class action.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Nov 2022 ==

So a ticket printed with valid via the Elizabeth line is not valid on the Elizabeth line

Such notices in no way shape or form can modify a legally binding contract. Me learned friends will rip TfL a seriously big new one....

 

[talldave]

This is calling out for someone on the London Assembly to get their teeth into.

They're too busy ruining the lives of car drivers.

 

[Gerald Fiennes]

So, are we saying that it's OK to spend £15bn on a seriously posh new rail service for London but then haven't got the budget to develop a simple set of tickets to use it that doesn't lead to major headaches like this?

All because National Rail (RDG/ATOC) and TfL are two separate organisations (possibly three if you view EL as separate from LUL) that are past masters for allowing these kind of byzantine issues (different fares for big trains as distinct from little trains..?) to drag on for years? Moreover, this has happened even though the the creation of Crossrail necessarily required TfL and National Rail to work closely together -- it is, after all, a TfL railway that connects very severely to two national rail ones. (In retrospect this is quite a big clue, as Tfl/National Rail still managed to create a railway which manages to use three different signalling systems (five if you count GW ATP and the Heathrow spur's version of ETCS)?

Surely it is high time for a 'National Rail/TfL' partnership to put in place a single fare structure (and terms and conditions(!)) in place, as mooted by DfT/TfL back in 2016. Shouldn't some of the £15bn have usefully been spent on this?!!!

 

[Starmill]

I don't understand the last paragraph. Paper tickets are still available for sale in the CCOS in form of a National Rail station - U zone ticket, and the validity of the Underground ticket in the CCOS is established by means of "interavailability", which only covers Paddington - Abbey Wood on Elizabeth line. This doesn't itself make Elizabeth line part of London Underground. This does not invalidate any existing validity on other National Rail tickets which have validity on Elizabeth line according to NRCoT or the Routeing Guide, for example, tickets to Farringdon with route "Not Underground".

If you can't see why it's cakeism to tell people that they may not buy a ticket to a named station in the CCOS and instead must use a U zone ticket, but they may not use a U zone ticket and must have a ticket to the named Heathrow group to go to Heathrow Airport then I'm afraid that I probably can't clarify it any further.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Nov 2022 ==

They're too busy ruining the lives of car drivers.

Seems like a great deal of hyperbole to me. Nearly all cars driving in the proposed Ulez area already comply with the requirements.

 

[matt_world2004]

I don't understand the last paragraph. Paper tickets are still available for sale in the CCOS in form of a National Rail station - U zone ticket, and the validity of the Underground ticket in the CCOS is established by means of "interavailability", which only covers Paddington - Abbey Wood on Elizabeth line. This doesn't itself make Elizabeth line part of London Underground. This does not invalidate any existing validity on other National Rail tickets which have validity on Elizabeth line according to NRCoT or the Routeing Guide, for example, tickets to Farringdon with route "Not Underground".

If a National Rail ticket routed "via Elizabeth line" is denied on an Elizabeth line train or station, I will be happy to see the case in court.

If a ticket has valid via the Elizabeth line " printed on it you would expect it to be valid via the Elizabeth line in its respective zones your getting tickets where people have picked the destination of Heathrow getting valid via the Elizabeth line printed on it and its not valid via the Elizabeth line to Heathrow

 

[hkstudent]

So, are we saying that it's OK to spend £15bn on a seriously posh new rail service for London but then haven't got the budget to develop a simple set of tickets to use it that doesn't lead to major headaches like this?

All because National Rail (RDG/ATOC) and TfL are two separate organisations (possibly three if you view EL as separate from LUL) that are past masters for allowing these kind of byzantine issues (different fares for big trains as distinct from little trains..?) to drag on for years? Moreover, this has happened even though the the creation of Crossrail necessarily required TfL and National Rail to work closely together -- it is, after all, a TfL railway that connects very severely to two national rail ones. (In retrospect this is quite a big clue, as Tfl/National Rail still managed to create a railway which manages to use three different signalling systems (five if you count GW ATP and the Heathrow spur's version of ETCS)?

Surely it is high time for a 'National Rail/TfL' partnership to put in place a single fare structure (and terms and conditions(!)) in place, as mooted by DfT/TfL back in 2016. Shouldn't some of the £15bn have usefully been spent on this?!!!

At the end, any fare structure reform would need to be revenue neutral or positive unless extra subsidy are secured from Treasury.

Crossrail core is a new piece of infrastructure that has higher operation cost. The original London Terminal ticket is accounted for the two ends of the existing high level terminals. There are more cost if going into the core section. It's pretty fair to charge extra through various form. The London U1 method seems to be easiest solution as it's part of existing fare structure. What is really need is: requiring all online ticket sales to designate London Crossrail core at U1 zone, then matter would be sorted.

None the less, fares are pretty integrated if using PAYG, the most majority form of payment for travelling within London.

 

[JonathanH]

None the less, fares are pretty integrated if using PAYG, the most majority form of payment for travelling within London.

Yes, and once PAYG is extended further out of London to the surrounding area, very few journeys in London will be made on the 'paper' fare structure (particularly if it is withdrawn).

Most of the issues with Elizabeth Line ticketing do appear to arise as a result of people attempting to use 'paper' fares.

 

[Haywain]

very few journeys in London will be made on the 'paper' fare structure (particularly if it is withdrawn).

It won’t be withdrawn, due to the lack of capping for many journeys.

 

[JonathanH]

It won’t be withdrawn, due to the lack of capping for many journeys.

What has capping got to do with it? Most paper tickets don't offer capping - one journey one way and one back. PAYG isn't exactly different. Running two systems would be a disaster for the aim of simplification.

If the Elizabeth Line had been set up as a closed system with PAYG only, there would be no confusion. (I appreciate it would have been difficult to do.)

 

[miklcct]

Yes, and once PAYG is extended further out of London to the surrounding area, very few journeys in London will be made on the 'paper' fare structure (particularly if it is withdrawn).

Most of the issues with Elizabeth Line ticketing do appear to arise as a result of people attempting to use 'paper' fares.

Paper ticket is still useful because it avoids the need to get off and on at the PAYG boundary, and under some circumstances I still use a paper ticket despite getting off and on to use PAYG is cheaper.

As long as there are some trains where PAYG can be partially used I don't see how paper tickets can be completely withdrawn.

For example, tomorrow I had to travel from Northwest zone 2 across zone 1 to East Grinstead, then across zone 1 again back to Northwest zone 4, and finally return to zone 3. I ended up buying a paper Travelcard and a paper extension ticket such that I don't need to get off the train from London Bridge to East Grinstead.

I don't see how paper ticket can be withdrawn without a major inconvenience here.

 

[cactustwirly]

What has capping got to do with it? Most paper tickets don't offer capping - one journey one way and one back. PAYG isn't exactly different. Running two systems would be a disaster for the aim of simplification.

If the Elizabeth Line had been set up as a closed system with PAYG only, there would be no confusion. (I appreciate it would have been difficult to do.

Because most journeys from the SE to London are done on a day travel card?

 

[matt_world2004]

I presume one of the reasons you can't buy a paper ticket from Heathrow to Farringdon legitimately is that it would cost more than a one day travelcard on paper so you may as well buy that if you can

 

[talldave]

Seems like a great deal of hyperbole to me. Nearly all cars driving in the proposed Ulez area already comply with the rerequirements.

Don't agree. Plenty of older diesels that the government incentivised us into buying still knocking around. I'm going to have to get rid of a perfectly good car with many years life in it. Ironically, my car is available with a 6.1L V8 which is ULEZ compliant; just wish I could afford the swap!!

 

[Starmill]

Don't agree. Plenty of older diesels that the government incentivised us into buying still knocking around. I'm going to have to get rid of a perfectly good car with many years life in it. Ironically, my car is available with a 6.1L V8 which is ULEZ compliant; just wish I could afford the swap!!

Ah right, so when you said "ruining the lives of car drivers" what you actually meant was "a policy which I personally dislike because it slightly inconveniences me". Got it.

I'd suggest that any further discussion on the Ulez should be in a new thread about it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Nov 2022 ==

If the Elizabeth Line had been set up as a closed system with PAYG only, there would be no confusion. (I appreciate it would have been difficult to do.)

It would probably be doable however as TfL still have the option to wind down the Travelcard agreement, and they may still opt this. Of course, it might not be possible to get a negotiated settlement that's favourable to them...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Nov 2022 ==

I don't see how paper ticket can be withdrawn without a major inconvenience here.

In this particular case, East Grinstead will probably be within the expanded pay as you go area.