Project Oval: How it could be made fairer and clearer

[Flinn Reed]

I think for the contactless expansion to be fair, it should cover stations of a similar distance in every direction. Places like Cambridge or Milton Keynes seem too far out for TFL fares. Places will get left out wherever the boundary is drawn, but roughly would make sense to stop near the airports and places like Reading. So going clockwise from the Thames, my suggestion would be for contactless fares to go out to Rainham, Maidstone, Paddock Wood, Tunbridge Wells, East Grinstead, Three Bridges, Horsham, Guildford, Aldershot, Farnborough, Reading, Henley, Princes Risborough, Aylesbury Vale, Tring, Luton, Stevenage, Stansted Airport, Chelmsford, Southend Victoria and Shoeburyness. Excluding stations towards Southminster and Uckfield.

Also regardless of who is operating the trains, ideally all stations within this area should receive TFL branding - including Central London terminal stations. Part of the success of the Overground and Elizabeth Line is consistent signage with the rest of the tube/TFL network.

I also think this would be a good opportunity to simplify fares across London and the home counties - ideally expanding Oyster use to all contactless stations. Since TFL took over the Overground and expanded oyster/contactless, fares further out have ended up very inconsistent between nearby rail lines - for example compare the outer Metropolitan Line stations to adjacent ones on the WCML. Could perhaps now reduced the number of fare zones, and with the numbered zones covering all stations accepting contactless:
Zones 1 & 2 - as present
Zone 3 - all stations current in zones 3 & 4
Zone 4 - all remaining stations within the M25
Zone 5 - stations outside the M25
Could also add a zone 6 if special fares need to be kept anywhere, such as airports or HS1.

 

[JonathanH]

Zone 4 - all remaining stations within the M25

The M25 is not a sensible boundary for anything as it is the combination of Ringway 3 and Ringway 4 which are at different distances from central London. It doesn't follow the boundary of Greater London.

As it is, Oyster has the facility for 15 zones, not just 6, but the fares to central London from different locations around the outside are set at different levels, so they couldn't easily form further concentric rings.

 

[MikeWh]

'TfL fares' do not go out further than zones 1-9. Even Reading uses fares set by GWR, despite TfL operating the Elizabeth line. The problem with expanding the zones further out from London is that far more cross London journeys become ones where it would be desirable to charge for both sides. Under the existing zonal system it would cost the same to get from Gatwick to Central London as it would to get from Gatwick to Luton. As it is, fares like Crayford to Hampton Court being the same as Crayford to Waterloo are stretching the viability of the scheme, but the small number of such journeys and the relatively low additional cost is sacrificed for the simple system.

The extra bits further away from London are on lines where the number of journeys made will justify the costs of equipment involved.

 

[Sonic1234]

As it is, fares like Crayford to Hampton Court being the same as Crayford to Waterloo are stretching the viability of the scheme, but the small number of such journeys and the relatively low additional cost is sacrificed for the simple system.

Within the Zones, "long distance" can be very good value. But as you say, such journeys are rare and don't really cost the operators more.

Croydon to London Bridge is the same price as Croydon to New Barnet, but how many people do the latter journey? And does GTR care that it costs the same, after all they're running the trains anyway.

I remember reading on Diamond Geezer's blog that one of these "great value" Zone 5-1-5 journeys (think it was Gordons Hill to West Wickham) was done once last year.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Personally I think Oval was the totally wrong way to do it and a separate National Rail contactless scheme capable of national rollout should have been implemented. I get it has some advantages such as being able to cap like a Travelcard, but it leaves the South East with a system that is potentially detached from the rest of the country. And a system designed for the NR fares structure would have had fewer anomalies.

 

[Richardr]

Also regardless of who is operating the trains, ideally all stations within this area should receive TFL branding - including Central London terminal stations. Part of the success of the Overground and Elizabeth Line is consistent signage with the rest of the tube/TFL network.

What would that achieve?

Most train services outside London including most from the mainline terminals have nothing to do with TfL, except if they use their contactless payment system under Project Oval. Would you have delay replay, for example, under the TfL system? How much confusion would be caused by having that brand where Oyster is not accepted?

Unless or until Oval can account for the fare structure of national rail, including full use of railcards, then there will always be anomalies and confusion over pricing and similar, and contactless will not be best for a lot of use cases.

The TfL brand makes sense where TfL is in charge of the line, but not where they aren't.

 

[A S Leib]

I think once you're going to places like Southend and Tunbridge Wells, you might as well try to go as far as Southminster, Hastings etc. and include areas which are very logical cut-off points from a geographical standpoint (since Oyster / Oval won't go outside the UK) and which still predominately look heavily towards London in their rail traffic.

 

[Farnborough]

I think for the contactless expansion to be fair, it should cover stations of a similar distance in every direction. Places like Cambridge or Milton Keynes seem too far out for TFL fares. Places will get left out wherever the boundary is drawn, but roughly would make sense to stop near the airports and places like Reading. So going clockwise from the Thames, my suggestion would be for contactless fares to go out to Rainham, Maidstone, Paddock Wood, Tunbridge Wells, East Grinstead, Three Bridges, Horsham, Guildford, Aldershot, Farnborough, Reading, Henley, Princes Risborough, Aylesbury Vale, Tring, Luton, Stevenage, Stansted Airport, Chelmsford, Southend Victoria and Shoeburyness. Excluding stations towards Southminster and Uckfield.

Whatever boundary stations you choose, they should be regional "hubs" - so while I agree with Guildford, more trains go straight through Farnborough than stop, whereas most stop at Basingstoke, so for me Basingstoke would make more sense. And if you are going as far as Aldershot, then two more stops to the terminus at Alton would be logical.

 

[JonathanH]

Whatever boundary stations you choose, they should be regional "hubs" - so while I agree with Guildford, more trains go straight through Farnborough than stop, whereas most stop at Basingstoke, so for me Basingstoke would make more sense. And if you are going as far as Aldershot, then two more stops to the terminus at Alton would be logical.

Alton instead of Aldershot seems reasonable but with Basingstoke, you do end up with the awkward issue that someone from Hook can use PAYG to get there but someone from Micheldever can't.

However, there does need to be a boundary, and you would also somewhat hope that there can be a Solent PAYG scheme which isn't London centric at some point.

The tricky thing with all of this is defining the 'ransom strip' in between PAYG areas. Didcot to Swindon is obvious. Others perhaps less so.

 

[A S Leib]

The tricky thing with all of this is defining the 'ransom strip' in between PAYG areas.

SWR already has Tap2Go valid from Exeter and Weymouth to Waterloo, so I don't think having a gap between southern Hampshire and London's entirely necessary.

 

[cactustwirly]

Personally I think Oval was the totally wrong way to do it and a separate National Rail contactless scheme capable of national rollout should have been implemented. I get it has some advantages such as being able to cap like a Travelcard, but it leaves the South East with a system that is potentially detached from the rest of the country. And a system designed for the NR fares structure would have had fewer anomalies.

But how does that work with travelcards?

Most travel in the South East is to London so it makes sense to integrate with TfL

 

[MikeWh]

Personally I think Oval was the totally wrong way to do it and a separate National Rail contactless scheme capable of national rollout should have been implemented. I get it has some advantages such as being able to cap like a Travelcard, but it leaves the South East with a system that is potentially detached from the rest of the country. And a system designed for the NR fares structure would have had fewer anomalies.

But how does that work with travelcards?

Most travel in the South East is to London so it makes sense to integrate with TfL

It's actually more complicated. If more than one contactless PAYG scheme is to operate at any station you would need to have a way to decide where to send the touch details. With smartcards and Oyster the card tells the back office system what to do with the data, but with bank cards, how can it know?

I also don't see a national scheme ever operating unless EVERY station is completely closed off and/or EVERY card gets checked on board EVERY train. The PAYG model is more suited to short/medium distance services over a concentrated area. It's possible that extending Oval to Brighton is a mistake, unless TfL can add in a way of introducing zones around other centres than London.

 

[PeterC]

I also don't see a national scheme ever operating unless EVERY station is completely closed off and/or EVERY card gets checked on board EVERY train. The PAYG model is more suited to short/medium distance services over a concentrated area. It's possible that extending Oval to Brighton is a mistake, unless TfL can add in a way of introducing zones around other centres than London.

TfL manages without barriering every station. What you lose will be the minor station to minor station fares that would be dodged anyway

I am not convinced about PAYG for long distance journeys either but with the hardware and procedures for on train inspection it would be achievable.

 

[Wolfie]

What would that achieve?

Most train services outside London including most from the mainline terminals have nothing to do with TfL, except if they use their contactless payment system under Project Oval. Would you have delay replay, for example, under the TfL system? How much confusion would be caused by having that brand where Oyster is not accepted?

Unless or until Oval can account for the fare structure of national rail, including full use of railcards, then there will always be anomalies and confusion over pricing and similar, and contactless will not be best for a lot of use cases.

The TfL brand makes sense where TfL is in charge of the line, but not where they aren't.

I absolutely agree. Such branding would also result in TfL's reputation effectively being in the hands of the worst TOC, whichever that is, operating into or through London. I can see no circumstances in which the Mayor would want that.

TfL manages without barriering every station. What you lose will be the minor station to minor station fares that would be dodged anyway

I am not convinced about PAYG for long distance journeys either but with the hardware and procedures for on train inspection it would be achievable.

It barriers and staffs the vast majority though.

 

[JonathanH]

It's possible that extending Oval to Brighton is a mistake, unless TfL can add in a way of introducing zones around other centres than London.

That could equally apply to places nearer to London where solely having zone 1 centric capping isn't ideal.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

So going clockwise from the Thames, my suggestion would be for contactless fares to go out to Rainham, Maidstone, Paddock Wood, Tunbridge Wells, East Grinstead, Three Bridges, Horsham, Guildford, Aldershot, Farnborough, Reading, Henley, Princes Risborough, Aylesbury Vale, Tring, Luton, Stevenage, Stansted Airport, Chelmsford, Southend Victoria and Shoeburyness. Excluding stations towards Southminster and Uckfield.

Reading, Henley plus Marlow and Windsor are already contactless and have been since the Elizabeth fully opened.

You get anomalies where contactless without a railcard is cheaper than a traditional ticket with. The point being that contactless fares were set at one half the Day Return price, but the Single price could be nearly as much as the Day Return.

 

[Flinn Reed]

Whatever boundary stations you choose, they should be regional "hubs" - so while I agree with Guildford, more trains go straight through Farnborough than stop, whereas most stop at Basingstoke, so for me Basingstoke would make more sense. And if you are going as far as Aldershot, then two more stops to the terminus at Alton would be logical.

In my opinion, I don't think this helps, as there a different reasons for trains terminating at a particular station. To keep things fair, it makes sense to keep the boundary at a similar distance for each line. If it were to be extended to Basingstoke and Alton, there could then be an argument to cover places like Haslemere, Didcot and Newbury too.

I would take the airports - plus furthest places served by TFL trains like Reading - as a guideline, with all other routes covered to a similar distance. This distance also roughly draws the line where a significant number of commuters travel from. Yes some people will commute from places like Brighton or Milton Keynes, but not as many. And this distance in many cases is where the home counties start to become more rural. Think the kind of distance that RER trains operate to outside of Paris.

In terms of ticketing, I think with GBR bringing all the routes into common management, contactless should become the norm for travel in and around major cities. With traditional point to point tickets then used mostly for medium/longer distance travel or to more rural areas. The same guideline could apply to other cities, accepting contactless ticketing to anywhere with a significant number of passengers commuting.

 

[cactustwirly]

In my opinion, I don't think this helps, as there a different reasons for trains terminating at a particular station. To keep things fair, it makes sense to keep the boundary at a similar distance for each line. If it were to be extended to Basingstoke and Alton, there could then be an argument to cover places like Haslemere, Didcot and Newbury too.

I would take the airports - plus furthest places served by TFL trains like Reading - as a guideline, with all other routes covered to a similar distance. This distance also roughly draws the line where a significant number of commuters travel from. Yes some people will commute from places like Brighton or Milton Keynes, but not as many. And this distance in many cases is where the home counties start to become more rural. Think the kind of distance that RER trains operate to outside of Paris.

In terms of ticketing, I think with GBR bringing all the routes into common management, contactless should become the norm for travel in and around major cities. With traditional point to point tickets then used mostly for medium/longer distance travel or to more rural areas. The same guideline could apply to other cities, accepting contactless ticketing to anywhere with a significant number of passengers commuting.

I think extending to places like Newbury, Didcot and Basingstoke make sense

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would take the airports - plus furthest places served by TFL trains like Reading - as a guideline, with all other routes covered to a similar distance. This distance also roughly draws the line where a significant number of commuters travel from. Yes some people will commute from places like Brighton or Milton Keynes, but not as many.

I'm guessing you've never been to Milton Keynes? There are huge, huge numbers of commuters to London from there - sure, it's not Reading, but the numbers are huge compared with many places further in. The edge of the commuter area in the WCML direction is really Northampton (Long Buckby at a push) - and indeed Oval has already gone to Bletchley. Similarly Bedford is significant as a commuter town despite being a bit further out, simply because Thameslink gives very easy access straight into the City so there's no onward travel for most once they reach central London.

Brighton I'll give you less so, but Brighton is half an hour longer as a journey (roughly double). You can't really do it on distance - it's journey time (and secondarily cost) that's significant.

 

[A S Leib]

Lowestoft and Tamworth are both towns of ~70,000 around a hundred miles from central London, but Lowestoft to Liverpool Street is 20,000 passengers per year and Tamworth to Euston is 120,000, so it doesn't make sense to treat all directions equally. (Lowestoft to London is £10,500-£10,700 per year depending on going via Saxmundham or Norwich and 2:40 with a good connection at Ipswich; Tamworth is £8,300-£14,000 depending on LNR/WMR only or any permitted and less than half the time.)

 

[Flinn Reed]

I'm guessing you've never been to Milton Keynes? There are huge, huge numbers of commuters to London from there - sure, it's not Reading, but the numbers are huge compared with many places further in. The edge of the commuter area in the WCML direction is really Northampton (Long Buckby at a push) - and indeed Oval has already gone to Bletchley. Similarly Bedford is significant as a commuter town despite being a bit further out, simply because Thameslink gives very easy access straight into the City so there's no onward travel for most once they reach central London.

Brighton I'll give you less so, but Brighton is half an hour longer as a journey (roughly double). You can't really do it on distance - it's journey time (and secondarily cost) that's significant.

What would also help regardless is extending the fare zone structure for contactless, giving more simplified and standardised prices. And more consistent fares between routes - currently Metropolitan/Chiltern fares from Central London to Herts/Bucks is a fraction of the cost of going to nearby WCML stations.

Perhaps a solution could be to have the numbered fare zones extend to cover a standardised distance to include most commuter towns, and every station within that distance. Then use the special fare zone to cover specific rail lines where there are significant numbers of commuters from further out, for example going beyond Tring/Luton to Milton Keynes/Bedford? While journey time has determined where passengers tend to commute from, ticketing/fares should still be down to distance rather than operational factors.

 

[JonathanH]

While journey time has determined where passengers tend to commute from, ticketing/fares should still be down to distance rather than operational factors.

Market pricing and the 'fares basket era' has had an impact. If anyone thinks that the fare from Reading to Paddington is going to be reduced to match the fare from Shoeburyness to Fenchurch Street, they are a little deluded. Those sort of differences are fairly much set in place now.