Oxford to London commute

The bf has said he's happy to commute from Oxford (providing we live nr
the station) to the City everyday, but I'm not sure he's thought it
through!

As well as the trains, http://www.oxfordtube.com/ coaches are a common
sight on the M40.

Graham Harrison

2011-01-26 15:50:46 UTC

Post by Manoonga85
Hi all,
I'm new here but I hope someone can help me decide if this is a
ridiculous suggestion or not!
I currently live in NW London and have a job offer in Oxford. The job
would be better and I'm thinking I'd prefer the lifestyle over there. I
don't think I could hack the commute out to Oxford everyday, as it's not
like I live near Paddington anyway.
The bf has said he's happy to commute from Oxford (providing we live nr
the station) to the City everyday, but I'm not sure he's thought it
through!
Has anyone experience of this and how tiring/horrific it actually might
be??
Any advice really appreciated.
Thanks so much!!
--
Manoonga85

It's an hour give or take on the train to Paddington. I have to say I
would think twice about it. But then how long does it take him now and
does he get a seat? Once he gets used to the trains he'll probably
discover which ones he can get a seat on.

I suppose you could split the difference and live in Didcot or Reading but
neither is particularly attractive when compared to the dreaming spires.
Mind you, Oxford isn't all University - Blackbird Leas (Lees?) isn't
attractive. If you can afford it go to somewhere like Goring and
Streatley. The journey time to London is still about an hour but lifestyle
wise there's no contest in my view.

Paul Terry

2011-01-26 16:16:29 UTC

If you currently live within easy reach of Hillingdon, there are VERY
frequent coach services between there and the centre of Oxford, run by
the Oxford Tube and the Oxford Espress. Takes about an hour, and much
cheaper than the train via Paddington.

--
Paul Terry

Mizter T

2011-01-26 16:52:32 UTC

Post by Paul Terry

If you currently live within easy reach of Hillingdon, there are VERY
frequent coach services between there and the centre of Oxford, run by the
Oxford Tube and the Oxford Espress. Takes about an hour, and much cheaper
than the train via Paddington.

Embarrassed to say I overlooked this option in my reply - I think I'd sort
of taken it that the OP had half-settled on the move to Oxford so I only
really considered the journey in the other direction.

b***@boltar.world

2011-01-26 16:57:27 UTC

On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 16:52:32 -0000

Post by Mizter T
Embarrassed to say I overlooked this option in my reply - I think I'd sort
of taken it that the OP had half-settled on the move to Oxford so I only
really considered the journey in the other direction.

Anyone commuting to london from oxford by coach in the rush hour needs their
head examining. The queues on the A40 are legendary and thats before you
hit the solid central london traffic.

Coaches should be left to skint students.

B2003

Mizter T

2011-01-26 17:32:14 UTC

Post by b***@boltar.world
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 16:52:32 -0000

Anyone commuting to london from oxford by coach in the rush hour needs their
head examining. The queues on the A40 are legendary and thats before you
hit the solid central london traffic.

Once you take your comprehension classes you'll realise we were actually
talking about travelling *from* London (well Hillingdon) *to* Oxford here.

b***@boltar.world

2011-01-27 09:44:34 UTC

On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 17:32:14 -0000

Post by b***@boltar.world
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 16:52:32 -0000

Anyone commuting to london from oxford by coach in the rush hour needs their
head examining. The queues on the A40 are legendary and thats before you
hit the solid central london traffic.

Once you take your comprehension classes you'll realise we were actually
talking about travelling *from* London (well Hillingdon) *to* Oxford here.

From the original post:

"The bf has said he's happy to commute from Oxford (providing we live nr
the station) to the City everyday, but I'm not sure he's thought it
through!"

Sorry , what was that you were saying about comprehension?

B2003

Mizter T

2011-01-27 10:41:00 UTC

Post by b***@boltar.world
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 17:32:14 -0000

Post by b***@boltar.world
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 16:52:32 -0000

Anyone commuting to london from oxford by coach in the rush hour needs
their head examining. The queues on the A40 are legendary and thats
before you hit the solid central london traffic.

Once you take your comprehension classes you'll realise we were actually
talking about travelling *from* London (well Hillingdon) *to* Oxford here.

"The bf has said he's happy to commute from Oxford (providing we live nr
the station) to the City everyday, but I'm not sure he's thought it
through!"
Sorry , what was that you were saying about comprehension?

Below is Paul Terry's reply - the OP says she doesn't think she could hack
the commute from London to Oxford as she doesn't live near Paddington, and
Paul Terry points out that *if* she lives within easy reach of Hillingdon
then it'd be possible to commute from there to Oxford by coach. The
implication is clearly that the OP might find such a (contra-peak flow)
commute hackable (or at least an option for a whole).

I'll leave those who can comprehend the concept to decide as to whether or
not this branch of the thread was in fact discussing an Oxford-London
commute - which is you're (mis-)understanding - or a London (well,
Hillingdon-ish) -Oxford commute. I dunno why I'm humouring you though...

==============================

Post by b***@boltar.world

Post by Mizter T
I currently live in NW London and have a job offer in Oxford. The job
would be better and I'm thinking I'd prefer the lifestyle over there. I
don't think I could hack the commute out to Oxford everyday, as it's not
like I live near Paddington anyway.

==============================

b***@boltar.world

2011-01-27 10:59:11 UTC

On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:41:00 -0000

Post by Mizter T
Below is Paul Terry's reply - the OP says she doesn't think she could hack
the commute from London to Oxford as she doesn't live near Paddington, and
blah blah pendant pedant blah blah ...

Yaaaaaaawwwwnnnnnn ....

B2003

George

2011-01-27 10:52:32 UTC

Post by b***@boltar.world
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 16:52:32 -0000

Perhaps we should have a team of shrinks on every Oxford Tube/Espress
coach into London then? Most users seem to be commuters not students.

In any case we were talking about going in the opposite direction, ie
London to Oxford in the morning.

b***@boltar.world

2011-01-27 11:00:34 UTC

On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 02:52:32 -0800 (PST)

Post by George
Perhaps we should have a team of shrinks on every Oxford Tube/Espress
coach into London then? Most users seem to be commuters not students.

No doubt including you otherwise how would you know?

I doubt they travel all the way into central london unless they like
sitting in traffic jams. Sometimes paying extra for the train really
is worth it.

B2003

Paul Corfield

2011-01-27 21:31:05 UTC

Post by b***@boltar.world
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 02:52:32 -0800 (PST)

Post by George
Perhaps we should have a team of shrinks on every Oxford Tube/Espress
coach into London then? Most users seem to be commuters not students.

No doubt including you otherwise how would you know?

Well George does get around but not sure he's done London - Oxford or
even Oxford - London on a regular basis.

Post by b***@boltar.world
I doubt they travel all the way into central london unless they like
sitting in traffic jams. Sometimes paying extra for the train really
is worth it.

If people don't commute then I wonder why Stagecoach - not exactly known
for unnecessary largesse - provide wifi, free newspapers and breakfast
on board morning departures from Oxford to London. They also offer
season tickets and will combine them with a London Travelcard for
regular travellers. I don't see that being a regular student purchase.

While I don't disagree with you that train commuting may be more viable
or that the M40 / A40 might resemble hell in the rush hour that doesn't
mean people do not use the coaches. Oxford - London is a rare example
of coaches having really grown the market for travel and where
competition does seem to keep both operators on their toes. I'm not
sure that First Great Western care one jot because they're there to run
the franchise the government has specified come what may.

--
Paul C

Mizter T

2011-01-27 22:53:18 UTC

Post by Paul Corfield

Post by b***@boltar.world
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 02:52:32 -0800 (PST)

Post by George
Perhaps we should have a team of shrinks on every Oxford Tube/Espress
coach into London then? Most users seem to be commuters not students.

No doubt including you otherwise how would you know?

Well George does get around but not sure he's done London - Oxford or
even Oxford - London on a regular basis.

Post by b***@boltar.world
I doubt they travel all the way into central london unless they like
sitting in traffic jams. Sometimes paying extra for the train really
is worth it.

Far be it for me to correct an esteemed poster such as yourself...
well, actually I'm afraid that's exactly what I'm going to have to do!
The free breakfast unfortunately got dropped sometime last year (I
think) - the free newspapers remain (Independent only - but I dunno if
there was ever any choice?), as of course does the free wifi (the
competing Espress has that these days too) - see <http://
www.oxfordtube.com/benefits.html>.

I dunno about arrangements in the past for a combo Oxford Tube and
London Travelcard season ticket, but if that was once on offer it
ain't any more these days - but of course, these days most regular
commuters coming in to London on the Oxford Tube/Espress would in all
likelihood find Oyster PAYG more suitable for their onward LU journey
across London

Though none of that undermines you underlying point - the £1,160
annual or £2,120 biennial season tickets offered by Oxford Tube aren't
likely to be a regular student purchase (though I guess a postgrad or
two might have bought them).

Post by Paul Corfield
While I don't disagree with you that train commuting may be more viable
or that the M40 / A40 might resemble hell in the rush hour that doesn't
mean people do not use the coaches. Oxford - London is a rare example
of coaches having really grown the market for travel and where
competition does seem to keep both operators on their toes. I'm not
sure that First Great Western care one jot because they're there to run
the franchise the government has specified come what may.

Agree with the essence of all that. I think, looking at the respective
coach and rail fares, it's possible to detect a subtle degree of
acknowledgement on the part of FGW to the existence of the coach
services in the way the rail fares are priced.

One interesting question that springs to mind (and I'm sure it's not
original) is whether or not the existence of the coach services might
have actually held back the development of the train service from
Oxford to London - on the one hand I can see an argument that it might
have done so (e.g. there would otherwise have been a greater clamour
for a better train service), whilst on the other hand one can
postulate that it wouldn't really have made much if any difference.

However I think one can certainly make an argument about the impact of
the coach link on Oxford - these ultra-frequent services have no doubt
been a factor when it comes to people making decisions about where to
live and work... which is where this thread began! (Though I rather
suspect we've all managed to scare off the OP!)

A couple of final thoughts... one (again hardly original) is to wonder
whether (and if so how) the new Chiltern Railways link from London to
Oxford might affect the viability of the coach services (some way off,
but ultimately I doubt it'd present a major challenge to the business
model). Second thought is to wonder whether the positive impression of
a really decent coach service might have rubbed off on a few of the
Oxbridge alumni who have (and yet will) go on to assume positions of
influence later in life, and whether there might be any 'Oxford Tube
effect' in the decisions they might help mould and make. Though
perhaps their memory is just of puking out the door at Lewknor Turn.

Paul Corfield

2011-01-28 23:00:36 UTC

Post by Paul Corfield

Post by b***@boltar.world
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 02:52:32 -0800 (PST)

Post by George
Perhaps we should have a team of shrinks on every Oxford Tube/Espress
coach into London then? Most users seem to be commuters not students.

No doubt including you otherwise how would you know?

Well George does get around but not sure he's done London - Oxford or
even Oxford - London on a regular basis.

Post by b***@boltar.world
I doubt they travel all the way into central london unless they like
sitting in traffic jams. Sometimes paying extra for the train really
is worth it.

Don't know about esteemed. Does me no harm to be wrong - I went from
memory and didn't check the Tube website before posting. Thanks for the
corrections.

--
Paul C

George

2011-01-28 14:18:39 UTC

Post by b***@boltar.world
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 02:52:32 -0800 (PST)

Post by George
Perhaps we should have a team of shrinks on every Oxford Tube/Espress
coach into London then? Most users seem to be commuters not students.

No doubt including you otherwise how would you know?
I doubt they travel all the way into central london unless they like
sitting in traffic jams. Sometimes paying extra for the train really
is worth it.
B2003

Well I was at Marble Arch around 18.00 the other day and most Oxford
Tubes heading out of town did look rather full, perhaps they were all
just very well dressed mature students on board? Likewise there are a
lot of 'mature students' commuting into Central London by coach from
North Kent, these services have the added bonus of serving Canary
Wharf en route.

b***@boltar.world

2011-01-28 14:34:17 UTC

On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 06:18:39 -0800 (PST)

Post by George
Well I was at Marble Arch around 18.00 the other day and most Oxford
Tubes heading out of town did look rather full, perhaps they were all
just very well dressed mature students on board? Likewise there are a
lot of 'mature students' commuting into Central London by coach from
North Kent, these services have the added bonus of serving Canary
Wharf en route.

Well there is a recession on. Needs must and so on...

Personally I'd have to be almost broke to commute on a long distance bus in
the rush hour into london.

B2003

Mizter T

2011-01-26 16:33:35 UTC

[original thread on uk.transport.london]
[cross-posted to uk.railway]

I'm going to take the liberty of crossposting this to the uk.railway
newsgroup - I'm not sure if that's a sensible move or not on my part, but it
just might be a way of getting a bit more of an input with regards to the
Oxford-Paddington element.

First off I'll make the requisite reference to the two high-quality frequent
coach services that run between Oxford and London, the Oxford Tube
<http://www.oxfordtube.com/> and the Oxford Espress
<http://www.oxfordbus.co.uk/main.php?page_id=27>.

They're good, very popular, and have various arguable advantages over the
train - however as the Oxford Tube website states, "Approximate travel time
100 minutes - longer during rush hours" - and I do get the impression that
congestion is a problem at peak times. If I was thinking about this commute
(during 'normal' commuting times) I think like you (or rather your fella)
I'd be looking at the train. That said it's worth noting that people do
commute using these coach services (might even work ok if he has an early
start) - with some joining at Thornhill Park & Ride on the edge of Oxford
and also Lewknor, a village next to the M40 motorway (not sure about the
latest on parking issues at Lewknor, and it's possible that Thornhill P&R
might not be free forever, at least not for those travelling into London on
the coaches). Anyhow that's the coach option.

On the trains the service is provided by a mix of rather poxy 'Turbo' trains
and also more comfortable HSTs (which stands for high speed trains), which
you might recognise as 'Intercity 125s' (or might not!) - these are longer
trains so have more capacity. During peak commuting times HSTs provide the
bulk of the Oxford-Paddington fast service - you can see what type of train
is supposed to run a particular service by looking for the "H" symbol (in a
circle) in the timetable booklet - the timetable you want is number 16, and
it's available as a PDF here:
<http://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/Content.aspx?id=5190>

He'd be joining a large throng of people making the journey from Paddington
to the City - normal route would be via the Circle or H&C line towards
Moorgate or wherever, an alternative is walking around the corner from
Paddington to Lancaster Gate tube station and then catching the Central Line
eastwards, though that's going to be pretty busy too. Or else cycle - either
hire a 'Boris Bike' (though again they'll be in demand from docking stations
near Paddington), get a fold-up bike, or permanently station a bike at
Paddington (note that the bike racks there are pretty well patronised too).

Certainly worth giving it proper consideration. Don't think I could hack it,
but there are many people out there doing longer commutes. (I very vaguely
know someone who does the reverse commute - from London to Oxford - which
they do by coach, but it's a somewhat different kettle of fish as it's both
contra-peak flow and they only do it three days a week.)

Neil Williams

2011-01-26 16:44:55 UTC

Post by Mizter T
Certainly worth giving it proper consideration. Don't think I could hack it,
but there are many people out there doing longer commutes. (I very vaguely
know someone who does the reverse commute - from London to Oxford - which
they do by coach, but it's a somewhat different kettle of fish as it's both
contra-peak flow and they only do it three days a week.)

I've done MK/Bletchley to near Tower Bridge which at most times is
near enough 2 hours door to door. Didn't have a major issue with it
except when the railway went through a bad patch and cancellations/
short formations were common.

Oxford is a slightly longer journey, but I'm not sure I'd write it
off. Though I'm fairly sure I would do it by train, not coach[1],
unless money was the only consideration.

[1] I have done it by coach once, as I had to stay over one night at
the John Radcliffe hospital for a sleep study and the coach passed
nearby. It was workable, but *slow*, and needed an early start,
though I forget exactly what time it was. I think the time to get up
involved 05xx, which is not something I like to do every day.

Neil

Mizter T

2011-01-26 17:04:27 UTC

[MK-Bletchley commute]
Oxford is a slightly longer journey, but I'm not sure I'd write it
off. Though I'm fairly sure I would do it by train, not coach[1],
unless money was the only consideration.
[1] I have done it by coach once, as I had to stay over one night at
the John Radcliffe hospital for a sleep study and the coach passed
nearby. It was workable, but *slow*, and needed an early start,
though I forget exactly what time it was. I think the time to get up
involved 05xx, which is not something I like to do every day.

Just to be clear, you used it from Oxford to London then? Just curious about
how an early start meshed with the sleep study!

Neil Williams

2011-01-26 17:19:35 UTC

Post by Mizter T
Just to be clear, you used it from Oxford to London then?

Yep.

Post by Mizter T
Just curious about
how an early start meshed with the sleep study!

I told them about it and they didn't mind, it was to see if I had
sleep apnoea (turned out I don't though it is a rather complicated
story!) so they only needed a couple of hours solid sleep to do it.

Neil

Mizter T

2011-01-26 16:46:47 UTC

Post by Mizter T
[original thread on uk.transport.london]
[cross-posted to uk.railway]

First off I'll make the requisite reference to the two high-quality
frequent coach services that run between Oxford and London, the Oxford
Tube <http://www.oxfordtube.com/> and the Oxford Espress
<http://www.oxfordbus.co.uk/main.php?page_id=27>.
[big snip]

As Paul Terry has quite rightly pointed out (on the utl version of this
thread), both Oxford coach services stop at Hillingdon (both ways), which is
of course in NW London. (Indeed I've done this myself once - obviously
losing my marbles!)

Only downside to this arrangement is that somewhat inexplicably there's no
bus shelter for the Oxford-bound coach stop - and there's no other
sheltering opportunities nearby either. That's something that really could
do with being remedied.

StuartJ

2011-01-26 16:56:08 UTC

Post by Mizter T
[original thread on uk.transport.london]
[cross-posted to uk.railway]

As Paul Terry has quite rightly pointed out (on the utl version of this
thread), both Oxford coach services stop at Hillingdon (both ways), which is
of course in NW London. (Indeed I've done this myself once - obviously
losing my marbles!)
Only downside to this arrangement is that somewhat inexplicably there's no
bus shelter for the Oxford-bound coach stop - and there's no other
sheltering opportunities nearby either. That's something that really could
do with being remedied.

I would say Hillingdon is west London, not NW - if the OP actually
lives in (say) Stanmore it would be rather a long way away.

Stuart J

Mizter T

2011-01-26 17:27:36 UTC

Post by StuartJ

Post by Mizter T
[big snip]
As Paul Terry has quite rightly pointed out (on the utl version of this
thread), both Oxford coach services stop at Hillingdon (both ways), which is
of course in NW London. (Indeed I've done this myself once - obviously
losing my marbles!)
Only downside to this arrangement is that somewhat inexplicably there's no
bus shelter for the Oxford-bound coach stop - and there's no other
sheltering opportunities nearby either. That's something that really could
do with being remedied.

I would say Hillingdon is west London, not NW - if the OP actually
lives in (say) Stanmore it would be rather a long way away.

Very fair point - a combination of the lack of geographical anchorage of the
Tube 'map' (which I'm always preaching against trusting in this regard!),
the expansive nature of the NW postcode area versus the W (neither of which
of course stretch out anything as far as Hillingdon, but I mentally extend
them out when divvying up the metropolis into compass points), and the fact
that the M40 heads to points north west (such as Oxford) just makes me
rather sloppily place it in north west London in my mind - but I stand duly
corrected.

Theo Markettos

2011-01-26 16:56:25 UTC

Post by Mizter T
I'm going to take the liberty of crossposting this to the uk.railway
newsgroup - I'm not sure if that's a sensible move or not on my part, but
it just might be a way of getting a bit more of an input with regards to
the Oxford-Paddington element.

It might also be worth pointing out that there's another route to Oxford
currently at the planning permission stage, using the line to Bicester then
a new junction joining the Chiltern line to Marylebone:
http://www.chiltern-evergreen3.co.uk/

I don't know the latest timescales on the project, but it's probably a few
years off opening.

Post by Mizter T
They're good, very popular, and have various arguable advantages over the
train - however as the Oxford Tube website states, "Approximate travel time
100 minutes - longer during rush hours" - and I do get the impression that
congestion is a problem at peak times. If I was thinking about this commute
(during 'normal' commuting times) I think like you (or rather your fella)
I'd be looking at the train. That said it's worth noting that people do
commute using these coach services (might even work ok if he has an early
start) - with some joining at Thornhill Park & Ride on the edge of Oxford
and also Lewknor, a village next to the M40 motorway (not sure about the
latest on parking issues at Lewknor, and it's possible that Thornhill P&R
might not be free forever, at least not for those travelling into London on
the coaches). Anyhow that's the coach option.

I don't know the Tube/Espress specifically[1], but often buses into London are
reasonably quick until the end of the motorway, then spend an age faffing
about to get to Victoria. For example Cambridge buses take about an hour to
get down the M11 to Stratford, then another hour from there to Victoria.
Depending on where he works in London, it might be worth bailing at
Hillingdon or Baker St (say) then taking the tube (or cycling).

[1] Neither give times for intermediate stops on their websites

Theo

Mizter T

2011-01-26 17:49:33 UTC

Post by Theo Markettos

It might also be worth pointing out that there's another route to Oxford
currently at the planning permission stage, using the line to Bicester then
http://www.chiltern-evergreen3.co.uk/
I don't know the latest timescales on the project, but it's probably a few
years off opening.

Yes - didn't mention it as it's not happening imminently, but perhaps a
reassurance in the longer term in terms of Oxford's connectivity to London.
(Interesting to note discussion in another uk.r thread over how DB, owners
of Chiltern, supposedly took fright of the Evergreen 3 project and tried to
back away from it, but apparently it's all locked-in contractually
speaking.)

Post by Theo Markettos

I don't know the Tube/Espress specifically[1], but often buses into London are
reasonably quick until the end of the motorway, then spend an age faffing
about to get to Victoria. For example Cambridge buses take about an hour to
get down the M11 to Stratford, then another hour from there to Victoria.
Depending on where he works in London, it might be worth bailing at
Hillingdon or Baker St (say) then taking the tube (or cycling).
[1] Neither give times for intermediate stops on their websites

Hillingdon to say Moorgate (for the City) on the Metropolitan line is itself
a bit of a schlep, taking almost an hour. As you suggest, if one was taking
the Espress and heading to the City I imagine it'd be the done thing to bail
at Baker Street then take the Underground (or else find a hire bike) - if on
the Oxford Tube then one could bail out at Shepherd's Bush for the Central
line.

Roger Lynn

2011-02-02 23:13:24 UTC

Post by Theo Markettos

It's meant to be opening at the end of 2013, and in the past Chiltern
have had a good record for finishing projects on time.

It's worth noting that many people who live near Oxford drive to
Bicester North and catch the train to Marylebone from there. These
trains should be getting 10 minutes faster from May.

Roger

Mortimer

2011-02-03 00:53:26 UTC

Post by Roger Lynn

Post by Theo Markettos
It might also be worth pointing out that there's another route to Oxford
currently at the planning permission stage, using the line to Bicester then
http://www.chiltern-evergreen3.co.uk/
I don't know the latest timescales on the project, but it's probably a few
years off opening.

It's meant to be opening at the end of 2013, and in the past Chiltern
have had a good record for finishing projects on time.
It's worth noting that many people who live near Oxford drive to
Bicester North and catch the train to Marylebone from there. These
trains should be getting 10 minutes faster from May.

When the Bicester curve opens, how will the journey time from Oxford to
Marylebone compare with that from Oxford to Paddington via Didcot? How do
the distances compare, too?

I wonder what the effect will be on the existing Birmingham-Marylebone
service and other services that start closer to London? Does the line have
spare capacity for extra trains from Oxford, or will existing services have
fewer trains to accomodate the Oxford ones?

Paul Scott

2011-02-03 11:25:08 UTC

Post by Mortimer

Post by Roger Lynn

It's meant to be opening at the end of 2013, and in the past Chiltern
have had a good record for finishing projects on time.
It's worth noting that many people who live near Oxford drive to
Bicester North and catch the train to Marylebone from there. These
trains should be getting 10 minutes faster from May.

When the Bicester curve opens, how will the journey time from Oxford to
Marylebone compare with that from Oxford to Paddington via Didcot? How do
the distances compare, too?

The Chiltern route is expected to be 1h 6m, vs about 58/59m from Oxford to
Paddington. Haven't got the distances.

But the time from Water Eaton Parkway, is proposed to be the same 58m, which
they expect to be useful for many people from north of Oxford currently
driving to Oxford station's car park.

Paul S

Bruce

2011-02-03 12:01:37 UTC

Post by Paul Scott

Post by Mortimer
When the Bicester curve opens, how will the journey time from Oxford to
Marylebone compare with that from Oxford to Paddington via Didcot? How do
the distances compare, too?

The Chiltern route is expected to be 1h 6m, vs about 58/59m from Oxford to
Paddington. Haven't got the distances.
But the time from Water Eaton Parkway, is proposed to be the same 58m, which
they expect to be useful for many people from north of Oxford currently
driving to Oxford station's car park.

Within a few short years of the opening of the Chiltern route's Oxford
branch, the Paddington route will offer an interchange with Crossrail
(or perhaps even direct trains via Crossrail) against Chiltern's
interchange with the Bakerloo at Marylebone and with the Circle and
Metropolitan Lines at Baker Street.

I have a feeling that this will make the Paddington route
significantly more attractive than it is now.

81F

2011-02-03 12:24:23 UTC

Post by Mortimer
When the Bicester curve opens, how will the journey time from Oxford to
Marylebone compare with that from Oxford to Paddington via Didcot? How do
the distances compare, too?

The Chiltern route is expected to be 1h 6m, vs about 58/59m from Oxford to
Paddington. Haven't got the distances.

Mortimer

2011-02-03 14:28:31 UTC

Post by Mortimer
When the Bicester curve opens, how will the journey time from Oxford to
Marylebone compare with that from Oxford to Paddington via Didcot? How do
the distances compare, too?

The Chiltern route is expected to be 1h 6m, vs about 58/59m from Oxford
to
Paddington. Haven't got the distances.

Trains from Oxford to Paddington are only 58/59 minutes in the daytime
weekdays; evening and weekend services are markedly slower [not
relevant to Mon-Fri commuters, but significant to Oxonians who want to
visit London at the weekend]. Sunday "fasts" take 68/69 minutes, only
run hourly, and the first up train is scheduled to leave Oxford at
0950, arriving Paddington at 1058. Engineering works often mean you
don't get to London before lunchtime.

Chiltern won't be able to run long trains from Oxford -- I think their
platform will be 5 cars max -- but they will get a fair load of
commuters from the Park'n'ride on weekdays, and have potential to get
a lot of weekend leisure passngers who have long been disenchanted
with FGW's poor schedules and ageing turbos.

====

Mention of Park and Ride prompts another question. My other half has heard
somewhere that if a station is advertised as Park and Ride (Haddenham,
Warwick Parkway), as opposed to Parkway (Didcot, Bristol) car parking is
required to be free. Is this the case?

What rolling stock is likely to be used on the Chiltern route from Oxford? I
thought this too would be 165/6 or (if you were lucky) 168 - so the same as
or similar to FGW's stopping services that are not HSTs.

Paul Terry

2011-02-03 15:48:38 UTC

Post by Mortimer
Mention of Park and Ride prompts another question. My other half has
heard somewhere that if a station is advertised as Park and Ride
(Haddenham, Warwick Parkway), as opposed to Parkway (Didcot, Bristol)
car parking is required to be free. Is this the case?

No. Some are free, some charge.

--
Paul Terry

Jonathan Morton

2011-02-03 21:19:50 UTC

Post by Mortimer
Mention of Park and Ride prompts another question. My other half has heard
somewhere that if a station is advertised as Park and Ride (Haddenham,
Warwick Parkway), as opposed to Parkway (Didcot, Bristol) car parking is
required to be free. Is this the case?

Not sure, but you'll find that Warwick Parkway is advertised as...
"Parkway".

Post by Mortimer
What rolling stock is likely to be used on the Chiltern route from Oxford?
I thought this too would be 165/6 or (if you were lucky) 168 - so the same
as or similar to FGW's stopping services that are not HSTs.

The idea seems to be to use the 168s. This is why the Class 67+ Mk III + DVT
push-pull sets are being fettled up. They will be used on (some of) the
Birmingham trains, freeing the 168s for the Oxfords.

Regards

Jonathan

Bruce

2011-02-03 21:51:30 UTC

Post by Mortimer
Mention of Park and Ride prompts another question. My other half has heard
somewhere that if a station is advertised as Park and Ride (Haddenham,
Warwick Parkway), as opposed to Parkway (Didcot, Bristol) car parking is
required to be free. Is this the case?

Mon-Fri prices:

Haddenham £6.00 peak, £4.00 off-peak per day.

Warwick £6.50 peak, £4.00 off-peak per day.

Sat-Sun prices:

Both stations £4.00 per day.

Parking is free if your car is carrying three people who travel
onwards by train, and you arrive between 06:00 and 09:00 Mon-Fri. Just
ask the attendant for a "Car Share" voucher.

Mortimer

2011-02-03 22:00:42 UTC

Post by Mortimer
Mention of Park and Ride prompts another question. My other half has heard
somewhere that if a station is advertised as Park and Ride (Haddenham,
Warwick Parkway), as opposed to Parkway (Didcot, Bristol) car parking is
required to be free. Is this the case?

Haddenham £6.00 peak, £4.00 off-peak per day.
Warwick £6.50 peak, £4.00 off-peak per day.
Both stations £4.00 per day.
Parking is free if your car is carrying three people who travel
onwards by train, and you arrive between 06:00 and 09:00 Mon-Fri. Just
ask the attendant for a "Car Share" voucher.

Right, so that knocks the "park and ride stations have free parking" theory
on the head :-)

£4/day or £6.50/day is bloody expensive on top of a train fare. Or maybe I'm
just a skinflint. Paying to park is something I try my best to avoid, even
if it means walking further - not only because I resent paying but even more
because I resent someone else deriving an income and making a profit from
it.

Bruce

2011-02-03 22:17:02 UTC

Post by Mortimer

Post by Mortimer
Mention of Park and Ride prompts another question. My other half has heard
somewhere that if a station is advertised as Park and Ride (Haddenham,
Warwick Parkway), as opposed to Parkway (Didcot, Bristol) car parking is
required to be free. Is this the case?

Right, so that knocks the "park and ride stations have free parking" theory
on the head :-)

Indeed, but your posting was the first time I had heard that theory.

Post by Mortimer
£4/day or £6.50/day is bloody expensive on top of a train fare. Or maybe I'm
just a skinflint. Paying to park is something I try my best to avoid, even
if it means walking further - not only because I resent paying but even more
because I resent someone else deriving an income and making a profit from
it.

Totally agree. But that's the way of the privatised railway - screw
every last penny (and pound) out of the passenger, and then some more.

I avoid parking at Chiltern stations and drive to Amersham, park in a
council car park and buy a Travelcard at Underground prices. Then I
usually get on a Chiltern train to Marylebone ... it saves me a lot of
money.

Mark Robinson

2011-02-04 09:24:49 UTC

avoid, even if it means walking further - not only because I resent
paying but even more because I resent someone else deriving an income
and making a profit from it.

You use a service, and you pay for it. What's so strange about that?

Cheers

mark-r

Sam Wilson

2011-02-07 17:25:29 UTC

Post by Mark Robinson

avoid, even if it means walking further - not only because I resent
paying but even more because I resent someone else deriving an income
and making a profit from it.

You use a service, and you pay for it. What's so strange about that?

In my brother's village there is a small, free car park. The Parish
Council have to pay VAT on the notional value of the parking service
they provide.

Use a free service and someone else may have to pay for it.

Sam

Neil Williams

2011-02-07 19:08:52 UTC

Post by Sam Wilson
In my brother's village there is a small, free car park. The

Parish

Post by Sam Wilson
Council have to pay VAT on the notional value of the parking

service

Post by Sam Wilson
they provide.

Never heard of that; I thought VAT was only charged on actual sales.

Does that happen anywhere else?

Neil

--
Neil Williams, Milton Keynes, UK

tim....

2011-02-07 19:27:41 UTC

Post by Sam Wilson
In my brother's village there is a small, free car park. The

Parish

Post by Sam Wilson
Council have to pay VAT on the notional value of the parking

service

Post by Sam Wilson
they provide.

Never heard of that; I thought VAT was only charged on actual sales.
Does that happen anywhere else?

When my flat management company "hired" a small one man clamping company,
because we weren't VAT registered we had to pay the VAT due on the "fines"
collected (I could never work out why the person being "fined" didn't have
to pay it).

tim

Recliner

2011-02-07 20:26:59 UTC

Post by Sam Wilson
In my brother's village there is a small, free car park. The

Parish

Post by Sam Wilson
Council have to pay VAT on the notional value of the parking

service

Post by Sam Wilson
they provide.

Never heard of that; I thought VAT was only charged on actual sales.
Does that happen anywhere else?

When my flat management company "hired" a small one man clamping
company, because we weren't VAT registered we had to pay the VAT due
on the "fines" collected (I could never work out why the person being
"fined" didn't have to pay it).

That seems very odd -- if the firm's turnover is not large enough to
have to register for VAT, it should not be charged and does not need to
be paid to HMRC. And if the one man's clamping company was registered
for VAT, he should be responsible for including it in the fines and
paying the money over to HMRC.

Charles Ellson

2011-02-08 18:57:52 UTC

On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 20:26:59 -0000, "Recliner"

Post by Sam Wilson
In my brother's village there is a small, free car park. The

Parish

Post by Sam Wilson
Council have to pay VAT on the notional value of the parking

service

Post by Sam Wilson
they provide.

Never heard of that; I thought VAT was only charged on actual sales.
Does that happen anywhere else?

When my flat management company "hired" a small one man clamping
company, because we weren't VAT registered we had to pay the VAT due
on the "fines" collected (I could never work out why the person being
"fined" didn't have to pay it).

ITYF the flat management company was doing the extorting with the man
in the van as their servant applying the clamps..

Recliner

2011-02-08 19:05:58 UTC

Post by Charles Ellson
On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 20:26:59 -0000, "Recliner"

On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 17:25:29 +0000, Sam Wilson

Post by Sam Wilson
In my brother's village there is a small, free car park. The
Parish Council have to pay VAT on the notional value of the
parking service they provide.

Never heard of that; I thought VAT was only charged on actual sales.
Does that happen anywhere else?

When my flat management company "hired" a small one man clamping
company, because we weren't VAT registered we had to pay the VAT due
on the "fines" collected (I could never work out why the person
being "fined" didn't have to pay it).

That seems very odd -- if the firm's turnover is not large enough to
have to register for VAT, it should not be charged and does not need
to be paid to HMRC. And if the one man's clamping company was
registered for VAT, he should be responsible for including it in the
fines and paying the money over to HMRC.

ITYF the flat management company was doing the extorting with the man
in the van as their servant applying the clamps..

If the flat management company wasn't VAT registered (because the
turnover's below the threshold), then no need to add VAT to the clamping
fee.

Ivor

2011-02-08 22:59:16 UTC

On Tue, 8 Feb 2011 19:05:58 -0000, "Recliner"

Post by tim....
When my flat management company "hired" a small one man clamping
company, because we weren't VAT registered we had to pay the VAT due
on the "fines" collected (I could never work out why the person
being "fined" didn't have to pay it).

If the flat management company wasn't VAT registered (because the
turnover's below the threshold), then no need to add VAT to the clamping
fee.

Unless it was the one man company that was registered for VAT, so the
flat mgt co had to pay it but couldn't offset it against input tax?
(Though, as the OP says, why wouldn't it get passed on to the
clampees?)

tim....

2011-02-09 12:29:06 UTC

Post by Charles Ellson
On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 20:26:59 -0000, "Recliner"

On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 17:25:29 +0000, Sam Wilson

Post by Sam Wilson
In my brother's village there is a small, free car park. The
Parish Council have to pay VAT on the notional value of the
parking service they provide.

Never heard of that; I thought VAT was only charged on actual sales.
Does that happen anywhere else?

When my flat management company "hired" a small one man clamping
company, because we weren't VAT registered we had to pay the VAT due
on the "fines" collected (I could never work out why the person
being "fined" didn't have to pay it).

That seems very odd -- if the firm's turnover is not large enough to
have to register for VAT, it should not be charged and does not need
to be paid to HMRC. And if the one man's clamping company was
registered for VAT, he should be responsible for including it in the
fines and paying the money over to HMRC.

ITYF the flat management company was doing the extorting with the man
in the van as their servant applying the clamps..

If the flat management company wasn't VAT registered (because the
turnover's below the threshold), then no need to add VAT to the clamping
fee.

Actually the flat management company is unregistered because, as a resident
owned company, it is not allowed to register.

tim

Recliner

2011-02-09 12:35:07 UTC

Post by Recliner
If the flat management company wasn't VAT registered (because the
turnover's below the threshold), then no need to add VAT to the
clamping fee.

Actually the flat management company is unregistered because, as a
resident owned company, it is not allowed to register.

Why is that? I didn't think HMRC cared who the proprieter is. And, if
not registered, how could the company even pay money to HMRC? I didn't
think there was any mechanism to do so (and I've just completed my
quarterly VAT return, so I do have some personal experience of VAT).

tim....

2011-02-09 13:30:19 UTC

Post by Recliner
If the flat management company wasn't VAT registered (because the
turnover's below the threshold), then no need to add VAT to the
clamping fee.

Actually the flat management company is unregistered because, as a
resident owned company, it is not allowed to register.

Why is that?

It's not a trading company.

Post by Recliner
I didn't think HMRC cared who the proprieter is. And, if not registered,
how could the company even pay money to HMRC?

It's registered at CoHouse and pays CT to HMRC, but it's not allowed to
register for VAT.

It pays money to HMRC for VAT in the same way that every other consumer
does.

tim

Recliner

2011-02-09 14:11:10 UTC

Post by Recliner
If the flat management company wasn't VAT registered (because the
turnover's below the threshold), then no need to add VAT to the
clamping fee.

Actually the flat management company is unregistered because, as a
resident owned company, it is not allowed to register.

Why is that?

It's not a trading company.

Post by Recliner
I didn't think HMRC cared who the proprieter is. And, if not
registered, how could the company even pay money to HMRC?

It's registered at CoHouse and pays CT to HMRC, but it's not allowed
to register for VAT.
It pays money to HMRC for VAT in the same way that every other
consumer does.

Now I'm even more confused -- consumers don't pay VAT to HMRC. They pay
it to a trader, who passes it on to HMRC. Consumers have no mechanism
for paying VAT directly to HMRC.

I think what you're saying is that you paid VAT to the clamper, who must
have been VAT registered. Did you pay him for his services (which would
have been VATable), or did he get paid through collecting VAT-inclusive
charges from illegal parkers? Or, I wonder, did he illegally collect
"VAT" from you, and just pocket it?

tim....

2011-02-09 14:29:30 UTC

Post by Recliner
If the flat management company wasn't VAT registered (because the
turnover's below the threshold), then no need to add VAT to the
clamping fee.

Actually the flat management company is unregistered because, as a
resident owned company, it is not allowed to register.

Why is that?

It's not a trading company.

Post by Recliner
I didn't think HMRC cared who the proprieter is. And, if not
registered, how could the company even pay money to HMRC?

It's registered at CoHouse and pays CT to HMRC, but it's not allowed to
register for VAT.
It pays money to HMRC for VAT in the same way that every other consumer
does.

Now I'm even more confused -- consumers don't pay VAT to HMRC. They pay it
to a trader, who passes it on to HMRC. Consumers have no mechanism for
paying VAT directly to HMRC.

Yep, and tha's exactly how the MC paidm VAT to HMRC

I think what you're saying is that you paid VAT to the clamper, who must
have been VAT registered. Did you pay him for his services (which would
have been VATable), or did he get paid through collecting VAT-inclusive
charges from illegal parkers? Or, I wonder, did he illegally collect
"VAT" from you, and just pocket it?

I don't know how he accounted for it, but I understand that his MO was that
he charged the clampee a "fine" and the business who hired him the VAT
element of that fine, which they would claim back from HMRC on their VAT
return.

Except than in our case we weren't registered and hence not able to claim it
back.

No, I still don't know why he worked that way (or indeed, if it was legally
correct).

tim

Recliner

2011-02-09 14:37:06 UTC

Post by Recliner
If the flat management company wasn't VAT registered (because the
turnover's below the threshold), then no need to add VAT to the
clamping fee.

Actually the flat management company is unregistered because, as a
resident owned company, it is not allowed to register.

Why is that?

It's not a trading company.

Post by Recliner
I didn't think HMRC cared who the proprieter is. And, if not
registered, how could the company even pay money to HMRC?

It's registered at CoHouse and pays CT to HMRC, but it's not allowed
to register for VAT.
It pays money to HMRC for VAT in the same way that every other
consumer does.

Now I'm even more confused -- consumers don't pay VAT to HMRC. They
pay it to a trader, who passes it on to HMRC. Consumers have no
mechanism for paying VAT directly to HMRC.

Yep, and tha's exactly how the MC paidm VAT to HMRC

Post by Recliner
I think what you're saying is that you paid VAT to the clamper, who
must have been VAT registered. Did you pay him for his services
(which would have been VATable), or did he get paid through
collecting VAT-inclusive charges from illegal parkers? Or, I wonder,
did he illegally collect "VAT" from you, and just pocket it?

I don't know how he accounted for it, but I understand that his MO was
that he charged the clampee a "fine" and the business who hired him
the VAT element of that fine, which they would claim back from HMRC on
their VAT return.
Except than in our case we weren't registered and hence not able to
claim it back.
No, I still don't know why he worked that way (or indeed, if it was
legally correct).

It doesn't sound right. I would have thought he should have included VAT
in the fine, being prepared to issue a VAT receipt on request to the
clampee (just like, say, NCP does with its parking charges). He would
then pay the VAT collected to HMRC.

Did he issue you with VAT receipts (whether or not you could claim it
back)? If not, I suspect he was illegally pocketing it (clampers not
being renowned for their decency and honesty). There's a good chance
that he wasn't VAT registered (either because his turnover was genuinely
too low, or because he simply wasn't declaring all, or any, of his
taxable earnings).

tim....

2011-02-09 18:17:06 UTC

Post by Recliner
If the flat management company wasn't VAT registered (because the
turnover's below the threshold), then no need to add VAT to the
clamping fee.

Actually the flat management company is unregistered because, as a
resident owned company, it is not allowed to register.

Why is that?

It's not a trading company.

Post by Recliner
I didn't think HMRC cared who the proprieter is. And, if not
registered, how could the company even pay money to HMRC?

It's registered at CoHouse and pays CT to HMRC, but it's not allowed to
register for VAT.
It pays money to HMRC for VAT in the same way that every other consumer
does.

Now I'm even more confused -- consumers don't pay VAT to HMRC. They pay
it to a trader, who passes it on to HMRC. Consumers have no mechanism
for paying VAT directly to HMRC.

Yep, and tha's exactly how the MC paidm VAT to HMRC

Post by Recliner
I think what you're saying is that you paid VAT to the clamper, who must
have been VAT registered. Did you pay him for his services (which would
have been VATable), or did he get paid through collecting VAT-inclusive
charges from illegal parkers? Or, I wonder, did he illegally collect
"VAT" from you, and just pocket it?

I don't know how he accounted for it, but I understand that his MO was
that he charged the clampee a "fine" and the business who hired him the
VAT element of that fine, which they would claim back from HMRC on their
VAT return.
Except than in our case we weren't registered and hence not able to claim
it back.
No, I still don't know why he worked that way (or indeed, if it was
legally correct).

No idea.

I didn't "run" the company, I was just at a meeting where the person who did
explained that we had to pay the "VAT" on the clamping fee.

Graeme Wall

2011-02-09 14:48:06 UTC

Post by Recliner
If the flat management company wasn't VAT registered (because the
turnover's below the threshold), then no need to add VAT to the
clamping fee.

Actually the flat management company is unregistered because, as a
resident owned company, it is not allowed to register.

Why is that?

It's not a trading company.

Post by Recliner
I didn't think HMRC cared who the proprieter is. And, if not
registered, how could the company even pay money to HMRC?

It's registered at CoHouse and pays CT to HMRC, but it's not allowed to
register for VAT.
It pays money to HMRC for VAT in the same way that every other consumer
does.

Now I'm even more confused -- consumers don't pay VAT to HMRC. They pay it
to a trader, who passes it on to HMRC. Consumers have no mechanism for
paying VAT directly to HMRC.

Yep, and tha's exactly how the MC paidm VAT to HMRC

I don't know how he accounted for it, but I understand that his MO was that
he charged the clampee a "fine" and the business who hired him the VAT
element of that fine, which they would claim back from HMRC on their VAT
return.
Except than in our case we weren't registered and hence not able to claim it
back.
No, I still don't know why he worked that way (or indeed, if it was legally
correct).

Doesn't sound correct to me. Did he charge you a base fee for his services?

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
Photo galleries at <http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net>

Adrian

2011-02-09 14:55:34 UTC

Post by Recliner
I think what you're saying is that you paid VAT to the clamper, who
must have been VAT registered. Did you pay him for his services (which
would have been VATable), or did he get paid through collecting
VAT-inclusive charges from illegal parkers? Or, I wonder, did he
illegally collect "VAT" from you, and just pocket it?

I don't know how he accounted for it, but I understand that his MO was
that he charged the clampee a "fine" and the business who hired him the
VAT element of that fine, which they would claim back from HMRC on
their VAT return.
Except than in our case we weren't registered and hence not able to
claim it back.
No, I still don't know why he worked that way (or indeed, if it was
legally correct).

Doesn't sound correct to me. Did he charge you a base fee for his services?

If he did, that'd have been subject to VAT on the invoice for it. But in
the situation described, somebody was definitely being a bit disingenuous.

If Joe Public is charged £100+VAT for a VATable service, Joe Public pays
£20 VAT, not some other entity.

If the VAT-reg service provider wants to charge Joe Public £100 all-in,
and get another £20 all-in from somebody else as "commission" or
whatever, then he can - by charging Joe Public £83.33+vat, and the other
entity £16.67+vat. But that other entity will only be able to claim back
£3.33 on their return, not £20.

Anything else is a scam.

tim....

2011-02-09 18:18:19 UTC

Post by Recliner
If the flat management company wasn't VAT registered (because the
turnover's below the threshold), then no need to add VAT to the
clamping fee.

Actually the flat management company is unregistered because, as a
resident owned company, it is not allowed to register.

Why is that?

It's not a trading company.

Post by Recliner
I didn't think HMRC cared who the proprieter is. And, if not
registered, how could the company even pay money to HMRC?

It's registered at CoHouse and pays CT to HMRC, but it's not allowed to
register for VAT.
It pays money to HMRC for VAT in the same way that every other consumer
does.

Now I'm even more confused -- consumers don't pay VAT to HMRC. They pay it
to a trader, who passes it on to HMRC. Consumers have no mechanism for
paying VAT directly to HMRC.

Yep, and tha's exactly how the MC paidm VAT to HMRC

I don't know how he accounted for it, but I understand that his MO was that
he charged the clampee a "fine" and the business who hired him the VAT
element of that fine, which they would claim back from HMRC on their VAT
return.
Except than in our case we weren't registered and hence not able to claim it
back.
No, I still don't know why he worked that way (or indeed, if it was legally
correct).

Doesn't sound correct to me. Did he charge you a base fee for his services?

No.

He came around for free, but whenever he extracted a fine from a
transgressor, we had to pay the VAT (so we were told)

tim

Graeme Wall

2011-02-09 20:03:20 UTC

Post by Recliner
If the flat management company wasn't VAT registered (because the
turnover's below the threshold), then no need to add VAT to the
clamping fee.

Actually the flat management company is unregistered because, as a
resident owned company, it is not allowed to register.

Why is that?

It's not a trading company.

Post by Recliner
I didn't think HMRC cared who the proprieter is. And, if not
registered, how could the company even pay money to HMRC?

It's registered at CoHouse and pays CT to HMRC, but it's not allowed to
register for VAT.
It pays money to HMRC for VAT in the same way that every other consumer
does.

Now I'm even more confused -- consumers don't pay VAT to HMRC. They pay it
to a trader, who passes it on to HMRC. Consumers have no mechanism for
paying VAT directly to HMRC.

Yep, and tha's exactly how the MC paidm VAT to HMRC

I don't know how he accounted for it, but I understand that his MO was that
he charged the clampee a "fine" and the business who hired him the VAT
element of that fine, which they would claim back from HMRC on their VAT
return.
Except than in our case we weren't registered and hence not able to claim it
back.
No, I still don't know why he worked that way (or indeed, if it was legally
correct).

Doesn't sound correct to me. Did he charge you a base fee for his services?

No.
He came around for free, but whenever he extracted a fine from a
transgressor, we had to pay the VAT (so we were told)

That has to be a nonsense, if there is any VAT involved it is in the fee
(fine) charged to the errant motorist.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
Photo galleries at <http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net>

Richard J.

2011-02-09 20:49:47 UTC

Post by Recliner
If the flat management company wasn't VAT registered (because the
turnover's below the threshold), then no need to add VAT to the
clamping fee.

Actually the flat management company is unregistered because, as a
resident owned company, it is not allowed to register.

Why is that?

It's not a trading company.

Post by Recliner
I didn't think HMRC cared who the proprieter is. And, if not
registered, how could the company even pay money to HMRC?

It's registered at CoHouse and pays CT to HMRC, but it's not allowed to
register for VAT.
It pays money to HMRC for VAT in the same way that every other consumer
does.

Now I'm even more confused -- consumers don't pay VAT to HMRC. They pay it
to a trader, who passes it on to HMRC. Consumers have no mechanism for
paying VAT directly to HMRC.

Yep, and tha's exactly how the MC paidm VAT to HMRC

I don't know how he accounted for it, but I understand that his MO was that
he charged the clampee a "fine" and the business who hired him the VAT
element of that fine, which they would claim back from HMRC on their VAT
return.
Except than in our case we weren't registered and hence not able to claim it
back.
No, I still don't know why he worked that way (or indeed, if it was legally
correct).

Doesn't sound correct to me. Did he charge you a base fee for his services?

No.
He came around for free, but whenever he extracted a fine from a
transgressor, we had to pay the VAT (so we were told)

That is complete rubbish. What the clamping company extract is not a
fine (which can only be levied in accordance with legislation), but a
release fee. That fee, like any other amount charged by a
VAT-registered company, is liable to VAT, which must be paid by the
payer of the fee.

If the clamping company wish to invoice the flats management company
with 20% of the release fee as a sort of commission, then that is a
separate transaction which is itself liable to VAT.

Of course in both cases, the release fee and the commission could be
quoted as VAT-inclusive amounts, but it doesn't alter the basics of the
way VAT operates. Similarly, companies which advertise an offer to pay
the VAT on your purchase are in reality just lowering the ex-VAT price
by 16.67%; you still pay VAT on the reduced price.

--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

Charles Ellson

2011-02-09 22:48:24 UTC

On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 20:49:47 +0000, "Richard J."

Post by Richard J.

Post by Recliner
If the flat management company wasn't VAT registered (because the
turnover's below the threshold), then no need to add VAT to the
clamping fee.

Actually the flat management company is unregistered because, as a
resident owned company, it is not allowed to register.

Why is that?

It's not a trading company.

Post by Recliner
I didn't think HMRC cared who the proprieter is. And, if not
registered, how could the company even pay money to HMRC?

It's registered at CoHouse and pays CT to HMRC, but it's not allowed to
register for VAT.
It pays money to HMRC for VAT in the same way that every other consumer
does.

Now I'm even more confused -- consumers don't pay VAT to HMRC. They pay it
to a trader, who passes it on to HMRC. Consumers have no mechanism for
paying VAT directly to HMRC.

Yep, and tha's exactly how the MC paidm VAT to HMRC

I don't know how he accounted for it, but I understand that his MO was that
he charged the clampee a "fine" and the business who hired him the VAT
element of that fine, which they would claim back from HMRC on their VAT
return.
Except than in our case we weren't registered and hence not able to claim it
back.
No, I still don't know why he worked that way (or indeed, if it was legally
correct).

Doesn't sound correct to me. Did he charge you a base fee for his services?

No.
He came around for free, but whenever he extracted a fine from a
transgressor, we had to pay the VAT (so we were told)

That is complete rubbish. What the clamping company extract is not a
fine (which can only be levied in accordance with legislation), but a
release fee. That fee, like any other amount charged by a
VAT-registered company, is liable to VAT, which must be paid by the
payer of the fee.
If the clamping company wish to invoice the flats management company
with 20% of the release fee as a sort of commission, then that is a
separate transaction which is itself liable to VAT.
Of course in both cases, the release fee and the commission could be
quoted as VAT-inclusive amounts, but it doesn't alter the basics of the
way VAT operates. Similarly, companies which advertise an offer to pay
the VAT on your purchase are in reality just lowering the ex-VAT price
by 16.67%; you still pay VAT on the reduced price.

ITYF the VAT might arise because a service not involving a cash
transaction from the user is being supplied which is of value to the
management company; HMRC staked their claim on "services in kind" many
years ago. The arrangement seems rather like the management company
allows the clampers to operate on their land in return for receiving
the service of trespassers being deterred, the VAT being based on the
closest identifiable cash transaction in the proceedings.

Richard J.

2011-02-10 01:23:11 UTC

Charles Ellson <***@ellson.demon.co.uk> wrote on 09 February 2011
22:48:24 ...

Post by Charles Ellson
On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 20:49:47 +0000, "Richard J."

Post by Richard J.

Post by Recliner
If the flat management company wasn't VAT registered (because the
turnover's below the threshold), then no need to add VAT to the
clamping fee.

Actually the flat management company is unregistered because, as a
resident owned company, it is not allowed to register.

Why is that?

It's not a trading company.

Post by Recliner
I didn't think HMRC cared who the proprieter is. And, if not
registered, how could the company even pay money to HMRC?

It's registered at CoHouse and pays CT to HMRC, but it's not allowed to
register for VAT.
It pays money to HMRC for VAT in the same way that every other consumer
does.

Now I'm even more confused -- consumers don't pay VAT to HMRC. They pay it
to a trader, who passes it on to HMRC. Consumers have no mechanism for
paying VAT directly to HMRC.

Yep, and tha's exactly how the MC paidm VAT to HMRC

I don't know how he accounted for it, but I understand that his MO was that
he charged the clampee a "fine" and the business who hired him the VAT
element of that fine, which they would claim back from HMRC on their VAT
return.
Except than in our case we weren't registered and hence not able to claim it
back.
No, I still don't know why he worked that way (or indeed, if it was legally
correct).

Doesn't sound correct to me. Did he charge you a base fee for his services?

No.
He came around for free, but whenever he extracted a fine from a
transgressor, we had to pay the VAT (so we were told)

That is complete rubbish. What the clamping company extract is not a
fine (which can only be levied in accordance with legislation), but a
release fee. That fee, like any other amount charged by a
VAT-registered company, is liable to VAT, which must be paid by the
payer of the fee.
If the clamping company wish to invoice the flats management company
with 20% of the release fee as a sort of commission, then that is a
separate transaction which is itself liable to VAT.
Of course in both cases, the release fee and the commission could be
quoted as VAT-inclusive amounts, but it doesn't alter the basics of the
way VAT operates. Similarly, companies which advertise an offer to pay
the VAT on your purchase are in reality just lowering the ex-VAT price
by 16.67%; you still pay VAT on the reduced price.

But the management company isn't (and cannot be) registered for VAT, so
even if they did charge for allowing the clampers access to their land,
there wouldn't be any VAT payable. And VAT is liable already on the
release fee, so I don't see how it can be payable twice on the same
transaction.

--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

Charles Ellson

2011-02-10 05:14:19 UTC

On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 01:23:11 +0000, "Richard J."

Post by Richard J.
22:48:24 ...

Post by Charles Ellson
On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 20:49:47 +0000, "Richard J."

Post by Richard J.

Post by Recliner
If the flat management company wasn't VAT registered (because the
turnover's below the threshold), then no need to add VAT to the
clamping fee.

Actually the flat management company is unregistered because, as a
resident owned company, it is not allowed to register.

Why is that?

It's not a trading company.

Post by Recliner
I didn't think HMRC cared who the proprieter is. And, if not
registered, how could the company even pay money to HMRC?

It's registered at CoHouse and pays CT to HMRC, but it's not allowed to
register for VAT.
It pays money to HMRC for VAT in the same way that every other consumer
does.

Now I'm even more confused -- consumers don't pay VAT to HMRC. They pay it
to a trader, who passes it on to HMRC. Consumers have no mechanism for
paying VAT directly to HMRC.

Yep, and tha's exactly how the MC paidm VAT to HMRC

I don't know how he accounted for it, but I understand that his MO was that
he charged the clampee a "fine" and the business who hired him the VAT
element of that fine, which they would claim back from HMRC on their VAT
return.
Except than in our case we weren't registered and hence not able to claim it
back.
No, I still don't know why he worked that way (or indeed, if it was legally
correct).

Doesn't sound correct to me. Did he charge you a base fee for his services?

No.
He came around for free, but whenever he extracted a fine from a
transgressor, we had to pay the VAT (so we were told)

That is complete rubbish. What the clamping company extract is not a
fine (which can only be levied in accordance with legislation), but a
release fee. That fee, like any other amount charged by a
VAT-registered company, is liable to VAT, which must be paid by the
payer of the fee.
If the clamping company wish to invoice the flats management company
with 20% of the release fee as a sort of commission, then that is a
separate transaction which is itself liable to VAT.
Of course in both cases, the release fee and the commission could be
quoted as VAT-inclusive amounts, but it doesn't alter the basics of the
way VAT operates. Similarly, companies which advertise an offer to pay
the VAT on your purchase are in reality just lowering the ex-VAT price
by 16.67%; you still pay VAT on the reduced price.

But the management company isn't (and cannot be) registered for VAT, so
even if they did charge for allowing the clampers access to their land,
there wouldn't be any VAT payable.

I didn't mention charging by the maintenance company, the only
admitted service involved in my scenario is that of the clampers
supplying the maintenance company. A liability to be charged VAT can
arise from receiving goods or services (in this case, keeping the car
park clear of unwanted vehicles) even if you don't pay for them if
HMRC regard the recipient of those services as paying in kind
(allowing the clampers to operate on their land) for something which
is not a gift, see e.g. 3.7 in
http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/channelsPortalWebApp.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pageLibrary_ShowContent&id=HMCE_CL_000088&propertyType=document
[http://tinyurl.com/5v69gy4]
It does not matter whether the recipient of the services is registered
for VAT or not as the VAT has to be collected and accounted for by the
supplier of the services or goods.

Post by Richard J.
And VAT is liable already on the
release fee, so I don't see how it can be payable twice on the same
transaction.

Bruce

2011-02-10 08:59:25 UTC

Post by Charles Ellson
I didn't mention charging by the maintenance company, the only
admitted service involved in my scenario is that of the clampers
supplying the maintenance company. A liability to be charged VAT can
arise from receiving goods or services (in this case, keeping the car
park clear of unwanted vehicles) even if you don't pay for them if
HMRC regard the recipient of those services as paying in kind
(allowing the clampers to operate on their land) for something which
is not a gift, see e.g. 3.7 in
http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/channelsPortalWebApp.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pageLibrary_ShowContent&id=HMCE_CL_000088&propertyType=document
[http://tinyurl.com/5v69gy4]
It does not matter whether the recipient of the services is registered
for VAT or not as the VAT has to be collected and accounted for by the
supplier of the services or goods.

The problem here is that some people don't understand how VAT works.

Some aren't even aware that they don't understand. The result is
discussions like this with pointless, circular arguments. The sole
reason is that some people are not prepared to make the effort to find
out how VAT works before they post. Instead, they prefer repeatedly
posting nonsense about why it doesn't work. All that does is
demonstrate that they know nothing (or less than nothing, because what
they think they know is in fact wrong) about the subject.

As ever, Charles, I admire the patience you are able to show while
beating your head against a very thick and immovable brick wall. ;-)

John Kenyon

2011-02-10 11:48:05 UTC

The problem here is that some people don't understand how VAT works.
Some aren't even aware that they don't understand. The result is
discussions like this with pointless, circular arguments. The sole
reason is that some people are not prepared to make the effort to find
out how VAT works before they post. Instead, they prefer repeatedly
posting nonsense about why it doesn't work. All that does is
demonstrate that they know nothing (or less than nothing, because what
they think they know is in fact wrong) about the subject.
As ever, Charles, I admire the patience you are able to show while
beating your head against a very thick and immovable brick wall. ;-)

If your level of expertise is such that you can identify a lack of
knowledge, whey don't you set us all straight then?

Bruce

2011-02-10 12:10:09 UTC

Post by John Kenyon
If your level of expertise is such that you can identify a lack of
knowledge, whey don't you set us all straight then?

It isn't rocket science. Even you could probably learn how it works
with just a little effort.

But that's the problem. You aren't prepared to make that small
effort. You expect someone else to do it for you - in this case me.

Well, I'm so very sorry to disappoint you. ;-)

John Kenyon

2011-02-10 14:09:08 UTC

Post by John Kenyon
If your level of expertise is such that you can identify a lack of
knowledge, whey don't you set us all straight then?

It isn't rocket science. Even you could probably learn how it works
with just a little effort.
But that's the problem. You aren't prepared to make that small
effort. You expect someone else to do it for you - in this case me.
Well, I'm so very sorry to disappoint you. ;-)

You haven't disappointed me at all - I expected a fuckwit reply and I
got one.

Charles Ellson

2011-02-11 02:58:51 UTC

Post by John Kenyon

The problem here is that some people don't understand how VAT works.
Some aren't even aware that they don't understand. The result is
discussions like this with pointless, circular arguments. The sole
reason is that some people are not prepared to make the effort to find
out how VAT works before they post. Instead, they prefer repeatedly
posting nonsense about why it doesn't work. All that does is
demonstrate that they know nothing (or less than nothing, because what
they think they know is in fact wrong) about the subject.
As ever, Charles, I admire the patience you are able to show while
beating your head against a very thick and immovable brick wall. ;-)

If your level of expertise is such that you can identify a lack of
knowledge, whey don't you set us all straight then?

This seems to hark back to a discussion about contracts some time ago
which involved 99 different opinions about who was supplying, who was
being supplied and what the "consideration" (in everyday terms, the
payment) was. The common element seems to be that the
argument/discussion involves services; if goods were involved then it
is generally easy to identify who is supplying and who is receiving
the supply but where services are involved (especially if both parties
are consumers or both in business) it can get a bit complicated when
trying to work out who is doing the supplying/receiving especially if
such things as who first made what kind of offer to the other is not
precisely known. At least in this case only one of the parties seems
to be VAT-registered otherwise HMRC would probably be seeking some way
of having two bites at the same cherry.

Recliner

2011-02-11 11:19:31 UTC

Post by Charles Ellson
This seems to hark back to a discussion about contracts some time ago
which involved 99 different opinions about who was supplying, who was
being supplied and what the "consideration" (in everyday terms, the
payment) was. The common element seems to be that the
argument/discussion involves services; if goods were involved then it
is generally easy to identify who is supplying and who is receiving
the supply but where services are involved (especially if both parties
are consumers or both in business) it can get a bit complicated when
trying to work out who is doing the supplying/receiving especially if
such things as who first made what kind of offer to the other is not
precisely known. At least in this case only one of the parties seems
to be VAT-registered otherwise HMRC would probably be seeking some way
of having two bites at the same cherry.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if no-one was VAT-registered in this
case, and the "VAT" collected from the flat owners stayed in the
clamper's pocket.

tim....

2011-02-09 12:27:28 UTC

Post by Charles Ellson
On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 20:26:59 -0000, "Recliner"

Post by Sam Wilson
In my brother's village there is a small, free car park. The

Parish

Post by Sam Wilson
Council have to pay VAT on the notional value of the parking

service

Post by Sam Wilson
they provide.

Never heard of that; I thought VAT was only charged on actual sales.
Does that happen anywhere else?

When my flat management company "hired" a small one man clamping
company, because we weren't VAT registered we had to pay the VAT due
on the "fines" collected (I could never work out why the person being
"fined" didn't have to pay it).

ITYF the flat management company was doing the extorting with the man
in the van as their servant applying the clamps..

People have a choice to obey the sign that says: "Private property, no
unauthorised parking, clamping in operation".

I can assure you that the clamper was "responsible" in the way that he chose
to clamp a car. He wasn't a rogue that clamped delivery vans etc
temporarily stopped on the entrance driveway.

Remember that these spaces that were being abused by outside parkers
actually BELONG to the individual flat owners. Would you think it ok if
someone drove up to your house and decided that it was OK for them to put
their car in your garage without permission?

tim

bobharvey

2011-02-09 13:53:56 UTC

Post by Charles Ellson
On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 20:26:59 -0000, "Recliner"

In my brother's village there is a small, free car park. The

Parish

Council have to pay VAT on the notional value of the parking

service

they provide.

Never heard of that; I thought VAT was only charged on actual sales.
Does that happen anywhere else?

When my flat management company "hired" a small one man clamping
company, because we weren't VAT registered we had to pay the VAT due
on the "fines" collected (I could never work out why the person being
"fined" didn't have to pay it).

ITYF the flat management company was doing the extorting with the man
in the van as their servant applying the clamps..

People have a choice to obey the sign that says: "Private property, no
unauthorised parking, clamping in operation".
I can assure you that the clamper was "responsible" in the way that he chose
to clamp a car. He wasn't a rogue that clamped delivery vans etc
temporarily stopped on the entrance driveway.
Remember that these spaces that were being abused by outside parkers
actually BELONG to the individual flat owners. Would you think it ok if
someone drove up to your house and decided that it was OK for them to put
their car in your garage without permission?

I've always been a great believer in the rising bollard.

Mizter T

2011-02-09 16:59:48 UTC

Post by bobharvey

Post by Manoonga85
[snip]
ITYF the flat management company was doing the extorting with the man
in the van as their servant applying the clamps..

People have a choice to obey the sign that says: "Private property, no
unauthorised parking, clamping in operation".
I can assure you that the clamper was "responsible" in the way that he chose
to clamp a car. He wasn't a rogue that clamped delivery vans etc
temporarily stopped on the entrance driveway.
Remember that these spaces that were being abused by outside parkers
actually BELONG to the individual flat owners. Would you think it ok if
someone drove up to your house and decided that it was OK for them to put
their car in your garage without permission?

I've always been a great believer in the rising bollard.

A pain in the rear end from the (legitimate) users point of view though.

Charles Ellson

2011-02-09 23:12:59 UTC

Post by Manoonga85
[snip]
ITYF the flat management company was doing the extorting with the man
in the van as their servant applying the clamps..

People have a choice to obey the sign that says: "Private property, no
unauthorised parking, clamping in operation".

You are not familiar with the type of people often associated with
these activities or their methods, then ? Not so far to the north such
activities are a criminal offence unless there is a specific
legislative permission for them.

Post by bobharvey

Post by tim....
I can assure you that the clamper was "responsible" in the way that he chose
to clamp a car. He wasn't a rogue that clamped delivery vans etc
temporarily stopped on the entrance driveway.
Remember that these spaces that were being abused by outside parkers
actually BELONG to the individual flat owners. Would you think it ok if
someone drove up to your house and decided that it was OK for them to put
their car in your garage without permission?

I've always been a great believer in the rising bollard.

A pain in the rear end from the (legitimate) users point of view though.

Tom Anderson

2011-02-03 20:24:06 UTC

Post by 81F
Chiltern won't be able to run long trains from Oxford -- I think their
platform will be 5 cars max

Is there any scope for elongating that in the future?

tom

--
build the roof with holes in

81F

2011-02-04 07:34:23 UTC

Post by Tom Anderson

Post by 81F
Chiltern won't be able to run long trains from Oxford -- I think their
platform will be 5 cars max

Is there any scope for elongating that in the future?

No. There is a pinchpoint north of Oxford station where the railway
crosses the Sheepwash Channel [where the ex-LNWR line had a
swingbridge over that channel]. Houses have been built on the former
railway land.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=ox1+1hs&aq=&sll=51.755867,-1.26979&sspn=0.004204,0.008208&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Oxford+OX1+1HS,+United+Kingdom&ll=51.754831,-1.270224&spn=0.002102,0.004104&t=h&z=18

r***@cix.compulink.co.uk

2011-02-03 11:57:53 UTC

Post by Mortimer
When the Bicester curve opens, how will the journey time from
Oxford to Marylebone compare with that from Oxford to Paddington
via Didcot? How do the distances compare, too?

Competitive from North of Oxford (Islip?), slightly slower from Oxford
itself. So most attractive for Park and Ride from North Oxford and
environs.

Post by Mortimer
I wonder what the effect will be on the existing
Birmingham-Marylebone service and other services that start closer
to London? Does the line have spare capacity for extra trains from
Oxford, or will existing services have fewer trains to accomodate
the Oxford ones?

I thought they had done some work to enhance capacity? This was the GW
Birmingham main line after all.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Paul Scott

2011-02-03 12:38:10 UTC

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk

I thought they had done some work to enhance capacity? This was the GW
Birmingham main line after all.

The capacity gain seems to be mostly from additional loops at Princes
Risborough and Northholt Jn, and then by running Class 172s on local
stoppers as far as Gerrrards Cross, allowing them to be avoid conflicts with
faster trains, and AIUI there is also some alteration to service patterns
with fewer trains terminating at Bicester North or Banbury.

In any case, the originally proposed timetables including the Oxford service
are all online for comparison, :

http://tinyurl.com/6jvr6zt

http://preview.tinyurl.com/6jvr6zt

Paul S

Richard Fairhurst

2011-01-26 17:20:41 UTC

Post by Mizter T
Certainly worth giving it proper consideration.

Definitely. I commuted from Charlbury (two stops beyond Oxford) to
London for a while, and the train was a delight as long as you didn't
get too worked up by FGW's occasional infelicities. Comfortable train,
no problem getting a seat, and plenty fast enough. FGW appear to be
going through a rough patch punctuality-wise at the moment but are
generally copable with.

It was the cross-London journey that did for it for me - I can't stand
the tube and cycling round Hyde Park Corner was no fun either. But if
you're more used to London commuting you may not find this an issue.

Richard

Mizter T

2011-01-26 18:02:17 UTC

Post by Richard Fairhurst

Post by Mizter T
Certainly worth giving it proper consideration.

Definitely. I commuted from Charlbury (two stops beyond Oxford) to
London for a while, and the train was a delight as long as you didn't
get too worked up by FGW's occasional infelicities. Comfortable train,
no problem getting a seat, and plenty fast enough. FGW appear to be
going through a rough patch punctuality-wise at the moment but are
generally copable with.
It was the cross-London journey that did for it for me - I can't stand
the tube and cycling round Hyde Park Corner was no fun either. But if
you're more used to London commuting you may not find this an issue.

These days there's a well patronised cycle route which crosses right across
Hyde Park Corner from the NW to the SE sides (i.e. from Hyde Park through
Wellington Arch then across to Constitution Hill), replete with cycle phases
on the traffic lights.

Bevan Price

2011-01-26 18:52:15 UTC

Post by Mizter T
[original thread on uk.transport.london]
[cross-posted to uk.railway]

Well, if the job has long term prospects, I would suggest that the least
stressful option would be to consider moving out of London and find
somewhere to live in or near Oxford. Although few places have really
cheap housing these days, Oxford should be less expensive than living in
London.

And if you like London "entertainments" etc., Oxford is close enough for
to make occasional day trips to London after you have finished work.

Bevan

Graham Harrison

2011-01-26 22:44:39 UTC

Post by Bevan Price
And if you like London "entertainments" etc., Oxford is close enough for
to make occasional day trips to London after you have finished work.
Bevan

That's true. I have a son living in Oxford and working just outside and he
seems to spend evenings in London on a regular basis. He seems to use both
buses and trains, I'm not sure what his criteria are for choosing one over
the other.

Mizter T

2011-01-27 00:11:21 UTC

On Jan 26, 10:44 pm, "Graham Harrison"

Post by Graham Harrison

Post by Bevan Price
And if you like London "entertainments" etc., Oxford is close enough for
to make occasional day trips to London after you have finished work.

That's true. I have a son living in Oxford and working just outside and he
seems to spend evenings in London on a regular basis. He seems to
use both buses and trains, I'm not sure what his criteria are for choosing
one over the other.

If it's going to be a late one, or possibly involve an overnight stay
in the Great Wen, then the coach is quite likely the winner - the
Oxford Tube runs all night, whilst the Espress runs till pretty late
before taking a break for four hours in the midst of the night. Worth
noting that all return fares are valid the next day as well (there's a
3 month period return too). Meanwhile last train from Paddington to
Oxford is at 0022, which is still pretty good (and it's not some all
shacks stopper either).

Timetables...
<http://www.oxfordtube.com/tubetimes.php>
<http://www.oxfordbus.co.uk/main.php?page_id=28>

Price wise the coach wins at GBP16 day/next-day return (both OxTube &
Espress), until you introduce a Railcard discount which actually makes
an off-peak return by train a smidgeon cheaper (both Day & period
return) - though on both the Espress and OxTube there are 12 trip
carnet tickets priced at GBP 70/72, so that works out at either GBP 6
or just under for each single trip. Further complicating factors
include a bundled Off-peak Day Travelcard being available for a pound
extra when using a Railcard, and whether or not either the outward or
return journeys might be taking place during the weekday morning peak.

Neil Williams

2011-01-27 07:29:13 UTC

On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 16:11:21 -0800 (PST), Mizter T

Post by Mizter T
Espress), until you introduce a Railcard discount

The coaches have also offered Railcard (maybe only YP) in the past,
may still do.

Neil

--
Neil Williams, Milton Keynes, UK

Alan

2011-01-26 23:02:32 UTC

Post by Bevan Price
Well, if the job has long term prospects, I would suggest that the least
stressful option would be to consider moving out of London and find
somewhere to live in or near Oxford. Although few places have really cheap
housing these days, Oxford should be less expensive than living in London.

My mate used to live in Didcot and worked at Blackbird Leys in Oxford - the
drive up wasn't too bad in the morning and his occasional training courses
in Willesden were apparently easy enough to get to, either by train or by
car. A suitable compromise? It's not the most exciting of spots, I grant
you, but it seems like an OK place to live and Paddington's 45 mins away
with a train about every 10 mins in the peak.

Bruce

2011-01-27 10:46:52 UTC

Post by Alan

Didcot is an absolutely disgusting 'chav town'. It certainly isn't
somewhere that professional people would choose to live.

The train service is good but the park and ride facility is poor. The
car park is distant from the station; in adverse weather, the exposed
walking route between the two is unpleasant. The car park quickly
fills up from the station end in the morning peak making the walk even
longer.

Avoid.

Martin Petrov

2011-01-28 21:30:40 UTC

Post by Manoonga85
I currently live in NW London and have a job offer in Oxford. The job
would be better and I'm thinking I'd prefer the lifestyle over there. I
don't think I could hack the commute out to Oxford everyday, as it's not
like I live near Paddington anyway.
The bf has said he's happy to commute from Oxford (providing we live nr
the station) to the City everyday, but I'm not sure he's thought it
through!
Has anyone experience of this and how tiring/horrific it actually might
be??

While I most of the advantages/disadvantages have been laid out, and I've
no personal experience of the commute from Oxford to London, I *can* say
that I spent a good few years living in zone 2, and commuting out into
darkest Hertfordshire on a daily basis, and I greatly enjoyed travelling
on a completely empty train in both directions, able to stretch out in a
silent carriage, able to read a broadsheet paper, and drink my coffee
with almost no disturbance.

Also, travelling against the flow sometimes has the advantage of getting
better deals in terms of your season ticket - WAGN used to offer a 'flexi-
time' ticket, which meant you couldn't use it heading towards London
before 9:30 in the morning - so I saved quite a sizeable amount on a
regular season ticket.

So don't necessarily rule out trying to find a way to live in London and
work in Oxford - I'm guessing from your username that you're 25/26 years
old, and surely living in London at that age is likely to be MILES more
fun than living and working in Oxford?

As for your boyfriend and him travelling into London, I have a mate who
did the Oxford to Victoria 'tube' journey, and swore by it - though he
was able to doze on the coach.

Tom Anderson

2011-01-28 22:43:10 UTC