Freedom Pass
 

On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 02:02:12 -0600, Recliner
wrote:
How is an unresolved journey, where you have to pay the max
possible fare
from that station, any different from charging the max possible
fare from
the station? Your suggested algorithm sounds identical to Oyster's
existing
algorithm.

An unresolved journey does not contribute to the cap.

Neil

--
Neil Williams. Use neil before the at to reply.

Freedom Pass
 

On Fri, 8 Nov 2013 08:24:25 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:
A better algorithm (but it requires more hardware too

Or just allow the journey and up fares a bit to cover the cost of the
small number of people doing journeys like that.

The biggest mistake was trying to replicate a fare structure designed
for paper tickets.

Neil

--
Neil Williams. Use neil before the at to reply.

Freedom Pass
 

Neil Williams wrote:
On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 02:02:12 -0600, Recliner wrote:
How is an unresolved journey, where you have to pay the max possible fare
from that station, any different from charging the max possible fare from
the station? Your suggested algorithm sounds identical to Oyster's existing
algorithm.

An unresolved journey does not contribute to the cap.

Given that your algorithm would effectively charge a max all-zones fare for
any incomplete journey, that would also not fit into any available cap
(there isn't a cap that includes Watford Junction), your suggested
algorithm is indeed the same as the current one.

Freedom Pass
 

In message

, at 03:34:02 on Fri, 8 Nov 2013, Recliner
remarked:
How is an unresolved journey, where you have to pay the max possible fare
from that station, any different from charging the max possible fare from
the station? Your suggested algorithm sounds identical to Oyster's existing
algorithm.

An unresolved journey does not contribute to the cap.

Given that your algorithm would effectively charge a max all-zones fare for
any incomplete journey, that would also not fit into any available cap
(there isn't a cap that includes Watford Junction), your suggested
algorithm is indeed the same as the current one.

There's a big difference between an unresolved fare being charged (as it
is today) *in addition* to any capped journeys, and the fee for an
unresolved journey generating an unexpectedly high cap (but within which
all your resolved journeys that day are therefore free).
--
Roland Perry

Freedom Pass
 

In message , at 10:31:16 on
Fri, 8 Nov 2013, Paul Corfield remarked:
I think it is very easy to sit in 2013 and say it should all have been
different. There was never any instruction from the Board or
Government to design a system predicated on the removal of ticket
offices and fully automated vending. You can justifiably argue
whether that was right or wrong but it was not the project team's job
to set such a fundamental aspect of company policy. The project had
to work with the strategy that was set.

Don't take the criticism personally, as an implementer, the fault is
with the Board/Govt and whoever was the senior TfL 'design' manager -
who might have been expected to have more foresight and alerted the
Board/Govt to any possible issues that might arise in the future.

Unless, of course, those representations were made, and rejected.

[It happens sometimes... I recall a discussion with my boss one day when
he said "I'll tell you what, Roland, when I can pay your wages with it,
I'll let you design me a computer with a modem in". The thing was,
Nottingham Building Society had already launched a Prestel-based online
banking system to do exactly that; and I could see that a low cost
personal computer with a modem in it had potential. Although the idea
wasn't for banking, but to be able to exchange PCW8256 documents without
having to first print them out and then either mail or FAX them. Hmm,
now what would we call that... how about email?]

Do you imagine that smart ticketing on National Rail is being designed
so that all ticket offices can be closed on the network and people
never had to deal with a guard on a "pay train"? I don't. I would
hope the system *is* being designed for the 21st century but I don't
believe TOCs will want complete automation.

I think they want a great deal more automation, with the majority of
tickets bought online (including whatever a mobile app looks like in
five years time). Tickets then "loaded" onto the card when you traverse
the gate.

That'll be a big step forward from having to queue (and they are often
substantial) at a ToD machine before travelling, let alone when all the
ToD machines at a station are broken.

I'd have thought that for PAYG trips, then validators (if not gates) at
stations could indeed almost entirely replace the selling of tickets on
trains, but it's harder to visualise the replacement of the gripper
function on lines largely without barriers.
--
Roland Perry

Freedom Pass
 

On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 10:31:16 +0000, Paul Corfield
wrote:
If you were starting with a clean sheet of paper you would not
design
London's ticketing as it is now. You would do something very
different. However that was never the remit for those of us tasked
with helping to turn an idea into a well used and popular reality.

True. So the fault is not with what your team did (which could be
said to be excellent given the constraints) but with those who
commissioned it.

Do you imagine that smart ticketing on National Rail is being
designed
so that all ticket offices can be closed on the network and people
never had to deal with a guard on a "pay train"? I don't. I would
hope the system *is* being designed for the 21st century but I don't
believe TOCs will want complete automation.

I think full ticket office closure should be an aim, yes. The staff
are better out and about helping people. And yes I would say we
should go for rural DOO. Unless we do, I think a raft of rural
closures may be on the horizon.

But equally I think smart ticketing on smart cards is the wrong
choice for the main line, and that media agnostic bar codes would be
a preferable strategy.

Neil

--
Neil Williams. Use neil before the at to reply.

Freedom Pass
 

On Fri, 8 Nov 2013 11:10:31 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:
I'd have thought that for PAYG trips, then validators (if not
gates) at
stations could indeed almost entirely replace the selling of
tickets on
trains, but it's harder to visualise the replacement of the gripper
function on lines largely without barriers.

On board equipment plus random checks and a high penalty fare that
will cover the losses from fare evasion (£100 perhaps) might well be
an option.

Neil

--
Neil Williams. Use neil before the at to reply.

Freedom Pass
 

In message , at
11:27:35 on Fri, 8 Nov 2013, Neil Williams
remarked:
I'd have thought that for PAYG trips, then validators (if not gates)
at stations could indeed almost entirely replace the selling of
tickets on trains, but it's harder to visualise the replacement of
the gripper function on lines largely without barriers.

On board equipment plus random checks and a high penalty fare that will
cover the losses from fare evasion (£100 perhaps) might well be an
option.

Culturally, we aren't into huge penalties for people caught out. Because
we always fear the consequences of a false positive.
--
Roland Perry

Freedom Pass
 

On Fri, 8 Nov 2013 13:53:07 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
11:27:35 on Fri, 8 Nov 2013, Neil Williams
remarked:
I'd have thought that for PAYG trips, then validators (if not gates)
at stations could indeed almost entirely replace the selling of
tickets on trains, but it's harder to visualise the replacement of
the gripper function on lines largely without barriers.

On board equipment plus random checks and a high penalty fare that will
cover the losses from fare evasion (£100 perhaps) might well be an
option.

Culturally, we aren't into huge penalties for people caught out. Because
we always fear the consequences of a false positive.

As I've mentioned before, this whole bloody nonsense could be solved with
flat fares. They work on the buses so there's no reason for them not to work
on the tube. And anyone who comes out with the complaint about it being unfair,
well I haven't noticed any bus passengers complaining about it.

It could be just like on the continent - a ticket gate to go in and some
turnstiles to come out. Sorted.

--
Spud

Freedom Pass
 

"Roland Perry" wrote

at 16:23:31 on Thu, 7 Nov 2013, Michael R N Dolbear remarked:

Plus of course the effort of getting printouts for "expenses purposes"
when all you need do with a paper ticket is hand in the
ticket itself.

Has it escaped your notice that the final exit gate swallows your paper
ticket ?

It has not escaped my notice that many of them don't, eg Kings Cross.

Tickets collected on the train after Peterborough as I remember.

And you can always ask the person manning the gates if you can keep the
ticket for expenses purposes. As well as asking for a receipt from the
ticket seller (human or machine) when buying.

I have many receipts, none state details of the tickets bought. Nor is there
any such requirement.

And If your system depends on asking for something as a favour, how is it
"all you need do" ?

First time this made a difference to me was attending a job interview at
the Met Office.

Bracknall station had just been fitted with barriers.

Which I doubt are operating 24x7, but also see above.

The barriers were operating when I arrived which was all that was necessary
to be unable to produce the ticket for expense purposes.

Before mag stripe tickets the the barrier attendant

or no-one at all

And If your system depends on that, how is it "all you need do" ?

took your ticket.

It is possible to select a ticket that will never be retained, will your
boss pay the extra ?

--
Mike D





--