Hello all,

Can you use your Oyster card for Pay-as-You-Go from London Bridge to
Tundbridge Wells?

Thanks in advance.

On Sun, 03 Aug 2014 01:15:34 +0100, "
wrote:

Hello all,

Can you use your Oyster card for Pay-as-You-Go from London Bridge to
Tundbridge Wells?

Not according to anything I can see on the NR website (assuming it is
up to date). There doesn't seem to be anything definite announced
since e.g. "A spokesman for Southeastern confirmed: “We’re in
discussions with Transport for London to extend Oyster into Dartford."
[Kent Online 21 Feb 2014]

Tunbridge Wells being even further away from Greater London and AFAIAA
with a lower thicko count (Dartford seems to have a particular problem
with people unaware that Oyster has geographical limits) might not be
so far up the list for providing Oyster.

In message , at 06:17:35 on
Sun, 3 Aug 2014, Charles Ellson remarked:
Can you use your Oyster card for Pay-as-You-Go from London Bridge to
Tundbridge Wells?

Not according to anything I can see on the NR website (assuming it is
up to date). There doesn't seem to be anything definite announced
since e.g. "A spokesman for Southeastern confirmed: “We’re in
discussions with Transport for London to extend Oyster into Dartford."
[Kent Online 21 Feb 2014]

Tunbridge Wells being even further away from Greater London and AFAIAA
with a lower thicko count (Dartford seems to have a particular problem
with people unaware that Oyster has geographical limits) might not be
so far up the list for providing Oyster.

The problem with extending Oyster is that it has a very finite number of
price-zones and it's possible these were exhausted when extended to
Shenfield.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 12:11:34 on
Sun, 3 Aug 2014, Paul Corfield remarked:

The problem with extending Oyster is that it has a very finite number of
price-zones and it's possible these were exhausted when extended to
Shenfield.

I asked TfL's ticketing people, via a Twitter "chat" session, if they
would technically cope with the indicated TSGN franchise plans to
extent Oyster beyond the zones. They said they could. Unfortunately I
can't send you a technical specification to prove this

Do you have them, or a relevant summary?

so I imagine my statement will go on your vapourware list of probably
untrue nonsense ;-)

Vapourware isn't stuff we believe is a lie, or that will never happen;
it's things which have been over-optimistically and yet firmly
announced, but keep slipping (it's possible, after some practice, to
spot the inevitability of this for specific announcements).

Although many do eventually slip so far they get overtaken by events and
hence never see the light of day.

This suggests there is some system capacity left but I imagine there
may also be assumptions about pricing and keeping stations priced on a
consistent basis outside the zones.

How many extra places are TSGN expecting to cover? [1]

When Oyster zones were last discussed here (about 18 months ago) it was
in terms of 12 zones already used and a maximum of 15.

If Oyster PAYG is to extend to Dartford that will solve a great many
problems although it might reduce South Eastern's penalty fare income.
It's hardly likely to be a huge problem given Oyster based Freedom
Passes *are* valid to Dartford so there must be some ticketing logic
in the system that allows those cards to be read (I assuming the gates
at Dartford *do* read them - happy to be corrected if actual practice
is different).

It's not about being able to read the cards, but having enough 'zones'
to cope with all the different charging possibilities. Although that
assumes that all 'outlier' stations need a zone of their own.

Are current Oyster fares from central London to Harold Wood and
Brentwood identical (a "mid-Essex" zone) and if so what would Oyster
charge for a journey from Harold Wood to Brentwood?

Any expansion plans are (conceptually if not for implementation) as
simple as there being many more sets of stations like Harold Wood and
Brentwood identifiable so they can work out the right fare to charge
from Shenfield variously to Harold Wood, and new places like Luton
Airport and Dartford and perhaps other similar ones just outside the
current limit like Swanley, Esher and Hinchley Wood.

[1] Later... Apparently Greater Anglia are committed to several, viz:
Theobalds Grove, Waltham Cross, Cheshunt (inside the exiting zones)
Brentwood, Shenfield (already delivered, outside the zones) plus
Broxbourne, Rye House, St Margarets, Ware and Hertford East (outside
the zones).

Govia Thameslink Railway (aka TSGN) are saying they'll extend Oyster
"as far as Epsom, Gatwick Airport, Luton Airport, Welwyn Garden City
and Hertford North" which if we count intermediary stations is quite
a few.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 01:00:32 on
Mon, 4 Aug 2014, Paul Corfield remarked:
On Sun, 3 Aug 2014 14:21:21 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

Vapourware isn't stuff we believe is a lie, or that will never happen;
it's things which have been over-optimistically and yet firmly
announced, but keep slipping (it's possible, after some practice, to
spot the inevitability of this for specific announcements).

Although many do eventually slip so far they get overtaken by events and
hence never see the light of day.

I'm using to catch all things that you question / have doubts about
etc. This means pretty much everything in existence. ;-)

I don't question things like Govia having won the TSGN franchise, it's a
done deal, but two years ago IEPs on the Kings Lynn trains was
definitely vapourware, and I had doubts based on the length and
flexibility of the trains (currently they are run as 4, 8 or 12-car at
various parts of the trip at various times of day).

This suggests there is some system capacity left but I imagine there
may also be assumptions about pricing and keeping stations priced on a
consistent basis outside the zones.

How many extra places are TSGN expecting to cover? [1]

You've answered your own question below.

When Oyster zones were last discussed here (about 18 months ago) it was
in terms of 12 zones already used and a maximum of 15.

If Oyster PAYG is to extend to Dartford that will solve a great many
problems although it might reduce South Eastern's penalty fare income.
It's hardly likely to be a huge problem given Oyster based Freedom
Passes *are* valid to Dartford so there must be some ticketing logic
in the system that allows those cards to be read (I assuming the gates
at Dartford *do* read them - happy to be corrected if actual practice
is different).

It's not about being able to read the cards, but having enough 'zones'
to cope with all the different charging possibilities. Although that
assumes that all 'outlier' stations need a zone of their own.

Hang on a minute. To get any station added into oyster PAYG and / or
season ticket acceptance you need compatible equipment at the station,
a means to get data to and from that location,

That's been done 600 times already, so we have to assume the mechanical
aspects are well understood.

for the relevant central systems to recognise the location and assets
there, for fares and season ticket validities to be held in the
relevant fares database and for the card itself to be capable to
accepting whatever description is used for the station and its related
fares and validities.

That's the part I'm concentrating on. Currently we have a 600x600 matrix
of fares!!

Oh and you need the TfL and NR websites to be able to
cope with whatever fares and season ticket prices you set. I guess RSP
and its systems may also be lurking somewhere in this - depending on
how South Eastern's Oyster set up is configured.

If an Oyster card can cope when swiped, I'm sure the websites can be
adjusted adjusted too.

I did used to create and test this data many many moons ago! The
system principles haven't changed that much. What I don't have is any
detail on how zones and / or stations can be recorded on an Oyster
card and what the transaction data structure looks like. I know how
it worked for mag stripe tickets but have never seen the detail for an
Oyster Card.

Are current Oyster fares from central London to Harold Wood and
Brentwood identical (a "mid-Essex" zone) and if so what would Oyster
charge for a journey from Harold Wood to Brentwood?

Mindful I meant to type "Brentwood and Shenfield"...

I don't believe they are the same. Prices vary by route. A quick scan
of the price lists doesn't show any great consistency.

There's some evidence that Brentwood and Broxbourne form a virtual "Zone
10" (see page 15 of your guide) and possibly Theobalds Grove and Waltham
Cross a "Zone 11", with Ockendon, Chafford, Purfleet and Grays in a
"Zone 12"...

Any expansion plans are (conceptually if not for implementation) as
simple as there being many more sets of stations like Harold Wood and
Brentwood identifiable so they can work out the right fare to charge
from Shenfield variously to Harold Wood, and new places like Luton
Airport and Dartford and perhaps other similar ones just outside the
current limit like Swanley, Esher and Hinchley Wood.

If we had a uniform pricing structure across all TOCs then it would be
easier I'm sure. Unfortunately we don't outside the zones so while I
agree your concept is fine it doesn't align with reality.

If we add Shenfield, Chesham and Broxbourne as one-station "virtual
zones" that brings the total to the 'limit of fifteen' mentioned last
year. [And incidentally scupper the four extra stations out to Hertford
East].

My theory then, which I'm beginning to think is too simplistic, would
require some kind of new coding to cope with any additional stations,
and it's odd that National Rail acceptance on all the lines other than
the ones above stops dead at exactly the edge of Z6, when some of the
currently proposed extensions would make a lot of sense (eg extending
one stop to Epsom).

One fly in the ointment though is the Overground to Watford Junction,
where there have been "Special fares" to Watford Junction (a cludge to
get round virtual Zone 16?) but now that Oyster is accepted at
Carpenders Park, Bushy and Watford High Street then there has to be some
scheme already in place for "19 zones".

The next phase of extensions (proposed and actual) will require being
able to recognise and do the sums for these stations outside Z6:

Dartford
Epsom
Cuffley, Bayford, Hertford North
Radlett, St Albans, Harpenden, Luton Airport Parkway (&Luton?)
Merstham, Redhill, Earleswood, Salfords, Horley, Gatwick
Potters Bar, Brookmans Park, Welham Green, Hatfield, Welwyn Garden City

[1] Later... Apparently Greater Anglia are committed to several, viz:
Theobalds Grove, Waltham Cross, Cheshunt (inside the exiting zones)
Brentwood, Shenfield (already delivered, outside the zones) plus
Broxbourne, Rye House, St Margarets, Ware and Hertford East (outside
the zones).

The latter 4 stations you mention to Hertford East are not covered by
Oyster. It doesn't reach beyond Broxbourne although the original
intent was that it would.

I wonder why DfT changed their mind? Insufficient demand or some
technical issue. If the latter, and it's now been resolved, perhaps that
extension will be revived.

Govia Thameslink Railway (aka TSGN) are saying they'll extend Oyster
"as far as Epsom, Gatwick Airport, Luton Airport, Welwyn Garden City
and Hertford North" which if we count intermediary stations is quite
a few.

We must and see if this materialises if DfT say yes.

Is it part of the franchise commitment, or something Govia have cooked
up independently? I might have expected them to put more effort into
extending their "the Key" north of the river instead.
--
Roland Perry

There's some evidence that Brentwood and Broxbourne form a virtual "Zone

10" (see page 15 of your guide) and possibly Theobalds Grove and Waltham

Cross a "Zone 11", with Ockendon, Chafford, Purfleet and Grays in a

"Zone 12"...



Any expansion plans are (conceptually if not for implementation) as

simple as there being many more sets of stations like Harold Wood and

Brentwood identifiable so they can work out the right fare to charge

from Shenfield variously to Harold Wood, and new places like Luton

Airport and Dartford and perhaps other similar ones just outside the

current limit like Swanley, Esher and Hinchley Wood.



If we had a uniform pricing structure across all TOCs then it would be

easier I'm sure. Unfortunately we don't outside the zones so while I

agree your concept is fine it doesn't align with reality.



If we add Shenfield, Chesham and Broxbourne as one-station "virtual

zones" that brings the total to the 'limit of fifteen' mentioned last

year. [And incidentally scupper the four extra stations out to Hertford

East].



My theory then, which I'm beginning to think is too simplistic, would

require some kind of new coding to cope with any additional stations,

and it's odd that National Rail acceptance on all the lines other than

the ones above stops dead at exactly the edge of Z6, when some of the

currently proposed extensions would make a lot of sense (eg extending

one stop to Epsom).



One fly in the ointment though is the Overground to Watford Junction,

where there have been "Special fares" to Watford Junction (a cludge to

get round virtual Zone 16?) but now that Oyster is accepted at

Carpenders Park, Bushy and Watford High Street then there has to be some

scheme already in place for "19 zones".



The next phase of extensions (proposed and actual) will require being

able to recognise and do the sums for these stations outside Z6:



Dartford

Epsom

Cuffley, Bayford, Hertford North

Radlett, St Albans, Harpenden, Luton Airport Parkway (&Luton?)

Merstham, Redhill, Earleswood, Salfords, Horley, Gatwick

Potters Bar, Brookmans Park, Welham Green, Hatfield, Welwyn Garden City





Theobalds Grove and Waltham Cross are in zone 7.
Cheshunt is zone 8.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms...rvices-map.pdf


Potters Bar would have been in zone 9 under the cancelled FCC Oyster extension plans.

Poorly programmed ticket machines have revealed that Watford Junction is "Zone 10", Broxbourne and Brentwood are "Zone 11", and Shenfield is "Zone 12".

"Roland Perry" wrote
[...]
My theory then, which I'm beginning to think is too simplistic, would
require some kind of new coding to cope with any additional stations,
and it's odd that National Rail acceptance on all the lines other than
the ones above stops dead at exactly the edge of Z6, when some of the
currently proposed extensions would make a lot of sense (eg extending
one stop to Epsom).

Stops dead because they moved Z6 (NR only) to suit.

So Hampton Court, Tattenham Corner and others



--
Mike D

Roland Perry wrote:

My theory then, which I'm beginning to think is too simplistic, would
require some kind of new coding to cope with any additional stations, and
it's odd that National Rail acceptance on all the lines other than the
ones above stops dead at exactly the edge of Z6, when some of the
currently proposed extensions would make a lot of sense (eg extending one
stop to Epsom).

In several cases Zone 6 was extended to take them in - in the case of the
Epsom & Ewell stations, the boundary used to be after Stonleigh, Cheam,
Belmont and I don't know on the Tattenham Corner line. I think it was 8
years ago now that the zone was extended to take in both Ewells plus the
stub ends of the Epsom Downs and Tatteham Corner branches. I don't know
about the stations on the last line but most of the two Ewells, Banstead and
Epsom Downs are virtually unstaffed stations and I suspect part of the
rationale was that zones and, eventually, Oyster would increase the income.

--
My blog: http://adf.ly/4hi4c

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

I have no proof but I get a "vibe" that the removal of Norman Baker
from the DfT has eased the "ITSO everywhere but no more Oyster"
stance. He was closely associated with the national smartcard concept
and I do wonder if he just stopped anything that might dilute the
adoption of ITSO. When Baroness Kramer moved across to Transport there
seemed to be a change because she was soon saying nice things about
Oyster possibly being accepted at Gatwick Airport. All crazy
speculation on my part but sometimes it is down to having the right
people in power to get things done.

Hmm. I know Norman Baker and Susan Kramer. I can see some sense in that,
based on how they might react to civil service pressure rather than their
own views as such. I'll do some digging.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , at 15:43:27 on
Thu, 7 Aug 2014, Paul Corfield remarked:

Hang on a minute. To get any station added into oyster PAYG and / or
season ticket acceptance you need compatible equipment at the station,
a means to get data to and from that location,

That's been done 600 times already, so we have to assume the mechanical
aspects are well understood.

And of course every installation works perfectly, there are no site or
system or comms issues etc etc. You know as well as I do that all
sorts of issues can arise in the real world.

I'm sure they can be overcome. But if there's not a suitable "slot" in
the fares matrix to enable charging, it'll all have been a waste of
time.

for the relevant central systems to recognise the location and assets
there, for fares and season ticket validities to be held in the
relevant fares database and for the card itself to be capable to
accepting whatever description is used for the station and its related
fares and validities.

That's the part I'm concentrating on. Currently we have a 600x600 matrix
of fares!!

Including all the charging variants/discounts or just the combinations
of origins and destinations?

Just the origins and destinations. Each combination then has an entry
like:
CashNL £4.70 At any time.NLOysterNL £3.20 Monday to Friday from
0630 to 0930 and from 1600 to 1900.NL£2.70 At all other times
including public holidays.

And other discounts would be need to be calculated in addition to that.

Oh and you need the TfL and NR websites to be able to
cope with whatever fares and season ticket prices you set. I guess RSP
and its systems may also be lurking somewhere in this - depending on
how South Eastern's Oyster set up is configured.

If an Oyster card can cope when swiped, I'm sure the websites can be
adjusted adjusted too.

There have been enough woes so far with sites not working, NR fares
not really being able to cope with Oyster charges alongside cash fares
etc. I'm not convinced that the NR website presents Oyster and cash
fares properly especially when you add in routes requiring pink
validator activation.

If we add Shenfield, Chesham and Broxbourne as one-station "virtual
zones" that brings the total to the 'limit of fifteen' mentioned last
year. [And incidentally scupper the four extra stations out to Hertford
East].

My theory then, which I'm beginning to think is too simplistic, would
require some kind of new coding to cope with any additional stations,
and it's odd that National Rail acceptance on all the lines other than
the ones above stops dead at exactly the edge of Z6, when some of the
currently proposed extensions would make a lot of sense (eg extending
one stop to Epsom).

It might make sense to you but I doubt it would to the TOCs involved.

AIUI the Epsom one does make sense to TSGN (if not SWT) because they've
announced they'll be covering it, and looking at the map it ties
together two "flapping ends".

I think some of the Southern zone moves were facilitated because TfL
was prepared to "increment" the Southern franchise and this was done
as part of the tendering process. This hasn't been possible for South
Eastern or SWT and I wonder if SWT would even be interested.
Stagecoach paid a long way over other bidders to retain SWT so I doubt
there is much financial largesse. I expect they'd take a tough stance
over revenue compensation for perceived loss of fare and season ticket
income by moving a stop like Epsom into the zones.

Epsom wouldn't be moving into the zones, it'd be outside, like
Brentwood. On the other hand they *did* move the two Ewell stations into
Z6 at some point.

One fly in the ointment though is the Overground to Watford Junction,
where there have been "Special fares" to Watford Junction (a cludge to
get round virtual Zone 16?) but now that Oyster is accepted at
Carpenders Park, Bushy and Watford High Street then there has to be some
scheme already in place for "19 zones".

Or perhaps not a cludge but a recognition that London Midland price
Watford Junction fares and that they were not prepared to put on a
TfL-esque basis because of the impact of fares right throughout their
franchise area and for other TOCs? I suspect the possible revenue
compensation bill was too much for TfL.

Again, you are looking at what the fare might be for such an "outside
the zones" station, which is a matter for haggling. I'm looking to see
if there's a slot in the fares matrix to put that number.

The next phase of extensions (proposed and actual) will require being
able to recognise and do the sums for these stations outside Z6:

Dartford
Epsom
Cuffley, Bayford, Hertford North
Radlett, St Albans, Harpenden, Luton Airport Parkway (&Luton?)
Merstham, Redhill, Earleswood, Salfords, Horley, Gatwick
Potters Bar, Brookmans Park, Welham Green, Hatfield, Welwyn Garden City

[1] Later... Apparently Greater Anglia are committed to several, viz:
Theobalds Grove, Waltham Cross, Cheshunt (inside the exiting zones)
Brentwood, Shenfield (already delivered, outside the zones) plus
Broxbourne, Rye House, St Margarets, Ware and Hertford East (outside
the zones).

The latter 4 stations you mention to Hertford East are not covered by
Oyster. It doesn't reach beyond Broxbourne although the original
intent was that it would.

I wonder why DfT changed their mind? Insufficient demand or some
technical issue. If the latter, and it's now been resolved, perhaps that
extension will be revived.

I believe the reason was that the stations in Hertford are "grouped"
and FCC price Hertford. Therefore they needed to agree and needed DfT
agreement to accept Oyster at Hertford North if AGA offered it at
Hertford East. FCC were said to have been keen on extending Oyster
but the DfT said "no". Abellio could not act independently. This
came from some "informed comment" on another blog when the fares
revision a couple of years ago extended Oyster on Greater Anglia.

We do have the prospect, technical issues aside, that if the DfT agree
with TSGN to extend Oyster as indicated that Abellio would be able to
seek agreement to extend to Hertford East. In fact given the argument
I set out above it would be essential, because of the pricing and
interavailability rules, for Abellio to extend Oyster if TSGN do it.
We'll see what happens.

Govia Thameslink Railway (aka TSGN) are saying they'll extend Oyster
"as far as Epsom, Gatwick Airport, Luton Airport, Welwyn Garden City
and Hertford North" which if we count intermediary stations is quite
a few.

We must and see if this materialises if DfT say yes.

Is it part of the franchise commitment, or something Govia have cooked
up independently? I might have expected them to put more effort into
extending their "the Key" north of the river instead.

The Key will be extended to the entire franchise anyway so that meets
the DfT's "ITSO everywhere" requirement in every franchise. I can't
believe the Oyster thing has been publicised without at least a nod
from the DfT that it was a reasonable proposition.

I agree.

If you're going to put in Smartcard functionality there's probably
negligible cost in putting in multi card functionality at the start
than having to retrofit it later.

As long as you've done whatever needed to be done (assuming something
did need to be done) to extend Oyster beyond the "15 zones plus Watford
Junction".

I think Govia are smart enough to know that Oyster is a well known and
understood product and that accepting it in the wider "metro" area of
their franchise will do them no harm. In fact it's highly likely to
bring in plenty of extra revenue which the DfT won't be upset about
either given it's a management contract.

I have no proof but I get a "vibe" that the removal of Norman Baker
from the DfT has eased the "ITSO everywhere but no more Oyster"
stance. He was closely associated with the national smartcard concept
and I do wonder if he just stopped anything that might dilute the
adoption of ITSO. When Baroness Kramer moved across to Transport there
seemed to be a change because she was soon saying nice things about
Oyster possibly being accepted at Gatwick Airport. All crazy
speculation on my part but sometimes it is down to having the right
people in power to get things done.

There are some extensions which have a certain universal appeal to
passengers and hence politicians. Extending Oyster to Gatwick and Luton
airports for example. But as well as the issues we've both been raising
an extension to Luton Airport would probably require EMT accepting
Oyster as well, upgrading the gates at St Pancras and giving the
grippers the tools to check Oyster cards on the train. It may be that
the officials are giving the new minister some time to discover all this
for herself.

ps When looking at numerous documents earlier this week, it seems to be
accepted that Oyster won't be extended to Stansted in the foreseeable
future, even though that's probably an "obvious" place too.
--
Roland Perry