On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 10:52:34 -0500, "Tristán White"
wrote:

Just wondering, as I want to go to see Ilford FC v Barking & East Ham FC
tomorrow.....

I could go by bus (from Greengate near where I live, number 5 to Barking
bus garage, then the 145 to South Park Drive, and walk to the stadium in
IG1 1UE). But that would take well over an hour according to the Journey
Planner.

On the other hand, if I time it well, I could take a bus to Stratford, the
train to Seven Kings, and walk to the stadium, in probably about 40 minutes
(55 according to the journey planner). But if it's likely to cost me much
more I won't bother.

First one would mean 4 buses for there and back. Second one would be 2
buses and 2 train rides.

4 bus trips would be £3 on PAYG as the One Day Bus Pass cap will be
activated on the 4th trip.

Are there barriers at Seven Kings for a PAYG?

No, PAYG is not valid for Stratford - Seven Kings.

If not, would it be cheaper to use my Oyster PAYG for the buses to and from
Stratford, and get a cheap-day return to Seven Kings, or would it be
cheaper to get a paper travelcard for zones 2-6 from the corner shop before
getting on any buses?

CDR on the train is £2.90
Buses would be £1.60 on PAYG
ODTC Z2-6 is £4.30

I'd wander to the Newsagents personally - you also get flexibility to
change route without having to think about it in case you need / want
to.

You don't have to answer any of this, I'm rambling. My point is, how bloody
complicated it is when you don't want to break the law, but you don't want
to lose money to a system that is far from perfect.

Yes but the main issue is the train companies' decision not to
participate in the Oyster scheme except to the barest extent necessary.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

Yes but the main issue is the train companies' decision not to
participate in the Oyster scheme except to the barest extent
necessary.

Correction: The main issue is the government's refusal to allow the
train companies to participate in the Oyster scheme except to the barest
extent necessary (because it is not standards-compliant).

HTH. HAND,

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

Yes but the main issue is the train companies' decision not to
participate in the Oyster scheme except to the barest extent
necessary.

Correction: The main issue is the government's refusal to allow the
train companies to participate in the Oyster scheme except to the barest
extent necessary (because it is not standards-compliant).

Everyone seems to have someone else to blame for the current mess!

If the government is vetoing implementing it, how do you explain the
requirements for the South West Trains franchise?

In article ,
(Tim Roll-Pickering) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

Yes but the main issue is the train companies' decision not to
participate in the Oyster scheme except to the barest extent
necessary.

Correction: The main issue is the government's refusal to allow the
train companies to participate in the Oyster scheme except to the
barest extent necessary (because it is not standards-compliant).

Everyone seems to have someone else to blame for the current mess!

If the government is vetoing implementing it, how do you explain the
requirements for the South West Trains franchise?

Things are moving now towards Oyster becoming standards-compliant, at
least I think that's why the line has changed.

Also, haven't SWT invested more on barriers than most TOCs?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote
Also, haven't SWT invested more on barriers than most TOCs?

But not at London termini.

"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Tim Roll-Pickering) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
Everyone seems to have someone else to blame for the current mess!

If the government is vetoing implementing it, how do you explain the
requirements for the South West Trains franchise?

Things are moving now towards Oyster becoming standards-compliant, at
least I think that's why the line has changed.

Also, haven't SWT invested more on barriers than most TOCs?

IIRC the wording in the document is along the lines of 'the Secretary of
State has now been convinced of the benefits of Oyster ticketing'.

It sounds more like he has given up waiting for the 'standards compliant'
solution, and is allowing Oyster, in line with his commitment to hand more
power over London NR services to TfL.

However, the requirement is (initially at least) restricted to Greater
London stations, so the DoT may still be hoping that a multi-vendor system
comes to the fore at a later date for outside of Greater London.

On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 23:41 +0100 (BST), (Colin
Rosenstiel) wrote:

Yes but the main issue is the train companies' decision not to
participate in the Oyster scheme except to the barest extent
necessary.

Correction: The main issue is the government's refusal to allow the
train companies to participate in the Oyster scheme except to the barest
extent necessary (because it is not standards-compliant).

What would it take to make Oyster compliant with the new standards?
Would it only require changes to the central systems, would validators
also need to be replaced, or would all Oyster cards need to be
recalled and reissued?

asdf wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 23:41 +0100 (BST), (Colin
Rosenstiel) wrote:

Yes but the main issue is the train companies' decision not to
participate in the Oyster scheme except to the barest extent
necessary.

Correction: The main issue is the government's refusal to allow the
train companies to participate in the Oyster scheme except to the barest
extent necessary (because it is not standards-compliant).

What would it take to make Oyster compliant with the new standards?
Would it only require changes to the central systems, would validators
also need to be replaced, or would all Oyster cards need to be
recalled and reissued?

The first step would be for TfL to actually purchase the Oyster system
- at the moment it is owned by the consortium that developed it. I have
read implications in some places that this non-TfL ownership of Oyster
was a very potent excuse for some TOCs to shun it.