Paul Corfield wrote:

You still need a local network to provide the necessary info to and from
the devices and to support whatever retailing infrastructure is going to
be provided.

Can't these things use batch data transfer via GSM, or whatever the bus
version uses, to prevent a need to wire them all in permanently?

Neil

In message , Dave Arquati
writes

Paul Terry wrote:

(TfL abandons plans to add e-payments for parking and goods to
Oyster).
I wonder if that was a sweetener to help get the TOCs onside?

Would that have really bothered the TOCs?

I'm only guessing, of course, but I imagine they might feel happier
using a product that is purely for travel purposes, rather than
something that is more obviously a "Ken Card" that could be used for a
wide range of purchases.

Also, I wonder if there might have been some issue of storage capacity
on Oyster cards? TfL said they only require half the storage capacity
for their own use - hence the possibility of incorporating data for
parking meter charges, etc. But will extending Oyster to the TOCs mean
that some of this spare capacity will be needed for NR use (e.g. linking
with ITSO, if and when it happens).

I see, incidentally, that ATOC have just appointed a "Director London"
to oversee the introduction of smart-card technology - it didn't take
them long to swallow the bitter pill.
--
Paul Terry

I'm just pleased to see some sort of progress at last. I'm curious to
know what strong arm tactics have been employed to get this deal
through.

A film clip on the news last night had Ken claiming that failure to
co-operate with Oyster would result in franchises not being renewed -
although quite what clout he has to back that up is not entirely clear to
me.

On a slightly different tack, there is one part of this little saga that
has received little attention in the press:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05...tcard_shelved/

(TfL abandons plans to add e-payments for parking and goods to Oyster).

I wonder if that was a sweetener to help get the TOCs onside?

Its definitely for the best that National Rail acceptance of pay as you go
comes before e-money. It would have been an absurd and confusing situation
if you could buy a newspaper or cup of coffee with an Oyster Card at
Waterloo but not pay for your journey to Clapham Junction.

On Thu, 11 May 2006 14:06:36 +0100, Paul Terry
wrote:

In message , Dave Arquati
writes

Paul Terry wrote:

(TfL abandons plans to add e-payments for parking and goods to
Oyster).
I wonder if that was a sweetener to help get the TOCs onside?

The article via the URL doesn't paint TfL in a very good light as it
implies they are clueless and didn't know what they were trying to
procure. I doubt that is actually true but I can see why a deal was
difficult to put together in a way where the risks were understood and
correctly allocated. Given that almost all the shortlisted consortia
had banks (or similar) involved I would imagine the private sector view
of risk would be very cautious indeed leaving TfL "holding the baby".
That would never get past government.

Would that have really bothered the TOCs?

I'm only guessing, of course, but I imagine they might feel happier
using a product that is purely for travel purposes, rather than
something that is more obviously a "Ken Card" that could be used for a
wide range of purchases.

If I've read the Roger Ford articles properly the TOCs want ITSO
compatibility which they are likely to get eventually. The problem is
that they have to swallow Oyster in the short term.

The commercial exploitation deal seemed to involve the replacement of
the Oyster card base with more powerful *and* ITSO compatible cards.
However that is a risky proposition and I doubt the public sector were
hugely keen to take on this risk without TfL assistance and guarantees
re disruption to passengers during any changeover to the new technology.
It is also not without its technical and fraud risks.

Also, I wonder if there might have been some issue of storage capacity
on Oyster cards? TfL said they only require half the storage capacity
for their own use - hence the possibility of incorporating data for
parking meter charges, etc. But will extending Oyster to the TOCs mean
that some of this spare capacity will be needed for NR use (e.g. linking
with ITSO, if and when it happens).

I'm not sure about how this work as I've never seen the ITSO
requirements. I do know broadly what the Oyster card spec was like at
the initial stage - I've not seen a final one.

I see, incidentally, that ATOC have just appointed a "Director London"
to oversee the introduction of smart-card technology - it didn't take
them long to swallow the bitter pill.

This job was advertised months back - I very nearly applied for it but I
suspect ATOC wouldn't have wanted me and I'm not sure I'm Director
material!
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

On 11 May 2006 05:28:54 -0700, "Neil Williams"
wrote:

Paul Corfield wrote:

You still need a local network to provide the necessary info to and from
the devices and to support whatever retailing infrastructure is going to
be provided.

Can't these things use batch data transfer via GSM, or whatever the bus
version uses, to prevent a need to wire them all in permanently?

Possibly - I confess to being out of the loop re the latest comms
methods for this type of data transport. I thought the bus system was
via the driver module and the docking station at the garage. Last time
I looked the buses were not "live" within the Oyster system. It's
possible the new radio and AVL system may provide this capability.

I suspect GSM *might* run into compatibility issues with what is
proposed with GSM-R and the ERTMS developments. I'm more probably
talking twaddle though! Cue resident expert ........

--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

On Thu, 11 May 2006 10:22:14 +0100, Dave Arquati wrote:

Matthew Dickinson wrote:
On Wed, 10 May 2006 16:31:56 +0100, "TKD" wrote:


It happens now with Liverpool Street - Walthamstow Central/Tottenham
Hale/Seven Sisters. It depends if they want to go for some quick-wins like
Victoria-Balham, Victoria-Bromley South or Victoria/London Bridge-East
Croydon. I find it hard to believe Ken would resist the PR opportunity to
go-live on the gated stations early. The press release says work will start
on them first. Will the technology be installed and then left idle while
the other stations have gates installed?

Southern will apparently be trialling PAYG soon for Victoria - Balham
journeys.

It was due to be implemented late last year but got postponed. It's
only between those 2 points and not intermediately (as per "One"
acceptance mentioned above).

Any idea whether this will be using the TfL fare structure? (£2.50
daytime / £2.00 evening & weekend)

I've checked some oldish documents and no mention of the fare structure
is made. I shall do a little check tomorrow.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

"Paul Terry" wrote in message
news
In message , Paul Corfield
writes

I'm just pleased to see some sort of progress at last. I'm curious to
know what strong arm tactics have been employed to get this deal
through.

A film clip on the news last night had Ken claiming that failure to
co-operate with Oyster would result in franchises not being renewed -
although quite what clout he has to back that up is not entirely clear to
me.

On a slightly different tack, there is one part of this little saga that
has received little attention in the press:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05...tcard_shelved/

(TfL abandons plans to add e-payments for parking and goods to Oyster).

I wonder if that was a sweetener to help get the TOCs onside?

It failed for the same reason(s) that micro payments uisng mobiles
fails. The operators want 40-50p per transaction in fees and
noone is going to accept a payment method for a 30p bar of
chocolate that charges them 40p to accept.

tim


--
Paul Terry

tim (back at home) wrote:
It failed for the same reason(s) that micro payments uisng mobiles
fails. The operators want 40-50p per transaction in fees and
noone is going to accept a payment method for a 30p bar of
chocolate that charges them 40p to accept.

It hasn't failed in either Germany or the Netherlands. 40-50p is
outrageous, mind, given that neither a credit nor a debit card
transaction for 30p would cost anything like that much to process, even
at the outrageous prices charged for such transactions at present.

While I don't know for certain, I expect the Geldkarte and Chipknip
have had so much success because both banks and retailers wanted it -
no online authorisation, and no handling of cash. It may even be one
reason why Nederlandse Spoorwegen doesn't accept credit cards.

That said, a chip-based version issued by the banks (rather than
Oyster) would have the advantage that just about every retailer of a
significant size has a terminal, as do most cashpoints, so you could
implement it more or less exclusively using software.

Neil

Paul Corfield wrote:

Possibly - I confess to being out of the loop re the latest comms
methods for this type of data transport. I thought the bus system was
via the driver module and the docking station at the garage. Last time
I looked the buses were not "live" within the Oyster system. It's
possible the new radio and AVL system may provide this capability.

I believe you may be right there.

I suspect GSM *might* run into compatibility issues with what is
proposed with GSM-R and the ERTMS developments. I'm more probably
talking twaddle though! Cue resident expert ........

Doubt it. Millions of people carry mobile phones (GSM) past all manner
of Tube equipment daily without any (noticeable by the passenger)
trouble. Given suitably strong encryption, it needn't even use a
dedicated network.

Neil

"Neil Williams" wrote in message
oups.com...
tim (back at home) wrote:
It failed for the same reason(s) that micro payments uisng mobiles
fails. The operators want 40-50p per transaction in fees and
noone is going to accept a payment method for a 30p bar of
chocolate that charges them 40p to accept.

It hasn't failed in either Germany or the Netherlands.

As you rightly say, this is because the banks recognised
the advantages to them and didn't price it at a point that
makes it unusable.

The UK banks worked to implement a system and then
found that nobody would use it because of the prices they
were looking to charge. Rather than reduce the charges
they wrote off 100 Million in development costs (OK
perhaps they sold some of what they had implemented
elsewhere)

tim


40-50p is
outrageous, mind, given that neither a credit nor a debit card
transaction for 30p would cost anything like that much to process, even
at the outrageous prices charged for such transactions at present.

While I don't know for certain, I expect the Geldkarte and Chipknip
have had so much success because both banks and retailers wanted it -
no online authorisation, and no handling of cash. It may even be one
reason why Nederlandse Spoorwegen doesn't accept credit cards.

That said, a chip-based version issued by the banks (rather than
Oyster) would have the advantage that just about every retailer of a
significant size has a terminal, as do most cashpoints, so you could
implement it more or less exclusively using software.

Neil