Oyster - Meant to make your life easier??!
 

David Cantrell wrote:

If you want to seriously reduce fraud, use ticket inspectors. I have
*never* seen one on a tube, almost never on suburban trains, and only
once on a bendy bus.

I've seen them a few times at Liverpool Street (tube) but they invariably
hang around by the barriers and ask to check people's tickets. Far better to
deploy them at ungated stations. As for buses, there have been times when a
cohort wait at a bus stop and pounce on it - it happened on the 25 late one
night the other week. But regularly on board inspectors would work much
better.

Oyster - Meant to make your life easier??!
 

Ian Jelf wrote:
In message , David of Broadway
writes
I can only speak for Americans, but we tend to get very little
vacation time these days.

Yes, amongst Americans (and possibly Canadians) that's certainly a
factor and an important one.

Furthermore, the chance, in itineraries to "see" lots of places is a big
attraction for a lot of casual visitors. The fact that they don't
"see" them long enough to enjoy them only becomes apparent when they're
actually here. I see this disappoint more than a few people for whom a
day or two to "do" London is all they get, along with 90 minutes in
Warwick Castle, an hour of two in Stratford or Oxford and so on.

I had a trip somewhat like that last year: seven weeks in Europe,
starting with a respectable period (about a week and a half) in London
but followed by very short stays (between one and five days) in other
cities.

But, having never been to mainland Europe before, that was the point. I
didn't want to immerse myself in one or two cities; I wanted variety.
Now I have a better idea of which cities I want to spend more time in on
my next visit.
--
David of Broadway
New York, NY, USA

Oyster - Meant to make your life easier??!
 

Paul Corfield wrote:
Thank you Robin. I am clearly attempting to explain something that is
seen as indefensible by a fair slice of group opinion. I might work for,
I may even have been one of the brains behind the Prestige project but
I'm not here to defend a policy I did not develop and do not have
responsibility for. Those who are fed up with it should direct their ire
at LU directly.

I can't speak for others here, but I'm simply looking to understand the
new policy. From what I can tell (across the pond), it has some serious
problems. I could be wrong. If I'm wrong, I hope to be informed why;
if I'm right, perhaps somebody in a position to solve those problems is
reading this newsgroup.

Oyster policy doesn't personally affect me here in New York (although
transportation officials in New York are certainly watching Oyster
closely), so I don't think it would be appropriate for me to complain to LU.

I don't come here and contribute to be "beaten around the head". Whether
people like it or not a stored value type product requires an entry and
an exit to work properly - that is how it works. It cannot work any
other way unless you have flat fares which are deducted solely on entry
as in New York on the Subway.

And all I'm looking for is your (and others') contributions. I'm not
trying to beat anyone around the head.

A Travelcard system with the capability to issue automatic ticket
extensions requires entry and exit swipes just as much as pure PAYG. A
regular commuter between Kenton and Central London can get away with a
Z1-2 Travelcard (£888 annually) rather than the proper Z1-4 Travelcard
(£1264 annually) -- a 30% savings -- in exchange for the risk of an
occasional £20 penalty charge on an inbound trip (but not on an outbound
trip).

(I would have used Harrow & Wealdstone as my example, for a more
dramatic 41% savings, but I'm not sure if Harrow & Wealdstone has gates,
while I know Kenton doesn't.)

I don't understand why PAYG abuse is such a problem while Travelcard
abuse is not.

And, as I've pointed out, a traveler following the rules to the letter
can still get hit with the penalty charge, or even two on a single trip!
Fix those glitches and I'd be much less critical of the charge.

I was going to draft a detailed explanation about the forthcoming change
but I don't see that there is any point because such a post will simply
attract unwarranted criticism when I am trying to be helpful. Sorry to
those who asked for it but there's no point in perpetuating the
criticism. I won't be responding to other posts in the thread even
though some of the conclusions are clearly incorrect.

That's a shame. I was looking forward to it. Your posts are
interesting and informative, even if I don't agree with all of them.
--
David of Broadway
New York, NY, USA

Oyster - Meant to make your life easier??!
 

Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:
How wide are the islands though? Leaving aside the shops on those platforms,
the available space for moving down them is so narrow that most of the time
passengers need both sides to move down, especially if you're trying to get
round a buggy. And how exactly would you construct a TfL users only sealed
route from the eastbound Central Line to the DLR platform?

Fairly wide. These should give you a rough idea:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/triborough/92363857/
http://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?22191

--
David of Broadway
New York, NY, USA

Oyster - Meant to make your life easier??!
 

In article ,
Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:
I've seen them a few times at Liverpool Street (tube) but they invariably
hang around by the barriers and ask to check people's tickets. Far better to
deploy them at ungated stations.

They are a semi-regular feature of Finchley Central (and Woodside Park,
I believe).

--
I don't play The Game - it's for five-year-olds with delusions of adulthood.

Oyster - Meant to make your life easier??!
 

David of Broadway wrote:

How wide are the islands though? Leaving aside the shops on those
platforms, the available space for moving down them is so narrow that
most of the time passengers need both sides to move down, especially if
you're trying to get round a buggy. And how exactly would you construct a
TfL users only sealed route from the eastbound Central Line to the DLR
platform?

Fairly wide. These should give you a rough idea:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/triborough/92363857/
http://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?22191

If I read those images correctly, that's much wider than the Stratford
platforms. No way could a barrier setup like that work there.

Oyster - Meant to make your life easier??!
 

On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 18:37:45 -0000, "Tim Roll-Pickering"
wrote:

David of Broadway wrote:

How wide are the islands though? Leaving aside the shops on those
platforms, the available space for moving down them is so narrow that
most of the time passengers need both sides to move down, especially if
you're trying to get round a buggy. And how exactly would you construct a
TfL users only sealed route from the eastbound Central Line to the DLR
platform?

Fairly wide. These should give you a rough idea:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/triborough/92363857/

These look as if they are made by Cubic as they resemble LU second
generation gates very closely.

http://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?22191

If I read those images correctly, that's much wider than the Stratford
platforms. No way could a barrier setup like that work there.

What is not visible (and I don't know the NYC location) is how long the
platform is and how many gate arrays there are. The other factor is
train frequency and the volume of people transferring. Some London
locations can get between 8 and 12 car trains at 1-2 headways which
would require very high numbers of gates to clear those alighting before
the next train arrives - that is before you get people transferring in
the opposite direction and any accumulated crowds who have been unable
to get on their connecting train. If we take Stratford as an example it
is not unusual for people to be unable to board the first Central Line
train at the height of the peak and thus you need standing room.

Nonetheless I still think it is rather academic as you simply could not
create such installations at almost all LU to NR "within one station"
interchanges as things stand today.

Years and years ago I dragged round a set of consultants from KPMG to
explain how the fare validities work and what that means for ticket
validation requirements at the most complex interchanges. Now, if
anything, it has become much more complicated with TOC specific
validities as well as what has happened with TfL fares. While I can see
other cities can obviously spend the money and have the space to install
inter-system checks it won't work in London unless someone chucks
several hundreds of millions of pounds at reconstruction of key
stations.

--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Oyster - Meant to make your life easier??!
 

On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 17:08:03 GMT, David of Broadway
wrote:

Paul Corfield wrote:
Thank you Robin. I am clearly attempting to explain something that is
seen as indefensible by a fair slice of group opinion. I might work for,
I may even have been one of the brains behind the Prestige project but
I'm not here to defend a policy I did not develop and do not have
responsibility for. Those who are fed up with it should direct their ire
at LU directly.

I can't speak for others here, but I'm simply looking to understand the
new policy. From what I can tell (across the pond), it has some serious
problems. I could be wrong. If I'm wrong, I hope to be informed why;
if I'm right, perhaps somebody in a position to solve those problems is
reading this newsgroup.

I think it all depends on how people perceive TfL's actions. It is
evident that there is polarised opinion and no amount of explanation
will change that. People have decided what their view is and anyone
proffering the counter view simply gets "abused".

Oyster policy doesn't personally affect me here in New York (although
transportation officials in New York are certainly watching Oyster
closely), so I don't think it would be appropriate for me to complain to LU.

Do you know what particularly about Oyster they are watching closely? I
can't imagine it is the smartcard element as that is proven in many
places and they already have experience of key elements of such a system
via the magnetic Metrocard installation.

I don't come here and contribute to be "beaten around the head". Whether
people like it or not a stored value type product requires an entry and
an exit to work properly - that is how it works. It cannot work any
other way unless you have flat fares which are deducted solely on entry
as in New York on the Subway.

And all I'm looking for is your (and others') contributions. I'm not
trying to beat anyone around the head.

I didn't name any names. If I post here it is for my enjoyment - when it
is no longer enjoyable the only option is to stop.

A Travelcard system with the capability to issue automatic ticket
extensions requires entry and exit swipes just as much as pure PAYG. A
regular commuter between Kenton and Central London can get away with a
Z1-2 Travelcard (£888 annually) rather than the proper Z1-4 Travelcard
(£1264 annually) -- a 30% savings -- in exchange for the risk of an
occasional £20 penalty charge on an inbound trip (but not on an outbound
trip).

Yes - this has always been the case but Oyster allows more sophisticated
checks to be made which could very easily pick out such usage and alert
revenue protection staff.

(I would have used Harrow & Wealdstone as my example, for a more
dramatic 41% savings, but I'm not sure if Harrow & Wealdstone has gates,
while I know Kenton doesn't.)

H&W does not have gates - I was there on Saturday.

I don't understand why PAYG abuse is such a problem while Travelcard
abuse is not.

And, as I've pointed out, a traveler following the rules to the letter
can still get hit with the penalty charge, or even two on a single trip!
Fix those glitches and I'd be much less critical of the charge.

If they follow the rules I don't see how they get hit. Anyone
encountering a problem with validation due to equipment failure or
emergency evacuation will be treated sympathetically and would have the
£4 adjusted away. If they follow the rules then they would otherwise
have touched in and out properly and thus there would be no risk of
overcharging or missed caps.

I was going to draft a detailed explanation about the forthcoming change
but I don't see that there is any point because such a post will simply
attract unwarranted criticism when I am trying to be helpful. Sorry to
those who asked for it but there's no point in perpetuating the
criticism. I won't be responding to other posts in the thread even
though some of the conclusions are clearly incorrect.

That's a shame. I was looking forward to it. Your posts are
interesting and informative, even if I don't agree with all of them.

And there was me imagining you agreed with everything I said!

--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Oyster - Meant to make your life easier??!
 

"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
...

Fix those glitches and I'd be much less critical of the charge.

If they follow the rules I don't see how they get hit. Anyone
encountering a problem with validation due to equipment failure or
emergency evacuation will be treated sympathetically and would have the
£4 adjusted away. If they follow the rules then they would otherwise
have touched in and out properly and thus there would be no risk of
overcharging or missed caps.


Paul C

Admits to working for London Underground!

As an irregular user of LU services I now have a PAYG Oyster card, and it
was failing to touch half way through a journey when transferring NR to LU
that confused my account on a trip from Marylebone to Watford, changing at
Harrow on the Hill. The readers at Harrow simply say Oyster PAYG users must
touch out (or something like) - couldn't they, and those at any 'transfer'
point be more informative?

What I'm trying to say is, it is obvious to touch in or out when entering or
leaving the paid area theough a barrier, but if its a cross platform
interchange like at Stratford, couldn't the signs maybe say something like
'Oyster PAYG customers touch to transfer'?

Paul

Oyster - Meant to make your life easier??!
 

In message , Paul Scott
writes

Fix those glitches and I'd be much less critical of the charge.

If they follow the rules I don't see how they get hit. Anyone
encountering a problem with validation due to equipment failure or
emergency evacuation will be treated sympathetically and would have the
£4 adjusted away. If they follow the rules then they would otherwise
have touched in and out properly and thus there would be no risk of
overcharging or missed caps.

Paul C

Admits to working for London Underground!

As an irregular user of LU services I now have a PAYG Oyster card, and it
was failing to touch half way through a journey when transferring NR to LU
that confused my account on a trip from Marylebone to Watford, changing at
Harrow on the Hill. The readers at Harrow simply say Oyster PAYG users must
touch out (or something like) - couldn't they, and those at any 'transfer'
point be more informative?

Is Watford within the PAYG area? If not, that may be part of your
answer.

I know my staff pass doesn't work the barriers there, even though it is
actually valid (by grandfather rights).
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)

Oyster - Meant to make your life easier??!
 

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 18:37:45 -0000, "Tim Roll-Pickering"
wrote:

David of Broadway wrote:

How wide are the islands though? Leaving aside the shops on those
platforms, the available space for moving down them is so narrow that
most of the time passengers need both sides to move down, especially if
you're trying to get round a buggy. And how exactly would you construct a
TfL users only sealed route from the eastbound Central Line to the DLR
platform?
Fairly wide. These should give you a rough idea:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/triborough/92363857/

These look as if they are made by Cubic as they resemble LU second
generation gates very closely.

The new PATH turnstiles (installed in 2004 and 2005) are indeed Cubic,
following in the path (excuse the pun) of New York City Transit, which
installed the Cubic-based MetroCard system in the 1990's.

http://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?22191
If I read those images correctly, that's much wider than the Stratford
platforms. No way could a barrier setup like that work there.

What is not visible (and I don't know the NYC location) is how long the
platform is and how many gate arrays there are. The other factor is
train frequency and the volume of people transferring. Some London
locations can get between 8 and 12 car trains at 1-2 headways which
would require very high numbers of gates to clear those alighting before
the next train arrives - that is before you get people transferring in
the opposite direction and any accumulated crowds who have been unable
to get on their connecting train. If we take Stratford as an example it
is not unusual for people to be unable to board the first Central Line
train at the height of the peak and thus you need standing room.

Nit: The location is Newark Penn Station, not NYC.

Newark Penn is a stop along the NJTransit Northeast Corridor Line and
North Jersey Coast Line and along many Amtrak intercity trains between
Philadelphia and New York, as well as the terminus of most NJTransit
Raritan Valley Line trains. Aside from the Raritan Valley trains,
nearly all of these trains continue to New York Penn Station in Midtown
Manhattan.

PATH is a subway-style service (albeit operated by a different agency
than the one that operates the NYC subway system, and, obviously,
extending outside NYC boundaries) that begins at Newark Penn and runs to
the World Trade Center site in Lower Manhattan. (There are other
branches of PATH, but this is the relevant one here.) Pretty much
everybody who commutes on NJT and works in Lower Manhattan transfers
here to PATH, which is both faster and cheaper than staying on NJT to NY
Penn and taking the subway downtown.

I don't know exactly what the ridership numbers are, but peak PATH
headways at Newark are 4-5 minutes.

Nonetheless I still think it is rather academic as you simply could not
create such installations at almost all LU to NR "within one station"
interchanges as things stand today.

I agree that it would be a challenge.

In many cases, probably the only way to install barriers would be to
eliminate cross-platform connections and force connecting passengers to
go up or down to a mezzanine solely to touch in or out -- and that, of
course, would be extremely inconvenient and would introduce new crowding
and passenger flow concerns.

Years and years ago I dragged round a set of consultants from KPMG to
explain how the fare validities work and what that means for ticket
validation requirements at the most complex interchanges. Now, if
anything, it has become much more complicated with TOC specific
validities as well as what has happened with TfL fares. While I can see
other cities can obviously spend the money and have the space to install
inter-system checks it won't work in London unless someone chucks
several hundreds of millions of pounds at reconstruction of key
stations.

The system in the New York City area is simpler only because we have
essentially no inter-system fares.

MTA New York City Transit has one MetroCard-based fare system for its
subway and bus system, with free transfers available between the two. A
collection of NYCDOT-subsidized private bus companies had a fare system
integrated with NYCT's, but they were recently swallowed up by MTA Bus.
MTA Long Island Bus and MTA Staten Island Railway also use the same
fare system, including free MetroCard transfers to and from NYCT services.

The MTA also operates the Long Island Rail Road and Metro-North
Railroad, but these two agencies have independent ticketing systems
(i.e., independent from each other and from NYCT). It is possible to
obtain a monthly train ticket that also works as a MetroCard on NYCT
services, and there is a slight discount for those who buy the combined
ticket, but that is the extent of the coordination.

Outside the MTA umbrella, two of the systems operated by the Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey -- PATH and JFK AirTrain -- also
accept MetroCard, but they do not accept NYCT unlimited cards and there
are no transfer privileges with NYCT services.

The Bee-Line bus system in Westchester County (north of New York City)
will soon accept MetroCard, but I don't know if free transfers and NYCT
unlimiteds will be part of the deal.

NJTransit has its own ticketing system, completely independent of
anybody else's. (It also has the slowest, most difficult-to-use ticket
machines on the planet.)

Amtrak, the intercity rail carrier, has yet another ticketing system.

And those are just the big players. There are lots of smaller transit
operators in the region, each of which generally issues its own tickets.
--
David of Broadway
New York, NY, USA

Oyster - Meant to make your life easier??!
 

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 17:08:03 GMT, David of Broadway
wrote:

I can't speak for others here, but I'm simply looking to understand the
new policy. From what I can tell (across the pond), it has some serious
problems. I could be wrong. If I'm wrong, I hope to be informed why;
if I'm right, perhaps somebody in a position to solve those problems is
reading this newsgroup.

I think it all depends on how people perceive TfL's actions. It is
evident that there is polarised opinion and no amount of explanation
will change that. People have decided what their view is and anyone
proffering the counter view simply gets "abused".

I perceive TfL's actions in this case as well-intentioned but somewhat
misguided. I am willing to be proven wrong, preferably in the latter
category.

Oyster policy doesn't personally affect me here in New York (although
transportation officials in New York are certainly watching Oyster
closely), so I don't think it would be appropriate for me to complain to LU.

Do you know what particularly about Oyster they are watching closely? I
can't imagine it is the smartcard element as that is proven in many
places and they already have experience of key elements of such a system
via the magnetic Metrocard installation.

I can't say exactly, but NYCT has only just gotten into the smartcard
world with a pilot program on a single subway line. The MetroCard
program will be phased out.

A Travelcard system with the capability to issue automatic ticket
extensions requires entry and exit swipes just as much as pure PAYG. A
regular commuter between Kenton and Central London can get away with a
Z1-2 Travelcard (£888 annually) rather than the proper Z1-4 Travelcard
(£1264 annually) -- a 30% savings -- in exchange for the risk of an
occasional £20 penalty charge on an inbound trip (but not on an outbound
trip).

Yes - this has always been the case but Oyster allows more sophisticated
checks to be made which could very easily pick out such usage and alert
revenue protection staff.

I'm curious -- what checks could be made that would pick out such usage?
All the system knows is that one end of my trip is at an ungated
station and the other end is in Z1. The ungated station could well be
in Z2 (e.g., Olympia or most of the DLR).

Aside from honesty, what possible reason could a Z12 Travelcard holder
have to touch out at Kenton (or, as you point out below, H&W)?

(I would have used Harrow & Wealdstone as my example, for a more
dramatic 41% savings, but I'm not sure if Harrow & Wealdstone has gates,
while I know Kenton doesn't.)

H&W does not have gates - I was there on Saturday.

Thank you.

And, as I've pointed out, a traveler following the rules to the letter
can still get hit with the penalty charge, or even two on a single trip!
Fix those glitches and I'd be much less critical of the charge.

If they follow the rules I don't see how they get hit.

I've already explained how. If a trip takes longer than the Oyster
system expects it to take, it will time out, splitting a single trip
into two unconnected trips, one with no beginning and one with no end.
That's a double penalty right there.

Anyone
encountering a problem with validation due to equipment failure or
emergency evacuation will be treated sympathetically and would have the
£4 adjusted away.

Not by the station staff!

If they follow the rules then they would otherwise
have touched in and out properly and thus there would be no risk of
overcharging or missed caps.

If only that were the case!

And this gets back to my earlier question:
Why are only PAYG users expected to touch in and out "properly"?

And there was me imagining you agreed with everything I said!

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news!
--
David of Broadway
New York, NY, USA

Oyster - Meant to make your life easier??!
 

On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 22:08:05 GMT, David of Broadway
wrote:

Paul Corfield wrote:

Do you know what particularly about Oyster they are watching closely? I
can't imagine it is the smartcard element as that is proven in many
places and they already have experience of key elements of such a system
via the magnetic Metrocard installation.

I can't say exactly, but NYCT has only just gotten into the smartcard
world with a pilot program on a single subway line. The MetroCard
program will be phased out.

Phased out? - really? That's a very big step given how relatively new
the Metrocard system is. I can see why they may wish to remove the need
to collect / recycle old Metrocards as that must be a management
nightmare but that's a big investment to make.

[snip]

And, as I've pointed out, a traveler following the rules to the letter
can still get hit with the penalty charge, or even two on a single trip!
Fix those glitches and I'd be much less critical of the charge.

If they follow the rules I don't see how they get hit.

I've already explained how. If a trip takes longer than the Oyster
system expects it to take, it will time out, splitting a single trip
into two unconnected trips, one with no beginning and one with no end.
That's a double penalty right there.

You keep repeating this but the odds of it happening are extremely
remote and if it did occur it would be the result of some awful system
failure / accident / line closure. There are system facilities that can
automatically deal with these situations. If you think about it there
have to be such facilities.

Anyone
encountering a problem with validation due to equipment failure or
emergency evacuation will be treated sympathetically and would have the
£4 adjusted away.

Not by the station staff!

Yes by the station staff. This is clearly stated in the official
internal training material.

If they follow the rules then they would otherwise
have touched in and out properly and thus there would be no risk of
overcharging or missed caps.

If only that were the case!

Let's just agree to disagree on this as you clearly won't be convinced
by anything I might say.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Oyster - Meant to make your life easier??!
 

"Steve Fitzgerald" ] wrote in message

As an irregular user of LU services I now have a PAYG Oyster card, and it
was failing to touch half way through a journey when transferring NR to LU
that confused my account on a trip from Marylebone to Watford, changing at
Harrow on the Hill. The readers at Harrow simply say Oyster PAYG users
must
touch out (or something like) - couldn't they, and those at any 'transfer'
point be more informative?

Is Watford within the PAYG area? If not, that may be part of your answer.

I know my staff pass doesn't work the barriers there, even though it is
actually valid (by grandfather rights).

Watford (Met) was the destination (zone A), are you thinking of Watford
Junction?
Basically the journey from Marylebone wasn't recorded when I tried to touch
out at Watford, and the ticket office had to resolve it...

The inbound journey was from Rickmansworth to Baker St, that worked fine on
PAYG, I checked the usage during the afternoon.

Paul

Oyster - Meant to make your life easier??!
 

Paul Scott wrote:
As an irregular user of LU services I now have a PAYG Oyster card, and it
was failing to touch half way through a journey when transferring NR to LU
that confused my account on a trip from Marylebone to Watford, changing at
Harrow on the Hill. The readers at Harrow simply say Oyster PAYG users must
touch out (or something like) - couldn't they, and those at any 'transfer'
point be more informative?

I ran into the opposite problem at HotH: I touched at the platform
reader while transferring from Chiltern to LU, but when I eventually
exited the system, Oyster thought I had already exited at HotH and
didn't know where I had just come from.

Granted, it took me a while to exit, having ventured well outside my
zones to Watford, Amersham, and Chesham before returning to Northwick
Park. And the extra £1 I was charged was, IIRC, slightly less than the
difference between the Z1-6 cap (which I had already hit at Cockfosters)
and the Z1-D cap, so I have no grounds for complaint. But if I do the
same thing under the new policy, intending to pay the Z1-D cap, I will
instead be hit with a substantially higher fine -- one which somebody
using a Travelcard would have avoided entirely, simply for using a
Travelcard.
--
David of Broadway
New York, NY, USA

Oyster - Meant to make your life easier??!
 

David of Broadway wrote:
Paul Scott wrote:
As an irregular user of LU services I now have a PAYG Oyster card, and
it was failing to touch half way through a journey when transferring
NR to LU that confused my account on a trip from Marylebone to
Watford, changing at Harrow on the Hill. The readers at Harrow simply
say Oyster PAYG users must touch out (or something like) - couldn't
they, and those at any 'transfer' point be more informative?

I ran into the opposite problem at HotH: I touched at the platform
reader while transferring from Chiltern to LU, but when I eventually
exited the system, Oyster thought I had already exited at HotH and
didn't know where I had just come from.

Granted, it took me a while to exit, having ventured well outside my
zones to Watford, Amersham, and Chesham before returning to Northwick
Park. And the extra £1 I was charged was, IIRC, slightly less than the
difference between the Z1-6 cap (which I had already hit at Cockfosters)
and the Z1-D cap, so I have no grounds for complaint. But if I do the
same thing under the new policy, intending to pay the Z1-D cap, I will
instead be hit with a substantially higher fine -- one which somebody
using a Travelcard would have avoided entirely, simply for using a
Travelcard.

That's not a fault with the Oyster system, but with your use of the
network. The journey you've described takes a *good* two and a half
hours assuming you don't get held up en route, by which time your touch
in at Harrow would have "timed out". Had you touched out and in at
Watford, Amersham and Chesham then you would have been charged correctly
and not had an unresolved journey.

Cheers,

Barry

Oyster - Meant to make your life easier??!
 

You keep repeating this but the odds of it happening are extremely
remote and if it did occur it would be the result of some awful system
failure / accident / line closure. There are system facilities that can
automatically deal with these situations. If you think about it there
have to be such facilities.

This actually happened to me when Prepay was first introduced. The
clock on the validator at Finsbury Park WAGN was 4 hours fast and I
was charged 2 £5 fees as the system saw 2 unrelated touch ins for a
Kings Cross - Finsbury Park WAGN journey. All sorted out by the
helpline.. :-)

Oyster - Meant to make your life easier??!
 

On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 17:08:03 GMT, David of Broadway wrote:

A Travelcard system with the capability to issue automatic ticket
extensions requires entry and exit swipes just as much as pure PAYG. A
regular commuter between Kenton and Central London can get away with a
Z1-2 Travelcard (£888 annually) rather than the proper Z1-4 Travelcard
(£1264 annually) -- a 30% savings -- in exchange for the risk of an
occasional £20 penalty charge on an inbound trip (but not on an outbound
trip).

(I would have used Harrow & Wealdstone as my example, for a more
dramatic 41% savings, but I'm not sure if Harrow & Wealdstone has gates,
while I know Kenton doesn't.)

I don't understand why PAYG abuse is such a problem while Travelcard
abuse is not.

I don't think that's the case. It's just that the solution to the PAYG
abuse can be implemented without penalising honest users[1], but the
same can't be said for Travelcards (in your example above, as far as
the system knows, they could have been travelling between Kilburn High
Road (which AFAIK doesn't have validators) and London, or Carpenders
Park (which is outside the zones) and London on a paper extension
ticket).

[1] At least in theory. But as many people who have used PAYG for any
length of time have found, it's only true most of the time.

Oyster - Meant to make your life easier??!
 

On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 20:40:06 -0000, Paul Scott wrote:

As an irregular user of LU services I now have a PAYG Oyster card, and it
was failing to touch half way through a journey when transferring NR to LU
that confused my account on a trip from Marylebone to Watford, changing at
Harrow on the Hill. The readers at Harrow simply say Oyster PAYG users must
touch out (or something like) - couldn't they, and those at any 'transfer'
point be more informative?

What I'm trying to say is, it is obvious to touch in or out when entering or
leaving the paid area theough a barrier, but if its a cross platform
interchange like at Stratford, couldn't the signs maybe say something like
'Oyster PAYG customers touch to transfer'?

I wasn't aware that it's even necessary to touch at Harrow on this
type of journey. I've certainly made many journeys with changes
ignoring any intermediate validators, even from NR to LU (at
Farringdon), and I've never been charged the wrong fare because of it.

If this rule has changed (or it was never universally the case in the
first place) then that's bad news. The mantra "always touch in and
touch out" already has enough exceptions.