Oyster - Meant to make your life easier??!
 

Right... bear with me on this one. I am on the verge of losing it with the Oyster helpdes=
k.

My commute to work uses zones 2 to 5. My journey starts at a National Rail station. I the=
n subsequently use the underground.

I dont normally know until the last minute (due to partner's unpredictable shift pat=
tern) whether I will drive or get public transport to work that week so unable to buy tr=
avelcard in advance.

So, on a Monday morning I arrive at the station and need to buy a 7 day travelcard. They c=
annot sell me a ticket on Oyster so insist I purchase a paper ticket. The only downside=
to this is I often (2 or 3 times a week) start my commute home from zone 1. This is where th=
e problems start. I can't enter the station at zone 1 using my paper ticket as it's not v=
alid. And I cant touch in with my prepay Oyster as when I touch out I will charged for the=
whole journey although I have zones 2 to 5 on a travelcard.

For the first few weeks this was a problem (using prepay to enter/exit) I contacted th=
e helpdesk and they credited the cash back to my Oyster card. However, they now refuse=
to do this, say I will have to buy a (high priced) paper ticket to cover the zone 1 leg of m=
y journey. I've even begged the National Rail station to issue me with a permit to trav=
el so I can get my ticket on Oyster at the first available point (when I interchange to t=
he tube) - but they wont let me.

On the one week where I knew in advance I would be commuting the following week I went to=
the tube station to get a travelcard on my Oyster in advance. And guess what (which did=
nt come to light until 4 days later)? The moron started it from that day, therefore mak=
ing me have 2 travelcards running simultaneously on the same Oyster card for 3 days. W=
hen I contacted the helpdesk they offered me a =C2=A310 refund, which would credit th=
e next time I went through the barriers. 2 weeks and FOUR phone calls later they finall=
y added the credit to my card.

Meant to make you life easier? What a f*cking joke.

Oyster - Meant to make your life easier??!
 

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 01:58:28 -0500, ben wrote:

Right... bear with me on this one. I am on the verge of losing it
with the Oyster helpdesk.

My commute to work uses zones 2 to 5. My journey starts at a National
Rail station. I then subsequently use the underground.

I dont normally know until the last minute (due to partner's
unpredictable shift pattern) whether I will drive or get public
transport to work that week so unable to buy travelcard in advance.

So, on a Monday morning I arrive at the station and need to buy a 7
day travelcard. They cannot sell me a ticket on Oyster so insist I
purchase a paper ticket.

I suggest that, if possible, you buy your weekly Travelcard on Oyster
from a local Oyster Ticket Stop (newsagent).

You can find your nearest one at:
http://www.tfl-ticketlocator.co.uk/

Oyster - Meant to make your life easier??!
 

ben wrote:
Right... bear with me on this one. I am on the verge of losing it with the Oyster helpdesk.
Meant to make you life easier? What a f*cking joke.

It is a pain, but you're wrong to blame Oyster. The finger of blame
should be pointed at the National Rail companies who have been refusing
to use Oyster until very recently (and even now, with Ken agreeing to
pay for it all, it's still going to take another two or three years!).

Patrick

Oyster - Meant to make your life easier??!
 

ben wrote:
Right... bear with me on this one. I am on the verge of losing it with the Oyster helpdesk.



Meant to make you life easier? What a f*cking joke.

Tell me about it, see my post earlier on about trying to resolve an
unresolved journey. LUL told me that I had an unresolved journey at
Kings X now they are telling that I wasn't even at Kings X.
The joke is I searched Google on Oyster and there were loads of sites
talking about infringement of personal liberties. Had I committed a
murder in Kings X on the 16 August I now have a cast iron alibi.

Kevin

Oyster - Meant to make your life easier??!
 

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 01:58:28 -0500, wrote:

Right... bear with me on this one. I am on the verge of losing it with the Oyster helpdesk.

My commute to work uses zones 2 to 5. My journey starts at a National Rail station. I then subsequently use the underground.
I dont normally know until the last minute (due to partner's unpredictable shift pattern) whether I will drive or get public transport to work that week so unable to buy travelcard in advance.

So, on a Monday morning I arrive at the station and need to buy a 7 day travelcard.
They cannot sell me a ticket on Oyster so insist I purchase a paper ticket.
The only downside to this is I often (2 or 3 times a week) start my commute home from zone 1.
This is where the problems start. I can't enter the station at zone 1 using my paper ticket as it's not valid.
And I cant touch in with my prepay Oyster as when I touch out I will charged for the whole journey although I have zones 2 to 5 on a travelcard.

For the first few weeks this was a problem (using prepay to enter/exit) I contacted the helpdesk and they credited the cash back to my Oyster card.
However, they now refuse to do this, say I will have to buy a (high priced) paper ticket to cover the zone 1 leg of my journey.
I've even begged the National Rail station to issue me with a permit to travel so I can get my ticket on Oyster at the first available point (when I interchange to the tube) - but they wont let me.
On the one week where I knew in advance I would be commuting the following week I went to the tube station to get a travelcard on my Oyster in advance.
And guess what (which didnt come to light until 4 days later)? The moron started it from that day, therefore making me have 2 travelcards running simultaneously on the same Oyster card for 3 days.
When I contacted the helpdesk they offered me a £10 refund, which would credit the next time I went through the barriers. 2 weeks and FOUR phone calls later they finally added the credit to my card.

Meant to make you life easier? What a f*cking joke.

As someone has suggested the nearest Oyster ticket stop is going to be
the best option - assuming you have one nearby. I think any system
might struggle to provide you with the flexibility you demand given how
unpredictable your mode of transport is for any given week. That's not
to blame you - it's just it is difficult to cope with every possible set
of circumstances.

I can assure you that huge efforts were made to try to get National Rail
stations to join in with Oyster (in terms of being able to sell tickets
on the cards or add value) but the train companies were not interested.
They cannot be forced by TfL to adopt the technology so for now there is
a split level of service between LU / DLR locations and almost all TOC
stations. It is in the process of being resolved but will take a number
of years to implement - sorry.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Oyster - Meant to make your life easier??!
 

wrote:
ben wrote:
Right... bear with me on this one. I am on the verge of losing it with the Oyster helpdesk.
Meant to make you life easier? What a f*cking joke.

It is a pain, but you're wrong to blame Oyster. The finger of blame
should be pointed at the National Rail companies who have been refusing
to use Oyster until very recently (and even now, with Ken agreeing to
pay for it all, it's still going to take another two or three years!).



No, TfL is wrong to be punishing people for not using Oyster when they
know that (for whatever reason) it is not fully available yet.

Are we really expected to think "TfL is punishing me for what my local
TOC won't do. It must be my fault for not lobbying the TOC hard
enough."? That certainly isn't my reaction.

The travelling public is being collectively punished for the "crimes"
of the TOCs (who would no doubt have a very different view about where
the blame lies).

Oyster - Meant to make your life easier??!
 

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 01:58:28 -0500, wrote:

As someone has suggested the nearest Oyster ticket stop is going to be
the best option - assuming you have one nearby. I think any system
might struggle to provide you with the flexibility you demand given how
unpredictable your mode of transport is for any given week. That's not
to blame you - it's just it is difficult to cope with every possible set
of circumstances.

I can assure you that huge efforts were made to try to get National Rail
stations to join in with Oyster (in terms of being able to sell tickets
on the cards or add value) but the train companies were not interested.
They cannot be forced by TfL to adopt the technology so for now there is
a split level of service between LU / DLR locations and almost all TOC
stations. It is in the process of being resolved but will take a number
of years to implement - sorry.

DLR allows pre-pay but doesn't allow you to renew an Oyster season
ticket at their stations.
During a period when I would begin my journeys at either Pudding Mill
Lane or Gallions Reach
I couldn't buy Oyster season tickets at either of those stations.

And I couldn't buy them online because they kept asking for some
security answer that I never
gave and there was no way to retrieve a lost one.

Oyster - Meant to make your life easier??!
 

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 01:58:28 -0500, wrote:

Right... bear with me on this one. I am on the verge of losing it with the Oyster helpdesk.

My commute to work uses zones 2 to 5. My journey starts at a National Rail station. I then subsequently use the underground.
I dont normally know until the last minute (due to partner's unpredictable shift pattern) whether I will drive or get public transport to work that week so unable to buy travelcard in advance.

So, on a Monday morning I arrive at the station and need to buy a 7 day travelcard.
They cannot sell me a ticket on Oyster so insist I purchase a paper ticket.
The only downside to this is I often (2 or 3 times a week) start my commute home from zone 1.
This is where the problems start. I can't enter the station at zone 1 using my paper ticket as it's not valid.
And I cant touch in with my prepay Oyster as when I touch out I will charged for the whole journey although I have zones 2 to 5 on a travelcard.

For the first few weeks this was a problem (using prepay to enter/exit) I contacted the helpdesk and they credited the cash back to my Oyster card.
However, they now refuse to do this, say I will have to buy a (high priced) paper ticket to cover the zone 1 leg of my journey.
I've even begged the National Rail station to issue me with a permit to travel so I can get my ticket on Oyster at the first available point (when I interchange to the tube) - but they wont let me.
On the one week where I knew in advance I would be commuting the following week I went to the tube station to get a travelcard on my Oyster in advance.
And guess what (which didnt come to light until 4 days later)? The moron started it from that day, therefore making me have 2 travelcards running simultaneously on the same Oyster card for 3 days.
When I contacted the helpdesk they offered me a £10 refund, which would credit the next time I went through the barriers. 2 weeks and FOUR phone calls later they finally added the credit to my card.

Meant to make you life easier? What a f*cking joke.

As someone has suggested the nearest Oyster ticket stop is going to be
the best option - assuming you have one nearby. I think any system
might struggle to provide you with the flexibility you demand given how
unpredictable your mode of transport is for any given week. That's not
to blame you - it's just it is difficult to cope with every possible set
of circumstances.

I can assure you that huge efforts were made to try to get National Rail
stations to join in with Oyster (in terms of being able to sell tickets
on the cards or add value) but the train companies were not interested.
They cannot be forced by TfL to adopt the technology so for now there is
a split level of service between LU / DLR locations and almost all TOC
stations. It is in the process of being resolved but will take a number
of years to implement - sorry.


So don't impose the punishments for not using Oyster until it has been
implemented.

Oyster - Meant to make your life easier??!
 

On 28 Oct 2006 17:21:31 -0700, "MIG"
wrote:


So don't impose the punishments for not using Oyster until it has been
implemented.

I do not understand why you see the rules of using Oyster as being a
punishment. It's simple enough - touch in and touch out. There have to
be incentives to make sure that people do these simple tasks otherwise
we might as well have free travel everywhere.

With hindsight the concept of the high charge for non validation should
have been introduced at the start of PAYG not now. The howls of
complaint are only coming because people have got used to a more lenient
system which, if exploited, results in fraud.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Oyster - Meant to make your life easier??!
 

Paul Corfield wrote:
On 28 Oct 2006 17:21:31 -0700, "MIG"
wrote:


So don't impose the punishments for not using Oyster until it has been
implemented.

I do not understand why you see the rules of using Oyster as being a
punishment. It's simple enough - touch in and touch out. There have to
be incentives to make sure that people do these simple tasks otherwise
we might as well have free travel everywhere.

With hindsight the concept of the high charge for non validation should
have been introduced at the start of PAYG not now. The howls of
complaint are only coming because people have got used to a more lenient
system which, if exploited, results in fraud.


What about the £4 singles and extensions for people who live near NR
or DLR and have paper tickets? Aren't they punishment for not using a
system which is not fully available? To me they are. The reasons why
I have ended up with unresolved journeys are entirely to do with this
(ie when I haven't got time to leave and reenter a station half way
through my journey because, believe it or not, I was travelling because
I needed to get somewhere).

Maybe there is a ticket stop selling Oyster somewhere in the opposite
direction from the local station (often there isn't), but why should I
be punished for turning up at my local station and paying my fare in
the most available way?

Oyster - Meant to make your life easier??!
 

"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
...
On 28 Oct 2006 17:21:31 -0700, "MIG"
wrote:


So don't impose the punishments for not using Oyster until it has been
implemented.

I do not understand why you see the rules of using Oyster as being a
punishment.

I presume he was talking about the fares.

Hint, he said: punishment for not using Oyster.
he didn't say: punishment for not using Oyster correctly.

tim

Oyster - Meant to make your life easier??!
 

Paul Corfield wrote:
I do not understand why you see the rules of using Oyster as being a
punishment. It's simple enough - touch in and touch out. There have to
be incentives to make sure that people do these simple tasks otherwise
we might as well have free travel everywhere.

Touch in and touch out within an unspecified time period (and if you
exceed that unspecified time period, you're subject to an £8 penalty).
And maybe at some interchange points too, but nobody seems to know for
sure (e.g., Bank).

What I don't understand is why the presumption is that PAYG users are
trying to cheat the system while TravelCard holders are traveling within
their zones. (If a dishonest TravelCard holder travels outside his
zones and exits the system at a station without gates, what possible
reason would he have to touch out? Why is nobody concerned with his
fare evasion? On the flip side, if the TravelCard holder is granted the
benefit of the doubt, why not treat the PAYG user with the same courtesy?)

It seems like the goal is to penalize infrequent riders, especially
tourists. Tourists generally don't stay in town long enough for a
TravelCard to be worthwhile. Now, when they get lost in the system and
take a bit longer than the system expects to reach their destination,
and they get hit with an £8 penalty, they can't get it eliminated at the
ticket window -- no, they have to call the Oyster helpdesk and then jump
through whatever hoops the helpdesk imposes to collect a refund.

And to add insult to injury, the penalty was (supposedly) set at £4 to
reflect the maximum possible fare, yet the penalty doesn't count towards
a Z1-6 cap. If we're going to assume that somebody who forgot to touch
out might have traveled to the opposite end of the Underground map, we
could at least give him credit for that trip towards his daily cap.

With hindsight the concept of the high charge for non validation should
have been introduced at the start of PAYG not now. The howls of
complaint are only coming because people have got used to a more lenient
system which, if exploited, results in fraud.

But the new, more stringent system is still wide open to fraud.

If you want to seriously reduce fraud, install gates at the stations
that don't have them.
--
David of Broadway
New York, NY, USA

Oyster - Meant to make your life easier??!
 

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 16:08:02 GMT, David of Broadway
wrote:

What I don't understand is why the presumption is that PAYG users are
trying to cheat the system while TravelCard holders are traveling within
their zones. (If a dishonest TravelCard holder travels outside his
zones and exits the system at a station without gates, what possible
reason would he have to touch out? Why is nobody concerned with his
fare evasion? On the flip side, if the TravelCard holder is granted the
benefit of the doubt, why not treat the PAYG user with the same courtesy?)

By assuming that they started/ended their journey where, precisely?

Oyster - Meant to make your life easier??!
 

James Farrar wrote:
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 16:08:02 GMT, David of Broadway
wrote:

What I don't understand is why the presumption is that PAYG users are
trying to cheat the system while TravelCard holders are traveling within
their zones. (If a dishonest TravelCard holder travels outside his
zones and exits the system at a station without gates, what possible
reason would he have to touch out? Why is nobody concerned with his
fare evasion? On the flip side, if the TravelCard holder is granted the
benefit of the doubt, why not treat the PAYG user with the same courtesy?)

By assuming that they started/ended their journey where, precisely?


Within the same capping zones that they ended/started it. That still
inolves taking a fare, which is more than would happen if a travelcard
holder strayed out of their zones.

Why is it more reasonable to assume that someone who forgets to touch
out of the DLR immediately heads for Amersham, having advanced
purchased a ticket from Amersham to Stoke Mandeville, just to try to
avoid paying the outer zone part of the LU journey? (Assuming there
are gates at Amersham, but if there aren't, it's the previous
suggestion. Install gates so that there aren't any places out of zones
that someone could escape through.)

This is not as important as making it possible for people to combine
paper and Oyster without jumping through ridiculous hoops.

Oyster - Meant to make your life easier??!
 

MIG wrote:

Why is it more reasonable to assume that someone who forgets to touch
out of the DLR immediately heads for Amersham, having advanced
purchased a ticket from Amersham to Stoke Mandeville, just to try to
avoid paying the outer zone part of the LU journey? (Assuming there
are gates at Amersham, but if there aren't,

There are.

it's the previous
suggestion. Install gates so that there aren't any places out of zones
that someone could escape through.)

Right - so TfL should install gates across the entire GB network? Staying
entirely within the gateline the number of destinations outside London is
huge.

And a lot of stations just aren't physically designed for gates. Try, say,
Motspur Park where the entire station is on the island platform (and the
bridge to it doubles as a route over the rails). Access to the platform is
before the ticket office. There doesn't seem to be any way to physically
install side gates.

Or for some better examples, my local stations of Wantsead Park and Forest
Gate. The former is located on a viaduct and each platform is accessed by
stairs from street level within an arch over the pavement, with no current
ticket office. Where would you put the barrier? Or Forest Gate, where even
the ticket inspectors have to effectively split the "fares only area" into
three - platform 4 (only accessible by going out onto the street), whilst
the corridors and junction for platforms 1 and 2/3 don't leave an easy spot
to create a row of barriers (short of putting the ticket office behind the
gateline!).

This is not as important as making it possible for people to combine
paper and Oyster without jumping through ridiculous hoops.

I agree - it's the price of paper extensions and the lack of one day
travelcards being available on Oyster that I find to be the biggest
irritant.

Oyster - Meant to make your life easier??!
 

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 16:08:02 GMT, David of Broadway
wrote:

Paul Corfield wrote:
I do not understand why you see the rules of using Oyster as being a
punishment. It's simple enough - touch in and touch out. There have to
be incentives to make sure that people do these simple tasks otherwise
we might as well have free travel everywhere.

Touch in and touch out within an unspecified time period (and if you
exceed that unspecified time period, you're subject to an £8 penalty).
And maybe at some interchange points too, but nobody seems to know for
sure (e.g., Bank).

Sorry but you'll have to explain that one to me.

What I don't understand is why the presumption is that PAYG users are
trying to cheat the system while TravelCard holders are traveling within
their zones. (If a dishonest TravelCard holder travels outside his
zones and exits the system at a station without gates, what possible
reason would he have to touch out? Why is nobody concerned with his
fare evasion? On the flip side, if the TravelCard holder is granted the
benefit of the doubt, why not treat the PAYG user with the same courtesy?)

I don't think it is how you describe it. I am not privy to the analysis
or design making process but I would assume that PAYG users have
displayed more fraudulent behaviour than travelcard holders. There is
certainly more likelihood that fares would not be correctly deducted for
sole PAYG trips than for extension trips beyond Travelcard validity.

It seems like the goal is to penalize infrequent riders, especially
tourists. Tourists generally don't stay in town long enough for a
TravelCard to be worthwhile. Now, when they get lost in the system and
take a bit longer than the system expects to reach their destination,
and they get hit with an £8 penalty, they can't get it eliminated at the
ticket window -- no, they have to call the Oyster helpdesk and then jump
through whatever hoops the helpdesk imposes to collect a refund.

Sorry but I think that is extreme cynicism. I may for TfL but I cannot
conceive of anyone designing a policy on the basis you describe. There
are many tourists for whom a Travelcard may well be worthwhile - it's
been recommended on this group enough times. The alternative is more
likely to be one day travelcards giving NR validity too which can be
useful for certain tourist destinations.

I would also point out that I have yet to see a system where if tourists
participate in the standard ticketing product that they have any
preferential rights over residents in terms of refunds or correction of
problems. If they buy the overpriced rip off tourist ticket they might
get a quick refund if they surrender their ticket but I imagine most
tourists are not organised to do this before they leave their
destination and thus remaining value and deposit paid sit with the
operator.

My HK Octopus card failed on my penultimate trip when I was last in HK.
When I tried to get it read it could not be interrogated. I was told it
would take a week to organise the refund which was a tad inconvenient as
I was due to head off to the airport within 45 minutes! Thankfully the
supervisor was called and some discretion was exercised where I was
given a refund but it was quite clear that they were not very
comfortable with doing it. I can well understand why as they would not
wish to have a rule whereby cards could be surrendered and refunded on
the basis of a guess as to the remaining value from the customer.

And to add insult to injury, the penalty was (supposedly) set at £4 to
reflect the maximum possible fare, yet the penalty doesn't count towards
a Z1-6 cap. If we're going to assume that somebody who forgot to touch
out might have traveled to the opposite end of the Underground map, we
could at least give him credit for that trip towards his daily cap.

I'm sorry but the whole point of this exercise is to get people to
comply with the system's rules. Why on earth should an £4 entry / exit
charge count towards to the cap? There are plenty of things that we can
claim to forget about but they are not without their consequences. All
passengers are being asked to do is to touch a card on a pad on a gate
or validator - is that really so immensely difficult.

It seems from the adverse comments on this group that it was a gross
error by TfL / LU to launch PAYG on the basis of minimum fare deduction
rather than have the proposed system. People have got far too used to an
easy life and wish to have it preserved.

I shall now retire to my bunker awaited the response.

But the new, more stringent system is still wide open to fraud.

If you say so. I accept the system design is a compromise (see below)
but something has to be done to ensure the majority comply with the
rules of the system.

If you want to seriously reduce fraud, install gates at the stations
that don't have them.

Sorry but this was looked at very early on. It is not just gating
stations at their periphery but also installing gates on every open
interchange between LU and NR lines. Given the safety rules that apply
to monitoring and control of gatelines it is a non starter on that
basis. In addition there is the nonsense of making what is a simple
interchange walk a potential nightmare for passengers. Further there are
the issues about management of passenger flows and congestion. Then
there is creating the impression that the LU network is a "prison" which
I personally do not think is desirable. Finally there is the utterly
inordinate cost associated with trying to ensure validation in physical
environments that cannot practically be adapted to allow such. Gates
down the middle of the island platforms at Stratford between NR and the
Central Line - err I think not.

The Stored Value equipped networks in the Far East (Singapore and HK)
have the huge advantage of having designed their networks to be separate
and fully gated from day one. London is trying something not done
anywhere else - SVT that *demands* entry and exit validation to work
properly but without a fully gated network. That requires other
measures to incentivise validation. The most noticeable and powerful
incentive is without doubt financial - I can't see what else can be done
to get people to play by the required rules.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Oyster - Meant to make your life easier??!
 

Paul Corfield wrote:

Touch in and touch out within an unspecified time period (and if you
exceed that unspecified time period, you're subject to an £8 penalty).
And maybe at some interchange points too, but nobody seems to know for
sure (e.g., Bank).

Sorry but you'll have to explain that one to me.

It's come up a few times but no-one seems to know just what the purpose of
the Oyster readers near or at the DLR platforms are for, or what happens if
you touch them whilst entering or interchanging.

Oyster - Meant to make your life easier??!
 

"Tim Roll-Pickering" wrote in message
...
Paul Corfield wrote:

Touch in and touch out within an unspecified time period (and if you
exceed that unspecified time period, you're subject to an £8 penalty).
And maybe at some interchange points too, but nobody seems to know for
sure (e.g., Bank).

Sorry but you'll have to explain that one to me.

It's come up a few times but no-one seems to know just what the purpose of
the Oyster readers near or at the DLR platforms are for, or what happens
if you touch them whilst entering or interchanging.


If you enter Bank station via the mobility impaired lift in King William
Street these are the first validators you will come across.

Oyster - Meant to make your life easier??!
 

James Farrar wrote:
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 16:08:02 GMT, David of Broadway
wrote:

What I don't understand is why the presumption is that PAYG users are
trying to cheat the system while TravelCard holders are traveling within
their zones. (If a dishonest TravelCard holder travels outside his
zones and exits the system at a station without gates, what possible
reason would he have to touch out? Why is nobody concerned with his
fare evasion? On the flip side, if the TravelCard holder is granted the
benefit of the doubt, why not treat the PAYG user with the same courtesy?)

By assuming that they started/ended their journey where, precisely?

At another station in the same zone. Give them the benefit of the
doubt, just as you give TravelCard holders the benefit of the doubt.
--
David of Broadway
New York, NY, USA

Oyster - Meant to make your life easier??!
 

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 16:08:02 GMT, David of Broadway
wrote:

Paul Corfield wrote:
I do not understand why you see the rules of using Oyster as being a
punishment. It's simple enough - touch in and touch out. There have to
be incentives to make sure that people do these simple tasks otherwise
we might as well have free travel everywhere.
Touch in and touch out within an unspecified time period (and if you
exceed that unspecified time period, you're subject to an £8 penalty).
And maybe at some interchange points too, but nobody seems to know for
sure (e.g., Bank).

Sorry but you'll have to explain that one to me.

There's a time limit associated with each trip. (I assume, although I
don't know for sure, that the time limit depends on the actual trip.)
If you exceed the time limit, the Oyster system will think you forgot to
touch out on one trip and forgot to touch in on another. That will cost
you £8.

What I don't understand is why the presumption is that PAYG users are
trying to cheat the system while TravelCard holders are traveling within
their zones. (If a dishonest TravelCard holder travels outside his
zones and exits the system at a station without gates, what possible
reason would he have to touch out? Why is nobody concerned with his
fare evasion? On the flip side, if the TravelCard holder is granted the
benefit of the doubt, why not treat the PAYG user with the same courtesy?)

I don't think it is how you describe it. I am not privy to the analysis
or design making process but I would assume that PAYG users have
displayed more fraudulent behaviour than travelcard holders. There is
certainly more likelihood that fares would not be correctly deducted for
sole PAYG trips than for extension trips beyond Travelcard validity.

That's probably a reasonable assumption. But the fact remains that,
with the new penalty, PAYG users are presumed to be dishonest while
Travelcard users are presumed to be honest.

It seems like the goal is to penalize infrequent riders, especially
tourists. Tourists generally don't stay in town long enough for a
TravelCard to be worthwhile. Now, when they get lost in the system and
take a bit longer than the system expects to reach their destination,
and they get hit with an £8 penalty, they can't get it eliminated at the
ticket window -- no, they have to call the Oyster helpdesk and then jump
through whatever hoops the helpdesk imposes to collect a refund.

Sorry but I think that is extreme cynicism. I may for TfL but I cannot
conceive of anyone designing a policy on the basis you describe. There
are many tourists for whom a Travelcard may well be worthwhile - it's
been recommended on this group enough times. The alternative is more
likely to be one day travelcards giving NR validity too which can be
useful for certain tourist destinations.

I've used Travelcards as a tourist myself. But a tourist who's in town
for only a few days will certainly not find one worthwhile, and even a
tourist who's in town for a week might be better off with PAYG, since
weekly Travelcards are priced to be competitive with peak hour fares,
when most tourists probably aren't traveling yet.

(I'm ignoring day Travelcards, which, if I understand correctly, will be
phased out once Oyster deployment is complete.)

I would also point out that I have yet to see a system where if tourists
participate in the standard ticketing product that they have any
preferential rights over residents in terms of refunds or correction of
problems. If they buy the overpriced rip off tourist ticket they might
get a quick refund if they surrender their ticket but I imagine most
tourists are not organised to do this before they leave their
destination and thus remaining value and deposit paid sit with the
operator.

Nobody's asking for preferential treatment for tourists. But if a
particular ticketing option is popular among tourists, it should be
designed to be problem-resistant, and when a problem does crop up, it
should be easy to resolve it.

My HK Octopus card failed on my penultimate trip when I was last in HK.
When I tried to get it read it could not be interrogated. I was told it
would take a week to organise the refund which was a tad inconvenient as
I was due to head off to the airport within 45 minutes! Thankfully the
supervisor was called and some discretion was exercised where I was
given a refund but it was quite clear that they were not very
comfortable with doing it. I can well understand why as they would not
wish to have a rule whereby cards could be surrendered and refunded on
the basis of a guess as to the remaining value from the customer.

Now imagine a similar scenario. Joe Tourist checks out of his hotel
room and walks to his friendly Piccadilly line station, where he plans
to board the train to Heathrow. As he tries to touch in, he discovers,
to his horror, that he was fined £4 (or £8!) on his last trip due to
malfunctioning gates. The ticket agent cannot help him. What does he do?

And to add insult to injury, the penalty was (supposedly) set at £4 to
reflect the maximum possible fare, yet the penalty doesn't count towards
a Z1-6 cap. If we're going to assume that somebody who forgot to touch
out might have traveled to the opposite end of the Underground map, we
could at least give him credit for that trip towards his daily cap.

I'm sorry but the whole point of this exercise is to get people to
comply with the system's rules.

I thought the point was to make it more difficult to evade the fare.
(After all, Travelcard users aren't expected to comply with those same
exact rules.) If I've already hit the Z1-6 cap, then I can't possibly
be evading a fare unless I venture into lettered territory. For all
intents and purposes, I'm now using a Z1-6 Travelcard.

If the Oyster readers at the exit gateline are not working, I've
complied with the system's rules, yet I'm charged a £4 penalty on top of
whatever cap I've hit.

If the system times out because the Northern line dies and it takes me
twice as long as it normally would to reach my destination or because I
get lost transferring at Green Park or because I take the Circle line in
the wrong direction, I've complied with the system's rules, yet I'm
charged a £8 (double) penalty on top of whatever cap I've hit.

And then it's up to me to jump through hoops to try to recover my money.

It seems from the adverse comments on this group that it was a gross
error by TfL / LU to launch PAYG on the basis of minimum fare deduction
rather than have the proposed system. People have got far too used to an
easy life and wish to have it preserved.

Why do I get the strong feeling that the people implementing this system
don't regularly use PAYG themselves?

Why should PAYG users have a harder life than Travelcard users?

This August, when I was in London for three weeks, I managed to pick up
two unresolved journeys. And last July, when I was in London for a week
and a half, I got two in one trip (see my first paragraph above). I
suspect that a large majority of unresolved journeys are not the result
of attempted fraud and are not the result of forgetting to touch in or
touch out.

But the new, more stringent system is still wide open to fraud.

If you say so. I accept the system design is a compromise (see below)
but something has to be done to ensure the majority comply with the
rules of the system.

Surely the vast majority comply with the rules already!

If you want to seriously reduce fraud, install gates at the stations
that don't have them.

Sorry but this was looked at very early on. It is not just gating
stations at their periphery but also installing gates on every open
interchange between LU and NR lines. Given the safety rules that apply
to monitoring and control of gatelines it is a non starter on that
basis. In addition there is the nonsense of making what is a simple
interchange walk a potential nightmare for passengers. Further there are
the issues about management of passenger flows and congestion. Then
there is creating the impression that the LU network is a "prison" which
I personally do not think is desirable. Finally there is the utterly
inordinate cost associated with trying to ensure validation in physical
environments that cannot practically be adapted to allow such.

I realize that there are practical difficulties. In my opinion, that's
a choice that needs to be made: find some way to fully gate the entire
system or live with the reality that some people will occasionally evade
the fare. Penalizing large numbers of people for every system hiccup is
not the answer.

Gates
down the middle of the island platforms at Stratford between NR and the
Central Line - err I think not.

Why not? That's exactly what you'll find at Newark Penn Station, where
the track that carries PATH trains (which operate on a fully gated
system) is in between tracks that carry NJ Transit trains (which don't
have gates). And it's a /very/ busy transfer point.

The Stored Value equipped networks in the Far East (Singapore and HK)
have the huge advantage of having designed their networks to be separate
and fully gated from day one. London is trying something not done
anywhere else - SVT that *demands* entry and exit validation to work
properly but without a fully gated network. That requires other
measures to incentivise validation. The most noticeable and powerful
incentive is without doubt financial - I can't see what else can be done
to get people to play by the required rules.

Fine. So impose it on everybody.
--
David of Broadway
New York, NY, USA

Oyster - Meant to make your life easier??!
 

In message , David of Broadway
writes

(I'm ignoring day Travelcards, which, if I understand correctly, will
be phased out once Oyster deployment is complete.)

I can't back this up but from my experience in the London tourist trade
the vast majority of visitors to London use a combination of Day
Travelcards. It often surprises people how short some visitor's stays in
London are, 1 - 3 days being by no means unusual.

(See another recent thread for the interminable saga of what happened
when I "tried out" an explanation of oyster PAYG to a group from another
part of England!)

--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

Oyster - Meant to make your life easier??!
 

Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:
MIG wrote:

Why is it more reasonable to assume that someone who forgets to touch
out of the DLR immediately heads for Amersham, having advanced
purchased a ticket from Amersham to Stoke Mandeville, just to try to
avoid paying the outer zone part of the LU journey? (Assuming there
are gates at Amersham, but if there aren't,

There are.

it's the previous
suggestion. Install gates so that there aren't any places out of zones
that someone could escape through.)

Right - so TfL should install gates across the entire GB network? Staying
entirely within the gateline the number of destinations outside London is
huge.


Well, that's the point isn't it. Anyone who didn't touch out might
have made a cross-platform (or same platform) change to a NR train and
ended up in Thurso, but is that really likely enough to justify the
penalty fares for forgetting to touch out?

I think that the bizarre possibility is just an excuse for scamming
people for a crime that only exists relative to Oyster, ie forgetting
to touch out.

It's not about clamping down on any crime that existed before Oyster.
The equivalent would have been to assume that anyone who buys a
travelcard which is recorded as going through an entry gate but doesn't
go through an exit gate should be assumed to have travelled beyond
their zones and changed to National Rail.

The principle seems to be that lack of evidence of where you went is
enough to convict you of travelling somewhere where you weren't allowed
to.

In fact, let's just go the whole hog and instantly arrest and fine
anyone as soon as they purchase any ticket, on the basis that they
can't prove that they don't intend to travel beyond its validity.

Oyster - Meant to make your life easier??!
 

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 16:08:02 GMT, David of Broadway
wrote:

Paul Corfield wrote:
I do not understand why you see the rules of using Oyster as being a
punishment. It's simple enough - touch in and touch out. There have to
be incentives to make sure that people do these simple tasks otherwise
we might as well have free travel everywhere.

Touch in and touch out within an unspecified time period (and if you
exceed that unspecified time period, you're subject to an £8 penalty).
And maybe at some interchange points too, but nobody seems to know for
sure (e.g., Bank).

Sorry but you'll have to explain that one to me.

What I don't understand is why the presumption is that PAYG users are
trying to cheat the system while TravelCard holders are traveling within
their zones. (If a dishonest TravelCard holder travels outside his
zones and exits the system at a station without gates, what possible
reason would he have to touch out? Why is nobody concerned with his
fare evasion? On the flip side, if the TravelCard holder is granted the
benefit of the doubt, why not treat the PAYG user with the same courtesy?)

I don't think it is how you describe it. I am not privy to the analysis
or design making process but I would assume that PAYG users have
displayed more fraudulent behaviour than travelcard holders. There is
certainly more likelihood that fares would not be correctly deducted for
sole PAYG trips than for extension trips beyond Travelcard validity.

It seems like the goal is to penalize infrequent riders, especially
tourists. Tourists generally don't stay in town long enough for a
TravelCard to be worthwhile. Now, when they get lost in the system and
take a bit longer than the system expects to reach their destination,
and they get hit with an £8 penalty, they can't get it eliminated at the
ticket window -- no, they have to call the Oyster helpdesk and then jump
through whatever hoops the helpdesk imposes to collect a refund.

Sorry but I think that is extreme cynicism. I may for TfL but I cannot
conceive of anyone designing a policy on the basis you describe. There
are many tourists for whom a Travelcard may well be worthwhile - it's
been recommended on this group enough times. The alternative is more
likely to be one day travelcards giving NR validity too which can be
useful for certain tourist destinations.

I would also point out that I have yet to see a system where if tourists
participate in the standard ticketing product that they have any
preferential rights over residents in terms of refunds or correction of
problems. If they buy the overpriced rip off tourist ticket they might
get a quick refund if they surrender their ticket but I imagine most
tourists are not organised to do this before they leave their
destination and thus remaining value and deposit paid sit with the
operator.

My HK Octopus card failed on my penultimate trip when I was last in HK.
When I tried to get it read it could not be interrogated. I was told it
would take a week to organise the refund which was a tad inconvenient as
I was due to head off to the airport within 45 minutes! Thankfully the
supervisor was called and some discretion was exercised where I was
given a refund but it was quite clear that they were not very
comfortable with doing it. I can well understand why as they would not
wish to have a rule whereby cards could be surrendered and refunded on
the basis of a guess as to the remaining value from the customer.

And to add insult to injury, the penalty was (supposedly) set at £4 to
reflect the maximum possible fare, yet the penalty doesn't count towards
a Z1-6 cap. If we're going to assume that somebody who forgot to touch
out might have traveled to the opposite end of the Underground map, we
could at least give him credit for that trip towards his daily cap.

I'm sorry but the whole point of this exercise is to get people to
comply with the system's rules. Why on earth should an £4 entry / exit
charge count towards to the cap? There are plenty of things that we can
claim to forget about but they are not without their consequences. All
passengers are being asked to do is to touch a card on a pad on a gate
or validator - is that really so immensely difficult.

It seems from the adverse comments on this group that it was a gross
error by TfL / LU to launch PAYG on the basis of minimum fare deduction
rather than have the proposed system. People have got far too used to an
easy life and wish to have it preserved.

I shall now retire to my bunker awaited the response.

But the new, more stringent system is still wide open to fraud.

If you say so. I accept the system design is a compromise (see below)
but something has to be done to ensure the majority comply with the
rules of the system.

If you want to seriously reduce fraud, install gates at the stations
that don't have them.

Sorry but this was looked at very early on. It is not just gating
stations at their periphery but also installing gates on every open
interchange between LU and NR lines. Given the safety rules that apply
to monitoring and control of gatelines it is a non starter on that
basis. In addition there is the nonsense of making what is a simple
interchange walk a potential nightmare for passengers. Further there are
the issues about management of passenger flows and congestion. Then
there is creating the impression that the LU network is a "prison" which
I personally do not think is desirable. Finally there is the utterly
inordinate cost associated with trying to ensure validation in physical
environments that cannot practically be adapted to allow such. Gates
down the middle of the island platforms at Stratford between NR and the
Central Line - err I think not.

The Stored Value equipped networks in the Far East (Singapore and HK)
have the huge advantage of having designed their networks to be separate
and fully gated from day one. London is trying something not done
anywhere else - SVT that *demands* entry and exit validation to work
properly but without a fully gated network. That requires other
measures to incentivise validation. The most noticeable and powerful
incentive is without doubt financial - I can't see what else can be done
to get people to play by the required rules.



I think this is the nub of the problem. You seem to be convinced that
the purpose of Oyster is to enforce the rules of Oyster.

We can all understand rules that say you need to pay the fare that
covers the journey that you are making and that fare-evasion, when
detected, should be punished.

You seem to be think that people should be punished, not for going
where they shouldn't go, but for failing to understand or comply with
the rules of a system which doesn't detect either fare-evasion or your
being where you shouldn't be, but merely detects that you failed to
comply with its own rules.

Add to this the fact that it is not yet fully possible to comply with
the rules of Oyster, the totally unfair assumption of guilty till
proven innocent and punishment without charge, let alone trial, and now
the withdrawal of means of proving that you are innocent.

What we are left with is a system which imposes new rules which are
difficult to comply with and which automatically extracts extra money
from people, not for any crime (or in return for any service), but
merely for non-compliance with the new rules.

By any definition, this is a scam (or possibly scamola).

Oyster - Meant to make your life easier??!
 

David of Broadway wrote:

Gates
down the middle of the island platforms at Stratford between NR and the
Central Line - err I think not.

Why not? That's exactly what you'll find at Newark Penn Station, where
the track that carries PATH trains (which operate on a fully gated system)
is in between tracks that carry NJ Transit trains (which don't have
gates). And it's a /very/ busy transfer point.

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?

Oyster - Meant to make your life easier??!
 

Ian Jelf wrote:
In message , David of Broadway
writes

(I'm ignoring day Travelcards, which, if I understand correctly, will
be phased out once Oyster deployment is complete.)

I can't back this up but from my experience in the London tourist trade
the vast majority of visitors to London use a combination of Day
Travelcards.

I can certainly believe it. I'll probably do the same on my next visit.
I'd prefer to use Oyster capping, but that's suddenly gotten risky.

It often surprises people how short some visitor's stays in
London are, 1 - 3 days being by no means unusual.

I can only speak for Americans, but we tend to get very little vacation
time these days. I'm fortunate in that I teach, so even if I try to
work all summer, I still end up with August off.
--
David of Broadway
New York, NY, USA

Oyster - Meant to make your life easier??!
 

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.
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

Oyster - Meant to make your life easier??!
 

On 30 Oct 2006 01:05:13 -0800, "MIG"
wrote:

I think that the bizarre possibility is just an excuse for scamming
people for a crime that only exists relative to Oyster, ie forgetting
to touch out.

What it is probably meant to eliminate, in fact, is people finding an
open gate and not touching in, thinking "if there's an open gate at
the other end I'll pay nothing, the worst that will happen is I'll pay
what I'm supposed to".

Oyster - Meant to make your life easier??!
 

James Farrar wrote:

What it is probably meant to eliminate, in fact, is people finding an
open gate and not touching in, thinking "if there's an open gate at
the other end I'll pay nothing, the worst that will happen is I'll pay
what I'm supposed to".

Depends on where they are going and whether there is a touch-in option
further along the line.

For example, someone with pre-pay using First Capital Connect at any
station north of Finsbury Park might simply free-ride to Finsbury Park
or Highbury & Islington then touch in there and complete their journey,
thus paying only the fare from zone 2.

Oyster - Meant to make your life easier??!
 

You're confusing not getting a special offer with a punishment. By that
logic you'll always be punished, whatever you do.

Oyster - Meant to make your life easier??!
 

On 30 Oct 2006 08:47:20 -0800, "Earl Purple"
wrote:


James Farrar wrote:

What it is probably meant to eliminate, in fact, is people finding an
open gate and not touching in, thinking "if there's an open gate at
the other end I'll pay nothing, the worst that will happen is I'll pay
what I'm supposed to".

Depends on where they are going and whether there is a touch-in option
further along the line.

For example, someone with pre-pay using First Capital Connect at any
station north of Finsbury Park might simply free-ride to Finsbury Park
or Highbury & Islington then touch in there and complete their journey,
thus paying only the fare from zone 2.

Not in TfL's control, of course.

Oyster - Meant to make your life easier??!
 

Out of interest, have you raised your concerns with TfL?

Paul and others who work for LUL respond to queries on this group to try and
help people out, yet several posts recently appear to be attacking Paul
personally for the rules to deal with Oyster TfL have imposed. Paul doesn't
work in the TfL customer relations department. which, I feel., some recent
comments should be addressed, so those who are implementing these rules can
be advised of the concerns raised.

Oyster - Meant to make your life easier??!
 

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:45:56 GMT, "Robin Mayes"
wrote:

Out of interest, have you raised your concerns with TfL?

Paul and others who work for LUL respond to queries on this group to try and
help people out, yet several posts recently appear to be attacking Paul
personally for the rules to deal with Oyster TfL have imposed. Paul doesn't
work in the TfL customer relations department. which, I feel., some recent
comments should be addressed, so those who are implementing these rules can
be advised of the concerns raised.

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 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.

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.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Oyster - Meant to make your life easier??!
 

d wrote:
You're confusing not getting a special offer with a punishment. By that
logic you'll always be punished, whatever you do.


So you are saying that Oyster is just a special offer and not the
normal way that people are intended to pay?

So in that case, all the claims about PAYG capping are not true, and
the one-day travelcard has simply been withdrawn, which is a huge
increase in fares.

I don't think you'll get TfL to admit that.

Oyster - Meant to make your life easier??!
 

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:45:56 GMT, "Robin Mayes"
wrote:

Out of interest, have you raised your concerns with TfL?

Paul and others who work for LUL respond to queries on this group to try and
help people out, yet several posts recently appear to be attacking Paul
personally for the rules to deal with Oyster TfL have imposed. Paul doesn't
work in the TfL customer relations department. which, I feel., some recent
comments should be addressed, so those who are implementing these rules can
be advised of the concerns raised.

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 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.

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.


I agree that there is no point in defending the indefensible.
Explaining it is a bit like explaining to a mugging victim why someone
wanted his wallet, as if that makes it all right.

I am obviously not holding you responsible for the system. I am simply
responding to you with incredulity when you try to defend it.

And as for raising my concerns TfL, again, TfL knows exactly what it is
doing and why it is doing it. It has found a system which
automatically extracts money from people well over the fares they
should have paid while simultaneously saving them the cost of
installing more barriers and employing the staff that are necessary
when there are barriers in operation.

What would be the point of raising my concerns? It would be like
saying to the mugger "I say, do you realise that you have taken my
wallet?".

Oyster - Meant to make your life easier??!
 

On 30 Oct 2006 14:02:56 -0800, "MIG"
wrote:


Paul Corfield wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:45:56 GMT, "Robin Mayes"
wrote:

Out of interest, have you raised your concerns with TfL?

Paul and others who work for LUL respond to queries on this group to try and
help people out, yet several posts recently appear to be attacking Paul
personally for the rules to deal with Oyster TfL have imposed. Paul doesn't
work in the TfL customer relations department. which, I feel., some recent
comments should be addressed, so those who are implementing these rules can
be advised of the concerns raised.

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 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.

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.


I agree that there is no point in defending the indefensible.
Explaining it is a bit like explaining to a mugging victim why someone
wanted his wallet, as if that makes it all right.

I am obviously not holding you responsible for the system. I am simply
responding to you with incredulity when you try to defend it.

And as for raising my concerns TfL, again, TfL knows exactly what it is
doing and why it is doing it. It has found a system which
automatically extracts money from people well over the fares they
should have paid while simultaneously saving them the cost of
installing more barriers and employing the staff that are necessary
when there are barriers in operation.

What would be the point of raising my concerns? It would be like
saying to the mugger "I say, do you realise that you have taken my
wallet?".

And it's because of nonsense like this that Paul's given up
responding. You simply will not assume good faith.

Oyster - Meant to make your life easier??!
 

James Farrar wrote:
On 30 Oct 2006 14:02:56 -0800, "MIG"
wrote:


Paul Corfield wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:45:56 GMT, "Robin Mayes"
wrote:

Out of interest, have you raised your concerns with TfL?

Paul and others who work for LUL respond to queries on this group to try and
help people out, yet several posts recently appear to be attacking Paul
personally for the rules to deal with Oyster TfL have imposed. Paul doesn't
work in the TfL customer relations department. which, I feel., some recent
comments should be addressed, so those who are implementing these rules can
be advised of the concerns raised.

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 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.

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.


I agree that there is no point in defending the indefensible.
Explaining it is a bit like explaining to a mugging victim why someone
wanted his wallet, as if that makes it all right.

I am obviously not holding you responsible for the system. I am simply
responding to you with incredulity when you try to defend it.

And as for raising my concerns TfL, again, TfL knows exactly what it is
doing and why it is doing it. It has found a system which
automatically extracts money from people well over the fares they
should have paid while simultaneously saving them the cost of
installing more barriers and employing the staff that are necessary
when there are barriers in operation.

What would be the point of raising my concerns? It would be like
saying to the mugger "I say, do you realise that you have taken my
wallet?".

And it's because of nonsense like this that Paul's given up
responding. You simply will not assume good faith.



I don't assume bad faith in Paul's explanations (which is probably not
what you meant).

I and others have repeatedly explained the problems which result in us
either losing money or suffering long delays purely for reasons to do
with the introduction of Oyster. I have repeatedly suggested

1) not introducing draconian measures to encourage people to comply
with Oyster rules before the means of complying with Oyster rules are
fully available

2) offering extension tickets at rather less than £4 to people who can
show a paper travelcard

In response it has been implied

1) that I am talking nonsense

2) that it's my fault for not explaining TfL's own system to TfL

I am close to giving up as well - on using public transport in London.
I am soon going to be the object of those regular threads about wanting
to kill cyclists.

Oyster - Meant to make your life easier??!
 

On 31 Oct 2006 01:40:55 -0800, "MIG"
wrote:


James Farrar wrote:
You simply will not assume good faith.



I don't assume bad faith in Paul's explanations (which is probably not
what you meant).

No, it certainly is not what I meant. You will not assume good faith
on the part of TfL in attempting to close off a loophole in the
system.

I don't know why. Assuming bad faith without evidence is an inherently
irrational position.

Oyster - Meant to make your life easier??!
 

Robin Mayes wrote:
"Tim Roll-Pickering" wrote in message
...
Paul Corfield wrote:

Touch in and touch out within an unspecified time period (and if
you exceed that unspecified time period, you're subject to an £8
penalty). And maybe at some interchange points too, but nobody
seems to know for sure (e.g., Bank).

Sorry but you'll have to explain that one to me.

It's come up a few times but no-one seems to know just what the
purpose of the Oyster readers near or at the DLR platforms are for,
or what happens if you touch them whilst entering or interchanging.


If you enter Bank station via the mobility impaired lift in King
William Street these are the first validators you will come across.

If that's the only reason, it would be more sensible to put the reader by
the lift.

I forget the precise words, but I recall that the text displayed at the
reader implied that all PAYG users needed to validate there. The effect
when I did so on a journey Mansion House - Monument/Bank - West India Quay
was to deduct £1 (in addition to the £1.50 deducted on entry at Mansion
House) followed by a 50p credit when I touched out at WIQ. But the
validation at Bank DLR was shown as "Monument" in the journey history.

Incidentally, you can only realise that the 50p is a credit by examining the
balance remaining. There's no minus sign or CR indication on the online
journey history.
--
Richard J.
(swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address to email me)

Oyster - Meant to make your life easier??!
 

It's come up a few times but no-one seems to know just what the purpose
of the Oyster readers near or at the DLR platforms are for, or what
happens if you touch them whilst entering or interchanging.


If you enter Bank station via the mobility impaired lift in King William
Street these are the first validators you will come across.

This is true but presumably they will also be the last validators you would
come across if exiting Bank via that route and yet it has been suggested
that they are only set for entry which doesn't seem to make much sense.

Also if that is indeed the intention of the validators it would seem trivial
to place a clearly worded notice to that effect by the validators and last
time I passed through there (admittedly not for some time) it was just the
usual one that implied all PAYG users should touch in.

G.

Oyster - Meant to make your life easier??!
 

On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 04:08:03AM +0000, David of Broadway wrote:

(I'm ignoring day Travelcards, which, if I understand correctly, will be
phased out once Oyster deployment is complete.)

That would certainly be a backward step, when you can currently get one
day travelcards from places at least as far away as Brighton.

Similarly, railway tickets from (eg) Llanfairpwll to Dover include the
underground fare. Are the Oyster fanboys seriously suggesting that
Brighton, Llanfairpwll and Dover should all have Oystery things so that
they can cope with TfL's crazy scheme?

If you want to seriously reduce fraud, install gates at the stations
that don't have them.
I realize that there are practical difficulties. In my opinion, that's
a choice that needs to be made: find some way to fully gate the entire
system or live with the reality that some people will occasionally evade
the fare.

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.

--
David Cantrell | Hero of the Information Age

One person can change the world, but most of the time they shouldn't
-- Marge Simpson