London Banter - Oysters on Overground ...

London Banter (https://www.londonbanter.co.uk/forum.php)

- London Transport (https://www.londonbanter.co.uk/london-transport/)

- - Oysters on Overground ... (https://www.londonbanter.co.uk/london-transport/6692-oysters-overground.html)

Oysters on Overground ...

Tom Barry wrote:

Boris's campaign could have done without the headache of the row over
routemaster costs. And which newspaper made an issue of it?

The Guardian. Dave Hill's piece appeared around about the first week in
March and proved to be entirely correct.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...london08.boris

When did the Standard lay into it?

Before then - late February and earlier in March. Their website keeps
crashing my browser but amongst the search results:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa... is/article.do

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...ers/article.do

Anyway if you want an anti-Boris Livingstone-nostalgic paper, buy
the Grauniad. Or try getting "The Evening Communist" started and
successful.

If you like your transport finances to pass more than a superficial
examination you're a Communist? Interesting. *makes note*

I meant that more for the sore losers currently whining about the Standard
and claiming it swung the result of the election against their beloved Ken.
(Although I find all the "I'm devastated for London" or "Not in my name"
comments from Labour activists far worse - they're not fooling anyone.)
Never mind the fact that other papers were vehemently anti-Boris or that the
newspaper market is the way it is.

There's a pretty good rebuttal of this line by Gilligan in the Independent:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/me...is-821013.html

Oysters on Overground ...

On 13 May, 08:38, "Tim Roll-Pickering"
wrote:
Tom Barry wrote:
Boris's campaign could have done without the headache of the row over
routemaster costs. And which newspaper made an issue of it?
The Guardian. *Dave Hill's piece appeared around about the first week in
March and proved to be entirely correct.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...london08.boris
When did the Standard lay into it?

Before then - late February and earlier in March. Their website keeps
crashing my browser but amongst the search results:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...443386-details...

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...448187-details...

There is a substantial difference between stories which point out the
candidates were "clashing" over an issue, as above, and those which
make ficationalized ad hominem attacks against one - and only one - of
them.

Running a story that Livingstone had pointed out that Boris's sums
were rubbish isn't specifically anti-Boris, it's just basic reporting.
Running a story that one of Ken's campaign chiefs was an active
terrorist - which was, you know, not true - is extremely anti-Ken; the
equivalent would have been to splash with "BNP CAMPAIGNS FOR BORIS",
which they didn't do.

You seem like a bright enough chap. I don't honestly believe you can't
see the difference in scale there.

Anyway if you want an anti-Boris Livingstone-nostalgic paper, buy
the Grauniad. Or try getting "The Evening Communist" started and
successful.
If you like your transport finances to pass more than a superficial
examination you're a Communist? *Interesting. *makes note*

I meant that more for the sore losers currently whining about the Standard
and claiming it swung the result of the election against their beloved Ken..
(Although I find all the "I'm devastated for London" or "Not in my name"
comments from Labour activists far worse - they're not fooling anyone.)
Never mind the fact that other papers were vehemently anti-Boris or that the
newspaper market is the way it is.

Yes, the newspaper market is the way it is in that the Standard has a
monopoly in London. That's offensive at the best of times, before they
start swinging an election based on their own personal prejudices.

The Guardian, of course, isn't a London newspaper.

Jonn

Oysters on Overground ...

On 12 May, 19:00, John B wrote:
First Great Western are to be the first according to the radio.
Boris has done it so fast, it's a pity Ken did not try it (;-)

Ken was trying,

Boy, you can say that again!!! :-)

but apparently Boris has adopted a "less
confrontational" approach which appears to be paying dividends.

Or, in the real world, Ken had already achieved it (Oyster was already
scheduled for roll-out on National Rail by 2009) but Boris took the
credit, and the Standard has let him get away with taking the credit.

Sorry, don't agree. No other TOC had signed up to Ken's proposals as
he refused to pay the entire cost of barrier & software installation.
And he was / Boris is unable to 'force' TOCs to accept it. I suspect
Boris is eithere paying or otherwise doing deals, which Ken refused to
do.

Still, I'm sure the London press will be happy to apply just the same
levels of scrutiny to the new mayor that it applied to his
predecessor. Oh yes.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot orgwww.johnband.org

Oysters on Overground ...

On 13 May, 09:40, Chris wrote:
Or, in the real world, Ken had already achieved it (Oyster was already
scheduled for roll-out on National Rail by 2009) but Boris took the
credit, and the Standard has let him get away with taking the credit.

Sorry, don't agree. No other TOC had signed up to Ken's proposals as
he refused to pay the entire cost of barrier & software installation.
And he was / Boris is unable to 'force' TOCs to accept it. I suspect
Boris is eithere paying or otherwise doing deals, which Ken refused to
do.

Nonsense. Ken had offered to pay, he negotiated the just-announced
deal with FGW, and all the London TOCs had already agreed a 2009 roll-
out.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

Oysters on overground ...

On Tue, 13 May 2008, MIG wrote:

On May 13, 1:42*am, Ernst S Blofeld
wrote:
MIG wrote:
I was referring to a headline which happened to be all in capitals,
not the story in the link.

Might have been handy to point that out from the outset! As it happens,
the story as available online does not capitalise overground even in the
headline so there is some hope.

If punters have to spot a capitalised or non-capitalised version of
the same word to make the distinction between totally different
railway routes, it demonstrates the silliness of the name.

Better write to FGW, then. Reading and Slough must be renamed forthwith!

tom

--
When you mentioned INSERT-MIND-INPUT ... did they look at you like this?

Oysters on Overground ...

In message
,
Chris writes

No other TOC had signed up to Ken's proposals as he refused to pay the
entire cost of barrier & software installation.

All of the TOCs had agreed in principle well over a year ago, and
several were totally "signed up" by February 2007. FCC released a press
statement on 30th January 2007 announcing a roll-out starting in 2009,
FGW made a similar announcement the next day, SWT was already obliged by
its franchise to do so, and all of the remainder confirmed their
intention to go ahead with Oyster PAYG within a matter of weeks.
Southern had made the commitment back in 2005 and at one time were
talking of a roll out in 2007 or soon after, although that seems to have
been delayed.
--
Paul Terry

Oysters on overground ...

On 13 May, 11:08, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2008, MIG wrote:
On May 13, 1:42*am, Ernst S Blofeld
wrote:
MIG wrote:
I was referring to a headline which happened to be all in capitals,
not the story in the link.

Might have been handy to point that out from the outset! As it happens,
the story as available online does not capitalise overground even in the
headline so there is some hope.

If punters have to spot a capitalised or non-capitalised version of
the same word to make the distinction between totally different
railway routes, it demonstrates the silliness of the name.

Better write to FGW, then. Reading and Slough must be renamed forthwith!

Uh? Has someone chosen to call a new franchise Reading which is
totally separate from railway routes commonly known as reading?

Oysters on overground ...

"MIG" wrote in message
...
On 13 May, 11:08, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2008, MIG wrote:
On May 13, 1:42 am, Ernst S Blofeld
wrote:
MIG wrote:

Better write to FGW, then. Reading and Slough must be renamed forthwith!

Uh? Has someone chosen to call a new franchise Reading which is
totally separate from railway routes commonly known as reading?

There is the (very old) story of the foreign visitor who wanted to catch a
train from Paddington to Bristol.
He walked down the platform looking for a seat, and the sign on the coach
said 'For Reading Passengers Only'

..
..
..

So he went back to the bookstall and bought a newspaper.

--
Peter

Oysters on Overground ...

"Mr Thant" wrote in message
...
On 12 May, 22:16, Paul Corfield wrote:
I'd really like to know just who is and who is not signed up to accept
Oyster. Anyone know the state of play?

They all promised a "positive response" to the Mayor's offer of free
equipment installation a year or two ago, with details to be worked
out later in time for a January 2009 rollout. This hasn't happened, as
far as I know.

I've always wondered if the real stumbling block is how the 'back office'
fare allocation will work. For the 'south of the river' franchises, there
must be a huge number of journeys within the zonal areas which can easily
include two or three TOCs as well as LO, LU, Tramlink, DLR.

Presumably there is a revenue sharing mechanism in place already for
travelcards and travelcard seasons, all they have to do is produce one for
PAYG. Easy peasy - or pretty complex?

Going back to TfL's contribution - is it not just validators? Can't see them
paying for things like the Waterloo gating scheme, that must be down to SWT
& NR surely?

Paul S

Oysters on Overground ...