Oysters on Overground ...
 

According to the London ****e, there will be Oysters on Overground by
next May.

Whatever one might interpret that to mean, it's all Boris Johnson's
idea.

Why didn't anyone think of it before (whatever it means)?

Oysters on Overground ...
 

MIG wrote:
According to the London ****e, there will be Oysters on Overground by
next May.

Whatever one might interpret that to mean, it's all Boris Johnson's
idea.

Why didn't anyone think of it before (whatever it means)?

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 (;-)

--
Tony the Dragon

Oysters on Overground ...
 

On 12 May, 18:49, MIG wrote:
According to the London ****e, there will be Oysters on Overground by
next May.

Evening Standard/London Lite article:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...May/article.do

Mayor of London press release:
http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_...eleaseid=16853

(interestingly nothing heard from TfL)

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

Oysters on Overground ...
 

On Mon, 12 May 2008 18:52:51 +0100, Tony Dragon
wrote:

MIG wrote:
According to the London ****e, there will be Oysters on Overground by
next May.

Whatever one might interpret that to mean, it's all Boris Johnson's
idea.

Why didn't anyone think of it before (whatever it means)?

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

Oysters on Overground ...
 

On 12 May, 18:56, James Farrar wrote:
According to the London ****e, there will be Oysters on Overground by
next May.

Whatever one might interpret that to mean, it's all Boris Johnson's
idea.

Why didn't anyone think of it before (whatever it means)?

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, 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.

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 org
www.johnband.org

Oysters on Overground ...
 

On 12 May, 18:56, James Farrar wrote:
Ken was trying, but apparently Boris has adopted a "less
confrontational" approach which appears to be paying dividends.

FGW were already on side for a roll out this year, and Boris doesn't
seem any closer to an agreement with the other companies than Ken was,
so it's not entirely clear what he's meant to have achieved.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

Oysters on Overground ...
 

In message
, MIG
writes

According to the London ****e, there will be Oysters on Overground by
next May.

Whatever one might interpret that to mean, it's all Boris Johnson's
idea.

Given that virtually all TOCs had already agreed to, or been forced
into, this, Boris's only real claim to fame is mastering the art of
spin.
--
Paul Terry

Oysters on Overground ...
 

John B 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.

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.

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

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

Oysters on Overground ...
 

"Mr Thant" wrote in message
...
On 12 May, 18:49, MIG wrote:
According to the London ****e, there will be Oysters on Overground by
next May.

Evening Standard/London Lite article:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...May/article.do


Yet again a London paper uses the term 'overground' confusingly, as the
'Overground' has been Oyster enabled since November. They also refer to the
'overland network' - another new term.

Paul S

Oysters on Overground ...
 

Tim Roll-Pickering 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?

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*

Tom

Oysters on Overground ...
 

On Mon, 12 May 2008 19:17:04 +0100, Paul Terry
wrote:

In message
, MIG
writes

According to the London ****e, there will be Oysters on Overground by
next May.

Whatever one might interpret that to mean, it's all Boris Johnson's
idea.

Given that virtually all TOCs had already agreed to, or been forced
into, this, Boris's only real claim to fame is mastering the art of
spin.

If they've been forced into it I wonder why he needs to hold a
conference before the start of Summer?

I'd really like to know just who is and who is not signed up to accept
Oyster. Anyone know the state of play?

I'd also like to know what the terms of each agreement is and whether
there is any consistency of treatment or whether the most "awkward" have
extracted a better deal. I look forward to the new "transparent" City
Hall revealing all.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Oysters on Overground ...
 

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.

Of the 10 London operators:
c2c: All services
Chiltern: All services
London Overground: All services
London Midland: All services
National Express East Anglia: All trains south of the Victoria Line
interchanges, no word on future expansion
First Great Western: All services from September, possibly as penance
for being rubbish
First Capital Connect: Central area services only, no word on future
expansion
Southern: Watford to Clapham Junction only, no word beyond that
Southeastern: None, though they do mention the January 2009 date on
their website
South West Trains: Franchise agreement alleged to require a full
rollout in January 2009, though we'll see. Currently nothing.

(Heathrow Connect is sort of an FGW service)

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

Oysters on Overground ...
 

Paul Scott wrote:
"Mr Thant" wrote in message
...
On 12 May, 18:49, MIG wrote:
According to the London ****e, there will be Oysters on Overground by
next May.
Evening Standard/London Lite article:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...May/article.do


Yet again a London paper uses the term 'overground' confusingly, as the
'Overground' has been Oyster enabled since November. They also refer to the
'overland network' - another new term.

There is an argument that it is TfL et al who are using "overground"
confusingly, by giving Overground a tighter meaning than (the person in
the street's use of-) overground. Maybe it is to compensate for "Tube"
now including things which aren't tubes :-)

Then there is the Overground Network, which came, caused a little
confusion and then died, but its ghost still haunts various bits of signage.
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Oysters on overground ...
 

Paul Scott wrote:
Yet again a London paper uses the term 'overground' confusingly, as the
'Overground' has been Oyster enabled since November.

Moreover, Overground didn't exist as such before November and was Oyster
enabled from the outset. Also it was the OP that confusingly capitalised
the term, not the paper.

ESB

Oysters on Overground ...
 

On May 12, 8:49*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
"Mr Thant" wrote in message

...

On 12 May, 18:49, MIG wrote:
According to the London ****e, there will be Oysters on Overground by
next May.

Evening Standard/London Lite article:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...-details/Boris...

Yet again a London paper uses the term 'overground' confusingly, as the
'Overground' has been Oyster enabled since November. They also refer to the
'overland network' - another new term.


I am sure that the papers (and everyone) were using the term
"overground" long before TfL started using it confusingly.

But it was amusing that those papers today used the word which now
refers to precisely the part of the railway network that already
accepts Pay As You Go. You'd think that for a story like this they'd
choose their words more carefully (no you wouldn't).

The original press release very carefully doesn't actually make any
claims, but makes the announcements in a way that leads readers to
make inferences.

The papers that have been Boris's campaign leaflets till recently have
obligingly spelled out the inferences as facts (ie they have lied).
But they've also published a couple of comments on the story from
readers pointing out how old the plans are.

All very strange. Is it convincing anybody or is it making everyone
look silly? What might be preventing TfL spokespeople from explaining
the true situation about the current state and history of negotiations
with the various TOCs? Because I would be interested to know.

Oysters on overground ...
 

On May 13, 12:16*am, Ernst S Blofeld
wrote:
Paul Scott wrote:
Yet again a London paper uses the term 'overground' confusingly, as the
'Overground' has been Oyster enabled since November.

Moreover, Overground didn't exist as such before November and was Oyster
enabled from the outset. Also it was the OP that confusingly capitalised
the term, not the paper.

I was referring to a headline which happened to be all in capitals,
not the story in the link.

Oysters on overground ...
 

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.

ESB

Oysters on overground ...
 

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. From the
version all in capitals it would be anyone's guess anyway.

I was trying to ... efficiently? ... poetically? ... have a go at
political spin and silly franchise names in one hit.

Oysters on overground ...
 

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.

I note that the Google archive claims that I changed the discussion
heading (to include a capital?). I certainly did not. I put a capital
in the original heading only, because it was a heading, and have never
changed it since.

Oysters on Overground ...
 

On Mon, 12 May 2008 15:02:10 -0700 (PDT), Mr Thant
wrote:

(Heathrow Connect is sort of an FGW service)

....which will presumably only accept PAYG as far as H&H.

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 ...
 

On Tue, 13 May 2008 01:33:14 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

Yes, the newspaper market is the way it is in that the Standard has a
monopoly in London.

That used to be true in the evening.

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

Really? Remind me where Farringdon Road is.

Oysters on Overground ...
 

On 13 May, 17:20, James Farrar wrote:
Yes, the newspaper market is the way it is in that the Standard has a
monopoly in London.

That used to be true in the evening.

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

Really? Remind me where Farringdon Road is.

Hmm. I'd question whether the Economist was a "London magazine", or
the IHT a "Paris newspaper"...

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

Oysters on Overground ...
 

On Tue, 13 May 2008, James Farrar wrote:

On Tue, 13 May 2008 01:33:14 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

Yes, the newspaper market is the way it is in that the Standard has a
monopoly in London.

That used to be true in the evening.

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

Really? Remind me where Farringdon Road is.

Judging by the columns of theirs i've read in the last couple of years, in
orbit round planet almost, but not quite, exactly unlike ours.

tom

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

Oysters on Overground ...
 

On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:32:33AM +0100, Paul Scott wrote:

Going back to TfL's contribution - is it not just validators?

If the system is going to work, then they also need to be able to sell
tickets and all the baggage that comes along with that - that is, issue
new cards, load Travelcards onto 'em, load cash onto 'em, tell people
their current pre-pay balance, answer all the questions that people will
ask, and deal with refunds.

To do all that needs a fair bit of booking office upgrades and staff
training.

--
David Cantrell | Official London Perl Mongers Bad Influence

If I could read only one thing it would be the future, in the
entrails of the ******* denying me access to anything else.

Oysters on Overground ...
 

On 13 May, 11:17, Paul Terry wrote:
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

'signed up' in my book means 'contractually entered into'....and that
includes a 'go live' date.
THis obviously isn't the case. 'Agreed in principle' doesn't equal
'signed up'. There is obviously a sticking point in getting those
without a go-live date to contract-in, and cost is what I'm being told
is the reason.

Oysters on Overground ...
 

Oysters on Overground ...
 

On May 14, 6:59*pm, "Tim Roll-Pickering" T.C.Roll-
wrote:
wrote:
You seem like a bright enough chap. I don't honestly believe you can't
see the difference in scale there.

As I said the site was crashing my browser (and has a dire search engine) so
I grabbed the first stable links I could get. I remember more substantial
pieces in the Standard but it's always been one of the worst of online
papets.

Yes, the newspaper market is the way it is in that the Standard has a
monopoly in London.

Only because the other evening paids have died out. The Standard is, of
course, under much pressure from the freesheets but has managed to carve out
a niche for itself. But it's not as if the Standard has a guaranteed
monopoly - there's nothing but market forces stopping a rival paper from
trying to offer an alternative.

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.

It hasn't really been the "Manchester Guardian" in decades. It is part of
the national-based-in-London press and so in one sense *is* a London paper,
albeit not a local focused one. Do you think any of the national papers
would have given anything like even proporional coverage to a hypothetical
Mayoral election in, say, Birmingham, Manchester or Liverpool?

One thing the Standard does seem to have a monopoly on, and which I
have been very aware of as someone who doesn't buy newspapers, is
those fake handwritten boards on every street corner proclaiming
"Boris Does a Thing" every single day.

I'm sure that must have an effect.