On Dec 13, 4:47*pm, Mizter T wrote:
On 13 Dec, 15:58, "Tim Roll-Pickering"
wrote:

Mizter T wrote:
By security I take it you mean fare checking (or 'revenue inspection'
- but I dislike that phrase because I think it's very narrow) - not
quite the same thing in my mind but of course they overlap.
Interesting thought - I hadn't considered the difference six car
trains (or three car - depending on how you look at it!) might make to
checking tickets. Most DLR stations simply ain't set up to accomodate
tickets gates, so I dare say that if there is deemed to be an issue
then teams of roving inspectors would fit the bill - I don't think
I've ever come across such a thing on a DLR train actually, though I
have seen ticket checking teams at stations a few times.

I have a few times on the Stratford branch. Perhaps that's also because
Stratford is a nightmare for knowing how to use Oyster correctly when
interchanging (especially from tickets).

IME there isn't really an issue here - at least there isn't a
technical issue, the issue is with regards to people getting
unneccesarily worried about it which is understandable as there isn't
any guidance.

Touching on Oyster interchange validators at Stratford or similar
locations isn't necessary if one is using PAYG from point A (e.g.
Pudding Mill Lane on the DLR) to point B (e.g. Leyton on the Central
line) as one touches-in and out at the start/end of that journey.
However if one does touch on an interchange validator it doesn't
matter - all that happens is that the journey would then be extended
from Stratford to Leyton when one touched-out at the latter.

In other words one does not have to use the interchange validators
whatsoever if one is merely interchanging there as part of an overall
PAYG journey, but nothing bad happens if one does.

(It's worth noting that these interchange validators - i.e. within
gated stations - are set up differently from those in use elsewhere at
ungated stations on the DLR and indeed at a number of LU, LO and
National Rail stations - the latter are set up as entry & exit
validators, and once you've touched on these the system will regard
your journey as either having started or finished.)

Many (inc. Paul C) have said that better information should be
provided - I suspect the basic problem with providing this information
is that it might assist people in working out the potential loopholes
that are inherent with interchange validators, something I've hinted
at in the past though I note one contributor to this ng recently laid
it out in a straightforward manner. In other words spelling out
exactly how they work will assist people to abuse the system.

Much as I admire your knowledgeable and good-tempered contributions,
that has got to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever read.

Keeping the rules a secret in order to increase compliance with the
rules? I hardly think so, although it might catch more people out, if
that's the intention.

On 13 Dec, 18:44, MIG wrote:

On Dec 13, 4:47*pm, Mizter T wrote:

On 13 Dec, 15:58, "Tim Roll-Pickering"
wrote:

Mizter T wrote:
By security I take it you mean fare checking (or 'revenue inspection'
- but I dislike that phrase because I think it's very narrow) - not
quite the same thing in my mind but of course they overlap.
Interesting thought - I hadn't considered the difference six car
trains (or three car - depending on how you look at it!) might make to
checking tickets. Most DLR stations simply ain't set up to accomodate
tickets gates, so I dare say that if there is deemed to be an issue
then teams of roving inspectors would fit the bill - I don't think
I've ever come across such a thing on a DLR train actually, though I
have seen ticket checking teams at stations a few times.

I have a few times on the Stratford branch. Perhaps that's also because
Stratford is a nightmare for knowing how to use Oyster correctly when
interchanging (especially from tickets).

IME there isn't really an issue here - at least there isn't a
technical issue, the issue is with regards to people getting
unneccesarily worried about it which is understandable as there isn't
any guidance.

Touching on Oyster interchange validators at Stratford or similar
locations isn't necessary if one is using PAYG from point A (e.g.
Pudding Mill Lane on the DLR) to point B (e.g. Leyton on the Central
line) as one touches-in and out at the start/end of that journey.
However if one does touch on an interchange validator it doesn't
matter - all that happens is that the journey would then be extended
from Stratford to Leyton when one touched-out at the latter.

In other words one does not have to use the interchange validators
whatsoever if one is merely interchanging there as part of an overall
PAYG journey, but nothing bad happens if one does.

(It's worth noting that these interchange validators - i.e. within
gated stations - are set up differently from those in use elsewhere at
ungated stations on the DLR and indeed at a number of LU, LO and
National Rail stations - the latter are set up as entry & exit
validators, and once you've touched on these the system will regard
your journey as either having started or finished.)

Many (inc. Paul C) have said that better information should be
provided - I suspect the basic problem with providing this information
is that it might assist people in working out the potential loopholes
that are inherent with interchange validators, something I've hinted
at in the past though I note one contributor to this ng recently laid
it out in a straightforward manner. In other words spelling out
exactly how they work will assist people to abuse the system.

Much as I admire your knowledgeable and good-tempered contributions,
that has got to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever read.

Keeping the rules a secret in order to increase compliance with the
rules? *I hardly think so, although it might catch more people out, if
that's the intention.


Ha! Put like that it does sound nonsensical, but that's not quite what
I was getting at - allow me to elaborate...

If you take a look at my extensive reply to Tim on this overall issue
upthread, you'll find that I expand on this. Do note that I don't work
for TfL or anyone else involved - all I was doing was hypothesising on
reasons why TfL might not provide specific guidance for such
scenarios, which in essence boils down to...
(a) the fact that it's not possible to muck it up - a passenger can
touch on as many interchange validators as they want without it
causing an issue, and
(b) the possibility that publicly laying out exactly how the system is
configured will make it easier for people to figure out how to 'work
the system'.

In other words there aren't really any complicated rules, all one is
basically required to is to least touche-in or out at the start or end
of one's PAYG journey - at a gated interchange point like this a
passenger changing lines can touch-in at as many interchange
validators as they want and it won't make a blind bit of difference.

That said I'll certainly grant you that official guidance is a bit
vague at best when it comes to the issue of combining a Travelcard on
Oyster with PAYG to extend the journey 'out-of-zone' - though
passengers using this facility would indeed do well to touch-in on any
interchange validators they might come across on their journey.

However when PAYG becomes widespread on National Rail there could well
be an issue is passengers are changing trains at an ungated station
and decide to go to the station exit to touch-in on a standalone
validator - if that validator has been configured merely to deal with
entrances and exits then people trying to use it as an interchange
validator will mess things up on their card (and yes I do realise that
in such a scenario said passengers would only be doing what they
thought was best). There are two solutions to this...
(a) gate the station, and
(b) configure any validators at such stations as interchange
validators, just to be on the safe side.

I dare say that many stations used where this might occur (i.e. those
commonly used for interchange between lines and services) are either
already gated or will be gated soon.

Anyway I suspect you'll still think I'm a fruitcake regardless!

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008, MIG wrote:

On Dec 13, 4:47*pm, Mizter T wrote:

Many (inc. Paul C) have said that better information should be provided
- I suspect the basic problem with providing this information is that
it might assist people in working out the potential loopholes that are
inherent with interchange validators, something I've hinted at in the
past though I note one contributor to this ng recently laid it out in a
straightforward manner. In other words spelling out exactly how they
work will assist people to abuse the system.

Much as I admire your knowledgeable and good-tempered contributions,
that has got to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever read.

Keeping the rules a secret in order to increase compliance with the
rules?

Mizter T is a former home secretary, AICMFP.

tom

--
For me, thats just logic. OTOH, Spock went bananas several times using
logic. -- Pete, mfw

On 13 Dec, 22:02, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008, MIG wrote:

On Dec 13, 4:47*pm, Mizter T wrote:

Many (inc. Paul C) have said that better information should be provided
- I suspect the basic problem with providing this information is that
it might assist people in working out the potential loopholes that are
inherent with interchange validators, something I've hinted at in the
past though I note one contributor to this ng recently laid it out in a
straightforward manner. In other words spelling out exactly how they
work will assist people to abuse the system.

Much as I admire your knowledgeable and good-tempered contributions,
that has got to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever read.

Keeping the rules a secret in order to increase compliance with the
rules?

Mizter T is a former home secretary, AICMFP.

tom


You'll end up in Guantanamo for reason redacted if you're not
careful sonny!

On Dec 13, 10:58*pm, Mizter T wrote:
On 13 Dec, 22:02, Tom Anderson wrote:





On Sat, 13 Dec 2008, MIG wrote:

On Dec 13, 4:47*pm, Mizter T wrote:

Many (inc. Paul C) have said that better information should be provided
- I suspect the basic problem with providing this information is that
it might assist people in working out the potential loopholes that are
inherent with interchange validators, something I've hinted at in the
past though I note one contributor to this ng recently laid it out in a
straightforward manner. In other words spelling out exactly how they
work will assist people to abuse the system.

Much as I admire your knowledgeable and good-tempered contributions,
that has got to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever read.

Keeping the rules a secret in order to increase compliance with the
rules?

Mizter T is a former home secretary, AICMFP.

tom

You'll end up in Guantanamo for reason redacted if you're not
careful sonny!

I think that's what they call an unresolved journey ...

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008, MIG wrote:

On Dec 13, 10:58*pm, Mizter T wrote:
On 13 Dec, 22:02, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008, MIG wrote:

On Dec 13, 4:47*pm, Mizter T wrote:

Many (inc. Paul C) have said that better information should be provided
- I suspect the basic problem with providing this information is that
it might assist people in working out the potential loopholes that are
inherent with interchange validators, something I've hinted at in the
past though I note one contributor to this ng recently laid it out in a
straightforward manner. In other words spelling out exactly how they
work will assist people to abuse the system.

Much as I admire your knowledgeable and good-tempered contributions,
that has got to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever read.

Keeping the rules a secret in order to increase compliance with the
rules?

Mizter T is a former home secretary, AICMFP.

You'll end up in Guantanamo for reason redacted if you're not
careful sonny!

I think that's what they call an unresolved journey ...

Impossible - i'm pretty sure Guantanamo's gated.

tom

--
There is a faster way to find out...

On 14 Dec, 11:45, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008, MIG wrote:

On Dec 13, 10:58*pm, Mizter T wrote:

On 13 Dec, 22:02, Tom Anderson wrote:

(snip)

Mizter T is a former home secretary, AICMFP.

You'll end up in Guantanamo for reason redacted if you're not
careful sonny!

I think that's what they call an unresolved journey ...

Impossible - i'm pretty sure Guantanamo's gated.


Gated but it's entry only - once inside it appears that your journey
times out.

Of course there's a new operator on the scene in January who's stated
their intention to resolve matters, so it'll be interesting to see how
they do so - no possibility of penalty fares so it's either
prosecution or being set free (though possibly only to somewhere
outside the zonal system)... or is it - we shall see I suppose.

"Mizter T" wrote :
Of course there's a new operator on the scene in
January who's stated their intention to resolve matters,
so it'll be interesting to see how they do so - no
possibility of penalty fares so it's either prosecution or
being set free (though possibly only to somewhere
outside the zonal system)... or is it - we shall see I
suppose.

So long as he moves the depot from where its ownership is disputed, he gets
my vote. What d'ya mean, he doesn't want it?

He'll be wary of setting them free without installing some kind of satellite
tracking; they'll have a travel card talking to one satellite, and an ankle
bracelet talking to another. Is there a word for that, besides 'asbo'?
--

Andrew

"She plays the tuba.
It is the only instrument capable
of imitating a distress call."

On Dec 14, 12:41*pm, Mizter T wrote:
On 14 Dec, 11:45, Tom Anderson wrote:







On Sun, 14 Dec 2008, MIG wrote:

On Dec 13, 10:58*pm, Mizter T wrote:

On 13 Dec, 22:02, Tom Anderson wrote:

(snip)

Mizter T is a former home secretary, AICMFP.

You'll end up in Guantanamo for reason redacted if you're not
careful sonny!

I think that's what they call an unresolved journey ...

Impossible - i'm pretty sure Guantanamo's gated.

Gated but it's entry only - once inside it appears that your journey
times out.

Of course there's a new operator on the scene in January who's stated
their intention to resolve matters, so it'll be interesting to see how
they do so - no possibility of penalty fares so it's either
prosecution or being set free (though possibly only to somewhere
outside the zonal system)... or is it - we shall see I suppose.

It may depend on whether capping can apply.