On Nov 27, 11:44*am, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
"Tim Roll-Pickering" wrote in message

...

Neil Williams wrote:

Or just enforce that touching in and out
is mandatory regardless of what's on your card.

Then explain how you'd handle the following situations:

1). I sometimes visit my parents in Epsom, for which I get an extension to
my existing season ticket. I will not be able to touch out at Epsom so how
do I touch out. (And even if I can get special dispensation to enter
through the barriers without touching in, I may well not be on an Epsom
train for all of the journey, but instead changing at Sutton.)

Bad example Epsom is irrelevant to the 'OEP discussion' because it is
outside the zones. You'll have to do exactly what you do already - ie buy a
ticket?

No, you're missing the point. If I have a z12 Travelcard on Oyster,
and I want to go to Epsom, then I can buy a BZ2-Epsom ticket from a NR
ticket office.

Under your "touching out is mandatory for Travelcard users" model, I'd
be penalised for doing this, because I'd have touched in at Waterloo
and wouldn't have touched out anywhere.

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

John B wrote:
On Nov 27, 11:44 am, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
"Tim Roll-Pickering" wrote in message

...

Neil Williams wrote:

Or just enforce that touching in and out
is mandatory regardless of what's on your card.

Then explain how you'd handle the following situations:

1). I sometimes visit my parents in Epsom, for which I get an
extension to my existing season ticket. I will not be able to touch
out at Epsom so how do I touch out. (And even if I can get special
dispensation to enter through the barriers without touching in, I
may well not be on an Epsom train for all of the journey, but
instead changing at Sutton.)

Bad example Epsom is irrelevant to the 'OEP discussion' because it is
outside the zones. You'll have to do exactly what you do already -
ie buy a ticket?

No, you're missing the point. If I have a z12 Travelcard on Oyster,
and I want to go to Epsom, then I can buy a BZ2-Epsom ticket from a NR
ticket office.

Under your "touching out is mandatory for Travelcard users" model, I'd
be penalised for doing this, because I'd have touched in at Waterloo
and wouldn't have touched out anywhere.

That was Neil Williams' idea, I was really just (confusingly as it turned
out) pointing out Epsom was beyond the boundary...

Paul S

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 04:41:58 -0800 (PST), John B
wrote:

Under your "touching out is mandatory for Travelcard users" model, I'd
be penalised for doing this, because I'd have touched in at Waterloo
and wouldn't have touched out anywhere.

No, because you'd mark the BZ tickets as "only valid with Oyster card
number N" and make them open the barriers at both ends, so you
wouldn't touch your Oyster at all.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009, Neil Williams wrote:

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 04:41:58 -0800 (PST), John B
wrote:

Under your "touching out is mandatory for Travelcard users" model, I'd
be penalised for doing this, because I'd have touched in at Waterloo
and wouldn't have touched out anywhere.

No, because you'd mark the BZ tickets as "only valid with Oyster card
number N" and make them open the barriers at both ends, so you wouldn't
touch your Oyster at all.

So you'd actually be buying a single, and paying for it with your oyster
card. Sounds sensible.

tom

--
.... a tale for which the world is not yet prepared

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 00:38:02 +0000, Tom Anderson
wrote:

So you'd actually be buying a single, and paying for it with your oyster
card. Sounds sensible.

Yep, or a return. To prevent it being given to someone else, it'd
have the relevant Oyster card number printed on it.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On 29 Nov, 18:53, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 00:38:02 +0000, Tom Anderson

wrote:
So you'd actually be buying a single, and paying for it with your oyster
card. Sounds sensible.

Yep, or a return. *To prevent it being given to someone else, it'd
have the relevant Oyster card number printed on it.

Neil

So Oyster would be a bank. It ought to pay interest.

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:25:42 -0800 (PST), MIG
wrote:

So Oyster would be a bank. It ought to pay interest.

Most current accounts don't.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On 30 Nov, 06:43, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:25:42 -0800 (PST), MIG

wrote:
So Oyster would be a bank. *It ought to pay interest.

Most current accounts don't.

Didn't mean the comments to follow necessarily. It ought to pay
interest anyway. It's a system for us to lend our money up front and
use it later along with a whole new assumption of guilt, and now huge
inconveniences, thrown at us.

It's supposed to make everything more convenient, but in practice what
we really get is all other fares put up to coerce us to use this
system where we lend our money up front, but for practical reasons
that involves far more inconvenience and complication when we have to
mix systems to get the best deal.

The £3, which almost no one is ever going to claim back, is like a
bank charge for having an account at all. Most banks offer
inducements to get you to lend them their money.