On 25 Jan, 19:09, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 17:13:52 +0000 (UTC), wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 07:28:16 -0800 (PST)
TimB wrote:
wouldn't be an issue. But to save themselves a bit of cash they decided t=
o
stiff the public instead.

B2003

It's all a conspiracy to stiff you, isn't it?

No , its standard practice. Do everything as cheaply as possible. I was
involved, albeit on some peripheral back-end systems, in the original paper
travelcard system rolled out to newsagents back in the mid 90s (large blue
boxes if anyone remembers them). And believe me, if a cost could be cut and
got away with it would be.

Oh you were involved in the PASS Agent Terminals. chortle Lucky you.

And yes they were built down to a price because the people running PASS
didn't want to incur the costs from a supplier like Cubic. To be fair
the terminal needed to be basic and simple as the transactions were only
supposed to be simple. *The scope of service assumed for the PASS
network is now far greater than back in the late 90s because there is
such a determined shift to get sales off stations.

I see no reason to believe that the decisions
behind oyster were any different. So if they could cut the number of
validators in half and put some software lash up in its place then thats
exactly what they'd do. And have done.

Well you would be wrong wouldn't you? *I identified the need for
validators at the interface points with the LUL system. When I was
involved there was no agreement about NR involvement on the scale that
is now in place. The concept for validators was to permit easy but small
scale validation for the limited numbers of people who may need to
register an entry or an exit for SVT (now PAYG) travel. *The basic logic
is "enter" or "exit" and assuming there was a valid entry it is entirely
logical to assume someone is exiting the system. *Similarly if the last
exit was a fair time in the past it is logical to assume that the card
holder is "entering" the system.

There was also the practical issue that space is at a premium at some of
the interchange points and it was feasible to install ranks of entry and
exit validators. *The point about Oyster is that you should be able to
"touch and pass" (old concept from the old days) and not worry what the
system is doing. *I'll grant you we've ended up some distance from that
admirable goal but then Oyster is being asked to do far, far more than
the original design.

Er, hang on ...

Now the reason why Oyster PAYG can't replace the travelcard is because
Oyster is being asked to do too much.

Previously the reason why Oyster PAYG couldn't replace the travelcard
was because NR wouldn't cooperate and the system couldn't be used
where it had been envisaged.

I think Oyster could cope either way; it's the accompanying decisions
that have caused the problems.