On 16 Feb, 18:27, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 05:04:35 -0800 (PST), Mizter T
wrote:







On Feb 16, 10:40*am, Neil *Williams wrote:

On Feb 16, 11:34*am, MIG wrote:

It turned out that a punter who was travelling from Euston to Watford
on a zone 1 - 9 travelcard season stored on Oyster was being told that
he was technically without a valid ticket because it hadn't registered
a touch at Euston. *(He wasn't actually PFed or anything.)

If it was a 1-9 Travelcard, the PFI was right, because Watford
Junction is not in Zone 9, it's in a special non-Travelcard zone.
Thus, he'd have had to register a touch in (and possibly an OEP?) to
pay the PAYG amount that would be due on top.

Correct. Not sure whether LM would be all that fussed about OEPs,
given that they managed without them until January yet accepted Oyster
PAYG for all possible journeys from Watford Jn and points south
thereof.

I think the entire issue in this debate is about the Z1-9 Travelcard not
being valid at Watford Junction. Without an entry record on the Oyster
card then the passenger will be charged a maximum fare on exit at
Watford as the system will be unable to calculate the add-on.

The thing is that whether or not I misunderstood that bit and it was
really 1 - 10, the RPI seemed to think it was valid other than not
having been touched in. Seems to me he should at least have charged
an extension fare if he thought it wasn't.

It wouldn't have been in the punter's interest to get a maximum fare
when touching out, nor was that possibility mentioned. The whole
thing seems very confused.


OEPs are actually required now to Watford Junction so that could be a
secondary issue in the "RPI vs passenger" debate. *I don't disagree with
you about it working OK up to Jan 2010 but the rules changed and London
Midland is a TOC so it's bound by the collective nonsense about OEPs.

And I was delighted to think I had an OEP enforcement story to
report. I wasn't expecting to get into a debate when it turned out
not to be that.