On 24 Sep 2006 05:54:29 -0700, "Bob"
wrote:

http://www.inthenews.co.uk/money/news/transport/stagecoach-retains-south-western-franchise-$452553.htm
[snip]

Two questions
If Stagecoach have had to agree to boost the number of seats at the
peak by 20/21% - how come the same provisions were not applied to FCC
thuis leading to the Thameslink shambles. Was somebody in the DfT
franchise offer taking a power nap during the meeting?

A guess but the new Desiros paid for by the DfT have to be used for
something. It also seems the Alstom 458s can be modified to be kept in
service. SWT would therefore *appear* to have a surplus of trains that
can be deployed for peak service. Not requiring SWT to run these trains
would put the DfT in a tight spot as to why it funded extra trains if
the old timetable and train lengths were good enough.

Will the requirement to include Oyster compatability now be extended on
a franchise by franchise basis on all franchises that offer through
ticketing to London. If so why does the DfT not insist on the system
being used on say buses and trams in Manchester, Sheffield or
Nottingham - no point in investing in two incompatable systems? As they
say why take 2 bottles into the shower?

There are two aspects to this. One is to get Oyster retailed via all TOC
outlets in London - the DfT has agreed this will be done and TfL will
pay for the installation and equipment costs. TOCs pay running costs.
This should roll out from now to 2008/9. Where franchises are coming up
for renewal then DfT have done the sensible thing and mandated
implementation of London area Oyster in the appropriate franchises.
Interestingly SWT seem to be saying they will adopt it across their
franchise which to my mind makes sense. The latest Modern Railways also
includes a letter from the MD of C2C which mentions that they are in
discussion in pushing Oyster retailing beyond their few London area
stations into the Essex.

The second aspect is that DfT have required TfL to move towards ITSO
compliance with Oyster. ITSO is the national smartcard application and
schemes are being worked on in various areas. Once Oyster is ITSO
compatible then in theory you have interworking. ITSO is an "open" spec
AIUI while Oyster is more restricted but can be licensed. There has been
huge opposition, primarily from the TOCs, to being "locked in" to Oyster
and the scheme's supplier (Transys) in the London area never mind
beyond. It therefore makes more commercial sense to push for ITSO
compliance as it offers a more competitive market place for equipment
and support systems. The main point, though, is that Oyster is up and
running while I can't think of an ITSO scheme that is working to even
10% of the scale of Oyster.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!