"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
...

To be fair to the other TOCs this is a very important issue for them and
for their passengers. Despite the rhetoric that is flying around between
the two "sides" in this great debate it is essential that everyone
participates in Oyster on a basis that is well understood and which does
not contain unacceptable risks. If people rush at this then it is likely
to go wrong with ticket selling staff and passengers being the poor
people who will deal with the consequences of ticket systems not
working, cards not working, ticket gates and validators doing the wrong
thing and passengers being mischarged. It is all too easy to do and
that's before you get to the issues about revenue assumptions in
franchise bids, running costs, installation, commission on sales,
provision of usage information, system security, training and education
and procurement issues for the equipment and whether compatibility can
actually be achieved. The Mayor is presenting Oyster as something that
is incredibly easy to adopt and make happen - I think that is a gross
simplification.

For the SE TOCs all the other nationally available ticket types still have
to be available for people making long distance journies too. It all looks
quite straightforward if you think only of a journey from Kent to a zonal
destination, where anti-fraud measures over the years have led to the
situation where an overnight return is usually no longer sold, and you have
to have two singles - a bit like LU really. But add all the longer duration
advance purchase stuff into the mix, and first class availability on some
but not all services, and railcards, the ticketing problem is an order of
magnitude more complex. I imagine a major question exercising the TOCs is
where to draw their Oyster boundary - notwithstanding that SWT are to
introduce it throughout - but will it be zonal, payg, all ticket types? Who
can tell...

Paul S