On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 15:01:58 +0100, "Paul Scott"
wrote:


"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 13:21:23 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:


To do anything other than have a common standard would result in the
anarchy your posts are envisaging. This explains why we tried so very
hard to get ATOC interested in Prestige so that the current
compatibility from magnetics could be carried forward. We didn't get
there but the ITSO compatibility programme for Oyster should get us to
the right place as well as the TOCs working with TfL in the London area
to get their retailing and validation sorted out.

In part of my earlier post that Roland snipped I wondered how Oyster PAYG
worked its way back to the mainline TOCs that are using it already, Paul, is
this done on a statistical basis - Chiltern services for example?

Not 100% sure to be honest. The underlying position will still be
survey based but a proportion of the data can be reasonably stated as
being on one service rather than another - entry at Marylebone and exit
at Amersham not long after a Chiltern scheduled arrival. Same would
apply for entry at Upminster and exit at Fenchurch St. Clearly not 100%
accurate but elements of the data will give more information for through
tickets than magnetics ever did.

Travel from say Dagenham Dock to F St would be unequivocally C2C money
but I do not know whether the introduction of PAYG for such trips will
impact upon the broad share of revenue over the interavailable part of
the network. I suspect this may be something where the parties "suck it
and see" as take up of PAYG for such trips will be a key factor in
deciding how the revenue share might be changing.

Obviously the lack of validation in South London and parts of North
London TOC networks means that Oyster validation for Travelcards is also
limited. However I would not be surprised if the Oyster data was being
analysed quite closely for LU and DLR to see what extra it might be
saying about journey volumes, patterns and whether the TfL slice of the
revenue "cake" is in the right ballpark when compared to the survey
basis.

A move towards majority use of Oyster data would be a big change to the
agreements and would be subject to intense negotiation from all of the
parties to the agreement - no one would wish to "lose" from a move in
the calculation as to respective shares.

--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!