On 1 May, 16:18, Mizter T wrote:
On May 1, 3:42*pm, MIG wrote:
On 1 May, 15:36, Mizter T wrote:
On May 1, 11:38*am, Barry Salter wrote:
Mizter T wrote:
I wonder if Mr Salter (the OP) might be so kind as to divulge where
this information came from?
One of those pesky "private and not for publication" type internal
documents, which gives no information as to *why* the stations in
question were chosen, it just says that journeys *ENDING* at said
stations will be subject to a variable maximum journey time, depending
on the zones passed through.
Thanks Barry. So it only applies to journeys ending at the
aforementioned stations, eh... I presume it would also inevitably
apply to people making out-of-station interchanges (OSIs) between
these two stations as well, as the Oyster reader on the gate obviously
can't mind read what the passenger's intentions are.
I'm sure all will become clear over time.
Thanks for bring this to the ng's attention though - it provides an
insight of sorts into changes that are happening, if not an actual
explanation!
I am intrigued by the concept of "zones passed through". [...]
In what way?
Zones actually passed through are not currently of concern to the
system, which calculates fares between points as long as the general
timeout hasn't been reached.
My understanding was that it doesn't actually know or care what zones
you pass through as long as you resolve the journey within the time
limit. I would expect it to apply the different time limits similarly
based on a fixed value determined for the start and end points of the
journey, rather than on zones passed through, which it can't know.
(Although there has been discussion of taking into account routes that
the system actually has evidence for, ie when you touch along the
way.)
*[...] And I still
wonder if, say, Mansion House to Victoria will now time out quicker
than Mansion House to St James's Park. [...]
I *very* *much* doubt it. I'd imagine that *if* there was to be a
shorter journey time allowance the same would apply accross zone 1 -
but that is a big *if*...
[...] Because the other discussion
of variable journey time suggested that shorter journey times would
apply as well.
What recent discussion - the recent "Oyster time limit - changed
again?" utl thread[1]? If so, then (going by the five posts that
currently exist make up that thread) the only suggestion that shorter
permissible journey times might apply seems to come from you!
Eh? That thread begain with a link to this
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...s-zones1-6.pdf
were it states that sometimes the time limit will be 70 minutes. I
thought it used to be 120 minutes, and later increased to 150. If
not, please ignore.
But if not wrong,I am wondering if this means that, if one of the
named stations is the end point, ALL variable journey times, including
shorter ones, will be applied, but that at others they won't be for
the time being.
*If* (again big *if*) shorter permissible journey times were to be
implemented then I doubt it would be anything radical - perhaps all
journeys within zone 1 going back to the two hour time limit,
something like that.
I really don't think people should get worked up about some notion
that they're running against the clock on each journey they make,
especially when such notions are based on no evidence whatsoever!
As can be seen from the generous time allowances that are afforded to
passengers making out-of-station interchanges, the system has to be
based on people who dawdle (go to the wrong platform, go the wrong way
at least for one stop, take a long time climbing the stairs etc etc
etc), it can't be based on people who nip around quickly. That's only
logical.
-----http://groups.google.com/group/uk.transport.london/browse_frm/thread/...- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -