On May 5, 8:49*pm, Paul Corfield wrote:

On Fri, 1 May 2009 07:36:10 -0700 (PDT), 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One of those pesky "private and not for publication" type internal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.

I think I can provide a partial answer although the list of stations is
somewhat perplexing.

There are two new concepts being introduced for Oyster later this year -
the ability to select "en route" a cheaper fare by validating at an
intermediate LUL station. Rayners Lane is the classic example. We have
discussed this concept before on utl.

Indeed we have. You only mention "intermediate LUL station[s]", but
I'd think that the same principle would (or at least could) apply on
NR. (Though even pondering on how some journeys south of the river
will pan out is enough to give one a headache!)

And I guess this 'en route' validation principle is the same that will
solve the "Shepherd's Bush question" - no, not the question of which
actual bush is the eponymous shepherd's [1], instead that of ensuring
passengers who change from the Central line onto London Overground for
the WLL/NLL don't pay zone 1 fares (the problem case that's been
raised here in the past is that of Greenford - Shepherd's Bush -
Willesden Jn - Camden Road, though other similar journeys are also
affected), as passing through the two sets of gates at Shepherd's Bush
(LU and LO/WLL stations) would presumably provide the required 'en
route' validation.


The other - which seems to bear more relationship to this list - is
"Oyster Extension Permits". These will be added to Oyster cards when
people using PAYG exit the LUL system on the presumption that they will
continue by NR. A possible example journey would be Bond Street to
Orpington changing at London Bridge - on exit at LOB the permit would be
set by the LUL gate and would be read and accepted by the validator or
gate for the NR side of the station. Although the gates would act as a
OSI to avoid generating a second charge the permit, IIRC, is the
mechanism that will trigger the much longer journey time limit as one
accepted by the NR gate it is quite likely that passengers may be
waiting for a relatively infrequent train. * This is why there is to be
a much expanded and more flexible maximum journey time concept which
varies by zone but also by time of day and day of week - if you think
about it is entirely logical.

It is indeed.


Don't ask me to advise on how long the interchange timings will be
because I honestly do not know.

A number of LU stations in West London are test beds for the new
software and staff are making journeys to test whether the new longer
times work properly.

So I can be a smug git and say "I thought as much", as I made the
suggestion this was likely a trial of the systems elsewhere on this
thread! ;-)


An additional PAYG OSI is to be established between Kilburn and
Brondesbury from May 17th.

Good, more OSIs are to be encouraged! I'm not sure how much passengers
know about them though - the only place they are hinted at is on the
Tube map, and that's only some of them. I wonder if this is a
precursor of Kilburn and Brondesbury being shown on the Tube map as
being a 'distant interchange' (for want of a better term - perhaps
'walkable interchange'? - though that'd exclude wheelchair users).


Shepherds Bush Central also becomes part of "London BR" (or whatever
it's called these days) to allow valid cross London interchange between
LUL and NR services on through tickets - just as Tottenham Hale, Ealing
Broadway and Stratford are.

"London BR" or "London Brit Rail" became "London Terminals" when BR
bit the dust.

However, that's *not* the term you're looking for! "London Terminals"
are (more or less) just that - the terminal stations. What you're
speaking of is the far wider list of stations that are eligible start
and end points for cross-London transfer by Tube/DLR, this applies to
NR tickets which are marked with a Maltese cross or dagger symbol (or
whatever it is!) in the "Route" field.

Said list of stations can be seen on this NRE webpage - click on the
"show Station List" link to, er, see it!
http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/london/

Including the Shepherd's Bushes on this list is progress - I recall a
discussion somewhere (here, I think) where someone was complaining
about the absurdity of being allowed to use Kensington Olympia as a
start/end point for cross-London transfer, but not being allowed to
use Shepherd's Bush for this purpose. So hooray for a this small
common sense victory!


The £3 charge for all new Oyster cards (regardless of product) also
comes in on 17th May - there are certainly posters on the network
advising of this change.

Yes, I saw an on-train poster on the Vic line about this today.

So the 17th May is the date when *all* the changes to the Oyster PAYG
system 'go live' then?

(Well, all the changes apart from all the TOCs finally joining in -
I've seen suggestions that might not happen until next year! Why am I
not surprised!)


Scarily it is nearly 7 years since the first Oyster cards came in to
use!

I distinctly remember an acquaintance proudly brandishing a flashy new
Oyster card back in the early days when they were only being issued to
holders of annual Travelcards. I wonder how many of those early
adopters have ditched seasons altogether in favour of PAYG now... a
fair few I reckon.


Hope the above helps a little bit.

It does, thanks. This thread was suffering somewhat from a dose of
speculation overload!


-----
[1] Apologies for the potential misuse of "eponymous", I'm not quite
sure if I've used the term legitimately here but I decided to take a
chance!