On 25 Jan, 13:03, "Recliner" wrote:
wrote in message







On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 04:32:20 -0800 (PST)
Mizter T wrote:
this point that things go skew-whiff, and the system applies the
'maximum charge' which exists to discourage misuse (the exact

I'd love to know what they think is misuse. Why should there be a
time limit on completing a journey anyway? If someone wants to sit at
a station for a while, perhaps they don't feel well or whatever, then
why shouldn't they?

No doubt its just a cynical way to extort more money out of
passengers.

"Train delayed? Got lost? Don't feel well? Tough, we don't care. And
we'll overcharge you for your journey while we're at it. Have a nice
day."

*******s.

I think the 'misuse' penalty is meant to deter dishonest people from
avoiding touching in/out, perhaps because the barriers were open or
weren't being monitored.

Presumably they think people would attempt to combine two longish,
separate journeys, which were separated by a lengthy interval, into one
short (cheap) journey (ie, by not touching in/out at the intermediate
station).

That's the justification for the timeout existing at all, which seems
fair enough if you haven't touched anywhere.

It's not a justification for applying the original timeout when you
have been touching at OSIs in the meantime and the system knows
exactly where you've been.

But their solution to this possible problem is so complex and
convoluted that it's clearly penalising many perfectly innocent pax, and
confusing almost everyone.-

The problem being solved by not resetting the timeout at OSIs is the
risk of someone travelling around all day doing brief business only at
OSIs and getting charged for one journey instead of several. This
seems negligible.