My understanding is that you *can* get Oyster CS to send you a cheque

A UK cheque is of no use to a foreigner, and don't you have to have an
address registered in the UK for this?

1. The UK's balance of payments is bad enough without sending even
more money overseas to people who mostly don't really need it. After
all, if they could afford to come to London .....

2. IIRC the Oyster system was based on the same technology used in HK
for Octopus cards and IIRC the MTR there make a lot of money out of
charging tourists a $50 deposit which many tourists forget to collect
before leaving. I think TfL should push hard collectable cards for
tourists - Will & Kate kissing, Pippa's rear, etc etc
--
Robin
PM may be sent to rbw0{at}hotmail{dot}com

"Robin" wrote in message
...

My understanding is that you *can* get Oyster CS to send you a cheque

A UK cheque is of no use to a foreigner, and don't you have to have an
address registered in the UK for this?

1. The UK's balance of payments is bad enough without sending even more
money overseas to people who mostly don't really need it. After all, if
they could afford to come to London .....

2. IIRC the Oyster system was based on the same technology used in HK
for Octopus cards

It's not the technology that important here but the fare structure.

There are several other metro areas using exactly the same technology where
there is no opportunity for a systematic overcharge to occur.

tim

"tim...." wrote:

It's not the technology that important here but the fare structure.

There are several other metro areas using exactly the same technology
where there is no opportunity for a systematic overcharge to occur.


Hmm... there is a weakness in the technology in the sense that the 'OSI max
journey time-out' issue exists - whether similar issues exist with other
smartcard systems I don't know - perhaps some don't have the OSI concept,
which means such a thing would never surface in the first place.

(I'll endeavour to write a (vaguely) considered and (hopefully) concise
response to the original post once I've had a look at the report.)

"Mizter T" wrote in message
...

"tim...." wrote:

It's not the technology that important here but the fare structure.

There are several other metro areas using exactly the same technology
where there is no opportunity for a systematic overcharge to occur.


Hmm... there is a weakness in the technology in the sense that the 'OSI
max journey time-out' issue exists - whether similar issues exist with
other smartcard systems I don't know - perhaps some don't have the OSI
concept, which means such a thing would never surface in the first place.

The ones I'm referring to don't require the use to "sign out". Either the
system only has one zone or the user has to "manually" select a zonal
journey length on/before entry, all transfers are OSIs and the user is
trusted to respect the total journey time limits for themselves. There are
still onboard checks to make sure people don't cheat!

It's not the technology that important here but the fare structure.

There are several other metro areas using exactly the same technology
where there is no opportunity for a systematic overcharge to occur.

Could you unpack that for me please? I'm not really into these things
but ISTR being told in HK, Tokyo and Melbourne that one had to use the
card in *and* out to get the lowest fare. Does it not follow if there
is anything other than a flat fare?
--
Robin
PM may be sent to rbw0{at}hotmail{dot}com

"Robin" wrote in message
...
It's not the technology that important here but the fare structure.

There are several other metro areas using exactly the same technology
where there is no opportunity for a systematic overcharge to occur.

Could you unpack that for me please? I'm not really into these things but
ISTR being told in HK, Tokyo and Melbourne that one had to use the card
in *and* out to get the lowest fare. Does it not follow if there is
anything other than a flat fare?

Other systems in use:

1) South Sweden - The system assumes the minimum journey length unless the
user manually sets a longer journey at the start. If starting on a bus then
you have to tell the driver to do this, but if starting on a train you do
this at the automatic machines. You are now on trust not to go outside the
selected zones upon pain of fine if caught (just like LT really). This is
definitely the same basic technology as London.

2) Helsinki - The same except that as there are only three zones the user
can also select outer zones at the machine. This is a proximity card, but I
don't know who supplies it.

3) Lisbon - There are only two zones here and you tell the system how many
zones you want to travel by having two cards (one loaded for one zone and
the other for two), of course most people only ever make one or the other
and don't actually have two cards. Again, this is a chip card but I don't
know who supplied it

tim

1) South Sweden - The system assumes the minimum journey length
unless the user manually sets a longer journey at the start. If
starting on a bus then you have to tell the driver to do this, but if
starting on a train you do this at the automatic machines. You are
now on trust not to go outside the selected zones upon pain of fine
if caught (just like LT really). This is definitely the same basic
technology as London.
2) Helsinki - The same except that as there are only three zones the
user can also select outer zones at the machine. This is a proximity
card, but I don't know who supplies it.

Thank you.

These systems all seem to involve no "touch out" at all. So I would
predict a massive increase in fare evasion if introduced here.
Londoners are not Scandinavians. (And I still remember well what it
used to be like on the NLL before it became gated. On the rare mornings
they were checking for tickets roughly 1 in 5 turned round and walked
away.)


--
Robin
PM may be sent to rbw0{at}hotmail{dot}com

In message , Robin
writes

These systems all seem to involve no "touch out" at all. So I would
predict a massive increase in fare evasion if introduced here.
Londoners are not Scandinavians.

It's also the case that in some European countries, even accidental fare
evasion often results in a massive on-the-spot fine (typically 50 euros
in Italy for failing to validate a train ticket), which is nearly twice
the amount of a promptly-paid TfL "penalty fare".

--
Paul Terry

"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 12:08:25 +0100, "tim...."
wrote:


"Robin" wrote in message
...

My understanding is that you *can* get Oyster CS to send you a cheque

A UK cheque is of no use to a foreigner, and don't you have to have an
address registered in the UK for this?

1. The UK's balance of payments is bad enough without sending even
more
money overseas to people who mostly don't really need it. After all, if
they could afford to come to London .....

2. IIRC the Oyster system was based on the same technology used in HK
for Octopus cards

It's not the technology that important here but the fare structure.

There are several other metro areas using exactly the same technology
where
there is no opportunity for a systematic overcharge to occur.

Already posted in another reply.

Please list the systems where you believe there is no opportunity for
overcharge. There are systems with far more complications in them
that what applies to London. How do you know they do not have their
own variants of "local difficulties" about correct charging,
accessible readers, passengers having to comply with rules to get the
right price etc etc etc? I'm genuinely interested in your reply btw.

I said "systematic overcharge", I.e where a deficiency in the process
generates the overcharge.

Almost all systems are likely to have the possibility of overcharge due to
user error. Which includes, in the case of TfL forgetting to touch in/out,
but not: failing to notice that a touch in/out did not register as, as
suggested in the report, IMHO the sensory feedback provided by the Oyster
system is insufficiently obvious.

tim