|
Freedom Pass
In message , at 10:14:17 on Wed, 6
Nov 2013, Walter Briscoe remarked: The machines which sell oyster cards do not accept notes. Are these the regular ticket machines, or dedicated Oyster vending machines? -- Roland Perry |
Freedom Pass
"Richard" wrote in message
reading of http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tickets/14433.aspx is that this isn't possible any more. "Ticket machines: Top up your Oyster card with any amount of credit, add season tickets or buy paper tickets." The only previous mention in this group was of machines that sold a ? preloaded card only, ie not a standard machine. -- Mike D |
Freedom Pass
On Wed, 6 Nov 2013 10:14:17 +0000
Walter Briscoe wrote: The machines which sell oyster cards do not accept notes. Good luck finding one. Perhaps they have them in the central london stations but not in the burbs. -- Spud |
Freedom Pass
In message , at 18:09:31 on Wed, 6 Nov
2013, d remarked: The machines which sell oyster cards do not accept notes. Good luck finding one. Perhaps they have them in the central london stations but not in the burbs. We seem to spinning our wheels here. It's been suggested that the "narrow" regular machines issue these cards (although personally I'm sceptical). I've seen dedicated vending machines at a very few termini: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Oy...ng_machine.jpg Perhaps those who allege the possibility of buying Oysters at a machine could be a little more specific about which machines? -- Roland Perry |
Freedom Pass
"Walter Briscoe" wrote in message ... In message of Tue, 5 Nov 2013 23:02:23 in uk.transport.london, Richard writes On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 17:32:12 GMT, d wrote: The machines are quite happy to dish out a one day paper travelcard. For now. Though if you want to buy an oyster card you need to queue for the bloke in the ticket office. I wonder if anyone in TfL has noticed the irony? The last time I bought an Oyster card, I did it from a ticket machine. It seemed a very useful feature not shared by many other cities. My reading of http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tickets/14433.aspx is that this isn't possible any more. Your reading is right. The file is wrong. You can buy oyster cards with coinage. You can top up with notes and credit cards and with coins. I once topped up with 10p when that was all I was short to make the required journey (though only at a machine at the counter there's a minimum amout) The machines which sell oyster cards do not accept notes. I do not recall if they accept credit cards. "Ticket machines: Top up your Oyster card with any amount of credit, add season tickets or buy paper tickets." So, is it possible? Yes. -- Walter Briscoe |
Freedom Pass
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 10:14:17 on Wed, 6 Nov 2013, Walter Briscoe remarked: The machines which sell oyster cards do not accept notes. Are these the regular ticket machines, or dedicated Oyster vending machines? the last time I saw one it was a dedicated Oyster vending machine tim |
Freedom Pass
On 06/11/2013 18:48, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 18:09:31 on Wed, 6 Nov 2013, d remarked: The machines which sell oyster cards do not accept notes. Good luck finding one. Perhaps they have them in the central london stations but not in the burbs. We seem to spinning our wheels here. It's been suggested that the "narrow" regular machines issue these cards (although personally I'm sceptical). I've seen dedicated vending machines at a very few termini: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Oy...ng_machine.jpg Perhaps those who allege the possibility of buying Oysters at a machine could be a little more specific about which machines? Existing TVMs which have been modified: Photo: http://www.transportxtra.com/magazines/new_transit/news/?ID=27692 News article: http://www.transportxtra.com/files/9847-l.jpg Excerpt: ---quote--- Oyster cards can now be bought from ticket machines at almost every station on the London Underground network. The machines, fitted with a new dispensing mechanism , can issue Oysters cards as quickly as paper tickets, said a Transport for London spokeswoman. Some 400 Oyster dispensing machines, upgraded by Cubic Transportation Systems, are in operation across the Tube network, with at least one machine at every station expect Roding Valley. ---/quote--- TfL press release: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/static/corporate/media/newscentre/archive/20607.html These have superseded the few coin-only basic vending machines which were only at a few central London stations and also at Heathrow: http://www.flickr.com/photos/nicasaurusrex/428318342/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/nipotan/4364105445/ |
Freedom Pass
In message , at 19:44:16 on Wed, 6 Nov 2013,
Mizter T remarked: Some 400 Oyster dispensing machines, upgraded by Cubic Transportation Systems, are in operation across the Tube network, with at least one machine at every station expect Roding Valley. But no-one expects the Spanish Inquisition! -- Roland Perry |
Freedom Pass
On 06/11/2013 20:00, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 19:44:16 on Wed, 6 Nov 2013, Mizter T remarked: Some 400 Oyster dispensing machines, upgraded by Cubic Transportation Systems, are in operation across the Tube network, with at least one machine at every station expect Roding Valley. But no-one expects the Spanish Inquisition! I'm sure a lot of people who have been using Oyster for ages haven't noticed that some TVMs can now spew out actual Oyster cards (why should they?). I was a bit surprised that existing Tube TVMs were actually capable of being modded to provide for this. |
Freedom Pass
On Wed, 6 Nov 2013 18:48:01 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote: It's been suggested that the "narrow" regular machines issue these cards (although personally I'm sceptical). I have not seen any evidence that they do. On an aside, it never ceased to amaze me how TfL designed Oyster to require so much human intervention when paper tickets require near enough none. Neil -- Neil Williams. Use neil before the at to reply. |
Freedom Pass
On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 19:44:16 +0000, Mizter T
wrote: Some 400 Oyster dispensing machines, upgraded by Cubic Transportation Systems, are in operation across the Tube network, with at least one machine at every station expect Roding Valley. I stand corrected... But what has Roding Valley done to miss out? :) Neil -- Neil Williams. Use neil before the at to reply. |
Freedom Pass
Neil Williams wrote:
On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 19:44:16 +0000, Mizter T wrote: Some 400 Oyster dispensing machines, upgraded by Cubic Transportation Systems, are in operation across the Tube network, with at least one machine at every station expect Roding Valley. I stand corrected... But what has Roding Valley done to miss out? :) Quietest station on the Underground? |
Freedom Pass
It shouldn't be too hard a problem to solve - ethernet has managed to do collision detection since the 80s. I guess it depends on how smart they want to make the hardware in the card. -- Spud My Oyster card will not read if I have a PATH Smartlink card next to it. However, at least four years ago when I last used it, the Smartlink card will work quite happily on the readers on the PATH turnstiles when next to an Oyster card, so it can't be too difficult to make it ignore a 'foreign' card not valid on that system. Of course it's slightly more difficult when two valid cards, say an Oyster and a VISA debit card can both be seen. |
Freedom Pass
In message , at 23:32:21
on Wed, 6 Nov 2013, Stephen Furley remarked: My Oyster card will not read if I have a PATH Smartlink card next to it. However, at least four years ago when I last used it, the Smartlink card will work quite happily on the readers on the PATH turnstiles when next to an Oyster card, so it can't be too difficult to make it ignore a 'foreign' card not valid on that system. Actually, there's no reason for it to be symmetrical. What if, when energised, the Smartlink card produces a much stronger signal than an Oyster so that when used on PATH it swamps the Oyster signal and is recognised, and on a TfL gate it swamps the Oyster signal and the gate can't see the Oyster. -- Roland Perry |
Freedom Pass
In message , at 23:59:35 on
Wed, 6 Nov 2013, Paul Corfield remarked: On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 23:13:07 +0000, Neil Williams wrote: On an aside, it never ceased to amaze me how TfL designed Oyster to require so much human intervention when paper tickets require near enough none. Can you explain what you mean by "so much human intervention"? I presume he means when buying the card, and when spending hours talking to the helpline to sort out unresolved journeys etc. Plus of course the effort of getting printouts for "expenses purposes" when all you need do with a paper ticket is hand in the ticket itself. What would be your example of a system or facility not requiring so much intervention? When my OnePulse Barclaycard was renewed after three years, the credit card balance was transferred seamlessly, but the Oyster balance required considerable individual effort to move across. The facility with the least intervention is probably the Travelcard, just buy it once and then use it. If it's an outboundary Travelcard it's even issued as one coupon, whereas a day return will be two (plus whatever ticketing is required once you get to London). -- Roland Perry |
Freedom Pass
On 07/11/2013 07:37, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 23:59:35 on Wed, 6 Nov 2013, Paul Corfield remarked: On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 23:13:07 +0000, Neil Williams wrote: On an aside, it never ceased to amaze me how TfL designed Oyster to require so much human intervention when paper tickets require near enough none. Can you explain what you mean by "so much human intervention"? I presume he means when buying the card, and when spending hours talking to the helpline to sort out unresolved journeys etc. On the few times that I have had a problem with Oyster, I have spent less than five minutes on the phone. Plus of course the effort of getting printouts for "expenses purposes" when all you need do with a paper ticket is hand in the ticket itself. Register Oyster, print journey history (or have it automatically e-mailed to you) What would be your example of a system or facility not requiring so much intervention? When my OnePulse Barclaycard was renewed after three years, the credit card balance was transferred seamlessly, but the Oyster balance required considerable individual effort to move across. The facility with the least intervention is probably the Travelcard, just buy it once and then use it. If it's an outboundary Travelcard it's even issued as one coupon, whereas a day return will be two (plus whatever ticketing is required once you get to London). |
Freedom Pass
In message , at 09:52:23 on
Thu, 7 Nov 2013, Tony Dragon remarked: Can you explain what you mean by "so much human intervention"? I presume he means when buying the card, and when spending hours talking to the helpline to sort out unresolved journeys etc. On the few times that I have had a problem with Oyster, I have spent less than five minutes on the phone. I've had several half-hour sessions, and I'm only an occasional visitor. Plus of course the effort of getting printouts for "expenses purposes" when all you need do with a paper ticket is hand in the ticket itself. Register Oyster, Find a computer, log on... Find a printer...[1] print journey history (or have it automatically e-mailed to you) Then clip out the bit you want to submit as expenses. And this functionality is quite recent, to begin with the only way to get a journey history was to queue at a ticket window. [1] Actually, this is one of the most difficult steps when travelling or working away from home. -- Roland Perry |
Freedom Pass
On Wednesday, 6 November 2013 23:59:35 UTC, Paul Corfield wrote:
Can you explain what you mean by "so much human intervention"? What would be your example of a system or facility not requiring so much intervention? My aims perhaps differ from TfL's (with union pressure) given my experience of German systems which are generally completely unstaffed except drivers and the odd security guard, but I would have had a core requirement that all ticket offices could be closed when the system was fully implemented, and that it could fully replace paper tickets. This wouldn't necessarily result in redundancies, but rather I would have roving staff to assist in the use of ticket machines. I'd do the same for the mainline, FWIW. So, some examples of how I would have done it differently:- 1. No unresolved journeys. The way I would work this is the same way as many other systems do it, such as Singapore - touching in charges the maximum Oyster single fare to the card that could apply from that station (subject to cap if appropriate for London), and touching out refunds back the difference back to the journey you actually made. If you don't touch out, you don't get it back, tough. That is powerful motivation, and far, far less complicated. 2. OSIs (out of station interchanges) seem to be the biggest cause of this. I've posted about ways these could be tidied up before - one way is to always close the journey on touching out, but reopen it when touching back in at an OSI location. Leaving journeys open was a silly piece of design again asking for a need for intervention. 3. All card transactions, be that dispensing, refunding or whatever, possible ONLY from automated ticket machines, NOT from ticket offices. 4. A full abolition of paper tickets except accepting cross-London NR tickets (requiring a smaller number of accepting barriers, thus lower maintenance cost). Singles/returns could either be issued on Oyster cards returnable for refund later, or on retained contactless "tokens" like Delhi's system (I think) which are inserted into and retained by the barriers for re-use. I just remain amazed that a system designed in the 21st century for the 21st century has so many holes in it that it requires so much human intervention. Neil |
Freedom Pass
On Thursday, 7 November 2013 13:50:38 UTC, Neil Williams wrote:
1. No unresolved journeys. The way I would work this is the same way as many other systems do it, such as Singapore - touching in charges the maximum Oyster single fare to the card that could apply from that station (subject to cap if appropriate for London), and touching out refunds back the difference back to the journey you actually made. If you don't touch out, you don't get it back, tough. That is powerful motivation, and far, far less complicated. Failure to touch in and touching out would do the same thing. Maximum fare that could apply to that station would be charged. Or in the case of National Rail, an automatic Penalty Fare. Neil |
Freedom Pass
On Thursday, 7 November 2013 13:52:31 UTC, Neil Williams wrote:
Failure to touch in and touching out would do the same thing. Maximum fare that could apply to that station would be charged. Or in the case of National Rail, an automatic Penalty Fare. One more... maximum journey lengths set very high (perhaps 6 hours or something, or closed by next touch-in), but if exceeded would result in two separate maximum fares, again non-appealable. Neil |
Freedom Pass
In message , at
05:50:38 on Thu, 7 Nov 2013, Neil Williams remarked: 1. No unresolved journeys. The way I would work this is the same way as many other systems do it, such as Singapore - touching in charges the maximum Oyster single fare to the card that could apply from that station (subject to cap if appropriate for London), and touching out refunds back the difference back to the journey you actually made. If you don't touch out, you don't get it back, tough. That is powerful motivation, and far, far less complicated. The last one I had to sort out was my wife who arrived at Waterloo (on a paper ticket) who was clutching her Oyster to make an onward trip on the tube, and got psycho-babbled into "always touching" when she exited the platform to the concourse. TfL assumes this means "I've blagged a trip to here from somewhere without a touch-in barrier" whereas to the traveller it means "I've arrived in Oyster country, so start logging my trips from here onwards". -- Roland Perry |
Freedom Pass
"Roland Perry" wrote Can you explain what you mean by "so much human intervention"? presume he means when buying the card, and when spending hours talking to the helpline to sort out unresolved journeys etc. Plus of course the effort of getting printouts for "expenses purposes" when all you need do with a paper ticket is hand in the ticket itself. Huh ? Has it escaped your notice that the final exit gate swallows your paper ticket ? First time this made a difference to me was attending a job interview at the Met Office. Bracknall station had just been fitted with barriers. Before mag stripe tickets the the barrier attendant took your ticket. -- Mike D |
Freedom Pass
In message , at 16:23:31 on Thu, 7 Nov
2013, Michael R N Dolbear remarked: Can you explain what you mean by "so much human intervention"? presume he means when buying the card, and when spending hours talking to the helpline to sort out unresolved journeys etc. Plus of course the effort of getting printouts for "expenses purposes" when all you need do with a paper ticket is hand in the ticket itself. Huh ? Has it escaped your notice that the final exit gate swallows your paper ticket ? It has not escaped my notice that many of them don't, eg Kings Cross. And you can always ask the person manning the gates if you can keep the ticket for expenses purposes. As well as asking for a receipt from the ticket seller (human or machine) when buying. First time this made a difference to me was attending a job interview at the Met Office. Bracknall station had just been fitted with barriers. Which I doubt are operating 24x7, but also see above. Before mag stripe tickets the the barrier attendant or no-one at all took your ticket. -- Roland Perry |
Freedom Pass
Neil Williams wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 November 2013 23:59:35 UTC, Paul Corfield wrote: Can you explain what you mean by "so much human intervention"? What would be your example of a system or facility not requiring so much intervention? My aims perhaps differ from TfL's (with union pressure) given my experience of German systems which are generally completely unstaffed except drivers and the odd security guard, but I would have had a core requirement that all ticket offices could be closed when the system was fully implemented, and that it could fully replace paper tickets. This wouldn't necessarily result in redundancies, but rather I would have roving staff to assist in the use of ticket machines. I'd do the same for the mainline, FWIW. So, some examples of how I would have done it differently:- 1. No unresolved journeys. The way I would work this is the same way as many other systems do it, such as Singapore - touching in charges the maximum Oyster single fare to the card that could apply from that station (subject to cap if appropriate for London), and touching out refunds back the difference back to the journey you actually made. If you don't touch out, you don't get it back, tough. That is powerful motivation, and far, far less complicated. But isn't that exactly what Oyster does? 2. OSIs (out of station interchanges) seem to be the biggest cause of this. I've posted about ways these could be tidied up before - one way is to always close the journey on touching out, but reopen it when touching back in at an OSI location. Leaving journeys open was a silly piece of design again asking for a need for intervention. But isn't that exactly what Oyster does? 3. All card transactions, be that dispensing, refunding or whatever, possible ONLY from automated ticket machines, NOT from ticket offices. Well, that's probably going to happen. Most suburban ticket offices are already open only for very limited periods, and the plan is apparently to close them altogether. |
Freedom Pass
In message
, at 11:12:57 on Thu, 7 Nov 2013, Recliner remarked: 1. No unresolved journeys. The way I would work this is the same way as many other systems do it, such as Singapore - touching in charges the maximum Oyster single fare to the card that could apply from that station (subject to cap if appropriate for London), and touching out refunds back the difference back to the journey you actually made. If you don't touch out, you don't get it back, tough. That is powerful motivation, and far, far less complicated. But isn't that exactly what Oyster does? No, because you can phone them up and argue about it. 2. OSIs (out of station interchanges) seem to be the biggest cause of this. I've posted about ways these could be tidied up before - one way is to always close the journey on touching out, but reopen it when touching back in at an OSI location. Leaving journeys open was a silly piece of design again asking for a need for intervention. But isn't that exactly what Oyster does? A slight variation on this... Isn't one of the known problems that when you travel A-B complete your business rapidly and then travel B-A, when B has OSI? In other words the initial exit doesn't complete the journey, and when you re-enter the network and go back where you came from it gets confused. -- Roland Perry |
Freedom Pass
|
Freedom Pass
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:12:57 on Thu, 7 Nov 2013, Recliner remarked: 1. No unresolved journeys. The way I would work this is the same way as many other systems do it, such as Singapore - touching in charges the maximum Oyster single fare to the card that could apply from that station (subject to cap if appropriate for London), and touching out refunds back the difference back to the journey you actually made. If you don't touch out, you don't get it back, tough. That is powerful motivation, and far, far less complicated. But isn't that exactly what Oyster does? No, because you can phone them up and argue about it. The reason you can argue is if the system has gone wrong (eg, gates not working, or train failed/delayed excessively), not because the basic algorithm is wrong. 2. OSIs (out of station interchanges) seem to be the biggest cause of this. I've posted about ways these could be tidied up before - one way is to always close the journey on touching out, but reopen it when touching back in at an OSI location. Leaving journeys open was a silly piece of design again asking for a need for intervention. But isn't that exactly what Oyster does? A slight variation on this... Isn't one of the known problems that when you travel A-B complete your business rapidly and then travel B-A, when B has OSI? In other words the initial exit doesn't complete the journey, and when you re-enter the network and go back where you came from it gets confused. I think it 'provisionally' completes the journey, but reopens it if the station is re-entered through another exit within a specified time. |
Freedom Pass
On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 11:12:57 -0600, Recliner
wrote: But isn't that exactly what Oyster does? .... But isn't that exactly what Oyster does? No. Both situations create unresolved journeys. These usually require intervention to correct, though I think a few cases now correct themselves. Neil -- Neil Williams. Use neil before the at to reply. |
Freedom Pass
Neil Williams wrote:
On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 11:12:57 -0600, Recliner wrote: But isn't that exactly what Oyster does? ... But isn't that exactly what Oyster does? No. Both situations create unresolved journeys. These usually require intervention to correct, though I think a few cases now correct themselves. How is an unresolved journey, where you have to pay the max possible fare from that station, any different from charging the max possible fare from the station? Your suggested algorithm sounds identical to Oyster's existing algorithm. |
Freedom Pass
In message
, at 16:13:34 on Thu, 7 Nov 2013, Recliner remarked: 1. No unresolved journeys. The way I would work this is the same way as many other systems do it, such as Singapore - touching in charges the maximum Oyster single fare to the card that could apply from that station (subject to cap if appropriate for London), and touching out refunds back the difference back to the journey you actually made. If you don't touch out, you don't get it back, tough. That is powerful motivation, and far, far less complicated. But isn't that exactly what Oyster does? No, because you can phone them up and argue about it. The reason you can argue is if the system has gone wrong (eg, gates not working, or train failed/delayed excessively), not because the basic algorithm is wrong. It seems to me that the "less complicated" solution being proposed would not have the possibility to argue in those circumstances. You'd just lose the money. That's an operational failing, not an algorithmic one. 2. OSIs (out of station interchanges) seem to be the biggest cause of this. I've posted about ways these could be tidied up before - one way is to always close the journey on touching out, but reopen it when touching back in at an OSI location. Leaving journeys open was a silly piece of design again asking for a need for intervention. But isn't that exactly what Oyster does? A slight variation on this... Isn't one of the known problems that when you travel A-B complete your business rapidly and then travel B-A, when B has OSI? In other words the initial exit doesn't complete the journey, and when you re-enter the network and go back where you came from it gets confused. I think it 'provisionally' completes the journey, but reopens it if the station is re-entered through another exit within a specified time. That's right, but if you end up back at A (or a station C, near A) it is then likely to penalise you because your journey A-C apparently took "too long", and the current algorithm wishes to penalise slow-coaches, presumably because they see it as evidence of some form of fare-dodging. A better algorithm (but it requires more hardware too, and makes the system more complex to navigate)) is some sort of validator at B which allows the traveller to say "please force a completion of journey A-B". Only then would the person be charged [a pair of] correct fares (which also work within the cap), rather than a penalty fare (which I believe are outwith the capping regime). -- Roland Perry |
Freedom Pass
On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 02:02:12 -0600, Recliner
wrote: How is an unresolved journey, where you have to pay the max possible fare from that station, any different from charging the max possible fare from the station? Your suggested algorithm sounds identical to Oyster's existing algorithm. An unresolved journey does not contribute to the cap. Neil -- Neil Williams. Use neil before the at to reply. |
Freedom Pass
On Fri, 8 Nov 2013 08:24:25 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote: A better algorithm (but it requires more hardware too Or just allow the journey and up fares a bit to cover the cost of the small number of people doing journeys like that. The biggest mistake was trying to replicate a fare structure designed for paper tickets. Neil -- Neil Williams. Use neil before the at to reply. |
Freedom Pass
Neil Williams wrote:
On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 02:02:12 -0600, Recliner wrote: How is an unresolved journey, where you have to pay the max possible fare from that station, any different from charging the max possible fare from the station? Your suggested algorithm sounds identical to Oyster's existing algorithm. An unresolved journey does not contribute to the cap. Given that your algorithm would effectively charge a max all-zones fare for any incomplete journey, that would also not fit into any available cap (there isn't a cap that includes Watford Junction), your suggested algorithm is indeed the same as the current one. |
Freedom Pass
In message
, at 03:34:02 on Fri, 8 Nov 2013, Recliner remarked: How is an unresolved journey, where you have to pay the max possible fare from that station, any different from charging the max possible fare from the station? Your suggested algorithm sounds identical to Oyster's existing algorithm. An unresolved journey does not contribute to the cap. Given that your algorithm would effectively charge a max all-zones fare for any incomplete journey, that would also not fit into any available cap (there isn't a cap that includes Watford Junction), your suggested algorithm is indeed the same as the current one. There's a big difference between an unresolved fare being charged (as it is today) *in addition* to any capped journeys, and the fee for an unresolved journey generating an unexpectedly high cap (but within which all your resolved journeys that day are therefore free). -- Roland Perry |
Freedom Pass
In message , at 10:31:16 on
Fri, 8 Nov 2013, Paul Corfield remarked: I think it is very easy to sit in 2013 and say it should all have been different. There was never any instruction from the Board or Government to design a system predicated on the removal of ticket offices and fully automated vending. You can justifiably argue whether that was right or wrong but it was not the project team's job to set such a fundamental aspect of company policy. The project had to work with the strategy that was set. Don't take the criticism personally, as an implementer, the fault is with the Board/Govt and whoever was the senior TfL 'design' manager - who might have been expected to have more foresight and alerted the Board/Govt to any possible issues that might arise in the future. Unless, of course, those representations were made, and rejected. [It happens sometimes... I recall a discussion with my boss one day when he said "I'll tell you what, Roland, when I can pay your wages with it, I'll let you design me a computer with a modem in". The thing was, Nottingham Building Society had already launched a Prestel-based online banking system to do exactly that; and I could see that a low cost personal computer with a modem in it had potential. Although the idea wasn't for banking, but to be able to exchange PCW8256 documents without having to first print them out and then either mail or FAX them. Hmm, now what would we call that... how about email?] Do you imagine that smart ticketing on National Rail is being designed so that all ticket offices can be closed on the network and people never had to deal with a guard on a "pay train"? I don't. I would hope the system *is* being designed for the 21st century but I don't believe TOCs will want complete automation. I think they want a great deal more automation, with the majority of tickets bought online (including whatever a mobile app looks like in five years time). Tickets then "loaded" onto the card when you traverse the gate. That'll be a big step forward from having to queue (and they are often substantial) at a ToD machine before travelling, let alone when all the ToD machines at a station are broken. I'd have thought that for PAYG trips, then validators (if not gates) at stations could indeed almost entirely replace the selling of tickets on trains, but it's harder to visualise the replacement of the gripper function on lines largely without barriers. -- Roland Perry |
Freedom Pass
On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 10:31:16 +0000, Paul Corfield
wrote: If you were starting with a clean sheet of paper you would not design London's ticketing as it is now. You would do something very different. However that was never the remit for those of us tasked with helping to turn an idea into a well used and popular reality. True. So the fault is not with what your team did (which could be said to be excellent given the constraints) but with those who commissioned it. Do you imagine that smart ticketing on National Rail is being designed so that all ticket offices can be closed on the network and people never had to deal with a guard on a "pay train"? I don't. I would hope the system *is* being designed for the 21st century but I don't believe TOCs will want complete automation. I think full ticket office closure should be an aim, yes. The staff are better out and about helping people. And yes I would say we should go for rural DOO. Unless we do, I think a raft of rural closures may be on the horizon. But equally I think smart ticketing on smart cards is the wrong choice for the main line, and that media agnostic bar codes would be a preferable strategy. Neil -- Neil Williams. Use neil before the at to reply. |
Freedom Pass
On Fri, 8 Nov 2013 11:10:31 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote: I'd have thought that for PAYG trips, then validators (if not gates) at stations could indeed almost entirely replace the selling of tickets on trains, but it's harder to visualise the replacement of the gripper function on lines largely without barriers. On board equipment plus random checks and a high penalty fare that will cover the losses from fare evasion (£100 perhaps) might well be an option. Neil -- Neil Williams. Use neil before the at to reply. |
Freedom Pass
In message , at
11:27:35 on Fri, 8 Nov 2013, Neil Williams remarked: I'd have thought that for PAYG trips, then validators (if not gates) at stations could indeed almost entirely replace the selling of tickets on trains, but it's harder to visualise the replacement of the gripper function on lines largely without barriers. On board equipment plus random checks and a high penalty fare that will cover the losses from fare evasion (£100 perhaps) might well be an option. Culturally, we aren't into huge penalties for people caught out. Because we always fear the consequences of a false positive. -- Roland Perry |
Freedom Pass
On Fri, 8 Nov 2013 13:53:07 +0000
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 11:27:35 on Fri, 8 Nov 2013, Neil Williams remarked: I'd have thought that for PAYG trips, then validators (if not gates) at stations could indeed almost entirely replace the selling of tickets on trains, but it's harder to visualise the replacement of the gripper function on lines largely without barriers. On board equipment plus random checks and a high penalty fare that will cover the losses from fare evasion (£100 perhaps) might well be an option. Culturally, we aren't into huge penalties for people caught out. Because we always fear the consequences of a false positive. As I've mentioned before, this whole bloody nonsense could be solved with flat fares. They work on the buses so there's no reason for them not to work on the tube. And anyone who comes out with the complaint about it being unfair, well I haven't noticed any bus passengers complaining about it. It could be just like on the continent - a ticket gate to go in and some turnstiles to come out. Sorted. -- Spud |
Freedom Pass
"Roland Perry" wrote
at 16:23:31 on Thu, 7 Nov 2013, Michael R N Dolbear remarked: Plus of course the effort of getting printouts for "expenses purposes" when all you need do with a paper ticket is hand in the ticket itself. Has it escaped your notice that the final exit gate swallows your paper ticket ? It has not escaped my notice that many of them don't, eg Kings Cross. Tickets collected on the train after Peterborough as I remember. And you can always ask the person manning the gates if you can keep the ticket for expenses purposes. As well as asking for a receipt from the ticket seller (human or machine) when buying. I have many receipts, none state details of the tickets bought. Nor is there any such requirement. And If your system depends on asking for something as a favour, how is it "all you need do" ? First time this made a difference to me was attending a job interview at the Met Office. Bracknall station had just been fitted with barriers. Which I doubt are operating 24x7, but also see above. The barriers were operating when I arrived which was all that was necessary to be unable to produce the ticket for expense purposes. Before mag stripe tickets the the barrier attendant or no-one at all And If your system depends on that, how is it "all you need do" ? took your ticket. It is possible to select a ticket that will never be retained, will your boss pay the extra ? -- Mike D -- |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 08:29 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk