|
Oyster: still an unreliable rip-off
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 01:14:58 +0100
Paul Corfield wrote: On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 19:35:10 GMT, d wrote: On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 18:15:39 +0100 Paul Corfield wrote: I am amazed that ordinary punters manage to miss those headlines. I agree it would not be usual fare for tourists to see that info but then again I've no idea what rip offs there are with the Navigo smartcard in Paris or Miki in Melbourne. Most cities don't have to worry about all this nonsense in the first place. They charge flat fares - problem solved. And yes it *could* be done in London - its done in new york and moscow, both of which are larger systems than the underground. I deliberately ruled out a flat fare as I knew you'd be along to propose it. :-) Naturally :) Because it makes sense. The government and Mayor are forcing TfL to make their rail services all run at an operating profit and make surpluses to fund some of their investment funding. New York's transit funding is notoriously bad and unpredictable and looking at their current budget there is a massive operating loss of nearly $6bn just on the Subway and Staten You see there you , the usual railway operating at a loss statistic. No one ever accuses roads of running at a loss - how much money has the M1 made for itself since it was built? Not a penny. Its the profits made by companies using the infrastructure that matters, not profits made by the infrastructure itself. That $6bn pales into insignificance compared to the money that Wall Street makes every week thanks to employees getting their by subway. And its the same story in london. -- Spud |
Oyster: still an unreliable rip-off
On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 21:07:04 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote: In message , at 20:51:18 on Wed, 23 Apr 2014, Richard remarked: a user should be able to keep to the "always touch in and out" requirement -- regular, tourist or whatever. It isn't difficult! There are still bear-traps for the unwary. For example getting off a train at a London terminus having travelled that far on a paper ticket, clutching an Oyster for onward tube travel, and using it to "always touch out" at the barrier line, results in an unresolved journey. Then I'll add another item to my "requirements", something I thought of today and David Cantrell mentioned: make sure that NR stations can do basic Oyster operations. There is, I think, only one system that can, predictably the one made by Cubic. In its last days, APTIS could do Oyster with the right extra hardware, but most of its replacements couldn't. Fixing an unresolved journey and undoing a journey that was started in error are the least NR should be able to do. Alternatively give us a smartphone app to do it! (Some places sell tickets "through" a smartphone app to a card -- I think RMV in Germany can do this.) Richard. |
Oyster: still an unreliable rip-off
wrote:
In article , (Recliner) wrote: wrote: In article , (Recliner) wrote: wrote: In article , (Recliner) wrote: David Cantrell wrote: On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 02:50:13PM +0100, Mike Bristow wrote: In article , David Cantrell wrote: Tue 15 Apr 09:15 - 10:14 Thornton Heath - Aldgate East: GBP 5.30 18:49 - 19:56 Aldgate East - Thornton Heath: GBP 5.30 The Aldgate East - Victoria Fare is 2.20 peak/offpeak. The Victoria - Thornton Heath fare is 3.70 peak, 2.60 offpeak. Off peak starts in the evening at 19:00. So there are _four_ possible fares for the journey home: as a "two leg" trip, with both legs peak: 5.90. as a "single leg" trip at peak time: 5.30. as a "two leg trip", with the Vic - Thornton leg offpeak: 4.80 as a "single leg" trip at offpeak: 4.10 That means that if I leave Aldgate East at 18:49 I should be charged a total of 4.80, because I won't go through the NR barriers at Victoria until after 19:00. But I'm actually charged 5.30. That looks correct -- the fare is based on when you entered, not left, the system. So a journey starting at 18:49 is charged at peak prices. The difference is if the journey is split into two. I am not clear why this journey might or might not be so split, given that touch out and in at Victoria must happen. Presumably it's an OSI, so it would be treated as one peak journey. Indeed, but one example given in this thread managed to notice the possibility of splitting and did so to minimise the fare. You'd need to spend long enough in Victoria to exceed the OSI limit for it to be treated as two journeys. Look back up the thread: Explain this: Tue 15 Apr 09:15 - 10:14 Thornton Heath - Aldgate East: GBP 5.30 18:49 - 19:56 Aldgate East - Thornton Heath: GBP 5.30 Total: GBP10.60 OK, that looks sane. Same amount in both directions. Thu 17 Apr 09:07 - 10:16 Thornton Heath - Aldgate East: GBP 5.30 18:41 - 19:01 Aldgate East - Victoria : GBP 2.20 19:50 - 20:26 Victoria - Thornton Heath : GBP 2.60 Total: GBP10.10 Are you saying the cheaper fare on 17 April was only charged because of the 49 minute gap at Victoria exceeding the OSI limit? It looks like it, as it made the last journey off-peak. |
Oyster: still an unreliable rip-off
In article
, (Recliner) wrote: wrote: In article , (Recliner) wrote: wrote: In article , (Recliner) wrote: wrote: In article , (Recliner) wrote: David Cantrell wrote: On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 02:50:13PM +0100, Mike Bristow wrote: In article , David Cantrell wrote: Tue 15 Apr 09:15 - 10:14 Thornton Heath - Aldgate East: GBP 5.30 18:49 - 19:56 Aldgate East - Thornton Heath: GBP 5.30 The Aldgate East - Victoria Fare is 2.20 peak/offpeak. The Victoria - Thornton Heath fare is 3.70 peak, 2.60 offpeak. Off peak starts in the evening at 19:00. So there are _four_ possible fares for the journey home: as a "two leg" trip, with both legs peak: 5.90. as a "single leg" trip at peak time: 5.30. as a "two leg trip", with the Vic - Thornton leg offpeak: 4.80 as a "single leg" trip at offpeak: 4.10 That means that if I leave Aldgate East at 18:49 I should be charged a total of 4.80, because I won't go through the NR barriers at Victoria until after 19:00. But I'm actually charged 5.30. That looks correct -- the fare is based on when you entered, not left, the system. So a journey starting at 18:49 is charged at peak prices. The difference is if the journey is split into two. I am not clear why this journey might or might not be so split, given that touch out and in at Victoria must happen. Presumably it's an OSI, so it would be treated as one peak journey. Indeed, but one example given in this thread managed to notice the possibility of splitting and did so to minimise the fare. You'd need to spend long enough in Victoria to exceed the OSI limit for it to be treated as two journeys. Look back up the thread: Explain this: Tue 15 Apr 09:15 - 10:14 Thornton Heath - Aldgate East: GBP 5.30 18:49 - 19:56 Aldgate East - Thornton Heath: GBP 5.30 Total: GBP10.60 OK, that looks sane. Same amount in both directions. Thu 17 Apr 09:07 - 10:16 Thornton Heath - Aldgate East: GBP 5.30 18:41 - 19:01 Aldgate East - Victoria : GBP 2.20 19:50 - 20:26 Victoria - Thornton Heath : GBP 2.60 Total: GBP10.10 Are you saying the cheaper fare on 17 April was only charged because of the 49 minute gap at Victoria exceeding the OSI limit? It looks like it, as it made the last journey off-peak. As would the 15 April journey I expect if split at Victoria. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Oyster: still an unreliable rip-off
wrote:
In article , (Recliner) wrote: wrote: In article , (Recliner) wrote: wrote: In article , (Recliner) wrote: wrote: In article , (Recliner) wrote: David Cantrell wrote: On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 02:50:13PM +0100, Mike Bristow wrote: In article , David Cantrell wrote: Tue 15 Apr 09:15 - 10:14 Thornton Heath - Aldgate East: GBP 5.30 18:49 - 19:56 Aldgate East - Thornton Heath: GBP 5.30 The Aldgate East - Victoria Fare is 2.20 peak/offpeak. The Victoria - Thornton Heath fare is 3.70 peak, 2.60 offpeak. Off peak starts in the evening at 19:00. So there are _four_ possible fares for the journey home: as a "two leg" trip, with both legs peak: 5.90. as a "single leg" trip at peak time: 5.30. as a "two leg trip", with the Vic - Thornton leg offpeak: 4.80 as a "single leg" trip at offpeak: 4.10 That means that if I leave Aldgate East at 18:49 I should be charged a total of 4.80, because I won't go through the NR barriers at Victoria until after 19:00. But I'm actually charged 5.30. That looks correct -- the fare is based on when you entered, not left, the system. So a journey starting at 18:49 is charged at peak prices. The difference is if the journey is split into two. I am not clear why this journey might or might not be so split, given that touch out and in at Victoria must happen. Presumably it's an OSI, so it would be treated as one peak journey. Indeed, but one example given in this thread managed to notice the possibility of splitting and did so to minimise the fare. You'd need to spend long enough in Victoria to exceed the OSI limit for it to be treated as two journeys. Look back up the thread: Explain this: Tue 15 Apr 09:15 - 10:14 Thornton Heath - Aldgate East: GBP 5.30 18:49 - 19:56 Aldgate East - Thornton Heath: GBP 5.30 Total: GBP10.60 OK, that looks sane. Same amount in both directions. Thu 17 Apr 09:07 - 10:16 Thornton Heath - Aldgate East: GBP 5.30 18:41 - 19:01 Aldgate East - Victoria : GBP 2.20 19:50 - 20:26 Victoria - Thornton Heath : GBP 2.60 Total: GBP10.10 Are you saying the cheaper fare on 17 April was only charged because of the 49 minute gap at Victoria exceeding the OSI limit? It looks like it, as it made the last journey off-peak. As would the 15 April journey I expect if split at Victoria. Yes, it's one of the mysteries of OSI, which was designed to benefit users, but sometimes costs them for reasons that aren't instantly obvious. I hadn't come across this variant before; more commonly, it attempts to combine two fairly lengthy but legit journeys to create one that breaks journey time limits, thus creating two (expensive) unresolved journeys. I really think the algorithm in that case should be smarter, and it should abort the attempted combination of multiple OSI journeys if it would lead to unresolved compound journeys. |
The Cost and Funding of Transit Systems
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 18:47:07 GMT, d wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 01:14:58 +0100 Paul Corfield wrote: On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 19:35:10 GMT, d wrote: On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 18:15:39 +0100 Paul Corfield wrote: I am amazed that ordinary punters manage to miss those headlines. I agree it would not be usual fare for tourists to see that info but then again I've no idea what rip offs there are with the Navigo smartcard in Paris or Miki in Melbourne. Most cities don't have to worry about all this nonsense in the first place. They charge flat fares - problem solved. And yes it *could* be done in London - its done in new york and moscow, both of which are larger systems than the underground. I deliberately ruled out a flat fare as I knew you'd be along to propose it. :-) Naturally :) Because it makes sense. The government and Mayor are forcing TfL to make their rail services all run at an operating profit and make surpluses to fund some of their investment funding. New York's transit funding is notoriously bad and unpredictable and looking at their current budget there is a massive operating loss of nearly $6bn just on the Subway and Staten This time Boltar, I am absolutely with you. Much as I would like to see TfL replaced with a smarter, more humane, customer focused organization, starving the Underground, buses et al of funds is no solution. Transportation (cue the parish language police) systems are enablers of other activities. Nowhere is this truer than with urban transit systems. An affordable transit network is a major boost to the economy. You see there you , the usual railway operating at a loss statistic. No one ever accuses roads of running at a loss - how much money has the M1 made for itself since it was built? Not a penny. Its the profits made by companies using the infrastructure that matters, not profits made by the infrastructure itself. That $6bn pales into insignificance compared to the money that Wall Street makes every week thanks to employees getting their by subway. And its the same story in london. It pales in significance when compared the benefits of enabling working people to reach decent jobs by safe and affordable means. September 1, this penny pinching madness will affect the rest of the UK. Network Rail will no longer be able to borrow against its assets like a private business. It will be subject to the availability of funds from HM Treasury. The chancellor will have to balance railway infrastructure improvements against funds for hospitals and schools. We have enjoyed a period of continual improvement. Capacity has been increased with improved junctions and enlarged facilities. Reading may be the last hurrah. It is back to Penney pinching decline. Single lead junctions anyone? -- http://www.991fmtalk.com/ The DMZ in Reno |
Oyster: still an unreliable rip-off
wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 01:14:58 +0100 Paul Corfield wrote: On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 19:35:10 GMT, d wrote: On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 18:15:39 +0100 Paul Corfield wrote: I am amazed that ordinary punters manage to miss those headlines. I agree it would not be usual fare for tourists to see that info but then again I've no idea what rip offs there are with the Navigo smartcard in Paris or Miki in Melbourne. Most cities don't have to worry about all this nonsense in the first place. They charge flat fares - problem solved. And yes it *could* be done in London - its done in new york and moscow, both of which are larger systems than the underground. I deliberately ruled out a flat fare as I knew you'd be along to propose it. :-) Naturally :) Because it makes sense. The government and Mayor are forcing TfL to make their rail services all run at an operating profit and make surpluses to fund some of their investment funding. New York's transit funding is notoriously bad and unpredictable and looking at their current budget there is a massive operating loss of nearly $6bn just on the Subway and Staten You see there you , the usual railway operating at a loss statistic. No one ever accuses roads of running at a loss - how much money has the M1 made for itself since it was built? Not a penny. Its the profits made by companies using the infrastructure that matters, not profits made by the infrastructure itself. That $6bn pales into insignificance compared to the money that Wall Street makes every week thanks to employees getting their by subway. And its the same story in london. Presumably you're ignoring the taxes and duties made on road vehicle sales, fuel and ownership, all of which rise with more roads and their usage? They greatly exceed the cost of building and maintaining roads. Roads make a clear direct profit for the Treasury and the economy, while railway investment has to rely on more intangible questions of overall societal business benefits, which may well be huge, but are hard to measure, let alone predict. Hence the HS2 debate. |
The Cost and Funding of Transit Systems
On 25/04/2014 07:12, Hils wrote:
On 2014-04-25 02:22, Aurora wrote: September 1, this penny pinching madness will affect the rest of the UK. Network Rail will no longer be able to borrow against its assets like a private business. It will be subject to the availability of funds from HM Treasury. The chancellor will have to balance railway infrastructure improvements against funds for hospitals and schools. We have enjoyed a period of continual improvement. Capacity has been increased with improved junctions and enlarged facilities. Reading may be the last hurrah. It is back to Penney pinching decline. Single lead junctions anyone? I wouldn't bank on there being many new hospitals or schools either. The oligarchs don't want taxpayers money to do anything useful like build public infrastructure when they can get it into their own pockets directly. I see comments like this all over the Internet on all kinds of subjects. When are we going to do something about it? -- Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman |
The Cost and Funding of Transit Systems
Hils wrote:
On 2014-04-25 02:22, Aurora wrote: September 1, this penny pinching madness will affect the rest of the UK. Network Rail will no longer be able to borrow against its assets like a private business. It will be subject to the availability of funds from HM Treasury. The chancellor will have to balance railway infrastructure improvements against funds for hospitals and schools. We have enjoyed a period of continual improvement. Capacity has been increased with improved junctions and enlarged facilities. Reading may be the last hurrah. It is back to Penney pinching decline. Single lead junctions anyone? I wouldn't bank on there being many new hospitals or schools either. The oligarchs don't want taxpayers money to do anything useful like build public infrastructure when they can get it into their own pockets directly. Those mysterious oligarchs are obviously deeply incompetent: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-23080327 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-s...wales-26526380 http://www.theconstructionindex.co.u...-hs2-engineers http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/imperialwest http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news...-queen-4870398 http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/wy...-trust-6293381 http://www.papworthhospital.nhs.uk/c...worth_hospital http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-fife-26465478 |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:29 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk