In article , (Paul Corfield) wrote:

On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 23:12:20 +0000, Barry Salter
wrote:

Another problem is that, as far as I'm aware, none of the PC-based
Ticket Issuing Systems can be updated to support Oyster, so TOCs
would either need to replace their systems (again) or get machines
similar to those used by TfL Ticket Stops (formerly Pass Agents).

I don't think is true at all. Any of the PC based systems are far
easier to upgrade than APTIS ever was and I saw and used the prototype
smartcard reader attached to an APTIS machine over 6 years ago! The
option of using PASS EPOS machines was looked at but was obviously
frowned upon from an accounting and audit viewpoint by Rail Settlement
Plan who are the guardians of National Rail ticketing / accounting
standards for retailing.

You'd think so, wouldn't you? But apparently not. Again, see Modern
Railways.

The TOCs and their chosen suppliers have simply opted not to spend the
money (that TfL was ready to provide) or enter into the appropriate
agreements to allow software to be written that could interface with a
generically supplied read / write Oyster target. After all the ticket
machine simply has to recognise a card is present, accept the sale
requirement, encode it to the card, receive confirmation that the
transaction is complete on the card and then complete its own
transaction. Easy stuff.

Put very simply this is organisational and business "politics" of the
absolute worst kind where the customer comes last. I know - I
experienced the icy blasts of ATOC cynicism 7 or 8 years ago. I think
I had two allies in the room - from what was LTS Rail and Virgin Trains.
These company reps no longer work for either organisation but were
both people who could see the opportunities the technology would
provide and how it linked to other things that were happening in the
wider IT, Internet and retail markets.

It's politics alright, but not the sort you're thinking of. See my other
posts on this.

The risk of supplier lock-in is a very valid one when the general
taxpayer is paying, IMHO.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article , Paul Corfield
writes
You're obviously entitled to your view about privacy but I have no real
issue about that information being captured by TfL. Perhaps that's
because I know how the system was designed and partly because I work for
TfL and can't see how they can use the information in some malign way.

The problem isn't so much TfL themselves, as others.

TfL are required to hand that information to the police if demanded. I
think (this not being an electronic communications system under RIPA)
that it requires a PACE order. [If this were an ECS, there's different
paperwork a long collection of other people, from MI6 down to the Royal
Mail (but not the Egg Marketing Board), also entitled to ask.]

PC Plod thinks that his wife is having an affair. Under pretext of some
investigation, he demands details of all Oysters touching out at his
local station between 10:00 and 11:00 one day, then looks through them
for likely "suspects". Similar things have been done with the DVLA
records, so please don't tell me it's impossible.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

In message , Clive D. W. Feather
writes
TfL are required to hand that information to the police if demanded. I
think (this not being an electronic communications system under RIPA)
that it requires a PACE order. [If this were an ECS, there's different
paperwork a long collection of other people, from MI6 down to the Royal
Mail (but not the Egg Marketing Board),
That's a relief!

also entitled to ask.]

PC Plod thinks that his wife is having an affair. Under pretext of some
investigation, he demands details of all Oysters touching out at his
local station between 10:00 and 11:00 one day, then looks through them
for likely "suspects". Similar things have been done with the DVLA
records, so please don't tell me it's impossible.
Indeed. A personnel colleague [1] of mine works for a major public
authority which has a department specifically to monitor its staff to
check on/prevent them doing exactly that sort of thing under exactly
those circumstances. I'm not usually paranoid about Big Brother but
learning that did give me a bit of a jolt to be honest.


[1] My profession in the days when I had a "proper job".
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

Barry Salter wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jan 2006 22:04:59 +0000 (UTC), "Paul Scott"
wrote:

snip

For what it's worth, Southern switched to a zonal pricing structure on
Monday...

Er, Southern were using this zonal pricing structure last year (2005)
as well. I have PDF's of their 'FarePal' literature from last year to
prove it.

On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 01:07 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
(Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:

In article , (Paul Corfield) wrote:


This is news to me - where did you get this snippet of information
from?
Oh and what standards?

Read Uncle Roger (Ford) in Modern Railways, repeatedly, and learn.

Oyster is not ITSO-compliant and the DfT, who pay the TOC bills, won't
pay for non-ITSO-compliant kit. Figures.

Luckily, moves to make Oyster ITSO-compliant seem to be progressing at
last.

Since ITSO exists only as a specification, one wonders why it was not
drafted to be Oyster-compatible.
--
Peter Lawrence

On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 01:07 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
(Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:

In article , (Paul Corfield) wrote:

On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 23:12:20 +0000, Barry Salter
wrote:

Another problem is that, as far as I'm aware, none of the PC-based
Ticket Issuing Systems can be updated to support Oyster, so TOCs
would either need to replace their systems (again) or get machines
similar to those used by TfL Ticket Stops (formerly Pass Agents).

I don't think is true at all. Any of the PC based systems are far
easier to upgrade than APTIS ever was and I saw and used the prototype
smartcard reader attached to an APTIS machine over 6 years ago! The
option of using PASS EPOS machines was looked at but was obviously
frowned upon from an accounting and audit viewpoint by Rail Settlement
Plan who are the guardians of National Rail ticketing / accounting
standards for retailing.

You'd think so, wouldn't you? But apparently not. Again, see Modern
Railways.

Yes I have read Roger Ford in Modern Railways. I still don't agree that
things are as he puts them. He isn't always right you know. The
technology is not the issue at all here.

Put very simply this is organisational and business "politics" of the
absolute worst kind where the customer comes last. I know - I
experienced the icy blasts of ATOC cynicism 7 or 8 years ago. I think
I had two allies in the room - from what was LTS Rail and Virgin Trains.
These company reps no longer work for either organisation but were
both people who could see the opportunities the technology would
provide and how it linked to other things that were happening in the
wider IT, Internet and retail markets.

It's politics alright, but not the sort you're thinking of. See my other
posts on this.

The risk of supplier lock-in is a very valid one when the general
taxpayer is paying, IMHO.

However neither you nor Roger Ford negotiated the IPR and licensing
provisions in the Prestige Contract. I did so I know what is possible if
only people had the will to do something about it.

ITSO was but a glint in someone's eye when we were negotiating the
contract and it was impossible to make provision for something that was
not necessarily even going to happen. LT (as was) could not wait for
what is now 7 years while other people eventually get round to devising
a common standard. Even GMPTE, who were supposed to be the smartcard
leaders for multiple application cards, had no idea where they were
going. I don't see a Smartcard scheme in operation in the Greater
Manchester area!
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 01:07 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
(Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:

In article , ] (Arthur Figgis) wrote:

Is Oyster technology proprietory, or can anyone get the specs and make
their own kit if they want?

I believe Transys own it.

You would be wrong. There are appropriate licensing provisions so other
manufacturers can make compatible kit. It was not acceptable for us to
create a contract that would lock everyone into Transys.

The government's problem with Oyster is the
risk of supplier lock-in.

No the government's problem is that it wants ITSO to be the standard
despite being 10 years behind the times. It also doesn't want to pay
anything to make any of this happen.

The government could make the TOCs adopt Oyster or any form of Smartcard
technology tomorrow if it was so minded. Given that it is going to slash
railway spending in about 12 months time I can't see that ITSO or Oyster
are anywhere on its priority list for dealing with the inevitable
political fall out of hacking our railway network to pieces. That,
however, is obviously another argument.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 01:07 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
(Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:

In article , (Paul Corfield) wrote:

On Wed, 4 Jan 2006 00:43 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
(Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:

In article .com,
(Richard Adamfi) wrote:

If you think it is a con, blame the TOCs for not accepting Oyster,
rather than Ken/TfL.

The TOCs were forced by the Government not to adopt Oyster because
it was not Standards-compliant.

This is news to me - where did you get this snippet of information
from?
Oh and what standards?

Read Uncle Roger (Ford) in Modern Railways, repeatedly, and learn.

Colin - you really don't need to lecture me and insist that I run off
like a child to learn something. I was well aware of the Modern Railway
stuff - I was interested to understand if you had *another* source of
information that would broaden the debate.

Oyster is not ITSO-compliant and the DfT, who pay the TOC bills, won't
pay for non-ITSO-compliant kit. Figures.

See my comments elsewhere - this is all "smoke and mirrors" from the
TOCs.

Luckily, moves to make Oyster ITSO-compliant seem to be progressing at
last.

But only off the back of the E Money contract that TfL are letting which
will exploit the Oyster card holding base. There are ITSO compatible
cards and readers being trialled on a number of bus services in West
London at present. This is not funded by government but by TfL. The
equipment is also provided by the great evil, money grabbing Transys
company who, of course, have no interest in ITSO compatibility!

ITSO compatible equipment will be funded commercially off the back of a
TfL initiative. There is no need for TfL to be doing any of this. I'd
be interested to see if the TOCs will be prepared to "take a risk" about
co-operating with the wider scheme or whether they will still lock
themselves away in their little insular world of 7 year franchises
pretending the real world isn't outside.

The TOCs need to "grow up" and understand where their best interests
lie. Being awkward about a major ticketing initiative in the country's
capital city is not the way to go about things, IMO.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

DERWENT Is pay-per-use Oystercard cheaper than... an annual
travelcard?
Thu, 5 Jan 2006 00:36:35 -0000, "Chris"

"Arthur Figgis" ] wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 18:11:26 +0000, Paul Corfield
wrote:

On Wed, 4 Jan 2006 00:43 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
(Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:

In article .com,
(Richard Adamfi) wrote:

If you think it is a con, blame the TOCs for not accepting Oyster,
rather than Ken/TfL.

The TOCs were forced by the Government not to adopt Oyster because it was
not Standards-compliant.

This is news to me - where did you get this snippet of information from?

The standards problem has been in the railway press - probably in
Modern Railways and elsewhere.


Also mentioned by the mayor here
http://mqt.london.gov.uk//public/question.do?id=12553. I can see where the
TOC's are coming from on this issue, it seems Livingston is insisting they
pay for the 'retailing and validation capability' of oyster installation in
stations when the dft is developing (presumably still a work in progress) a
separate system for the rest of the UK, which they will be installing a few
years later.



Are there any good reasons for not making Oyster the standard for the
whole of the UK?

Why reinvent the wheel?





PRAR
--
http://www.i.am/prar/ and http://prar.fotopic.net/
As long as people will accept crap, it will be financially profitable to dispense it. --Dick Cavett
Please reply to the newsgroup. That is why it exists.
NB Anti-spam measures in force
- If you must email me use the Reply to address and not

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 18:20:56 +0000, Paul Corfield
wrote:

On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 01:07 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
(Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:

In article , ] (Arthur Figgis) wrote:

Is Oyster technology proprietory, or can anyone get the specs and make
their own kit if they want?

I believe Transys own it.

You would be wrong. There are appropriate licensing provisions so other
manufacturers can make compatible kit. It was not acceptable for us to
create a contract that would lock everyone into Transys.

So if Figgis Smartcards Ltd wanted to churn out Oyster-compatible
equipment cheaper than whoever now makes it, there would be nothing to
stop it?

The government's problem with Oyster is the
risk of supplier lock-in.

No the government's problem is that it wants ITSO to be the standard
despite being 10 years behind the times. It also doesn't want to pay
anything to make any of this happen.

Which surely leaves the TOCs stuck in the middle until something which
meets both requirements is available?

The government could make the TOCs adopt Oyster or any form of Smartcard
technology tomorrow if it was so minded.

But could it (short of passing a new law or paying all the costs), if
it (presumably) isn't in the franchise agreements? If the TOCs have
all reached the same conclusion not to fit it, might this not tell us
something about whether it is worth the TOCs' while to do it?


--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK