Dave Arquati wrote:
For any TOCs other than SWT or Silverlink Metro, the decision is still
in their hands, and probably depends on both TfL converting Oyster to
the interoperable standard (ITSO),

Whilst it's frustrating not to be able to use PAYG on NR, I do have
some sympathy with the TOCs regarding the interoperable standard issue.
Why on earth did TfL decide to go with a standalone system?

I think there is a fairly clear delineation in many users' minds between
day tickets (singles, ODTCs) and season tickets (weeklies, monthlies,
annuals). A day ticket is an occasional and potentially impromptu
purchase, whilst a season ticket requires some advance planning to
decide whether you need it.

I wouldn't consider a one-day travelcard as part of the same "range" as
a season ticket when I think about my travel.

I would disagree with this. To me, the delineation is between simple
single/return tickets and travelcards (of whatever length), because the
latter allow you unlimited journeys within the timeframe, whereas the
former don't.

Patrick

wrote:
For any TOCs other than SWT or Silverlink Metro, the decision is still
in their hands, and probably depends on both TfL converting Oyster to
the interoperable standard (ITSO),

Whilst it's frustrating not to be able to use PAYG on NR, I do have
some sympathy with the TOCs regarding the interoperable standard issue.
Why on earth did TfL decide to go with a standalone system?


Because they wanted to implement Oyster without waiting 5 years. When
Oyster was being planned, ITSO didn't exist - TfL decided to press
ahead with its smartcard implementation anyway, rather than spend years
waiting for a bunch of committees to come up with something possibly
workable.

(so why wasn't the ITSO standard based on Oyster, then? for some
reason, the phrase "petty bureaucratic infighting" comes to mind)

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On Wed, 3 May 2006, John B wrote:

wrote:

For any TOCs other than SWT or Silverlink Metro, the decision is still
in their hands, and probably depends on both TfL converting Oyster to
the interoperable standard (ITSO),

Whilst it's frustrating not to be able to use PAYG on NR, I do have
some sympathy with the TOCs regarding the interoperable standard issue.
Why on earth did TfL decide to go with a standalone system?

Because they wanted to implement Oyster without waiting 5 years. When
Oyster was being planned, ITSO didn't exist - TfL decided to press ahead
with its smartcard implementation anyway, rather than spend years
waiting for a bunch of committees to come up with something possibly
workable.

(so why wasn't the ITSO standard based on Oyster, then? for some reason,
the phrase "petty bureaucratic infighting" comes to mind)

Closely followed by 'intellectual property rights'.

It's also possible that ITSO does things that Oyster doesn't (a common
property of committee-designed specifications), but i haven't seen a
detailed ITSO vs Oyster comparison.

tom

--
Civis Britannicus sum.

Why on earth did TfL decide to go with a standalone system?

Because they wanted to implement Oyster without waiting 5 years. When
Oyster was being planned, ITSO didn't exist - TfL decided to press
ahead with its smartcard implementation anyway, rather than spend years
waiting for a bunch of committees to come up with something possibly
workable.

Oh, that makes sense; I had just assumed that ITSO was an
already-existing standard. All sympathy for TOCs now vanishes! g

Patrick

In article .com,
() wrote:

Why on earth did TfL decide to go with a standalone system?

Because they wanted to implement Oyster without waiting 5 years.
When Oyster was being planned, ITSO didn't exist - TfL decided to
press ahead with its smartcard implementation anyway, rather than
spend years waiting for a bunch of committees to come up with
something possibly workable.

Oh, that makes sense; I had just assumed that ITSO was an
already-existing standard. All sympathy for TOCs now vanishes! g

The TOCs don't have any choice. They have to do what the DfT (and the
SRA before it) tell them on this.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article .com,
() wrote:

Why on earth did TfL decide to go with a standalone system?

Because they wanted to implement Oyster without waiting 5 years.
When Oyster was being planned, ITSO didn't exist - TfL decided to
press ahead with its smartcard implementation anyway, rather than
spend years waiting for a bunch of committees to come up with
something possibly workable.

Oh, that makes sense; I had just assumed that ITSO was an
already-existing standard. All sympathy for TOCs now vanishes! g

The TOCs don't have any choice. They have to do what the DfT (and the
SRA before it) tell them on this.


On the other hand, TfL does have a choice about whether to implement
punishment fares for people who don't use Oyster years before Oyster is
available to everyone.

If you live in one of the many places in London (particularly south)
where there are NR stations and local shops can't top up Oyster, you
have little choice but to get a paper season ticket. You might have an
Oyster which you put prepay on when you get the chance, near work in
central London say, but you wouldn't be able to put your travelcard on
it on the morning when you needed to renew.

But if you need to travel on the Underground one stop beyond the zone
of your paper season travelcard, you have three choices.

1) buy a paper extension at a punishment fare of £3

2) use prepay for your whole journey from where you get on near work
(despite being covered for most of it by your paper travelcard)

3) get off the train before your stop, go up the escalator, through the
barrier with your travelcard, back in the barrier with your Oyster,
down the escalator again and wait for another train

If you try to use Prepay without doing either 2 or 3, you risk a
penalty fare. 3) is what I had to do several times in recent weeks,
when I had some appointments one stop beyond my usual zone, and was in
a hurry.

So why is TfL punishing people for not doing something that they can't
do yet?

In message .com,
writes
For any TOCs other than SWT or Silverlink Metro, the decision is still
in their hands, and probably depends on both TfL converting Oyster to
the interoperable standard (ITSO),

Whilst it's frustrating not to be able to use PAYG on NR, I do have
some sympathy with the TOCs regarding the interoperable standard issue.
Why on earth did TfL decide to go with a standalone system?

Because nobody would get their finger out, and somebody had to do
something?

When Oyster was conceived there was no standard.
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)