Paul Corfield wrote:
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 16:08:02 GMT, David of Broadway
wrote:

Paul Corfield wrote:
I do not understand why you see the rules of using Oyster as being a
punishment. It's simple enough - touch in and touch out. There have to
be incentives to make sure that people do these simple tasks otherwise
we might as well have free travel everywhere.

Touch in and touch out within an unspecified time period (and if you
exceed that unspecified time period, you're subject to an £8 penalty).
And maybe at some interchange points too, but nobody seems to know for
sure (e.g., Bank).

Sorry but you'll have to explain that one to me.

What I don't understand is why the presumption is that PAYG users are
trying to cheat the system while TravelCard holders are traveling within
their zones. (If a dishonest TravelCard holder travels outside his
zones and exits the system at a station without gates, what possible
reason would he have to touch out? Why is nobody concerned with his
fare evasion? On the flip side, if the TravelCard holder is granted the
benefit of the doubt, why not treat the PAYG user with the same courtesy?)

I don't think it is how you describe it. I am not privy to the analysis
or design making process but I would assume that PAYG users have
displayed more fraudulent behaviour than travelcard holders. There is
certainly more likelihood that fares would not be correctly deducted for
sole PAYG trips than for extension trips beyond Travelcard validity.

It seems like the goal is to penalize infrequent riders, especially
tourists. Tourists generally don't stay in town long enough for a
TravelCard to be worthwhile. Now, when they get lost in the system and
take a bit longer than the system expects to reach their destination,
and they get hit with an £8 penalty, they can't get it eliminated at the
ticket window -- no, they have to call the Oyster helpdesk and then jump
through whatever hoops the helpdesk imposes to collect a refund.

Sorry but I think that is extreme cynicism. I may for TfL but I cannot
conceive of anyone designing a policy on the basis you describe. There
are many tourists for whom a Travelcard may well be worthwhile - it's
been recommended on this group enough times. The alternative is more
likely to be one day travelcards giving NR validity too which can be
useful for certain tourist destinations.

I would also point out that I have yet to see a system where if tourists
participate in the standard ticketing product that they have any
preferential rights over residents in terms of refunds or correction of
problems. If they buy the overpriced rip off tourist ticket they might
get a quick refund if they surrender their ticket but I imagine most
tourists are not organised to do this before they leave their
destination and thus remaining value and deposit paid sit with the
operator.

My HK Octopus card failed on my penultimate trip when I was last in HK.
When I tried to get it read it could not be interrogated. I was told it
would take a week to organise the refund which was a tad inconvenient as
I was due to head off to the airport within 45 minutes! Thankfully the
supervisor was called and some discretion was exercised where I was
given a refund but it was quite clear that they were not very
comfortable with doing it. I can well understand why as they would not
wish to have a rule whereby cards could be surrendered and refunded on
the basis of a guess as to the remaining value from the customer.

And to add insult to injury, the penalty was (supposedly) set at £4 to
reflect the maximum possible fare, yet the penalty doesn't count towards
a Z1-6 cap. If we're going to assume that somebody who forgot to touch
out might have traveled to the opposite end of the Underground map, we
could at least give him credit for that trip towards his daily cap.

I'm sorry but the whole point of this exercise is to get people to
comply with the system's rules. Why on earth should an £4 entry / exit
charge count towards to the cap? There are plenty of things that we can
claim to forget about but they are not without their consequences. All
passengers are being asked to do is to touch a card on a pad on a gate
or validator - is that really so immensely difficult.

It seems from the adverse comments on this group that it was a gross
error by TfL / LU to launch PAYG on the basis of minimum fare deduction
rather than have the proposed system. People have got far too used to an
easy life and wish to have it preserved.

I shall now retire to my bunker awaited the response.

But the new, more stringent system is still wide open to fraud.

If you say so. I accept the system design is a compromise (see below)
but something has to be done to ensure the majority comply with the
rules of the system.

If you want to seriously reduce fraud, install gates at the stations
that don't have them.

Sorry but this was looked at very early on. It is not just gating
stations at their periphery but also installing gates on every open
interchange between LU and NR lines. Given the safety rules that apply
to monitoring and control of gatelines it is a non starter on that
basis. In addition there is the nonsense of making what is a simple
interchange walk a potential nightmare for passengers. Further there are
the issues about management of passenger flows and congestion. Then
there is creating the impression that the LU network is a "prison" which
I personally do not think is desirable. Finally there is the utterly
inordinate cost associated with trying to ensure validation in physical
environments that cannot practically be adapted to allow such. Gates
down the middle of the island platforms at Stratford between NR and the
Central Line - err I think not.

The Stored Value equipped networks in the Far East (Singapore and HK)
have the huge advantage of having designed their networks to be separate
and fully gated from day one. London is trying something not done
anywhere else - SVT that *demands* entry and exit validation to work
properly but without a fully gated network. That requires other
measures to incentivise validation. The most noticeable and powerful
incentive is without doubt financial - I can't see what else can be done
to get people to play by the required rules.



I think this is the nub of the problem. You seem to be convinced that
the purpose of Oyster is to enforce the rules of Oyster.

We can all understand rules that say you need to pay the fare that
covers the journey that you are making and that fare-evasion, when
detected, should be punished.

You seem to be think that people should be punished, not for going
where they shouldn't go, but for failing to understand or comply with
the rules of a system which doesn't detect either fare-evasion or your
being where you shouldn't be, but merely detects that you failed to
comply with its own rules.

Add to this the fact that it is not yet fully possible to comply with
the rules of Oyster, the totally unfair assumption of guilty till
proven innocent and punishment without charge, let alone trial, and now
the withdrawal of means of proving that you are innocent.

What we are left with is a system which imposes new rules which are
difficult to comply with and which automatically extracts extra money
from people, not for any crime (or in return for any service), but
merely for non-compliance with the new rules.

By any definition, this is a scam (or possibly scamola).

Out of interest, have you raised your concerns with TfL?

Paul and others who work for LUL respond to queries on this group to try and
help people out, yet several posts recently appear to be attacking Paul
personally for the rules to deal with Oyster TfL have imposed. Paul doesn't
work in the TfL customer relations department. which, I feel., some recent
comments should be addressed, so those who are implementing these rules can
be advised of the concerns raised.

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:45:56 GMT, "Robin Mayes"
wrote:

Out of interest, have you raised your concerns with TfL?

Paul and others who work for LUL respond to queries on this group to try and
help people out, yet several posts recently appear to be attacking Paul
personally for the rules to deal with Oyster TfL have imposed. Paul doesn't
work in the TfL customer relations department. which, I feel., some recent
comments should be addressed, so those who are implementing these rules can
be advised of the concerns raised.

Thank you Robin. I am clearly attempting to explain something that is
seen as indefensible by a fair slice of group opinion. I might work for,
I may even have been one of the brains behind the Prestige project but
I'm not here to defend a policy I did not develop and do not have
responsibility for. Those who are fed up with it should direct their ire
at LU directly.

I don't come here and contribute to be "beaten around the head". Whether
people like it or not a stored value type product requires an entry and
an exit to work properly - that is how it works. It cannot work any
other way unless you have flat fares which are deducted solely on entry
as in New York on the Subway.

I was going to draft a detailed explanation about the forthcoming change
but I don't see that there is any point because such a post will simply
attract unwarranted criticism when I am trying to be helpful. Sorry to
those who asked for it but there's no point in perpetuating the
criticism. I won't be responding to other posts in the thread even
though some of the conclusions are clearly incorrect.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:45:56 GMT, "Robin Mayes"
wrote:

Out of interest, have you raised your concerns with TfL?

Paul and others who work for LUL respond to queries on this group to try and
help people out, yet several posts recently appear to be attacking Paul
personally for the rules to deal with Oyster TfL have imposed. Paul doesn't
work in the TfL customer relations department. which, I feel., some recent
comments should be addressed, so those who are implementing these rules can
be advised of the concerns raised.

Thank you Robin. I am clearly attempting to explain something that is
seen as indefensible by a fair slice of group opinion. I might work for,
I may even have been one of the brains behind the Prestige project but
I'm not here to defend a policy I did not develop and do not have
responsibility for. Those who are fed up with it should direct their ire
at LU directly.

I don't come here and contribute to be "beaten around the head". Whether
people like it or not a stored value type product requires an entry and
an exit to work properly - that is how it works. It cannot work any
other way unless you have flat fares which are deducted solely on entry
as in New York on the Subway.

I was going to draft a detailed explanation about the forthcoming change
but I don't see that there is any point because such a post will simply
attract unwarranted criticism when I am trying to be helpful. Sorry to
those who asked for it but there's no point in perpetuating the
criticism. I won't be responding to other posts in the thread even
though some of the conclusions are clearly incorrect.


I agree that there is no point in defending the indefensible.
Explaining it is a bit like explaining to a mugging victim why someone
wanted his wallet, as if that makes it all right.

I am obviously not holding you responsible for the system. I am simply
responding to you with incredulity when you try to defend it.

And as for raising my concerns TfL, again, TfL knows exactly what it is
doing and why it is doing it. It has found a system which
automatically extracts money from people well over the fares they
should have paid while simultaneously saving them the cost of
installing more barriers and employing the staff that are necessary
when there are barriers in operation.

What would be the point of raising my concerns? It would be like
saying to the mugger "I say, do you realise that you have taken my
wallet?".

On 30 Oct 2006 14:02:56 -0800, "MIG"
wrote:


Paul Corfield wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:45:56 GMT, "Robin Mayes"
wrote:

Out of interest, have you raised your concerns with TfL?

Paul and others who work for LUL respond to queries on this group to try and
help people out, yet several posts recently appear to be attacking Paul
personally for the rules to deal with Oyster TfL have imposed. Paul doesn't
work in the TfL customer relations department. which, I feel., some recent
comments should be addressed, so those who are implementing these rules can
be advised of the concerns raised.

Thank you Robin. I am clearly attempting to explain something that is
seen as indefensible by a fair slice of group opinion. I might work for,
I may even have been one of the brains behind the Prestige project but
I'm not here to defend a policy I did not develop and do not have
responsibility for. Those who are fed up with it should direct their ire
at LU directly.

I don't come here and contribute to be "beaten around the head". Whether
people like it or not a stored value type product requires an entry and
an exit to work properly - that is how it works. It cannot work any
other way unless you have flat fares which are deducted solely on entry
as in New York on the Subway.

I was going to draft a detailed explanation about the forthcoming change
but I don't see that there is any point because such a post will simply
attract unwarranted criticism when I am trying to be helpful. Sorry to
those who asked for it but there's no point in perpetuating the
criticism. I won't be responding to other posts in the thread even
though some of the conclusions are clearly incorrect.


I agree that there is no point in defending the indefensible.
Explaining it is a bit like explaining to a mugging victim why someone
wanted his wallet, as if that makes it all right.

I am obviously not holding you responsible for the system. I am simply
responding to you with incredulity when you try to defend it.

And as for raising my concerns TfL, again, TfL knows exactly what it is
doing and why it is doing it. It has found a system which
automatically extracts money from people well over the fares they
should have paid while simultaneously saving them the cost of
installing more barriers and employing the staff that are necessary
when there are barriers in operation.

What would be the point of raising my concerns? It would be like
saying to the mugger "I say, do you realise that you have taken my
wallet?".

And it's because of nonsense like this that Paul's given up
responding. You simply will not assume good faith.

James Farrar wrote:
On 30 Oct 2006 14:02:56 -0800, "MIG"
wrote:


Paul Corfield wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:45:56 GMT, "Robin Mayes"
wrote:

Out of interest, have you raised your concerns with TfL?

Paul and others who work for LUL respond to queries on this group to try and
help people out, yet several posts recently appear to be attacking Paul
personally for the rules to deal with Oyster TfL have imposed. Paul doesn't
work in the TfL customer relations department. which, I feel., some recent
comments should be addressed, so those who are implementing these rules can
be advised of the concerns raised.

Thank you Robin. I am clearly attempting to explain something that is
seen as indefensible by a fair slice of group opinion. I might work for,
I may even have been one of the brains behind the Prestige project but
I'm not here to defend a policy I did not develop and do not have
responsibility for. Those who are fed up with it should direct their ire
at LU directly.

I don't come here and contribute to be "beaten around the head". Whether
people like it or not a stored value type product requires an entry and
an exit to work properly - that is how it works. It cannot work any
other way unless you have flat fares which are deducted solely on entry
as in New York on the Subway.

I was going to draft a detailed explanation about the forthcoming change
but I don't see that there is any point because such a post will simply
attract unwarranted criticism when I am trying to be helpful. Sorry to
those who asked for it but there's no point in perpetuating the
criticism. I won't be responding to other posts in the thread even
though some of the conclusions are clearly incorrect.


I agree that there is no point in defending the indefensible.
Explaining it is a bit like explaining to a mugging victim why someone
wanted his wallet, as if that makes it all right.

I am obviously not holding you responsible for the system. I am simply
responding to you with incredulity when you try to defend it.

And as for raising my concerns TfL, again, TfL knows exactly what it is
doing and why it is doing it. It has found a system which
automatically extracts money from people well over the fares they
should have paid while simultaneously saving them the cost of
installing more barriers and employing the staff that are necessary
when there are barriers in operation.

What would be the point of raising my concerns? It would be like
saying to the mugger "I say, do you realise that you have taken my
wallet?".

And it's because of nonsense like this that Paul's given up
responding. You simply will not assume good faith.



I don't assume bad faith in Paul's explanations (which is probably not
what you meant).

I and others have repeatedly explained the problems which result in us
either losing money or suffering long delays purely for reasons to do
with the introduction of Oyster. I have repeatedly suggested

1) not introducing draconian measures to encourage people to comply
with Oyster rules before the means of complying with Oyster rules are
fully available

2) offering extension tickets at rather less than £4 to people who can
show a paper travelcard

In response it has been implied

1) that I am talking nonsense

2) that it's my fault for not explaining TfL's own system to TfL

I am close to giving up as well - on using public transport in London.
I am soon going to be the object of those regular threads about wanting
to kill cyclists.

On 31 Oct 2006 01:40:55 -0800, "MIG"
wrote:


James Farrar wrote:
You simply will not assume good faith.



I don't assume bad faith in Paul's explanations (which is probably not
what you meant).

No, it certainly is not what I meant. You will not assume good faith
on the part of TfL in attempting to close off a loophole in the
system.

I don't know why. Assuming bad faith without evidence is an inherently
irrational position.

Paul Corfield wrote:
Thank you Robin. I am clearly attempting to explain something that is
seen as indefensible by a fair slice of group opinion. I might work for,
I may even have been one of the brains behind the Prestige project but
I'm not here to defend a policy I did not develop and do not have
responsibility for. Those who are fed up with it should direct their ire
at LU directly.

I can't speak for others here, but I'm simply looking to understand the
new policy. From what I can tell (across the pond), it has some serious
problems. I could be wrong. If I'm wrong, I hope to be informed why;
if I'm right, perhaps somebody in a position to solve those problems is
reading this newsgroup.

Oyster policy doesn't personally affect me here in New York (although
transportation officials in New York are certainly watching Oyster
closely), so I don't think it would be appropriate for me to complain to LU.

I don't come here and contribute to be "beaten around the head". Whether
people like it or not a stored value type product requires an entry and
an exit to work properly - that is how it works. It cannot work any
other way unless you have flat fares which are deducted solely on entry
as in New York on the Subway.

And all I'm looking for is your (and others') contributions. I'm not
trying to beat anyone around the head.

A Travelcard system with the capability to issue automatic ticket
extensions requires entry and exit swipes just as much as pure PAYG. A
regular commuter between Kenton and Central London can get away with a
Z1-2 Travelcard (£888 annually) rather than the proper Z1-4 Travelcard
(£1264 annually) -- a 30% savings -- in exchange for the risk of an
occasional £20 penalty charge on an inbound trip (but not on an outbound
trip).

(I would have used Harrow & Wealdstone as my example, for a more
dramatic 41% savings, but I'm not sure if Harrow & Wealdstone has gates,
while I know Kenton doesn't.)

I don't understand why PAYG abuse is such a problem while Travelcard
abuse is not.

And, as I've pointed out, a traveler following the rules to the letter
can still get hit with the penalty charge, or even two on a single trip!
Fix those glitches and I'd be much less critical of the charge.

I was going to draft a detailed explanation about the forthcoming change
but I don't see that there is any point because such a post will simply
attract unwarranted criticism when I am trying to be helpful. Sorry to
those who asked for it but there's no point in perpetuating the
criticism. I won't be responding to other posts in the thread even
though some of the conclusions are clearly incorrect.

That's a shame. I was looking forward to it. Your posts are
interesting and informative, even if I don't agree with all of them.
--
David of Broadway
New York, NY, USA

On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 17:08:03 GMT, David of Broadway
wrote:

Paul Corfield wrote:
Thank you Robin. I am clearly attempting to explain something that is
seen as indefensible by a fair slice of group opinion. I might work for,
I may even have been one of the brains behind the Prestige project but
I'm not here to defend a policy I did not develop and do not have
responsibility for. Those who are fed up with it should direct their ire
at LU directly.

I can't speak for others here, but I'm simply looking to understand the
new policy. From what I can tell (across the pond), it has some serious
problems. I could be wrong. If I'm wrong, I hope to be informed why;
if I'm right, perhaps somebody in a position to solve those problems is
reading this newsgroup.

I think it all depends on how people perceive TfL's actions. It is
evident that there is polarised opinion and no amount of explanation
will change that. People have decided what their view is and anyone
proffering the counter view simply gets "abused".

Oyster policy doesn't personally affect me here in New York (although
transportation officials in New York are certainly watching Oyster
closely), so I don't think it would be appropriate for me to complain to LU.

Do you know what particularly about Oyster they are watching closely? I
can't imagine it is the smartcard element as that is proven in many
places and they already have experience of key elements of such a system
via the magnetic Metrocard installation.

I don't come here and contribute to be "beaten around the head". Whether
people like it or not a stored value type product requires an entry and
an exit to work properly - that is how it works. It cannot work any
other way unless you have flat fares which are deducted solely on entry
as in New York on the Subway.

And all I'm looking for is your (and others') contributions. I'm not
trying to beat anyone around the head.

I didn't name any names. If I post here it is for my enjoyment - when it
is no longer enjoyable the only option is to stop.

A Travelcard system with the capability to issue automatic ticket
extensions requires entry and exit swipes just as much as pure PAYG. A
regular commuter between Kenton and Central London can get away with a
Z1-2 Travelcard (£888 annually) rather than the proper Z1-4 Travelcard
(£1264 annually) -- a 30% savings -- in exchange for the risk of an
occasional £20 penalty charge on an inbound trip (but not on an outbound
trip).

Yes - this has always been the case but Oyster allows more sophisticated
checks to be made which could very easily pick out such usage and alert
revenue protection staff.

(I would have used Harrow & Wealdstone as my example, for a more
dramatic 41% savings, but I'm not sure if Harrow & Wealdstone has gates,
while I know Kenton doesn't.)

H&W does not have gates - I was there on Saturday.

I don't understand why PAYG abuse is such a problem while Travelcard
abuse is not.

And, as I've pointed out, a traveler following the rules to the letter
can still get hit with the penalty charge, or even two on a single trip!
Fix those glitches and I'd be much less critical of the charge.

If they follow the rules I don't see how they get hit. Anyone
encountering a problem with validation due to equipment failure or
emergency evacuation will be treated sympathetically and would have the
£4 adjusted away. If they follow the rules then they would otherwise
have touched in and out properly and thus there would be no risk of
overcharging or missed caps.

I was going to draft a detailed explanation about the forthcoming change
but I don't see that there is any point because such a post will simply
attract unwarranted criticism when I am trying to be helpful. Sorry to
those who asked for it but there's no point in perpetuating the
criticism. I won't be responding to other posts in the thread even
though some of the conclusions are clearly incorrect.

That's a shame. I was looking forward to it. Your posts are
interesting and informative, even if I don't agree with all of them.

And there was me imagining you agreed with everything I said!

--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
...

Fix those glitches and I'd be much less critical of the charge.

If they follow the rules I don't see how they get hit. Anyone
encountering a problem with validation due to equipment failure or
emergency evacuation will be treated sympathetically and would have the
£4 adjusted away. If they follow the rules then they would otherwise
have touched in and out properly and thus there would be no risk of
overcharging or missed caps.


Paul C

Admits to working for London Underground!

As an irregular user of LU services I now have a PAYG Oyster card, and it
was failing to touch half way through a journey when transferring NR to LU
that confused my account on a trip from Marylebone to Watford, changing at
Harrow on the Hill. The readers at Harrow simply say Oyster PAYG users must
touch out (or something like) - couldn't they, and those at any 'transfer'
point be more informative?

What I'm trying to say is, it is obvious to touch in or out when entering or
leaving the paid area theough a barrier, but if its a cross platform
interchange like at Stratford, couldn't the signs maybe say something like
'Oyster PAYG customers touch to transfer'?

Paul