On Aug 24, 1:53 pm, John B wrote:
I'm missing the 'non-trivial' element, here...

A bus ticket machine is a fairly simple off-the-shelf gadget. You're
proposing bolting on a relatively huge amount of new electronics for
very little gain, plus the additional costs of maintaining it and
payingt for bandwidth and so on. From a technological point of view
you're right, it is trivial, but logistically and economically, no it
isn't.

You don't need it anyway. Online top ups have an overnight delay, so
they could just upload details of top-ups to be collected while the
bus is in the depot at night. I presume they've looked at this and
found it's more trouble than it's worth, or not something they could
keep working reliably, or not compatible with current working
practices, or some other non-technological issue.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

John B wrote:
On 24 Aug, 11:31, Michael Hoffman wrote:
The poor design element is that you can't validate on a bus, thereby
making validation actually an issue instead of the non-issue it
ought to be (yes, I know the excuses for this; however, it'd be
trivially easy to make bus-based readers connect to the base by
GPRS every five minutes to exchange relevant data with the central
system).

I think we have different definitions of "trivial."

TfL has a secure private network in place to link the fixed Oyster
readers to their central server. Companies have been able for many
years to provide their employees and their employees' devices with VPN
access over GPRS to their secure private networks. Integrating mobile
devices with electronic peripherals is more or less a matter of plug-
and-play.

I'm missing the 'non-trivial' element, here...

Hence why so many large IT projects go over budget and miss deadlines...?
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007, Mr Thant wrote:

On Aug 24, 1:53 pm, John B wrote:

I'm missing the 'non-trivial' element, here...

A bus ticket machine is a fairly simple off-the-shelf gadget. You're
proposing bolting on a relatively huge amount of new electronics for
very little gain, plus the additional costs of maintaining it and
payingt for bandwidth and so on. From a technological point of view
you're right, it is trivial, but logistically and economically, no it
isn't.

Okay, hands up anyone here who's an electronic engineer.

Anyone?

No?

So we're all more or less talking out of our collective hats, then?

A mate of mine designed a system for trucks that monitors their position,
speed, and brake use, and radios it back to base for tracking and
maintenance management type stuff. It's a box with a GPS chipset, a GPRS
chipset, some analogue-to-digital converters, and a microcontroller. I
wouldn't say it was trivial, at all, but it was also not the kind of
impossibility you make out. [1]

You're right that it would add a fairly marginal amount of utility. But
buses are going to have computers with GPRS (and GPS) soon enough anyway,
for iBus, this kind of management-oriented telemetry, etc. Adding an
interface to the Oyster mainframe at that point would be a matter of a
ribbon cable and a few dozen thousand lines of code.

tom

[1] One of its effects is to make braking more efficient, which saves
fuel; something like 2%, i think. It's installed on 5000 trucks, which
means it's saving 100 trucks worth of fuel use; this friend accordingly
doesn't feel guilty about his frequent intercontinental plane trips!

--
As Emiliano Zapata supposedly said, "Better to die on your feet than
live on your knees." And years after he died, Marlon Brando played him
in a movie. So just think, if you unionize, Marlon Brando might play
YOU in a movie. Even though he's dead. -- ChrisV82

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007, Mr Thant wrote:

On Aug 24, 1:53 pm, John B wrote:

I'm missing the 'non-trivial' element, here...

A bus ticket machine is a fairly simple off-the-shelf gadget. You're
proposing bolting on a relatively huge amount of new electronics for
very little gain, plus the additional costs of maintaining it and
payingt for bandwidth and so on. From a technological point of view
you're right, it is trivial, but logistically and economically, no it
isn't.

Okay, hands up anyone here who's an electronic engineer.

I'm a programmer, so I have a good idea of what "trivial" means in terms
of even that aspect of the project.

So we're all more or less talking out of our collective hats, then?

Perhaps you are, if you say so. I'm not.

A mate of mine designed a system for trucks that monitors their
position, speed, and brake use, and radios it back to base for tracking
and maintenance management type stuff. It's a box with a GPS chipset, a
GPRS chipset, some analogue-to-digital converters, and a
microcontroller. I wouldn't say it was trivial, at all, but it was also
not the kind of impossibility you make out. [1]

I don't think anyone has said what John has proposed is *impossible,*
only that it is not *trivial* either. What you describe is in the same
category.

You're right that it would add a fairly marginal amount of utility. But
buses are going to have computers with GPRS (and GPS) soon enough
anyway, for iBus, this kind of management-oriented telemetry, etc.
Adding an interface to the Oyster mainframe at that point would be a
matter of a ribbon cable and a few dozen thousand lines of code.

*Now* you're talking out of your hat.

It would be nice to collect online top-up at any Tube station rather
than having to nominate one. Or to allow collection without having to
wait overnight. Either of these things would be a walk in the park
compared to a GPRS-based system on the buses. Yet they are not done.

It's not as easy as you think. As Richard J. points out IT projects are
notorious for missing budgets and deadlines. I think no small part of
this is due to overly optimistic assumptions at the outset.
--
Michael Hoffman

On Aug 20, 10:54 pm, Uncle Dave wrote:
Can anyone tell me how I can use myOysterCard on buses? TFL don't
seem to want to - they hint at it, presumably expecting visitors to
London to somehow understand how London transportation works.

You are not
alonhttp://www.ilfordrecorder.co.uk/content/redbridge/recorder/news/story.aspx?brand=RECOnline&category=newsIlford&tBr and=northlondon24&tCategory=newsilford&itemid=WeED 20%20Sep%202007%2009%3A33%3A33%3A853

quote

Train users paying for Oyster card mix-up
MARC WALKER - 20 September 2007
CONFUSED rail passengers are being hit with £20 on-the-spot fines
after mistakenly thinking they can use their Oyster card on train
services.

Rail company One has pledged to extend the electronic ticketing system
- which operates between Stratford and Liverpool Street - to Redbridge
stations by May 2009.

But in the meantime many commuters remain bewildered by the transport
network.

Barry Edwards, of Chelmsford Road, South Woodford, said he saw several
people attempt to pass through barriers at Ilford station using their
Oyster cards, only to be fined for fare dodging.

He said: "There was a Polish student reduced to tears when an officer
was trying to serve her a £20 penalty charge.

"Transport for London has already paid the money to One Railway to
take on the pre-payment system right up to Romford. If the money has
been paid, why not wave them through?"

A One spokesman confirmed that TfL will pay for the installation of
Oyster payment barriers at stations in Ilford, Seven Kings, Goodmayes
and Chadwell Heath - but denied that the company had already received
the cash from City Hall.

She said: "No money comes to us. TfL puts the equipment into the
stations, but we will be paying for the maintenance."

London Mayor Ken Livingstone has made no secret of his anger over
train operators' reluctance to embrace Oyster.

A TfL spokesman said: "We recognise the benefits to tens of thousands
of passengers of a fully integrated transport smartcard, to pay for
all forms of public transport across London.

"Indeed, last May, the mayor offered £20million to pay for the
provision and installation of Oyster across the national rail network
in the capital.

"All the train operating companies are in final discussion with TfL
over the implementation of Oyster pay-as-you-go on their services.
Agreement should hopefully be reached in the next few weeks.

unquote:

Bob wrote:

CONFUSED rail passengers are being hit with £20 on-the-spot fines
after mistakenly thinking they can use their Oyster card on train
services.

Rail company One has pledged to extend the electronic ticketing system
- which operates between Stratford and Liverpool Street - to Redbridge
stations by May 2009.

Well the paper's not helping to clear up the confusion is it?! "Oyster
cards" CAN be used at Ilford BUT only the ones with season tickets on them -
I've never had a problem here. What causes the confusion is the widespread
use of "Oyster" when "Pay As You Go" is what is meant.