On 17 Jan, 13:36, MIG wrote:
The claims that the programming is done that way to prevent fraud
don't make sense while the same assumption of fraud doesn't apply to
travelcards or any other tickets, ie that anyone who wasn't monitored
at one end of their journey must be billed for the longest journey
that they might have made while not being monitored.

I think there's an implication that if you spend £1000 on a ticket,
you're a) contributing to the system even if you cut a few corners; b)
highly traceable; and c) less likely to be a thieving charver.

a is questionable I suppose. I'd be very surprised were b and c not
empirically accurate.

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

On Jan 17, 2:50*pm, Mizter T wrote:
On 17 Jan, 14:37, Mr Thant
wrote:

On 17 Jan, 13:36, MIG wrote:

The claims that the programming is done that way to prevent fraud
don't make sense while the same assumption of fraud doesn't apply to
travelcards or any other tickets, ie that anyone who wasn't monitored
at one end of their journey must be billed for the longest journey
that they might have made while not being monitored.

The difference is that all stations where you can begin or end a PAYG
journey have validators, while most stations where Travelcards are
valid do not, so it's impossible to be consistent between the two. Can
you suggest a better system?

U

This, MIG, is exactly the point - there simply isn't the kit at the
majority of National Rail stations in London for passengers to touch-
in or out. If validators were fitted at all stations in London then
requiring those with a Travelcard on Oyster (or in the future on an
ITSO smartcard) to touch-in and touch-out would be possible. Until
then it isn't.

Validators on trains, linked to GPS (or something more reliable) would
solve a lot of problems.

It would avoid some unnecessary queues, solve the problem of badly-
placed validators (which really ought to be addressed anyway) and,
most importantly, address the increasing number of scenarios where a
paper season will need to be combined with PAYG to avoid being ripped
off during an occasional extended journey.

The latter would be solved even better by selling paper extension
tickets at a reasonable price to anyone with a season, instead of at
the unresolved journey rate.

On Jan 17, 5:46*pm, John B wrote:
On 17 Jan, 13:36, MIG wrote:

The claims that the programming is done that way to prevent fraud
don't make sense while the same assumption of fraud doesn't apply to
travelcards or any other tickets, ie that anyone who wasn't monitored
at one end of their journey must be billed for the longest journey
that they might have made while not being monitored.

I think there's an implication that if you spend £1000 on a ticket,
you're a) contributing to the system even if you cut a few corners; b)
highly traceable; and c) less likely to be a thieving charver.

a is questionable I suppose. I'd be very surprised were b and c not
empirically accurate.


It's not just seasons though. If I have single ticket from Greenwich
(no barrier) to London Bridge (barrier), it has never been deemed
necessary to assume that I came from Ramsgate (or Thurso).

Or maybe this is what's assumed of every thieving scumbag who ever
arrives at London Bridge, but it's never been practical to stop
everyone from Greenwich and bill them for a First Open Single from
Ramsgate before they are allowed through?

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:12:36 -0800 (PST), John B wrote:

I think SWT will simply work on the basis that they will have to accept
some "leakage" risk in the AM Peak which I believe is the only time the
steps and subways from the platforms are open.

It isn't [IMX all day weekdays and sometimes even at weekends], but it
doubtless will be once the barriers are imposed. Yay progress.

Within the last couple of months, the subway has become peak hours
only (though the definition of peak hours is fairly generous). There
are/were notices to this effect attached to the subway entrances.

"asdf" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:12:36 -0800 (PST), John B wrote:

I think SWT will simply work on the basis that they will have to accept
some "leakage" risk in the AM Peak which I believe is the only time the
steps and subways from the platforms are open.

It isn't [IMX all day weekdays and sometimes even at weekends], but it
doubtless will be once the barriers are imposed. Yay progress.

Within the last couple of months, the subway has become peak hours
only (though the definition of peak hours is fairly generous).

That makes sense - they charge peak fares until mid day after all ...

Paul

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:26:41 -0000, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

I'm not too familiar with the subway setup, mainly cos IMX it's hardly ever
open when I've arrived (off peak & weekends) in recent years, but does the
W&C line have a separate gateline to the rest of the underground, or just
validators?

W&C at Waterloo just has validators. As it is physically separate from
the other lines and has no intermediate stop then it is a line that can
be gated at only one end. In this case at Bank. Validators were provided
initially for Carnets - a project that I was client for. For Oyster
PAYG then validators are required at both entry and exit points at
Waterloo (the W&C platforms are physically separate from each and not
connected within the paid area).
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 05:36:04 -0800 (PST), MIG
wrote:

But the logic has a different purpose from that behind travelcards.
Travelcards are a simple case of ensuring cash flow pay getting cash
up front for a cheaper offer.

It is a long standing product which existed before a single UTS style
ticket gates was ever installed. The coding parameters are relatively
simple as are the fraud checks as there are only so many that can be
done and even then only a subset can be detected via gates. Travelcards
or season tickets can work without any form of automatic checking.

The purpose of Travelcards is the offer a bulk travel product for
regular travellers. Yes they receive a discount compared to buying
single tickets for every journey and that reflects the reduction in cost
to the operator from fewer transactions and shorter queues and also the
fact that money is received up front. However that latter fact is NOT
the "purpose" of the product.

PAYG has a different purpose which is to ensure that maximum cash is
extracted with minimal effort as the journeys are made. It's this
purpose, rather than the logic, that might be considered unreasonable,
and lead one to be wary of how the same logic might be applied on a
larger scale.

Sorry but you are completely incorrect. It was never a project objective
for Stored Value that maximum cash be extracted for minimal effort. The
purpose was to provide an additional product for people who have highly
variable journey needs, who may travel off peak more than the peak and
who cannot commit to a season ticket product. They were stuck with a
situation where they had to buy fully priced tickets or skew their
journeys to be able to use One Day Travelcards. However they then have
the burden of queuing up every day. That's expensive to run,
inconvenient and not customer friendly. SVT (now PAYG) has to have
validation on entry and on exit whether on Smartcards or on hi
coercivity magnetics. London is the only place in the world that I am
aware of where a SVT system is in place without gates at every single
point of entry and exit to the system. There are a number of options
that can be employed to "incentivise" people to validate and to retain
their cards. London tried the option of a low form of fare deduction on
entry with further deduction on exit for PAYG. The system was abused (as
might have been expected) but at least TfL gave people the benefit of
the doubt initially. In the face of demonstrable evasion TfL had no
choice but to amend the fare deduction on entry provisions to the
current £4 or £5 level. The fact that was done still does not make it
the "purpose" of the product.

You clearly completely dislike smartcards and PAYG as every one of your
posts on the subject demonstrates. Apart from persisting with an old
and inflexible range of ticketing products what is you answer to the
problem of providing attractive and easy to use ticket products?


The claims that the programming is done that way to prevent fraud
don't make sense while the same assumption of fraud doesn't apply to
travelcards or any other tickets, ie that anyone who wasn't monitored
at one end of their journey must be billed for the longest journey
that they might have made while not being monitored.

Sorry they are different products with different fraud risks. The
solution for one is not the same as for the other. Others have pointed
out the issues relating to the extent of automatic validation equipment
and I agree with what they have said.

--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Paul Scott wrote

SWT mention in their latest magazine that the Waterloo Gateline,
installation about to start this month apparently, will have 120
gates.

Here is the full quote - SWT free magazine, p8 of issue 26 Jan/Feb '08
(not in the excerpts on the web site).

We're happy to tell you that work by Network Rail to install automatic
barriers will commence at the beginning of 2008. This will involve
removing some of the nearby retail outlets and opening up the current
gateline, after which cabling, ducting and associated works for the new
gates will be carried out.

The actual gates will be installed mid-summer {2008}, a process that
will take until early 2009 to complete. It will be the biggest gating
scheme in Europe, involving the installation of more than 120 gates. ==


--
Mike D

Paul Scott wrote

Given that SWT is going to introduce Oyster, leaving gaps at
Waterloo
will presumably earn revenue, if every unresolved journey from
Clapham
Junction is charged as an open single to Weymouth.

The DfT have actually contracted an ITSO compatible smartcard -
although
Oyster functionality is also a requirement within the zonal area.

From a search [Barriers Waterloo] on the SWT website
http://www.southwesttrains.co.uk

(Live Q&A transcript)

Question: 43 - Do you have any plans to introduce the Oyster ticketing
system across your network?

A: We plan to introduce smartcard ticketing in 2009 and to issue a
South West Trains card usable across our network. Our smartcards are
being designed to also work in the Transport for London zones where the
appropriate ticket (e.g. Travelcard ) is held. As part of this process,
we are committed to rolling out Oyster within the six Travelcard zones
only.


Also "The three tier {peak, off-peak, super-off peak} structure ... to
be be introduced nationally"

Question: 64
Sir. Would you please confirm if your company struck a deal with DfT
in June 2006 as part of the franchise bidding process to tackle
overcrowding immediately after the morning peak by increasing the price
of Cheap Day Returns towards London?
Richard Sendall, 16:15

Off-peak fares are not regulated and so are not subject to Department
for Transport approval. The changes we made were aimed at: - smoothing
some peaks of overcrowding; - separating pricing for afternoons and out
of London from the increasing trend to late commuting and; - matching
fares generally to our demand profile. The three tier structure we
pioneered is now set to be be introduced nationally for the above
reasons as part of the planned national fares simplification scheme. ==

--
Mike D

-- Off-peak fares are not regulated and so are not subject to Department
for Transport approval. The changes we made were aimed at: - smoothing
some peaks of overcrowding; - separating pricing for afternoons and out
of London from the increasing trend to late commuting and; - matching
fares generally to our demand profile. The three tier structure we
pioneered is now set to be be introduced nationally for the above
reasons as part of the planned national fares simplification scheme.

Simplification! Ha Ha Ha!

That is the best laugh I have had today, though I admit that I am only 39
minutes into it, so who knows what is to come?

Best Wishes,
LEWIS