On Mon, 12 May 2008 19:17:04 +0100, Paul Terry
wrote:

In message
, MIG
writes

According to the London ****e, there will be Oysters on Overground by
next May.

Whatever one might interpret that to mean, it's all Boris Johnson's
idea.

Given that virtually all TOCs had already agreed to, or been forced
into, this, Boris's only real claim to fame is mastering the art of
spin.

If they've been forced into it I wonder why he needs to hold a
conference before the start of Summer?

I'd really like to know just who is and who is not signed up to accept
Oyster. Anyone know the state of play?

I'd also like to know what the terms of each agreement is and whether
there is any consistency of treatment or whether the most "awkward" have
extracted a better deal. I look forward to the new "transparent" City
Hall revealing all.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

On 12 May, 22:16, Paul Corfield wrote:
I'd really like to know just who is and who is not signed up to accept
Oyster. Anyone know the state of play?

They all promised a "positive response" to the Mayor's offer of free
equipment installation a year or two ago, with details to be worked
out later in time for a January 2009 rollout. This hasn't happened, as
far as I know.

Of the 10 London operators:
c2c: All services
Chiltern: All services
London Overground: All services
London Midland: All services
National Express East Anglia: All trains south of the Victoria Line
interchanges, no word on future expansion
First Great Western: All services from September, possibly as penance
for being rubbish
First Capital Connect: Central area services only, no word on future
expansion
Southern: Watford to Clapham Junction only, no word beyond that
Southeastern: None, though they do mention the January 2009 date on
their website
South West Trains: Franchise agreement alleged to require a full
rollout in January 2009, though we'll see. Currently nothing.

(Heathrow Connect is sort of an FGW service)

U

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

Paul Scott wrote:
"Mr Thant" wrote in message
...
On 12 May, 18:49, MIG wrote:
According to the London ****e, there will be Oysters on Overground by
next May.
Evening Standard/London Lite article:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...May/article.do


Yet again a London paper uses the term 'overground' confusingly, as the
'Overground' has been Oyster enabled since November. They also refer to the
'overland network' - another new term.

There is an argument that it is TfL et al who are using "overground"
confusingly, by giving Overground a tighter meaning than (the person in
the street's use of-) overground. Maybe it is to compensate for "Tube"
now including things which aren't tubes :-)

Then there is the Overground Network, which came, caused a little
confusion and then died, but its ghost still haunts various bits of signage.
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Paul Scott wrote:
Yet again a London paper uses the term 'overground' confusingly, as the
'Overground' has been Oyster enabled since November.

Moreover, Overground didn't exist as such before November and was Oyster
enabled from the outset. Also it was the OP that confusingly capitalised
the term, not the paper.

ESB

On May 12, 8:49*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
"Mr Thant" wrote in message

...

On 12 May, 18:49, MIG wrote:
According to the London ****e, there will be Oysters on Overground by
next May.

Evening Standard/London Lite article:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...-details/Boris...

Yet again a London paper uses the term 'overground' confusingly, as the
'Overground' has been Oyster enabled since November. They also refer to the
'overland network' - another new term.


I am sure that the papers (and everyone) were using the term
"overground" long before TfL started using it confusingly.

But it was amusing that those papers today used the word which now
refers to precisely the part of the railway network that already
accepts Pay As You Go. You'd think that for a story like this they'd
choose their words more carefully (no you wouldn't).

The original press release very carefully doesn't actually make any
claims, but makes the announcements in a way that leads readers to
make inferences.

The papers that have been Boris's campaign leaflets till recently have
obligingly spelled out the inferences as facts (ie they have lied).
But they've also published a couple of comments on the story from
readers pointing out how old the plans are.

All very strange. Is it convincing anybody or is it making everyone
look silly? What might be preventing TfL spokespeople from explaining
the true situation about the current state and history of negotiations
with the various TOCs? Because I would be interested to know.

On May 13, 12:16*am, Ernst S Blofeld
wrote:
Paul Scott wrote:
Yet again a London paper uses the term 'overground' confusingly, as the
'Overground' has been Oyster enabled since November.

Moreover, Overground didn't exist as such before November and was Oyster
enabled from the outset. Also it was the OP that confusingly capitalised
the term, not the paper.

I was referring to a headline which happened to be all in capitals,
not the story in the link.

MIG wrote:
I was referring to a headline which happened to be all in capitals,
not the story in the link.

Might have been handy to point that out from the outset! As it happens,
the story as available online does not capitalise overground even in the
headline so there is some hope.

ESB

On May 13, 1:42*am, Ernst S Blofeld
wrote:
MIG wrote:
I was referring to a headline which happened to be all in capitals,
not the story in the link.

Might have been handy to point that out from the outset! As it happens,
the story as available online does not capitalise overground even in the
headline so there is some hope.

If punters have to spot a capitalised or non-capitalised version of
the same word to make the distinction between totally different
railway routes, it demonstrates the silliness of the name. From the
version all in capitals it would be anyone's guess anyway.

I was trying to ... efficiently? ... poetically? ... have a go at
political spin and silly franchise names in one hit.

On May 13, 1:42*am, Ernst S Blofeld
wrote:
MIG wrote:
I was referring to a headline which happened to be all in capitals,
not the story in the link.

Might have been handy to point that out from the outset! As it happens,
the story as available online does not capitalise overground even in the
headline so there is some hope.

I note that the Google archive claims that I changed the discussion
heading (to include a capital?). I certainly did not. I put a capital
in the original heading only, because it was a heading, and have never
changed it since.

On Mon, 12 May 2008 15:02:10 -0700 (PDT), Mr Thant
wrote:

(Heathrow Connect is sort of an FGW service)

....which will presumably only accept PAYG as far as H&H.