In a GoVia press release on the new SN franchise there is a small section
(that I've edited) about ticketing:

http://www.govia.info/press/goviaSCpn.doc

"Fares and ticketing
Introduction of an ITSO-certified Smartcard ticketing system across the
network by January 2012
Introduction of Oyster Pay As You Go
Multi-modal Pay As You Go ITSO Smartcard for Crawley/Gatwick and Brighton,
working in partnership with Metrobus and Brighton and Hove Buses
respectively"

It is the last bit that is significant. We have previously discussed how
PAYG might operate in an ITSO scheme, and a number of posts have proposed
that a national PAYG scheme like Oyster is impossible due to the high
maximum fares that would need to be covered by the preloaded amount, which I
agree with.

SN seem therefore to be suggesting localised areas for Crawley/Gatwick and
Brighton. I expect there will be criticism from pax who'll think they'll
need more than one smartcard, but in principle, could the same physical card
contain for example Brighton area ITSO PAYG, a Brighton to London ITSO
Season, and Oyster PAYG? Might there be a common cash balance, or two
separate ones?

Paul S

"Paul Scott" wrote in
:

SN seem therefore to be suggesting localised areas for Crawley/Gatwick
and Brighton. I expect there will be criticism from pax who'll think
they'll need more than one smartcard, but in principle, could the same
physical card contain for example Brighton area ITSO PAYG, a Brighton
to London ITSO Season, and Oyster PAYG? Might there be a common cash
balance, or two separate ones?

The ITSO design allows for multiple logical cards on one physical card,
limited mainly by the amount of memory on the card, so the answer to the
first question is (probably) yes. Because Oyster is not ITSO compliant (as
it was invented first) there is or was some debate as to how it could be
accommodated on an ITSO card such that existing Oyster readers didn't have
to be modified. I have not heard that that issue has been resolved, but I
may be out of date on that.

However, I don't believe there is a means for the separate logical cards to
share a cash balance.

Peter

--
Peter Campbell Smith ~ London ~ pjcs00 (a) gmail.com

On Jun 17, 12:08*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

In a GoVia press release on the new SN franchise there is a small section
(that I've edited) about ticketing:

http://www.govia.info/press/goviaSCpn.doc

"Fares and ticketing
*Introduction of an ITSO-certified Smartcard ticketing system across the
network by January 2012
Introduction of Oyster Pay As You Go
Multi-modal Pay As You Go ITSO Smartcard for Crawley/Gatwick and Brighton,
working in partnership with Metrobus and Brighton and Hove Buses
respectively"

It is the last bit that is significant. *We have previously discussed how
PAYG might operate in an ITSO scheme, and a number of posts have proposed
that a national PAYG scheme like Oyster is impossible due to the high
maximum fares that would need to be covered by the preloaded amount, which I
agree with.

SN seem therefore to be suggesting localised areas for Crawley/Gatwick and
Brighton. I expect there will be criticism from pax who'll think they'll
need more than one smartcard, but in principle, could the same physical card
contain for example Brighton area ITSO PAYG, a Brighton to London ITSO
Season, and Oyster PAYG? *Might there be a common cash balance, or two
separate ones?



I can foresee multiple issues with it all being held on the same
physical card - e.g. if that card held a Brighton to London (ITSO)
season and also Oyster PAYG, what happens if a passenger alights at
Clapham Jn then switches to the London Overground (LO) WLL service to
reach Kensington Olympia, with the intention of paying for the LO WLL
journey with Oyster PAYG - when the punter 'touched-out' at KO would
the Oyster validator there be expected to work out how they'd got
there, and be able to read the ITSO season ticket and fathom out that
it was valid as far as Clapham Junction so the fare that needed to be
deducted was just from CJ to KO? (Also bear in mind that at present
the Oyster validator equipment isn't compatibe with ITSO either.)

OK, I suppose one could solve that by insisting that some intermediate
validation takes place, in the above case at Clapham Jn when changing
trains (i.e. touch on an 'interchange' validator within the confines
of CJ station). But what if the passenger changes trains at East
Croydon onto the Southern WLL service - would they then have to do an
intermediate validation at East Croydon? If so, would "the system"
then work out that the journey from East Croydon to CJ was covered by
the season ticket, then the CJ to KO journey would be covered by
Oyster PAYG?

And what if a passenger got on a (FCC) Thameslink train from Brighton
to St Pancras, i.e. through the central London 'core'? The season
ticket would only be valid as far as City Thameslink - for when coming
from the south that is the limit of "London Terminals" ticket validity
- but the train nonetheless continues northbound to St Pancras and
beyond. In this scenario there's no opportunity for a passenger to do
any intermediate validation because they remain on the same train (I'm
excluding any jumping off and back on heroics!) - so would the system
then be able to fathom out how far the season ticket was valid for and
then deduct the appropriate Oyster PAYG fare?

If it was, then that would mean the Oyster system - which has been
designed with local/regional London journeys as its basis - being
fundamentally re-engineered so as to cope with interfacing with new
ITSO based railway ticketing as well.

So in essence I think it's unlikely.

On 17 June, 12:52, Peter Campbell Smith
wrote:
"Paul Scott" wrote :

SN seem therefore to be suggesting localised areas for Crawley/Gatwick
and Brighton. I expect there will be criticism from pax who'll think
they'll need more than one smartcard, but in principle, could the same
physical card contain for example Brighton area ITSO PAYG, a Brighton
to London ITSO Season, and Oyster PAYG? *Might there be a common cash
balance, or two separate ones?

The ITSO design allows for multiple logical cards on one physical card,
limited mainly by the amount of memory on the card, so the answer to the
first question is (probably) yes. *Because Oyster is not ITSO compliant (as
it was invented first) there is or was some debate as to how it could be
accommodated on an ITSO card such that existing Oyster readers didn't have
to be modified. *I have not heard that that issue has been resolved, but I
may be out of date on that.

However, I don't believe there is a means for the separate logical cards to
share a cash balance.

Peter

--
Peter Campbell Smith ~ London ~ pjcs00 (a) gmail.com

Under a £56.7 million deal funded by Df,T Prestige, the system which
runs Oyster cards, is being made ITSO compliant. This is known as
ITSO on Prestige (IoP)

So gates and readers on London Overground, Underground and buses, LRT
etc will be able to process ITSO compliant smart cards.

BUT, the functionality of the smart card will be limited to that of a
mag-stripe ticket..

This is a blatant plug for the next Column.

On 17 June, 12:57, Mizter T wrote:
On Jun 17, 12:08*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:





In a GoVia press release on the new SN franchise there is a small section
(that I've edited) about ticketing:

http://www.govia.info/press/goviaSCpn.doc

"Fares and ticketing
*Introduction of an ITSO-certified Smartcard ticketing system across the
network by January 2012
Introduction of Oyster Pay As You Go
Multi-modal Pay As You Go ITSO Smartcard for Crawley/Gatwick and Brighton,
working in partnership with Metrobus and Brighton and Hove Buses
respectively"

It is the last bit that is significant. *We have previously discussed how
PAYG might operate in an ITSO scheme, and a number of posts have proposed
that a national PAYG scheme like Oyster is impossible due to the high
maximum fares that would need to be covered by the preloaded amount, which I
agree with.

SN seem therefore to be suggesting localised areas for Crawley/Gatwick and
Brighton. I expect there will be criticism from pax who'll think they'll
need more than one smartcard, but in principle, could the same physical card
contain for example Brighton area ITSO PAYG, a Brighton to London ITSO
Season, and Oyster PAYG? *Might there be a common cash balance, or two
separate ones?

I can foresee multiple issues with it all being held on the same
physical card - e.g. if that card held a Brighton to London (ITSO)
season and also Oyster PAYG, what happens if a passenger alights at
Clapham Jn then switches to the London Overground (LO) WLL service to
reach Kensington Olympia, with the intention of paying for the LO WLL
journey with Oyster PAYG - when the punter 'touched-out' at KO would
the Oyster validator there be expected to work out how they'd got
there, and be able to read the ITSO season ticket and fathom out that
it was valid as far as Clapham Junction so the fare that needed to be
deducted was just from CJ to KO? (Also bear in mind that at present
the Oyster validator equipment isn't compatibe with ITSO either.)

OK, I suppose one could solve that by insisting that some intermediate
validation takes place, in the above case at Clapham Jn when changing
trains (i.e. touch on an 'interchange' validator within the confines
of CJ station). But what if the passenger changes trains at East
Croydon onto the Southern WLL service - would they then have to do an
intermediate validation at East Croydon? If so, would "the system"
then work out that the journey from East Croydon to CJ was covered by
the season ticket, then the CJ to KO journey would be covered by
Oyster PAYG?

And what if a passenger got on a (FCC) Thameslink train from Brighton
to St Pancras, i.e. through the central London 'core'? The season
ticket would only be valid as far as City Thameslink - for when coming
from the south that is the limit of "London Terminals" ticket validity
- but the train nonetheless *continues northbound to St Pancras and
beyond. In this scenario there's no opportunity for a passenger to do
any intermediate validation because they remain on the same train (I'm
excluding any jumping off and back on heroics!) - so would the system
then be able to fathom out how far the season ticket was valid for and
then deduct the appropriate Oyster PAYG fare?

If it was, then that would mean the Oyster system - which has been
designed with local/regional London journeys as its basis - being
fundamentally re-engineered so as to cope with interfacing with new
ITSO based railway ticketing as well.

So in essence I think it's unlikely.

But it's only a more general case of the problem which already exists
when extending an LU journey beyond the zones of a paper travelcard,
and which TfL has refused to address. People are currently expected
to get out and wait for a later train, in order to get the wonderful
benefits of Oyster (ie avoid the enormous fare hikes for cash fares)
when extending a zone on LU.

Why shouldn't they still be expected to get out and wait for a later
train? I think it's appalling that people should ever have to do
that, but it wouldn't be a change resulting from implementation on
National Rail, just a wider range of situations where it might occur.

On Jun 17, 2:56*pm, MIG wrote:

On 17 June, 12:57, Mizter T wrote:

On Jun 17, 12:08*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

In a GoVia press release on the new SN franchise there is a small section
(that I've edited) about ticketing:

http://www.govia.info/press/goviaSCpn.doc

"Fares and ticketing
*Introduction of an ITSO-certified Smartcard ticketing system across the
network by January 2012
Introduction of Oyster Pay As You Go
Multi-modal Pay As You Go ITSO Smartcard for Crawley/Gatwick and Brighton,
working in partnership with Metrobus and Brighton and Hove Buses
respectively"

It is the last bit that is significant. *We have previously discussed how
PAYG might operate in an ITSO scheme, and a number of posts have proposed
that a national PAYG scheme like Oyster is impossible due to the high
maximum fares that would need to be covered by the preloaded amount, which I
agree with.

SN seem therefore to be suggesting localised areas for Crawley/Gatwick and
Brighton. I expect there will be criticism from pax who'll think they'll
need more than one smartcard, but in principle, could the same physical card
contain for example Brighton area ITSO PAYG, a Brighton to London ITSO
Season, and Oyster PAYG? *Might there be a common cash balance, or two
separate ones?

I can foresee multiple issues with it all being held on the same
physical card - e.g. if that card held a Brighton to London (ITSO)
season and also Oyster PAYG, what happens if a passenger alights at
Clapham Jn then switches to the London Overground (LO) WLL service to
reach Kensington Olympia, with the intention of paying for the LO WLL
journey with Oyster PAYG - when the punter 'touched-out' at KO would
the Oyster validator there be expected to work out how they'd got
there, and be able to read the ITSO season ticket and fathom out that
it was valid as far as Clapham Junction so the fare that needed to be
deducted was just from CJ to KO? (Also bear in mind that at present
the Oyster validator equipment isn't compatibe with ITSO either.)

OK, I suppose one could solve that by insisting that some intermediate
validation takes place, in the above case at Clapham Jn when changing
trains (i.e. touch on an 'interchange' validator within the confines
of CJ station). But what if the passenger changes trains at East
Croydon onto the Southern WLL service - would they then have to do an
intermediate validation at East Croydon? If so, would "the system"
then work out that the journey from East Croydon to CJ was covered by
the season ticket, then the CJ to KO journey would be covered by
Oyster PAYG?

And what if a passenger got on a (FCC) Thameslink train from Brighton
to St Pancras, i.e. through the central London 'core'? The season
ticket would only be valid as far as City Thameslink - for when coming
from the south that is the limit of "London Terminals" ticket validity
- but the train nonetheless *continues northbound to St Pancras and
beyond. In this scenario there's no opportunity for a passenger to do
any intermediate validation because they remain on the same train (I'm
excluding any jumping off and back on heroics!) - so would the system
then be able to fathom out how far the season ticket was valid for and
then deduct the appropriate Oyster PAYG fare?

If it was, then that would mean the Oyster system - which has been
designed with local/regional London journeys as its basis - being
fundamentally re-engineered so as to cope with interfacing with new
ITSO based railway ticketing as well.

So in essence I think it's unlikely.

But it's only a more general case of the problem which already exists
when extending an LU journey beyond the zones of a paper travelcard,
and which TfL has refused to address. *People are currently expected
to get out and wait for a later train, in order to get the wonderful
benefits of Oyster (ie avoid the enormous fare hikes for cash fares)
when extending a zone on LU.

Why shouldn't they still be expected to get out and wait for a later
train? *I think it's appalling that people should ever have to do
that, but it wouldn't be a change resulting from implementation on
National Rail, just a wider range of situations where it might occur.

Change the record.

On 17 June, 15:03, Mizter T wrote:
On Jun 17, 2:56*pm, MIG wrote:





On 17 June, 12:57, Mizter T wrote:

On Jun 17, 12:08*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

In a GoVia press release on the new SN franchise there is a small section
(that I've edited) about ticketing:

http://www.govia.info/press/goviaSCpn.doc

"Fares and ticketing
*Introduction of an ITSO-certified Smartcard ticketing system across the
network by January 2012
Introduction of Oyster Pay As You Go
Multi-modal Pay As You Go ITSO Smartcard for Crawley/Gatwick and Brighton,
working in partnership with Metrobus and Brighton and Hove Buses
respectively"

It is the last bit that is significant. *We have previously discussed how
PAYG might operate in an ITSO scheme, and a number of posts have proposed
that a national PAYG scheme like Oyster is impossible due to the high
maximum fares that would need to be covered by the preloaded amount, which I
agree with.

SN seem therefore to be suggesting localised areas for Crawley/Gatwick and
Brighton. I expect there will be criticism from pax who'll think they'll
need more than one smartcard, but in principle, could the same physical card
contain for example Brighton area ITSO PAYG, a Brighton to London ITSO
Season, and Oyster PAYG? *Might there be a common cash balance, or two
separate ones?

I can foresee multiple issues with it all being held on the same
physical card - e.g. if that card held a Brighton to London (ITSO)
season and also Oyster PAYG, what happens if a passenger alights at
Clapham Jn then switches to the London Overground (LO) WLL service to
reach Kensington Olympia, with the intention of paying for the LO WLL
journey with Oyster PAYG - when the punter 'touched-out' at KO would
the Oyster validator there be expected to work out how they'd got
there, and be able to read the ITSO season ticket and fathom out that
it was valid as far as Clapham Junction so the fare that needed to be
deducted was just from CJ to KO? (Also bear in mind that at present
the Oyster validator equipment isn't compatibe with ITSO either.)

OK, I suppose one could solve that by insisting that some intermediate
validation takes place, in the above case at Clapham Jn when changing
trains (i.e. touch on an 'interchange' validator within the confines
of CJ station). But what if the passenger changes trains at East
Croydon onto the Southern WLL service - would they then have to do an
intermediate validation at East Croydon? If so, would "the system"
then work out that the journey from East Croydon to CJ was covered by
the season ticket, then the CJ to KO journey would be covered by
Oyster PAYG?

And what if a passenger got on a (FCC) Thameslink train from Brighton
to St Pancras, i.e. through the central London 'core'? The season
ticket would only be valid as far as City Thameslink - for when coming
from the south that is the limit of "London Terminals" ticket validity
- but the train nonetheless *continues northbound to St Pancras and
beyond. In this scenario there's no opportunity for a passenger to do
any intermediate validation because they remain on the same train (I'm
excluding any jumping off and back on heroics!) - so would the system
then be able to fathom out how far the season ticket was valid for and
then deduct the appropriate Oyster PAYG fare?

If it was, then that would mean the Oyster system - which has been
designed with local/regional London journeys as its basis - being
fundamentally re-engineered so as to cope with interfacing with new
ITSO based railway ticketing as well.

So in essence I think it's unlikely.

But it's only a more general case of the problem which already exists
when extending an LU journey beyond the zones of a paper travelcard,
and which TfL has refused to address. *People are currently expected
to get out and wait for a later train, in order to get the wonderful
benefits of Oyster (ie avoid the enormous fare hikes for cash fares)
when extending a zone on LU.

Why shouldn't they still be expected to get out and wait for a later
train? *I think it's appalling that people should ever have to do
that, but it wouldn't be a change resulting from implementation on
National Rail, just a wider range of situations where it might occur.

Change the record.

Solve the problem, and the complaints will stop (OK, I know it's not
your problem to solve).

What is the reasoning behind assuming that the problem would have to
be solved for NR rollout, when TPTB don't think it's worth solving now?

On Jun 17, 3:18*pm, MIG wrote:

On 17 June, 15:03, Mizter T wrote:

On Jun 17, 2:56*pm, MIG wrote:

[big snip]

But it's only a more general case of the problem which already exists
when extending an LU journey beyond the zones of a paper travelcard,
and which TfL has refused to address. *People are currently expected
to get out and wait for a later train, in order to get the wonderful
benefits of Oyster (ie avoid the enormous fare hikes for cash fares)
when extending a zone on LU.

Why shouldn't they still be expected to get out and wait for a later
train? *I think it's appalling that people should ever have to do
that, but it wouldn't be a change resulting from implementation on
National Rail, just a wider range of situations where it might occur.

Change the record.

Solve the problem, and the complaints will stop (OK, I know it's not
your problem to solve).

(1) When Oyster PAYG is eventually rolled out across National Rail in
London, then one should be able to buy Travelcards loaded on Oyster
(or indeed just top-up Oyster PAYG) at station ticket offices (not
sure about any plans for modifying self-service ticket machines). Then
one simply needs to buy the required Travelcard on Oyster, and voila -
problem solved. Except if you don't want your Travelcard to be on
Oyster, in which case whatever.

(2) Walk to the nearest shop that deals in Oyster (aka "Oyster Ticket
Stop") and buy the required Travelcard on Oyster there. Or plan ahead
and buy it in advance when passing such a shop or an LU station.


What is the reasoning behind assuming that the problem would have to
be solved for NR rollout, when TPTB don't think it's worth solving now?

You're conflating different things together, because it suits your
agenda.

I merely presented a few different scenarios of how ITSO-based
ticketing and Oyster would have to be made to somehow work together,
should there be smartcards in the future that host more than one
"logical card" together on one physical card.

Ignoring Oyster and London altogether, the same questions of how local
ITSO-based PAYG schemes would mesh with longer distance ITSO-based
season tickets or carnets arise, if both products were to be held
together on the same physical card.

On 17 June, 15:43, Mizter T wrote:
On Jun 17, 3:18*pm, MIG wrote:





On 17 June, 15:03, Mizter T wrote:

On Jun 17, 2:56*pm, MIG wrote:

[big snip]

But it's only a more general case of the problem which already exists
when extending an LU journey beyond the zones of a paper travelcard,
and which TfL has refused to address. *People are currently expected
to get out and wait for a later train, in order to get the wonderful
benefits of Oyster (ie avoid the enormous fare hikes for cash fares)
when extending a zone on LU.

Why shouldn't they still be expected to get out and wait for a later
train? *I think it's appalling that people should ever have to do
that, but it wouldn't be a change resulting from implementation on
National Rail, just a wider range of situations where it might occur.

"Mizter T" wrote
When Oyster PAYG is eventually rolled out across National Rail in
London, then one should be able to buy Travelcards loaded on Oyster
(or indeed just top-up Oyster PAYG) at station ticket offices (not
sure about any plans for modifying self-service ticket machines). Then
one simply needs to buy the required Travelcard on Oyster, and voila -
problem solved. Except if you don't want your Travelcard to be on
Oyster, in which case whatever.

As a matter of interest, is it known whether the current situation with
respect to One-day (specifically Zones 1-6) Travelcards will remain when
Oyster PAYG is rolled out across National Rail in London, i.e. will it still
not be possible to load a One-day Travelcard on Oyster but will the same
effect (with a small discount) still be achievable by using PAYG? I often
use a Travelcard on day trips to London, but at the moment I can't sensibly
use Oyster PAYG on these occasions because much of my travel tends to be on
National Rail - or, to be more precise and to anticipate any pedantic
replies, it tends to be on the parts of National Rail on which Oyster PAYG
is not currently accepted.

How, if at all, will Outboundary One-day Travelcards fit into this scenario?