Paging Paul Corfield

Oyster cards. Pre-pay. Do you have to somehow specify the journey you
will make with them?

Say you wanted to go from a One Railways station near Enfield, which
doesn't have a Oyster pad, to King's Cross, via Seven Sisters, which
do.

Here's the scenario:

You'd get a Oyster, and charge it up. Then, you'd get on the train to
Seven Sisters.

At Seven Sisters, you'd do a "fake swipe in", by touching your Oyster
card to the pad on the incoming gate. At the moment there's a "people
diversion" out onto the street and then back into the station at SS, so
this will confused things[1] , but we'll ignore that for now.

Then, get the tube to King's Cross, and swipe out as normal.

So, if I'm understanding how the Oyster card system works, you'd only
be charged for a Zone 1-3 journey, rather than a Zone 1-5 one.

The only catch I can see is if there is ever an inspector on the train
between SS and the station near Enfield (I've never seen one after SS).

Am I completely misunderstanding the Oyster card system.

And apart from an analysis of my outlined fraudulent system, what are
people who live outside the Oyster network /supposed/ to do?

[1] currently, you'd swipe "out" and then back "in" at SS - if your
first swipe "out" is on an Underground station, where does the Oyster
system assume you'd swipe "in"?

 

First issue

Oyster is not valid on One between Enfield and Seven Sisters. You need a
separate ticket for that or you can dodge your fare if you wish to take
that risk. It is TfL's wish to extend Oyster (and the LUL fare scale) to
all rail services within Greater London and the Government have endorsed
this policy - it is likely to be several years before this policy is
adopted on all lines.

Second issue

Every Oyster card has the capability to hold a Travelcard Season ticket
based on zones and also a Pre-Pay balance. You can opt to only have
Pre-Pay if you wish. You can also chose to register your card or not -
this affects your entitlement to refunds and to have the card "stopped"
in the system if you lose it or it is stolen.

Where you have a Travelcard ticket this will always override Pre-Pay in
terms of travel validity. If you go outside the zones covered by your
Travelcard then on exit the gate will look at the difference between
where you are and where you are assumed to have travelled through and
then your zones - if they both match then fine. If you have fewer zones
then a deduction for the balancing cash fare will be made against your
pre-pay. This will happen even if you have no cash in the pre-pay bit
because the card balance can go negative. If this happens - the gate
display will show this - then you cannot make another Tube, DLR or valid
NR trip until you restore the pre-pay balance to a positive cash value.
If you start your trip outside your zonal validity then a pre-pay
deduction is made (see below for value) and then when you exist the
correct balance is added or deducted to your pre-pay part to cover you
for your whole trip. This is a nice automatic way of charging people
who fare dodge by travelling outside of their zonal validity - assuming
always that the gates are in service and people are forced to validate
their cards.

Now for some other things.

Ironically Oyster is valid on the Main between Liverpool Street and
Seven Sisters / Tottenham Hale and Walthamstow Central but not at any
intermediate station. This is because those routes offer a parallel (in
the loosest sense) service between Zone 1 and those stations - thus it
is like a Tube line. There are many examples of this form of
interavailable travel. Where there are no ticket gates at entry or exit
points there will always be a validator to register the start or end of
the trip.

Oyster pre-pay works as follows

As you enter the system the reader deducts £1.60 from your balance. If
the fare for your trip is less than this then when you validate on exit
the balance will be credited to ensure you are charged the correct. If
your fare is greater than £1.60 then there will be an additional
deduction up to that value. Special arrangements apply at Kings Cross
and at Liverpool Street where you can exit from one side of the station
(e.g. Vic Line) and then re-enter at another (e.g. Circle Line). The
arrangements ensure you are charged a through fare from Seven Sisters to
say Farringdon rather than Seven Sisters to KX and then KX to
Farringdon. This only works provided that you change between the lines
in a reasonable time.

For your Seven Sisters example while the Seven Sisters Road tube bit is
closed you would simply swipe in at the High Road entrance and then when
you exit at your destination.

Fares deducted from Oyster are at 2003 rates thus offering a discount
over normal cash fares. There is also a big discount at weekends and
bank holidays which is designed to encourage off peak traffic - from
your nearest Picc Line station the fare to Zone 1 would be £1.80 rather
than £3.40 on Mon-Fri. Bus fares are 70p rather than £1 for each trip.

If you don't register in and then out consistently then your Pre-Pay
will cease to function as there will be incomplete journeys on the card
thus preventing the cash balance being reconcile. You then have to visit
a ticket office to get your card reset with the correct deductions made.

Pre Pay could, in theory be worth your while if you only travelled a few
days a week and didn't need to use National Rail services. Given you are
now a full flight management person a Travelcard would be better value
when you are commuting regularly on public transport. There is no harm
in having an Oyster Card to which you may occasionally load a Travelcard
but meanwhile maintain a cash balance for Pre-Pay. You can then always
get a discounted bus or tube trip if you need to.

A full pre-pay only option would be to get a certain little local
Enfield midibus service 3xx to a certain Underground station one stop
short of the line terminus. You could use the other local midibus route
1xx to a Victoria Line station from where you have the choice of pre-pay
by tube or by National Rail. I expect that will be far too much bother
for you to contemplate given your proximity to your local "One" station.

Hope that long explanation helps.

 

Wave your Oyster card at the bemused railway staff, who used to say "what
the **** is that", but now generally say "My oyster reader doesn't work";
and continue your journey.

You get a printed ticket-style thing when you buy a monthly travelcard on
Oyster from the station, which you can wave under the noses of benighted
hayseed ticket inspectors, but IIRC you don't get one of these if you charge
up your Oyster on the intarweb.

A colleague at work was escorted off a (SWT) train when he was asked for a
ticket, but could show only an internet-recharged Oyster card with no paper
ticket. Feeling aggrieved, he got straight back on the train on the next
carriage, and was then greeted by the police at Waterloo. When he proved to
the assembled police and fat controllers that his Oyster was, in fact, valid
"**** you all, you fucking fuckers" was I believe the phrase used

 

It's good that he's so articulate. If only he'd thought to say
something outstandingly witty such as "I'm as annoyed as Mr. Annoyed,
winner of the Most Annoyed Competition". That would have been magic.

 

I realised it is "fare dodging" - I just can't see how it could ever
be caught, as there are never inspectors on the trains between Seven
Sisters and Enfield Town; to me this is an inherant flaw in the
concept.

this is not for me - this is for Angie who usually works

Unfortunately, despite what it says on the TfL Journey Planner, a bus
from here to Oakwood (or Turnpike Lane, thinking "direct") at peak
times can take up to 30 minutes.

yes, and I very much appreciate you taking the time to give it.

 

Does that include intercity services?

 

Champ says...

So am I, for a different reason.

He's one of the few people I know who currently own almost as many bikes
as I ever have done in total.

 

The concept isn't flawed. One Railway's revenue protection activity or
the lack thereof is the flaw. Pre-pay was never designed to operate on
your line - it is only recently that TfL have started to push their
policy of fare integration so that all rail services will eventually
have a common fare scale based on the Underground fare scheme. This sort
of structure is common in Germany and the Netherlands.

Any Pre-pay system (or stored value to give its proper term) should
really be designed with a fully gated network where each rail network is
sealed off from the other by gates to ensure everyone registers on entry
and exit. Hong Kong and Singapore are designed like this.

It is impossible to do this in London hence the validator concept which
I accept can be evaded but the onus is placed on the passenger to
validate and the system can detect persistent problems. I should know -
I invented the validation concept in the LUL specification for Oyster
(or Prestige as it was then called).

Ah well then it is worth considering on that basis.

Ah I had not considered the trunk services to Turnpike Lane but of
course they are an option - a crowded and unreliable one but an option
nonetheless.

No problem.

A further issue for Angie to consider is the launch of a 3 day
travelcard ticket from Jan 2005. This will be available in peak and off
peak versions - it's only marginally cheaper than a 7 day ticket but may
be sufficiently attractive and flexible to allow for those ad hoc
journeys without worrying about where Pre-Pay is valid.

More info from here
http://www.transportforlondon.gov.uk/tfl/downloads/pdf/fares-tickets/2005-fares-leaflet.pdf

 

Champ wrote

We are 'umble in his presence.

 

No because they all run beyond the current zone boundary or the proposed
boundary for the London Rail Authority that TfL want to establish and
then obviously control. There is some more info including maps of the
boundary via these links. The government have not accepted the need for
the authority although they have allowed Ken some additional leeway to
implement some of his policies. As the government have grabbed back
control of the railways into the DfT do not expect any largesse from the
Treasury. Regrettably there will be much more of a focus on cutbacks but
those which will appear to be "marginal" and "unimportant" - you know
the ones like "use your bloody expensive rural railway line or we'll
close it down" as announced by dear Mr Darling this week.

http://www.transportforlondon.gov.uk/tfl/downloads/pdf/press-releases/rail-authority-proposal.pdf

http://www.transportforlondon.gov.uk/rail/downloads/pdf/060504-LR-Conf-2004.pdf

 

And that's not even my job nowadays. I've lost a lot of knowledge about
how the system works.

We have an American intern heading our way shortly for a 3 week spell
with the overall team. I have been nominated by my boss as the
"contract expert" to do the briefings for him.

As I'm no longer in ticketing I doubt that reputation exists today but
it certainly was the case as independent people told me that I had that
reputation.

<blush>

 

My brain hurts.

 

oops - I didn't mean that the Oyster system itself was flawed, but
that the ability to fare dodge in the way I outlined is "flawed", for
the reasons you've said i.e. the system isn't designed to be used on
our line.

out of interest - is it as ludicrously expensive in those countries as
it is in the UK? From next year, a return journey to work for myself
or Angie will be over 9 quid - I think this is fairly high for a "as
the crow flies" journey of less than 8 miles, and about 40 minutes of
actual use of the service.

if it's only "marginally" cheaper than a 7 day ticket, it won't be
cost effective for Ang.

ta.

 

Are TFL advocating they RUN the services, or that the TOCS operate to a code
of practice? In theory the example of having more Great Western Link
services stop at Ealing sounds a good one - potentially FGWL will do that
anyway. However they're there to make money and whilst it's nobel of TFL to
say that's doesn't provide the best service, without
nationalisation/increased subsidy, why would anyone want to do it?

On the other hard, having a full intercity 125 stop at Ealing Broadway and
other stations seems an invitiation to more breakdowns in terms of increased
stops starts etc.

I can see the idea of "people will get off, so more people can get on" but
does it really work like that in reality?

Which included such underused lines as the Slough/Windsor branch which,
having lived there for awhile, was packed most of the time - UNLIKE the
services into Windsor Riverside, which were 90% empty by Datchet, let alone
Windsor.

Branch = bad?

Oh well, government knows best etc etc.

 

I'm rather out of date these days as I haven't been to the Netherlands
or Germany for a few years. I think the very basic difference is that
in most of Europe and, dare I say, even the States fares subsidy is not
considered to be some form of economic evil. Thus cheap fares are
considered to be acceptable and are provided in addition to high levels
of investment expenditure. Parts of Germany (e.g. Berlin) and Amsterdam
have experienced some cuts to their transport plans because the City
authorities are effectively bankrupt and cannot afford to support
expensive Metro and rail schemes. London's public transport fares are
the highest or second highest in the world.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/pdfdocs/intfares.pdf gives a limited but
interesting comparison.

While it is demonstrably clear that LU and the TOCs receive subsidy it
is not used to reduce fares which would increase mobility. Rather it is
provided to underwrite the cost of investment for new schemes /
upgrades, cover for risk borne by the private sector or to balance
losses where the service is socially desirable but economically loss
making. With a largely privatised structure a lot of that subsidy leaks
into the profit margins of the private companies providing the services.

You can argue that subsidisation of socially necessary services is akin
to a form of fares subsidy but the crunch comes when the poor and
disadvantaged have a train that runs but they cannot afford to use it -
not what I would call effective mobility.

 

I suspect there is a bit of TfL that would like to run the services.
However TfL is not without its own contradictions - you have LUL where
the PPP has been criticised to hell and back by Mr Kiley and the Mayor.
However you also have DLR which is a franchised private sector operation
(Serco) with the Lewisham extension provided by a private concessionaire
(CGL Rail) who charges a toll plus another one currently building the
City Airport Extension (CARE) and another one planned for the Woolwich
extension. Seems the private sector can be used to build and run things
there. Croydon Tramlink is also a franchise operation involving the
private sector. In other words there is a range of business models that
can be used.

I believe the current preferred stance is to ensure that TfL's plans are
included within the franchise specification (TfL would pay the marginal
costs of its requirements) or else TfL pays for a variation to the TOC
franchise. The variation aspect has already happened with some fare
changes on Southern and also for security improvements and increased
frequencies on the North London Line.

The Government has allowed for this in their plans to revise control of
the railway. The test bed franchise for a wider TfL involvement is
Silverlink where the Silverlink Metro services cover much of inner
London and could be run like the Tube in terms of frequencies and
service. If TfL do well with improvements to Silverlink Metro then they
may be allowed to extend their influence to the other London TOCs. TfL
have a statutory duty to represent the Mayor's interests for London Rail
services and the TOCs and Network Rail cannot ignore the views and
directions of TfL as they will, I believe, be in breach of statute.

There is a big feature on London Rail schemes in the new edition of
Modern Railways that should hit the shelves in W H Smith tomorrow. It
has a feature on the Silverlink changes.

In terms of stops at Ealing then there will always be issues about line
capacity, dwell times etc. However there are always answers to these
issues and if they are sufficiently beneficial then the money would be
found.

Although there is a superficial attraction to stopping Inter City trains
at places like Ealing, Finsbury Park or Stratford the reality is that
they never have stopped at places like that. They serve a different
market sector where the disbenefit of stopping will always outweigh the
small benefits to those people who would use such stops - the Olympic
Games near Stratford would be an exception.

I don't mind a strategy that genuinely tries to make rural railway lines
a much more attractive proposition. The real issue is that rural lines
are often exceedingly busy in the peaks / school times / weekends and
market days. They also provide a lifeline if roads are cut off due to
bad weather. They also underpin initiatives to reduce pollution and
congestion from tourism. None of this was mentioned in the press
announcements - the message was that costs were to be cut by scaling
back the standards to which the tracks, bridges and signals have to be
maintained to. This could lead to the service being slower and less
attractive. The other message was use the line more or it closes because
we "aren't in the business of carrying fresh air". Err cars and lorries
carry millions of tons of fresh air around the country every day - don't
see them being criticised or threatened with extinction.

This government does not have a transport policy and as things now stand
it never will have one. I am quite looking forward to tearing the Labour
candidate to shreds on my doorstep when they come to ask for my vote and
make more rash and stupid promises for the next term.

It doesn't - the whole Railway Strategy exercise is motivated by
jealousy from DfT civil servants who could not stomach the Strategic
Railway Authority being outside of their control with much more
attractive salaries etc. Oh and Alastair Darling and Richard Bowker
didn't hit it off either if you believe the rumours.

Under the guise of "reducing costs, improving efficiency and restoring
accountability" the government has snatched back control of the railways
but without the counterweight of something like the British Railways
Board as used to exist in the old state owned structure. My personal
view is that the government has made a rod for its own back. It has no
one to blame for poor operation as it effectively owns Network Rail and
the TOCs are now mere sub contractors. All the key decisions concerning
service levels, subsidy, reliability, investment will rest with the DfT.
When something goes wrong then the Minister is in the direct firing line
- you will notice the very measured and cautious response given by
Alastair Darling following the level crossing accident near Newbury. No
rash promises to instantly spend millions to improve safety. Apart from
London schemes I don't see any real development occurring on the
national rail network for 10 years.

 

Are those areas where the company operates both the 'train' and the track?

Possibly because taxation on cars makes them far more money.

I really hope that isn't true, but then on previous track record I wouldn't
be surprised.
You could argue the SRA didn't do a huge amount themselves though.

Unsurprising - elections coming up of course.

Again I don't understand why they don't just fully privatise it and give the
train companies control of the track.

 

thanks for all this stuff, it comfirms what I'd started to suspect.

I rarely use it myself, and on days like yesterday[1] or today[2] when
I'm using it, I'll change my working hours so I can use an off-peak
travel card, saving nearly a fiver.

It just "feels wrong" that a journey that is less convenient and
slower than doing the journey by bike should cost about 10 times as
much.

[1] when I was going out on the piss after work
[2] when I've woken up probably well over the legal drink-drive limit.

 

No - TfL own the original DLR network to Beckton, bank and the Isle of
Dogs. They own the trains. They franchise the operation and maintenance
of the trains and track AND the operation of the trains and stations to
Serco. On the Lewisham and planned extensions the infrastructure is
maintained by the concessionaire (like Network Rail do on the main line)
while Serco run the trains that travel over the tracks. Station
operation, such as it is on DLR as they are unmanned, is with Serco but
maintenance and upkeep is with the concessionaire.

[rural railways]

More to do with the votes associated with no pissing off car drivers and
the power of the motoring and road haulage lobby. UK governments always
have been shit scared about this - hence our lack of a remotely coherent
transport policy.

They didn't have the correct remit in my view. Dear Richard probably
didn't help matters as he created an organisation full of former friends
- I know as I worked with half of them when they were in LU! - which was
too easy to criticise. I actually think the SRA did a number of good
things but its role was ill defined and this resulting in too much
political confrontation. That's a recipe for failure even if you
discount the personality clash / jealousy issues.

They are not allowed to under EU legislation where the costs of track
and operation must be accounted for separately. In addition open access
to the tracks for competing operators and a reduction in "barriers to
entry" for new railway operators is also being driven through by the EU.
A fully privatised network would be contrary to that without massive
regulation which somewhat defeats the object of privatisation in my
view. Sweller will know much more about all of this than I do.

I also don't think the private sector would want to take on the risk of
running the whole network given the catastrophic things that happened
under Railtrack. This would result in the financial markets taking
fright at the cost of the potential risk if any serious accident
occurred or endemic degradation of assets was discovered. In other words
it would cost too much for them to take the risk. I also think that
voters would not wear it given what has happened over the last 10 years
or so. Nice experiment but ultimately a failure.

 

Blimey didn't realise that - how does it work in France and Spain?