On 27/02/2023 08:16, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <ttfrlg$2ujsh$2@dont-email.me>, at 14:51:28 on Sun, 26 Feb
> 2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>> On 26/02/2023 11:45, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <88CcnXQ9QpMVomb-nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
>>> 11:16:24 on Sun, 26 Feb 2023, Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid>
>>> remarked:
>>>> On 25/02/2023 20:00, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> People have different recollections, because it wasn't a single
>>>>> issue vote. There were at least four major themes: anti-
>>>>> immigration, £350m for  the NHS, wonky bananas, and opposing "ever
>>>>> greater federalism"; as well  as stuff to do with a golden future
>>>>> making independent trade deals and  getting to keep more of our own
>>>>> fish.
>>>>
>>>> And don't forget lexit - IMHO too many people treat lexit as a joke,
>>>> but "the EU is forcing privatisation of state industries" was a real
>>>> thing.
>
>>> Of all the dozens of disparate reasons (including "it means we'll
>>> be allowed to ban the export of live animals", and "Tampon Tax")
>>> I haven't heard that particular one before.
>>
>> Given, at the time, they already had been, I can't see what attraction
>> that would have had.
>
> There would have been an attraction to those who dislike privatisation,
> in writing on the side of a bus (or wherever) "No more EU-inspired
> privatisation if you vote Leave".
>
> [And it would even have been true, we'd have just had home-grown
> privatisation instead].

What, apart from the NHS, was there left to privatise by 2016?
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 27/02/2023 08:03, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <ttfrj3$2ujsh$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:50:10 on Sun, 26 Feb
>> 2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>> On 26/02/2023 11:42, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <ttffdh$2teka$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:22:25 on Sun, 26 Feb
>>>> 2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> On 26/02/2023 10:10, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2023 20:00:57 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In message <v3kkvh1v8l0ettrtkm99ttn1hopcu9qe95@4ax.com>, at
>>>>>>>> 18:17:42 on
>>>>>>>> Sat, 25 Feb 2023, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2023 10:49:25 +0000, Graeme Wall
>>>>>>>>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 25/02/2023 10:09, Scott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 13:16:32 +0000, Roland Perry
>>>>>>>>>>> <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In message <tt9tfh$25ttp$5@dont-email.me>, at 08:45:37 on
>>>>>>>>>>>> Fri,  24 Feb
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UK and Ireland have had passport free common travel area
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arrangements  since Ireland became independent. In a case
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  Schengen and rUK was not, that would not be possible.  It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be the  same issue that plagues NI today for goods,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, which is why Scotland would stay in the CTA.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I used to think that in event of Brexit, then "the UK would
>>>>>>>>>>>> stay in the  Single Market" for similar reasons. And look
>>>>>>>>>>>> what happened.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I interpreted 'taking back control' as departing from EU
>>>>>>>>>>> regulations  with the inevitable consequence of leaving the
>>>>>>>>>>> single market.  This  was my biggest concern.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We were assured at the time by one, then senior, politician
>>>>>>>>>> that we
>>>>>>>>>> would remain in the single market, it would be the easiest deal
>>>>>>>>>> ever.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The "Taking back control" nonsense originally was only about
>>>>>>>>>> immigration.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not my recollection.  I thought it was about getting rid of EU red
>>>>>>>>> tape and making our own laws (which inevitably was going to put
>>>>>>>>> us in
>>>>>>>>> conflict with the single market). .
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> People have different recollections, because it wasn't a single
>>>>>>>>  vote. There were at least four major themes: anti-immigration,
>>>>>>>> £350m for  the NHS, wonky bananas, and opposing "ever greater
>>>>>>>> federalism"; as  well  as stuff to do with a golden future making
>>>>>>>> independent trade deals and  getting to keep more of our own fish.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree entirely - and all depending on who was speaking at the time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have just heard the ERG chair on Sky News saying we need to
>>>>>>> 'expunge' EU law from Northern Ireland.  Clearly his aversion goes
>>>>>>> far
>>>>>>> beyond immigration.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Yes, the ERG seems to have got steadily more hardline. As has been
>>>>>> said of  them before, there's no point in trying to reach an
>>>>>> agreement with  them —  they swallow any concessions, and then just
>>>>>> demand more.   Sunak was smart enough to appoint a couple of former
>>>>>> ERG leading  lights to  the ministerial team doing the NI
>>>>>> negotiations, hoping that the ERG  would  accept any final deal
>>>>>> that their former leaders had negotiated, but they  still won't. So
>>>>>> he's probably going to have to ride roughshod over them,  get the
>>>>>> best deal he can (far better than the deal Boris got) and  dare
>>>>>> them  to try and bring him down.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unfortunately I don't think he has the political nerve to succede in
>>>>> facing down both the ERG and the DUP and both groups are spiteful
>>>>> enough to bring down the government if they don't get what they want.
>>>>>
>>>>> At this stage does he care enough to even try. He could walk away
>>>>> now  into anyone of a number of highly paid jobs with the added
>>>>> bonus of  multi-million dollar speech engagements in prospect.
>>
>>>>  He doesn't actually need any conventional income, he's quite
>>>> spectacularly independently wealthy. Which in the current kind of
>>>> circumstance is probably a good thing, because he'll keep his nerve.
>>>
>>> Which is why I wonder whether he will be particularly bothered to try
>>> and fight it through. If it gets too nasty, and it will, he can just
>>> say sod it and get on the next plane to California.
>>
>> He may not get a Nobel Peace Prize, but successfully brokering a deal
>> would be a significant reputational brownie point.  Running away the
>> complete opposite.
>
> He doesn't get many brownie points if the DUP/ERG crashes the government
> and he's forced to go for an early election which he will currently lose
> massively.
>
> We shall see what happens very soon.

It's the DUP that's critical. While it's highly unlikely that it'll
actually support any conceivable agreement with the EU, it might agree not
to oppose it (because it realises that this is the best deal that will ever
be on offer, and its remaining supporters won't thank it for walking away).
That's effectively a tacit agreement, which would take the wind out of the
ERG's sails.

In any case, even if some ERG members still vote against or abstain, Sunak
will win any Commons and Lords votes with massive majorities. Basically,
Starmer doesn't want to inherit this long festering problem, so he's happy
to help Sunak deal with it.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 27/02/2023 08:16, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <ttfrlg$2ujsh$2@dont-email.me>, at 14:51:28 on Sun, 26 Feb
>> 2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>> On 26/02/2023 11:45, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <88CcnXQ9QpMVomb-nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
>>>> 11:16:24 on Sun, 26 Feb 2023, Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid>
>>>> remarked:
>>>>> On 25/02/2023 20:00, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> People have different recollections, because it wasn't a single
>>>>>> issue vote. There were at least four major themes: anti-
>>>>>> immigration, £350m for  the NHS, wonky bananas, and opposing "ever
>>>>>> greater federalism"; as well  as stuff to do with a golden future
>>>>>> making independent trade deals and  getting to keep more of our own
>>>>>> fish.
>>>>>
>>>>> And don't forget lexit - IMHO too many people treat lexit as a joke,
>>>>> but "the EU is forcing privatisation of state industries" was a real
>>>>> thing.
>>
>>>> Of all the dozens of disparate reasons (including "it means we'll
>>>> be allowed to ban the export of live animals", and "Tampon Tax")
>>>> I haven't heard that particular one before.
>>>
>>> Given, at the time, they already had been, I can't see what attraction
>>> that would have had.
>>
>> There would have been an attraction to those who dislike privatisation,
>> in writing on the side of a bus (or wherever) "No more EU-inspired
>> privatisation if you vote Leave".
>>
>> [And it would even have been true, we'd have just had home-grown
>> privatisation instead].
>
> What, apart from the NHS, was there left to privatise by 2016?

Since 2015, the Tories have nationalised more than they've privatised.

In message <tti54m$38mm0$3@dont-email.me>, at 11:45:26 on Mon, 27 Feb
2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>On 27/02/2023 08:16, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <ttfrlg$2ujsh$2@dont-email.me>, at 14:51:28 on Sun, 26 Feb
>> 2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>> On 26/02/2023 11:45, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <88CcnXQ9QpMVomb-nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
>>>> 11:16:24 on Sun, 26 Feb 2023, Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid>
>>>> remarked:
>>>>> On 25/02/2023 20:00, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> People have different recollections, because it wasn't a single
>>>>>> issue vote. There were at least four major themes: anti-
>>>>>> immigration, £350m for  the NHS, wonky bananas, and opposing "ever
>>>>>> greater federalism"; as well  as stuff to do with a golden future
>>>>>> making independent trade deals and  getting to keep more of our own
>>>>>> fish.
>>>>>
>>>>> And don't forget lexit - IMHO too many people treat lexit as a joke,
>>>>> but "the EU is forcing privatisation of state industries" was a real
>>>>> thing.
>>
>>>> Of all the dozens of disparate reasons (including "it means we'll
>>>> be allowed to ban the export of live animals", and "Tampon Tax")
>>>> I haven't heard that particular one before.
>>>
>>> Given, at the time, they already had been, I can't see what attraction
>>> that would have had.

>> There would have been an attraction to those who dislike
>>privatisation, in writing on the side of a bus (or wherever) "No more
>>EU-inspired privatisation if you vote Leave".

>> [And it would even have been true, we'd have just had home-grown
>> privatisation instead].
>
>What, apart from the NHS, was there left to privatise by 2016?

If that were the case, people would be voting against spilt milk. Rather
than milk yet to be split at the EU's alleged behest.
--
Roland Perry

In message <mdrmvhpnhgkkii9hisg6hekpi0cs7cdfdq@4ax.com>, at 14:35:34 on
Sun, 26 Feb 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

>>>>>>>>>>> Registered Oyster users get the rail card discount, others don't.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> However, only off-peak; so not Monday to Friday from 0630 to 0930 and
>>>>>>>>>> from 1600 to 1900.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Which is slightly more generous than a cardholder might have
>>>>>>>>>>expected in the morning, but will come as a disappointment
>>>>>>>>>>for those traveling in the evening peak.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why would they be disappointed? The railcard discount applies
>>>>>>>>>after 09:30 M-F, and at any time on weekends and public holidays.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because as it says above: "not ... from 1600 to 1900".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Look seven or eight lines of text up. (Oh, and it's a quote from the TfL
>>>>>> website).
>>>>>
>>>>> You are confused. The railcard discount applies all day after 0930:
>>>>>
>>>>> - At any time on weekends and public holidays
>>>>> - After 09:30, Monday to Friday
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>https://tfl.gov.uk/fares/free-and-discounted-travel/national-railcard-
>>>>>discount
>>>>
>>>> I suspect the contradiction arises from small-print overtaking the
>>>> curator of that fairly generic cut'n'pasted page.
>>>>
>>>> Here's the TfL fares finder (I've used the 2023 tab, as March is
>>>> approaching, and the 2022 tab is the same except for slightly lower
>>>> fares):
>>>>
>>>> http://www.perry.co.uk/images/Railcard-single-fare.jpg
>>>
>>>And?
>>
>>It says (this is getting tedious) the railcard discount is off-peak
>>only, and doesn't include the evening peak.
>>
>>Or are you seriously saying that the other site is pedantically
>>correct in saying "after 9.30", while nevertheless omitting the
>>"but not between 1600 to 1900"?
>
>No, I think the Single fare finder page message is incorrect.

That gives us something to work with. Maybe a mystery purchase required
(or someone to scour their Oyster history).

Although it's just as likely the same "error" would be present in the
algorithms used to debit the Oyster card.

Another curiosity: the National Railcard fare finder uses the same
algorithm for 2022 and 2023, whereas the Disabled Persons Railcard has
no discount at all shown for 2022, and only 5p for 2023 (using the
two-session definition of off-peak).

And we shouldn't overlook the text (which is trimmed out from my earlier
screenshot):

"If making a single or return journey including travel between 16:00
and 19:00, Monday to Friday, National Railcard holders may find that
a discounted paper ticket is cheaper."

Which implies that there is in fact a different, harsher rule for
Railcard holders using Oyster in the afternoon peak.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <mdrmvhpnhgkkii9hisg6hekpi0cs7cdfdq@4ax.com>, at 14:35:34 on
> Sun, 26 Feb 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Registered Oyster users get the rail card discount, others don't.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> However, only off-peak; so not Monday to Friday from 0630 to 0930 and
>>>>>>>>>>> from 1600 to 1900.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Which is slightly more generous than a cardholder might have
>>>>>>>>>>> expected in the morning, but will come as a disappointment
>>>>>>>>>>> for those traveling in the evening peak.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why would they be disappointed? The railcard discount applies
>>>>>>>>>> after 09:30 M-F, and at any time on weekends and public holidays.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Because as it says above: "not ... from 1600 to 1900".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Where?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Look seven or eight lines of text up. (Oh, and it's a quote from the TfL
>>>>>>> website).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are confused. The railcard discount applies all day after 0930:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - At any time on weekends and public holidays
>>>>>> - After 09:30, Monday to Friday
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://tfl.gov.uk/fares/free-and-discounted-travel/national-railcard-
>>>>>> discount
>>>>>
>>>>> I suspect the contradiction arises from small-print overtaking the
>>>>> curator of that fairly generic cut'n'pasted page.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's the TfL fares finder (I've used the 2023 tab, as March is
>>>>> approaching, and the 2022 tab is the same except for slightly lower
>>>>> fares):
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.perry.co.uk/images/Railcard-single-fare.jpg
>>>>
>>>> And?
>>>
>>> It says (this is getting tedious) the railcard discount is off-peak
>>> only, and doesn't include the evening peak.
>>>
>>> Or are you seriously saying that the other site is pedantically
>>> correct in saying "after 9.30", while nevertheless omitting the
>>> "but not between 1600 to 1900"?
>>
>> No, I think the Single fare finder page message is incorrect.
>
> That gives us something to work with. Maybe a mystery purchase required
> (or someone to scour their Oyster history).
>
> Although it's just as likely the same "error" would be present in the
> algorithms used to debit the Oyster card.
>
> Another curiosity: the National Railcard fare finder uses the same
> algorithm for 2022 and 2023, whereas the Disabled Persons Railcard has
> no discount at all shown for 2022, and only 5p for 2023 (using the
> two-session definition of off-peak).
>
> And we shouldn't overlook the text (which is trimmed out from my earlier
> screenshot):
>
> "If making a single or return journey including travel between 16:00
> and 19:00, Monday to Friday, National Railcard holders may find that
> a discounted paper ticket is cheaper."
>
> Which implies that there is in fact a different, harsher rule for
> Railcard holders using Oyster in the afternoon peak.

I think I've pinned it down. Senior railcard holders have two ways of
getting their discount: Oyster PayG (with cap) or buying a discounted
Off-Peak Day Travelcard. In the first case, they don't get any discount in
the evening peak, unless a cap comes into effect. In the second case, they
get the discount all day after 0930, when the cards come into effect
(though gates often let them through slightly earlier).

However, Travelcards have other disavantages, as there are few zonal range
variants on offer, and they're aleays more expensive than the cap. For
example, the discounted off-peak Z12 cap is only £5.10, but the cheapest
Travelcard is the Z16 at £9.50. Even for Z1-6 travel, the cap is slightly
cheaper, at £9.30.

So, I think in most cases it would be cheaper to use Oyster PayG, even
though the evening peak isn't discounted. If there are enough journeys for
this to matter, the fully discounted cap will come into effect anyway, and
that does apply to evening peak journeys. In fact, the railcard discounted
cap is actually slightly more (typically at least 34%, but up to 53.5%)
than one third off the normal all-day cap.

https://content.tfl.gov.uk/railcard-fares.pdf

In message <tti3r6$38d6c$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:23:16 on Mon, 27 Feb
2023, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>On 27.02.23 11:41, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <ttfl5d$2tvae$2@dont-email.me>, at 14:00:27 on Sun, 26 Feb
>>2023, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>> On 26.02.23 12:55, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <ttfdj6$2t6qr$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:51:16 on Sun, 26
>>>>Feb 2023, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I meant a mixture of railway modes.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why would that affect the price cap or rail card discount?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The tube fare between A and B (via perhaps C) isn't
>>>>>>>>>>necessarily the  same  as the National Rail fare between A
>>>>>>>>>>and B (via perhaps  D). So the fare  you are discounting by
>>>>>>>>>>a third won't be the  same. But at least it'd be  clear which of the two to discount.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> However, if you changed modes part way, rather than sticking
>>>>>>>>>>to one  mode  all the way, the undiscounted fare is
>>>>>>>>>>difficult to know especially  when  the system can't tell
>>>>>>>>>>where you made the modal  circumstances there are no
>>>>>>>>>>barriers to go through where you change  modes).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hence the Oyster readers on interchange routes in stations
>>>>>>>>>like Farringdon  and Stratford.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But not, as we've discussed before, at SPILL.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please remind me — why would they be needed?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There may be other  locations not provisioned as well.
>>>>>>>>Wimbledon probably has them (hence  the complicated, and
>>>>>>>>confusing for some visitors, rules about touching 
>>>>>>>>in/out/sideways when changing there. Does Stratford have them
>>>>>>>>for the  cross-platform changes with the Central Line (I
>>>>>>>>haven't been to  look at  that specific aspect).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not sure, but why would they be needed?  LE and LU are
>>>>>>>treated as  one.
>>>>
>>>>>>  Completing a journey ('tapping out') that you started with
>>>>>>Oyster [or  CCC], and changing onto a train bound for somewhere
>>>>>>outside the Oyster  or CCC area, hence needing independent ticketing.
>>>>>
>>>>> For that use case, you'd want the validator to be at the
>>>>>first/last (depeding on direction) station in the Oyster zones
>>>>>rather than at a central location, so Dartford, Swanley, New
>>>>>Barnet, Elstree & Borhamwood etc.
>>
>>>>  No, you need it wherever people actually physically change trains.
>>>
>>> If you change trains at St Pancras, you pass through a gateline,
>>>which does the job of validating.
>> Not when you change trains at SPILL !! (I hope I've explained this
>>fully by now).
>
>You haven't. You've made some vague assertions that this is important
>and hand waved away any suggestion that it might not be a very good
>idea. What actual journey would this be useful for?

I will answer this in the other subthread.
--
Roland Perry

In message <tti295$38e64$5@dont-email.me>, at 10:56:38 on Mon, 27 Feb
2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <ttfu9i$2utmo$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:36:19 on Sun, 26 Feb
>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 13:57:43 +0100, Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 26.02.23 12:58, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>> In message <ttff2h$2teg0$5@dont-email.me>, at 11:16:33 on Sun, 26 Feb
>>>>>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Completing a journey ('tapping out') that you started with Oyster [or
>>>>>>>>> CCC], and changing onto a train bound for somewhere outside the Oyster
>>>>>>>>> or CCC area, hence needing independent ticketing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For that use case, you'd want the validator to be at the first/last
>>>>>>>> (depeding on direction) station in the Oyster zones rather than at a
>>>>>>>> central location, so Dartford, Swanley, New Barnet, Elstree &
>>>>>>>>Borhamwood
>>>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, and this is hardly a new issue. All that's changed is that the ccc
>>>>>>> zone has expanded, so the boundary stations are further out. This will
>>>>>>> continue, of course. So there will need to be Oyster readers
>>>>>>> in-station on
>>>>>>> the new boundaries, on platforms and interchange passages, just as there
>>>>>>> already are at the previous boundary stations. Strangely enough, TfL had
>>>>>>> somehow managed to work this out for itself, without any guidance from
>>>>>>> Roland.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Except you've just admitted they hadn't worked it out, most obviously on
>>>>>> the passageway at Farringdon, of course. Let alone all the necessary
>>>>>> interchange stations further out. Where I initially mentioned SPILL, but
>>>>>> this last few days have been casting the net a bit further out.
>>>>>
>>>>> Farringdon allows transfer between London Undergronud services and
>>>>> Thameslink services without passing through a gateline. That's not
>>>>> possible at StP because to get to the Thameslink platforms from the LU
>>>>> platforms involves passng through two gatelines.
>>>>
>>>> Roland wants validators on the TL platforms so TL passengers can touch in
>>>> and out of the Oyster zone, switching from/to
>>>> some other TL ticket. They will remain on TL, ideally on the same train.
>>>>
>>>> So, for example, someone coming from Cambridge with a London
>>>> Terminals ticket (valid as far as KGX or SPI) and wishing to
>>>> continue on the same train to, say, London Bridge, needs to touch-in
>>>> at that point, even though they are continuing on TL. In an ideal
>>>> world, there would be pads on the train that knew where they were at
>>>> the time of the touch, but if not, distributed along the platform.
>>>
>>> Or perhaps eventually you can just have a mobile phone app that knows
>>> exactly where you are and saves all the bother. With your phone acting as a
>>> radio beacon they ought to know where you are.
>>
>> Greater Anglia announced they would be trialing that, maybe 4-5 years
>> ago. Then it went very quiet.
>
>Ditto Chiltern. I never heard the results of the trial, and I don't think
>it's still in operation.

I suspect that like most ticketing trials, both would be confined to
just their own routes, and then maybe a subset.

At one time GA had three different statements about the extent of
coverage of their Smartcard-ticketing rollout, depending on which bit of
the website you went to.

Posters went up at the station (yes, *that* station) managed by GA,
saying that in future all season tickets [yet another subset to cope
with] would be issued only on Smartcards. The problem being that almost
everyone would have been buying GN-priced seasons to Cambridge or Kings
Cross.

Because it turned out that what they actually meant was "all GA-Only
seasons". Which obviously is a null set to Kings Cross, and no-one in
their right mind would buy one to Cambridge and deprive themselves of
being able to use 3/4 of the trains. (Being 2tph GN and 1tph XC vs 1tph
GA)
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 13:07:04 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

>In message <tti295$38e64$5@dont-email.me>, at 10:56:38 on Mon, 27 Feb
>2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <ttfu9i$2utmo$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:36:19 on Sun, 26 Feb
>>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 13:57:43 +0100, Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 26.02.23 12:58, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <ttff2h$2teg0$5@dont-email.me>, at 11:16:33 on Sun, 26 Feb
>>>>>>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Completing a journey ('tapping out') that you started with Oyster [or
>>>>>>>>>> CCC], and changing onto a train bound for somewhere outside the Oyster
>>>>>>>>>> or CCC area, hence needing independent ticketing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For that use case, you'd want the validator to be at the first/last
>>>>>>>>> (depeding on direction) station in the Oyster zones rather than at a
>>>>>>>>> central location, so Dartford, Swanley, New Barnet, Elstree &
>>>>>>>>>Borhamwood
>>>>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, and this is hardly a new issue. All that's changed is that the ccc
>>>>>>>> zone has expanded, so the boundary stations are further out. This will
>>>>>>>> continue, of course. So there will need to be Oyster readers
>>>>>>>> in-station on
>>>>>>>> the new boundaries, on platforms and interchange passages, just as there
>>>>>>>> already are at the previous boundary stations. Strangely enough, TfL had
>>>>>>>> somehow managed to work this out for itself, without any guidance from
>>>>>>>> Roland.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Except you've just admitted they hadn't worked it out, most obviously on
>>>>>>> the passageway at Farringdon, of course. Let alone all the necessary
>>>>>>> interchange stations further out. Where I initially mentioned SPILL, but
>>>>>>> this last few days have been casting the net a bit further out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Farringdon allows transfer between London Undergronud services and
>>>>>> Thameslink services without passing through a gateline. That's not
>>>>>> possible at StP because to get to the Thameslink platforms from the LU
>>>>>> platforms involves passng through two gatelines.
>>>>>
>>>>> Roland wants validators on the TL platforms so TL passengers can touch in
>>>>> and out of the Oyster zone, switching from/to
>>>>> some other TL ticket. They will remain on TL, ideally on the same train.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, for example, someone coming from Cambridge with a London
>>>>> Terminals ticket (valid as far as KGX or SPI) and wishing to
>>>>> continue on the same train to, say, London Bridge, needs to touch-in
>>>>> at that point, even though they are continuing on TL. In an ideal
>>>>> world, there would be pads on the train that knew where they were at
>>>>> the time of the touch, but if not, distributed along the platform.
>>>>
>>>> Or perhaps eventually you can just have a mobile phone app that knows
>>>> exactly where you are and saves all the bother. With your phone acting as a
>>>> radio beacon they ought to know where you are.
>>>
>>> Greater Anglia announced they would be trialing that, maybe 4-5 years
>>> ago. Then it went very quiet.
>>
>>Ditto Chiltern. I never heard the results of the trial, and I don't think
>>it's still in operation.
>
>I suspect that like most ticketing trials, both would be confined to
>just their own routes, and then maybe a subset.
>
>At one time GA had three different statements about the extent of
>coverage of their Smartcard-ticketing rollout, depending on which bit of
>the website you went to.
>
>Posters went up at the station (yes, *that* station) managed by GA,
>saying that in future all season tickets [yet another subset to cope
>with] would be issued only on Smartcards. The problem being that almost
>everyone would have been buying GN-priced seasons to Cambridge or Kings
>Cross.
>
>Because it turned out that what they actually meant was "all GA-Only
>seasons". Which obviously is a null set to Kings Cross, and no-one in
>their right mind would buy one to Cambridge and deprive themselves of
>being able to use 3/4 of the trains. (Being 2tph GN and 1tph XC vs 1tph
>GA)

The Chiltern trial was more ambitious. You simply had to have the app on the phone in your pocket, and the system would
track your movements, and charge you appropriately.

On 27.02.23 14:46, Recliner wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 13:07:04 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message <tti295$38e64$5@dont-email.me>, at 10:56:38 on Mon, 27 Feb
>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <ttfu9i$2utmo$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:36:19 on Sun, 26 Feb
>>>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 13:57:43 +0100, Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 26.02.23 12:58, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <ttff2h$2teg0$5@dont-email.me>, at 11:16:33 on Sun, 26 Feb
>>>>>>>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Completing a journey ('tapping out') that you started with Oyster [or
>>>>>>>>>>> CCC], and changing onto a train bound for somewhere outside the Oyster
>>>>>>>>>>> or CCC area, hence needing independent ticketing.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For that use case, you'd want the validator to be at the first/last
>>>>>>>>>> (depeding on direction) station in the Oyster zones rather than at a
>>>>>>>>>> central location, so Dartford, Swanley, New Barnet, Elstree &
>>>>>>>>>> Borhamwood
>>>>>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, and this is hardly a new issue. All that's changed is that the ccc
>>>>>>>>> zone has expanded, so the boundary stations are further out. This will
>>>>>>>>> continue, of course. So there will need to be Oyster readers
>>>>>>>>> in-station on
>>>>>>>>> the new boundaries, on platforms and interchange passages, just as there
>>>>>>>>> already are at the previous boundary stations. Strangely enough, TfL had
>>>>>>>>> somehow managed to work this out for itself, without any guidance from
>>>>>>>>> Roland.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Except you've just admitted they hadn't worked it out, most obviously on
>>>>>>>> the passageway at Farringdon, of course. Let alone all the necessary
>>>>>>>> interchange stations further out. Where I initially mentioned SPILL, but
>>>>>>>> this last few days have been casting the net a bit further out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Farringdon allows transfer between London Undergronud services and
>>>>>>> Thameslink services without passing through a gateline. That's not
>>>>>>> possible at StP because to get to the Thameslink platforms from the LU
>>>>>>> platforms involves passng through two gatelines.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Roland wants validators on the TL platforms so TL passengers can touch in
>>>>>> and out of the Oyster zone, switching from/to
>>>>>> some other TL ticket. They will remain on TL, ideally on the same train.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, for example, someone coming from Cambridge with a London
>>>>>> Terminals ticket (valid as far as KGX or SPI) and wishing to
>>>>>> continue on the same train to, say, London Bridge, needs to touch-in
>>>>>> at that point, even though they are continuing on TL. In an ideal
>>>>>> world, there would be pads on the train that knew where they were at
>>>>>> the time of the touch, but if not, distributed along the platform.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or perhaps eventually you can just have a mobile phone app that knows
>>>>> exactly where you are and saves all the bother. With your phone acting as a
>>>>> radio beacon they ought to know where you are.
>>>>
>>>> Greater Anglia announced they would be trialing that, maybe 4-5 years
>>>> ago. Then it went very quiet.
>>>
>>> Ditto Chiltern. I never heard the results of the trial, and I don't think
>>> it's still in operation.
>>
>> I suspect that like most ticketing trials, both would be confined to
>> just their own routes, and then maybe a subset.
>>
>> At one time GA had three different statements about the extent of
>> coverage of their Smartcard-ticketing rollout, depending on which bit of
>> the website you went to.
>>
>> Posters went up at the station (yes, *that* station) managed by GA,
>> saying that in future all season tickets [yet another subset to cope
>> with] would be issued only on Smartcards. The problem being that almost
>> everyone would have been buying GN-priced seasons to Cambridge or Kings
>> Cross.
>>
>> Because it turned out that what they actually meant was "all GA-Only
>> seasons". Which obviously is a null set to Kings Cross, and no-one in
>> their right mind would buy one to Cambridge and deprive themselves of
>> being able to use 3/4 of the trains. (Being 2tph GN and 1tph XC vs 1tph
>> GA)
>
> The Chiltern trial was more ambitious. You simply had to have the app on the phone in your pocket, and the system would
> track your movements, and charge you appropriately.

Sounds like the Swiss EasyRide system, though that one works with all
the public transport operators in CH (plus a few in neighbouring areas),
not just one single TOC.

Robin

On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 15:20:00 +0100, Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:

>On 27.02.23 14:46, Recliner wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 13:07:04 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <tti295$38e64$5@dont-email.me>, at 10:56:38 on Mon, 27 Feb
>>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <ttfu9i$2utmo$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:36:19 on Sun, 26 Feb
>>>>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 13:57:43 +0100, Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 26.02.23 12:58, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In message <ttff2h$2teg0$5@dont-email.me>, at 11:16:33 on Sun, 26 Feb
>>>>>>>>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Completing a journey ('tapping out') that you started with Oyster [or
>>>>>>>>>>>> CCC], and changing onto a train bound for somewhere outside the Oyster
>>>>>>>>>>>> or CCC area, hence needing independent ticketing.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For that use case, you'd want the validator to be at the first/last
>>>>>>>>>>> (depeding on direction) station in the Oyster zones rather than at a
>>>>>>>>>>> central location, so Dartford, Swanley, New Barnet, Elstree &
>>>>>>>>>>> Borhamwood
>>>>>>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, and this is hardly a new issue. All that's changed is that the ccc
>>>>>>>>>> zone has expanded, so the boundary stations are further out. This will
>>>>>>>>>> continue, of course. So there will need to be Oyster readers
>>>>>>>>>> in-station on
>>>>>>>>>> the new boundaries, on platforms and interchange passages, just as there
>>>>>>>>>> already are at the previous boundary stations. Strangely enough, TfL had
>>>>>>>>>> somehow managed to work this out for itself, without any guidance from
>>>>>>>>>> Roland.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Except you've just admitted they hadn't worked it out, most obviously on
>>>>>>>>> the passageway at Farringdon, of course. Let alone all the necessary
>>>>>>>>> interchange stations further out. Where I initially mentioned SPILL, but
>>>>>>>>> this last few days have been casting the net a bit further out.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Farringdon allows transfer between London Undergronud services and
>>>>>>>> Thameslink services without passing through a gateline. That's not
>>>>>>>> possible at StP because to get to the Thameslink platforms from the LU
>>>>>>>> platforms involves passng through two gatelines.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Roland wants validators on the TL platforms so TL passengers can touch in
>>>>>>> and out of the Oyster zone, switching from/to
>>>>>>> some other TL ticket. They will remain on TL, ideally on the same train.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, for example, someone coming from Cambridge with a London
>>>>>>> Terminals ticket (valid as far as KGX or SPI) and wishing to
>>>>>>> continue on the same train to, say, London Bridge, needs to touch-in
>>>>>>> at that point, even though they are continuing on TL. In an ideal
>>>>>>> world, there would be pads on the train that knew where they were at
>>>>>>> the time of the touch, but if not, distributed along the platform.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or perhaps eventually you can just have a mobile phone app that knows
>>>>>> exactly where you are and saves all the bother. With your phone acting as a
>>>>>> radio beacon they ought to know where you are.
>>>>>
>>>>> Greater Anglia announced they would be trialing that, maybe 4-5 years
>>>>> ago. Then it went very quiet.
>>>>
>>>> Ditto Chiltern. I never heard the results of the trial, and I don't think
>>>> it's still in operation.
>>>
>>> I suspect that like most ticketing trials, both would be confined to
>>> just their own routes, and then maybe a subset.
>>>
>>> At one time GA had three different statements about the extent of
>>> coverage of their Smartcard-ticketing rollout, depending on which bit of
>>> the website you went to.
>>>
>>> Posters went up at the station (yes, *that* station) managed by GA,
>>> saying that in future all season tickets [yet another subset to cope
>>> with] would be issued only on Smartcards. The problem being that almost
>>> everyone would have been buying GN-priced seasons to Cambridge or Kings
>>> Cross.
>>>
>>> Because it turned out that what they actually meant was "all GA-Only
>>> seasons". Which obviously is a null set to Kings Cross, and no-one in
>>> their right mind would buy one to Cambridge and deprive themselves of
>>> being able to use 3/4 of the trains. (Being 2tph GN and 1tph XC vs 1tph
>>> GA)
>>
>> The Chiltern trial was more ambitious. You simply had to have the app on the phone in your pocket, and the system would
>> track your movements, and charge you appropriately.
>
>Sounds like the Swiss EasyRide system, though that one works with all
>the public transport operators in CH (plus a few in neighbouring areas),
>not just one single TOC.

Yes, I think it was modelled on the Swiss system. This is the report on the start of the trial from six years ago:

<https://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Rail-News/chiltern-to-pilot-innovative-ticket-free-travel-on-new-oxford-route>

This is an extract from a very recent report:

In 2017, SilverRail ran a pilot project with Chiltern Railways, supported by
RSSB.

(https://www.chilternrailways.co.uk/news/innovative-ticket-free-travel-trial-
chiltern-railways-route-extended).

As part of this project, we were able to experiment with ‘Tap in / Tap out’, ‘Be
in / Be out’ and ultimately what we found to be the customers preferred mix of
‘Be in / Tap out’ (supported by Be out).

It should be noted that other similar technology companies have also had
comparable projects run as pilot schemes and they too have also struggled to
bring their technology to the fore.

This type of solution is able to manage the customer’s other travel needs and
therefore tends to be referred to as Account Based Ticketing, or as we
preferred to term it Account Based Travel (ABT).

With an ABT solution the customer is asked to sign up to a unique account
along with their payment details in return for PAYG ticketing and with a choice
of pre-pay and post travel payments. This is in addition to the benefit of
proactive journey and disruption information, which can be extended to
provide travel companion functionality.

As the back end system uses the national rail journey planner, for SilverRail it
was possible to calculate the best fare for the customer based on what they
travelled, when where and how.

This project ran to the tune of around about £2m, the majority of which was
funded by our own R&D budget, with a contribution from RSSB of around
£700,000. Whilst this was a pilot project with one rail operator, it stands in
contrast to the costs now being discussed for the contactless project across the
North and the Midlands.

Whilst PAYG is a unique proposition for the travelling public and one that fits
very well with short distance and low cost journeys, from our experience it is
less appealing to journeys that cost more than circa £10. This is also
dependant on location where cost of living varies along with cost expectations.
For this reason, it is also important for there to be a national strategy that
shows how customers can use pre-pay ticketing alongside PAYG ticketing. We
would envisage that ultimately the customer should have the facility to sign up
to one single digital account that could be owned and managed by Great
British Railways and that then gives the customer access to both pre-pay and
PAYG ticketing.

On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 11:39:21 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 10:56:38 -0000 (UTC)
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> it is nevertheless unacceptable to have them go up a couple of flights
>>>>> of stairs/escalators to the gateline.
>>>>
>>>> It's a ridiculous thing to have to do. May I remind you they've now
>>>> installed a validator at Farringdon, when the trip via a double gateline
>>>> that it eliminates, is far shorter.
>>>
>>> It's not, you know. That validator was needed on the short-cut route
>>> between the northbound TL platform and the EL.
>>
>> I've noticed they seem to have made it as awkward as possible to get
>> from the tube platforms to thameslink and vice verca at Farringdon without
>> going through the gatelines though it is possible via the bridge right up
>> the end or via a small set of stairs from the NB tube to SB TL which has
>> a no entry sign in the other direction (which I ignored). God knows why.
>
>No, it's just as easy/difficult to transfer between LU and TL as it always

No it isn't. As you go in from the old LU entrance there was a staircase
at the left that took you down to the northbound TL platform which was a much
shorter walk than going via the liz line entrance. For reasons best known to
themselves they closed that. There were also IIRC 2 sets of stairs linking NB
LU and SB TL but they closed one set and the remaining one is tucked away
unsignposted.

>was. But I think they want LU-EL transferring pax to go via the surface

Perhaps, but TL access seems to have been collateral damage which is absurb
when the LU and TL lines are literally side by side.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 11:50:28 +0100
> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>> On 27.02.23 11:45, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 10:38:30 +0000
>>> Brian <Brian@2001.bjforster.force9.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2023 19:25:52 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
>>>> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I really object to having my EU citizenship taken from me.
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>
>>> Thats democracy for you, suck it up.
>>
>> Democracy involves the people being free to object to government
>> policies they don't like. "If you don't like it, suck it up" is not a
>> feature of a democratic system, that's what dictatorships do.
>
> Dictatorships hold referendums and undertake to follow the outcome do they?
> When did this happen?
>
> There seems to be a big problem with people such as yourself only believing
> something is democratic if you agree with the outcome of the vote. Thats not
> how democracy works. I'm not happy with the SNP having most of the seats in
> scotland but thats how the vote went, end of. As I said, suck it up.

I’m glad that you think it would be acceptable for Scotland to gain
independence if the majority of the Scottish electorate were to vote for it
in a referendum. I don’t get the impression that you’d accept it with good
grace, but what the heck.

(FTAOD I don’t think it would be at all sensible to hold a referendum on
Scottish independence unless there were well over 60% support for
independence in public polling, and I can’t see that happening any time
soon.)

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 11:39:21 -0000 (UTC)
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 10:56:38 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> it is nevertheless unacceptable to have them go up a couple of flights
>>>>>> of stairs/escalators to the gateline.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a ridiculous thing to have to do. May I remind you they've now
>>>>> installed a validator at Farringdon, when the trip via a double gateline
>>>>> that it eliminates, is far shorter.
>>>>
>>>> It's not, you know. That validator was needed on the short-cut route
>>>> between the northbound TL platform and the EL.
>>>
>>> I've noticed they seem to have made it as awkward as possible to get
>>> from the tube platforms to thameslink and vice verca at Farringdon without
>>> going through the gatelines though it is possible via the bridge right up
>>> the end or via a small set of stairs from the NB tube to SB TL which has
>>> a no entry sign in the other direction (which I ignored). God knows why.
>>
>> No, it's just as easy/difficult to transfer between LU and TL as it always
>
> No it isn't. As you go in from the old LU entrance there was a staircase
> at the left that took you down to the northbound TL platform which was a much
> shorter walk than going via the liz line entrance.

That route crossed the busy main entrance/exit flows. They want
interchanging passengers to use the two Interchange bridges.

> For reasons best known to
> themselves they closed that. There were also IIRC 2 sets of stairs linking NB
> LU and SB TL but they closed one set and the remaining one is tucked away
> unsignposted.

I thought there were still three?

>
>> was. But I think they want LU-EL transferring pax to go via the surface
>
> Perhaps, but TL access seems to have been collateral damage which is absurb
> when the LU and TL lines are literally side by side.

And it's just as easy to Interchange between them as previously. There are
two bridges to the westbound TL platform.

In message <ovcpvhlfars9eq9r5n5b83rl89053j94is@4ax.com>, at 13:46:54 on
Mon, 27 Feb 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 13:07:04 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <tti295$38e64$5@dont-email.me>, at 10:56:38 on Mon, 27 Feb
>>2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <ttfu9i$2utmo$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:36:19 on Sun, 26 Feb
>>>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 13:57:43 +0100, Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 26.02.23 12:58, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <ttff2h$2teg0$5@dont-email.me>, at 11:16:33 on Sun, 26 Feb
>>>>>>>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Completing a journey ('tapping out') that you started with
>>>>>>>>>>> CCC], and changing onto a train bound for somewhere outside
>>>>>>>>>>> or CCC area, hence needing independent ticketing.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For that use case, you'd want the validator to be at the
>>>>>>>>>>first/last (depeding on direction) station in the Oyster
>>>>>>>>>>zones rather than at a central location, so Dartford,
>>>>>>>>>>Swanley, New Barnet, Elstree & Borhamwood etc.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, and this is hardly a new issue. All that's changed is
>>>>>>>>>that the ccc zone has expanded, so the boundary stations are
>>>>>>>>>further out. This will continue, of course. So there will need
>>>>>>>>> in-station on the new boundaries, on platforms and
>>>>>>>>>interchange passages, just as there already are at the
>>>>>>>>>previous boundary stations. Strangely enough, TfL had somehow
>>>>>>>>>managed to work this out for itself, without any guidance from Roland.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Except you've just admitted they hadn't worked it out, most
>>>>>>>>obviously on the passageway at Farringdon, of course. Let alone
>>>>>>>>all the necessary interchange stations further out. Where I
>>>>>>>>initially mentioned SPILL, but this last few days have been
>>>>>>>>casting the net a bit further out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Farringdon allows transfer between London Undergronud services and
>>>>>>> Thameslink services without passing through a gateline. That's not
>>>>>>> possible at StP because to get to the Thameslink platforms from the LU
>>>>>>> platforms involves passng through two gatelines.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Roland wants validators on the TL platforms so TL passengers can touch in
>>>>>> and out of the Oyster zone, switching from/to
>>>>>> some other TL ticket. They will remain on TL, ideally on the same train.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, for example, someone coming from Cambridge with a London
>>>>>> Terminals ticket (valid as far as KGX or SPI) and wishing to
>>>>>> continue on the same train to, say, London Bridge, needs to touch-in
>>>>>> at that point, even though they are continuing on TL. In an ideal
>>>>>> world, there would be pads on the train that knew where they were at
>>>>>> the time of the touch, but if not, distributed along the platform.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or perhaps eventually you can just have a mobile phone app that knows
>>>>> exactly where you are and saves all the bother. With your phone
>>>>>acting as a
>>>>> radio beacon they ought to know where you are.
>>>>
>>>> Greater Anglia announced they would be trialing that, maybe 4-5 years
>>>> ago. Then it went very quiet.
>>>
>>>Ditto Chiltern. I never heard the results of the trial, and I don't think
>>>it's still in operation.
>>
>>I suspect that like most ticketing trials, both would be confined to
>>just their own routes, and then maybe a subset.
>>
>>At one time GA had three different statements about the extent of
>>coverage of their Smartcard-ticketing rollout, depending on which bit of
>>the website you went to.
>>
>>Posters went up at the station (yes, *that* station) managed by GA,
>>saying that in future all season tickets [yet another subset to cope
>>with] would be issued only on Smartcards. The problem being that almost
>>everyone would have been buying GN-priced seasons to Cambridge or Kings
>>Cross.
>>
>>Because it turned out that what they actually meant was "all GA-Only
>>seasons". Which obviously is a null set to Kings Cross, and no-one in
>>their right mind would buy one to Cambridge and deprive themselves of
>>being able to use 3/4 of the trains. (Being 2tph GN and 1tph XC vs 1tph
>>GA)
>
>The Chiltern trial was more ambitious. You simply had to have the app
>on the phone in your pocket, and the system would track your movements,
>and charge you appropriately.

You missed the change of topic - the Smartcard Seasons were a different
initiative to mobile tracking, where I think the GA scheme sounds
similar to the Chiltern

The problem (and it's the documentation as much as anything) is whether
the GA scheme would let you travel from say Harlow to Cambridge on a GA
train, then switch to an XC/GN to travel a little further north (rather
than waiting for the 1tph GA train). Or would you (as I suspect) have to
re-book [whether going out and in the barriers at Cambridge, or
otherwise] *even if* catching a GA train onwards.

How one negotiated the barriers anywhere with this GA mobile tracking
scheme, I don't recall. Maybe the phone being tracked also had a magic
"open any barriers" NFC app? No, that sounds far too complicated.

--
Roland Perry

In message <tti296$38e64$6@dont-email.me>, at 10:56:38 on Mon, 27 Feb
2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <ttfub4$2uplb$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:37:05 on Sun, 26 Feb
>> 2023, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>> On 26.02.23 15:47, Recliner wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 13:57:43 +0100, Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 26.02.23 12:58, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>> In message <ttff2h$2teg0$5@dont-email.me>, at 11:16:33 on Sun, 26 Feb
>>>>>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Completing a journey ('tapping out') that you started with Oyster [or
>>>>>>>>> CCC], and changing onto a train bound for somewhere outside the Oyster
>>>>>>>>> or CCC area, hence needing independent ticketing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For that use case, you'd want the validator to be at the first/last
>>>>>>>> (depeding on direction) station in the Oyster zones rather than at a
>>>>>>>> central location, so Dartford, Swanley, New Barnet, Elstree &
>>>>>>>>Borhamwood
>>>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, and this is hardly a new issue. All that's changed is that the ccc
>>>>>>> zone has expanded, so the boundary stations are further out. This will
>>>>>>> continue, of course. So there will need to be Oyster readers
>>>>>>> in-station on
>>>>>>> the new boundaries, on platforms and interchange passages, just as there
>>>>>>> already are at the previous boundary stations. Strangely enough, TfL had
>>>>>>> somehow managed to work this out for itself, without any guidance from
>>>>>>> Roland.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Except you've just admitted they hadn't worked it out, most obviously on
>>>>>> the passageway at Farringdon, of course. Let alone all the necessary
>>>>>> interchange stations further out. Where I initially mentioned SPILL, but
>>>>>> this last few days have been casting the net a bit further out.
>>>>>
>>>>> Farringdon allows transfer between London Undergronud services and
>>>>> Thameslink services without passing through a gateline. That's not
>>>>> possible at StP because to get to the Thameslink platforms from the LU
>>>>> platforms involves passng through two gatelines.
>>
>>>> Roland wants validators on the TL platforms so TL passengers can
>>>> touch in and out of the Oyster zone, switching from/to
>>>> some other TL ticket. They will remain on TL, ideally on the same train.
>>
>>>> So, for example, someone coming from Cambridge with a London
>>>> Terminals ticket (valid as far as KGX or SPI) and wishing
>>>> to continue on the same train to, say, London Bridge, needs to
>>>> touch-in at that point, even though they are continuing
>>>> on TL.
>>>
>>> Under what circumstances would this actually be a thing a person might
>>> want to do? There are fares from Thameslink served stations to
>>> destinations "through the core" beyond London Terminals, and they are
>>> cheaper than a London Terminals ticket + Oyster Z1 fare,
>>
>> Fare regimes ebb and flow (so what's cheaper today might not be
>> tomorrow), and not all journeys have such tickets to zonal destinations
>> available - especially as not everyone started the day on a Thameslink
>> train.
>>
>> See this page which I've been maintaining for over a decade now,
>> especially the first bracketed note to section 2.
>>
>> http://perry.co.uk/avantix_for_dummies.html
>>
>> Meanwhile, I may not want to go forward to just to one zonal
>> destination, there might be several more legs I was anticipating during
>> the day, making perhaps an outboundary travelcard cheaper.
>>
>> But again, the frog boilers are hard at work making *them* less
>> attractive year upon year.
>>
>> It seems to me the least complicated thing to do is get a ticket (a
>> paper one probably) to London terminals, and then continue my day with
>> Oyster (rather than CCC because of the lack-of-Senior-Railcard
>> loadability).
>>
>>> so not only does this hypothetical passenger have to inconveneince
>>> themself by getting off the train to validate their oyster card,
>>
>> Given the number of trains rattling through SPILL, at worst it's getting
>> off one and onto the next. And should there be validators, I'd soon
>> remember where about in the train to sit to be able to reach them
>> quickest.
>>
>>> but they also have to pay more for the privilege.
>>
>> See earlier comments, it's not automatically cheaper, even if only doing
>> a simple two-leg extension.
>>
>>> And somehow, for a passenger deliberately inconveniencing themself and
>>> paying extra,
>>
>> See above.
>>
>>> it is nevertheless unacceptable to have them go up a couple of flights
>>> of stairs/escalators to the gateline.
>>
>> It's a ridiculous thing to have to do. May I remind you they've now
>> installed a validator at Farringdon, when the trip via a double gateline
>> that it eliminates, is far shorter.
>
>It's not, you know.

It *is* shorter because it's not a very long corridor. More of a lobby
really.

>That validator was needed on the short-cut route between the northbound
>TL platform and the EL.

Short-cuts are usually shorter.
--
Roland Perry

In message <vafpvhdk8auiu4s16ig2cg3ao8ds5g7e3i@4ax.com>, at 14:35:57 on
Mon, 27 Feb 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

>>>You simply had to have the app on the phone in your pocket, and the system would
>>> track your movements, and charge you appropriately.
>>
>>Sounds like the Swiss EasyRide system, though that one works with all
>>the public transport operators in CH (plus a few in neighbouring areas),
>>not just one single TOC.
>
>Yes, I think it was modelled on the Swiss system. This is the report on
>the start of the trial from six years ago:
>
><https://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Rail-News/chiltern-to-pilot-innovative-ticket-free-travel-on-new-oxford-route>

Ah Bluetooth as an "open all gates" feature. That's the nice thing about
standards, there are so many to choose from.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tti296$38e64$6@dont-email.me>, at 10:56:38 on Mon, 27 Feb
> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <ttfub4$2uplb$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:37:05 on Sun, 26 Feb
>>> 2023, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>>> On 26.02.23 15:47, Recliner wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 13:57:43 +0100, Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 26.02.23 12:58, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <ttff2h$2teg0$5@dont-email.me>, at 11:16:33 on Sun, 26 Feb
>>>>>>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Completing a journey ('tapping out') that you started with Oyster [or
>>>>>>>>>> CCC], and changing onto a train bound for somewhere outside the Oyster
>>>>>>>>>> or CCC area, hence needing independent ticketing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For that use case, you'd want the validator to be at the first/last
>>>>>>>>> (depeding on direction) station in the Oyster zones rather than at a
>>>>>>>>> central location, so Dartford, Swanley, New Barnet, Elstree &
>>>>>>>>> Borhamwood
>>>>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, and this is hardly a new issue. All that's changed is that the ccc
>>>>>>>> zone has expanded, so the boundary stations are further out. This will
>>>>>>>> continue, of course. So there will need to be Oyster readers
>>>>>>>> in-station on
>>>>>>>> the new boundaries, on platforms and interchange passages, just as there
>>>>>>>> already are at the previous boundary stations. Strangely enough, TfL had
>>>>>>>> somehow managed to work this out for itself, without any guidance from
>>>>>>>> Roland.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Except you've just admitted they hadn't worked it out, most obviously on
>>>>>>> the passageway at Farringdon, of course. Let alone all the necessary
>>>>>>> interchange stations further out. Where I initially mentioned SPILL, but
>>>>>>> this last few days have been casting the net a bit further out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Farringdon allows transfer between London Undergronud services and
>>>>>> Thameslink services without passing through a gateline. That's not
>>>>>> possible at StP because to get to the Thameslink platforms from the LU
>>>>>> platforms involves passng through two gatelines.
>>>
>>>>> Roland wants validators on the TL platforms so TL passengers can
>>>>> touch in and out of the Oyster zone, switching from/to
>>>>> some other TL ticket. They will remain on TL, ideally on the same train.
>>>
>>>>> So, for example, someone coming from Cambridge with a London
>>>>> Terminals ticket (valid as far as KGX or SPI) and wishing
>>>>> to continue on the same train to, say, London Bridge, needs to
>>>>> touch-in at that point, even though they are continuing
>>>>> on TL.
>>>>
>>>> Under what circumstances would this actually be a thing a person might
>>>> want to do? There are fares from Thameslink served stations to
>>>> destinations "through the core" beyond London Terminals, and they are
>>>> cheaper than a London Terminals ticket + Oyster Z1 fare,
>>>
>>> Fare regimes ebb and flow (so what's cheaper today might not be
>>> tomorrow), and not all journeys have such tickets to zonal destinations
>>> available - especially as not everyone started the day on a Thameslink
>>> train.
>>>
>>> See this page which I've been maintaining for over a decade now,
>>> especially the first bracketed note to section 2.
>>>
>>> http://perry.co.uk/avantix_for_dummies.html
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, I may not want to go forward to just to one zonal
>>> destination, there might be several more legs I was anticipating during
>>> the day, making perhaps an outboundary travelcard cheaper.
>>>
>>> But again, the frog boilers are hard at work making *them* less
>>> attractive year upon year.
>>>
>>> It seems to me the least complicated thing to do is get a ticket (a
>>> paper one probably) to London terminals, and then continue my day with
>>> Oyster (rather than CCC because of the lack-of-Senior-Railcard
>>> loadability).
>>>
>>>> so not only does this hypothetical passenger have to inconveneince
>>>> themself by getting off the train to validate their oyster card,
>>>
>>> Given the number of trains rattling through SPILL, at worst it's getting
>>> off one and onto the next. And should there be validators, I'd soon
>>> remember where about in the train to sit to be able to reach them
>>> quickest.
>>>
>>>> but they also have to pay more for the privilege.
>>>
>>> See earlier comments, it's not automatically cheaper, even if only doing
>>> a simple two-leg extension.
>>>
>>>> And somehow, for a passenger deliberately inconveniencing themself and
>>>> paying extra,
>>>
>>> See above.
>>>
>>>> it is nevertheless unacceptable to have them go up a couple of flights
>>>> of stairs/escalators to the gateline.
>>>
>>> It's a ridiculous thing to have to do. May I remind you they've now
>>> installed a validator at Farringdon, when the trip via a double gateline
>>> that it eliminates, is far shorter.
>>
>> It's not, you know.
>
> It *is* shorter because it's not a very long corridor. More of a lobby
> really.

I suspect you have no personal knowledge of the route.

>
>> That validator was needed on the short-cut route between the northbound
>> TL platform and the EL.
>
> Short-cuts are usually shorter.

You just claimed it's longer.

On 27.02.23 17:18, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <ovcpvhlfars9eq9r5n5b83rl89053j94is@4ax.com>, at 13:46:54 on
> Mon, 27 Feb 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 13:07:04 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <tti295$38e64$5@dont-email.me>, at 10:56:38 on Mon, 27 Feb
>>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <ttfu9i$2utmo$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:36:19 on Sun, 26 Feb
>>>>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 13:57:43 +0100, Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 26.02.23 12:58, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In message <ttff2h$2teg0$5@dont-email.me>, at 11:16:33 on Sun,
>>>>>>>>> 26 Feb
>>>>>>>>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Completing a journey ('tapping out') that you started with
>>>>>>>>>>>>  CCC], and changing onto a train bound for somewhere outside
>>>>>>>>>>>>  or CCC area, hence needing independent ticketing.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For that use case, you'd want the validator to be at the
>>>>>>>>>>> first/last  (depeding on direction) station in the Oyster
>>>>>>>>>>> zones rather than at a  central location, so Dartford,
>>>>>>>>>>> Swanley, New Barnet, Elstree & Borhamwood  etc.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, and this is hardly a new issue. All that's changed is
>>>>>>>>>> that the ccc  zone has expanded, so the boundary stations are
>>>>>>>>>> further out. This will  continue, of course. So there will
>>>>>>>>>> need  in-station on  the new boundaries, on platforms and
>>>>>>>>>> interchange passages, just as there  already are at the
>>>>>>>>>> previous boundary stations. Strangely enough, TfL had somehow
>>>>>>>>>> managed to work this out for itself, without any guidance
>>>>>>>>>> from  Roland.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Except you've just admitted they hadn't worked it out, most
>>>>>>>>> obviously on  the passageway at Farringdon, of course. Let
>>>>>>>>> alone all the necessary  interchange stations further out.
>>>>>>>>> Where I initially mentioned SPILL, but  this last few days have
>>>>>>>>> been casting the net a bit further out.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Farringdon allows transfer between London Undergronud services and
>>>>>>>> Thameslink services without passing through a gateline. That's not
>>>>>>>> possible at StP because to get to the Thameslink platforms from
>>>>>>>> the LU
>>>>>>>> platforms involves passng through two gatelines.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Roland wants validators on the TL platforms so TL passengers can
>>>>>>> touch in
>>>>>>> and out of the Oyster zone, switching from/to
>>>>>>> some other TL ticket. They will remain on TL, ideally on the same
>>>>>>> train.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, for example, someone coming from Cambridge with a London
>>>>>>> Terminals  ticket (valid as far as KGX or SPI) and wishing  to
>>>>>>> continue on the same train to, say, London Bridge, needs to touch-in
>>>>>>> at that point, even though they are continuing  on TL. In an ideal
>>>>>>> world, there would be pads on the train that knew  where they
>>>>>>> were at
>>>>>>> the time of the touch, but if  not, distributed along the platform.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or perhaps eventually you can just have a mobile phone app that knows
>>>>>> exactly where you are and saves all the bother. With your phone
>>>>>> acting as a
>>>>>> radio beacon they ought to know where you are.
>>>>>
>>>>> Greater Anglia announced they would be trialing that, maybe 4-5 years
>>>>> ago. Then it went very quiet.
>>>>
>>>> Ditto Chiltern. I never heard the results of the trial, and I don't
>>>> think
>>>> it's still in operation.
>>>
>>> I suspect that like most ticketing trials, both would be confined to
>>> just their own routes, and then maybe a subset.
>>>
>>> At one time GA had three different statements about the extent of
>>> coverage of their Smartcard-ticketing rollout, depending on which bit of
>>> the website you went to.
>>>
>>> Posters went up at the station (yes, *that* station) managed by GA,
>>> saying that in future all season tickets [yet another subset to cope
>>> with] would be issued only on Smartcards. The problem being that almost
>>> everyone would have been buying GN-priced seasons to Cambridge or Kings
>>> Cross.
>>>
>>> Because it turned out that what they actually meant was "all GA-Only
>>> seasons". Which obviously is a null set to Kings Cross, and no-one in
>>> their right mind would buy one to Cambridge and deprive themselves of
>>> being able to use 3/4 of the trains. (Being 2tph GN and 1tph XC vs 1tph
>>> GA)
>>
>> The Chiltern trial was more ambitious. You simply had to have the app
>> on the phone in your pocket, and the system would track your
>> movements, and charge you appropriately.
>
> You missed the change of topic - the Smartcard Seasons were a different
> initiative to mobile tracking, where I think the GA scheme sounds
> similar to the Chiltern
>
> The problem (and it's the documentation as much as anything) is whether
> the GA scheme would let you travel from say Harlow to Cambridge on a GA
> train, then switch to an XC/GN to travel a little further north (rather
> than waiting for the 1tph GA train). Or would you (as I suspect) have to
> re-book [whether going out and in the barriers at Cambridge, or
> otherwise] *even if* catching a GA train onwards.
>
> How one negotiated the barriers anywhere with this GA mobile tracking
> scheme, I don't recall. Maybe the phone being tracked also had a magic
> "open any barriers" NFC app? No, that sounds far too complicated.

The Swiss version presents a QR code on the phone screen while active
that can be scanned by ticket chekers (and could presumably open gates
appropriately equipped).

Robin

On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 15:38:02 -0000 (UTC)
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> There seems to be a big problem with people such as yourself only believing
>> something is democratic if you agree with the outcome of the vote. Thats not
>> how democracy works. I'm not happy with the SNP having most of the seats in
>> scotland but thats how the vote went, end of. As I said, suck it up.
>
>I’m glad that you think it would be acceptable for Scotland to gain
>independence if the majority of the Scottish electorate were to vote for it
>in a referendum. I don’t get the impression that you’d accept it with good
>
>grace, but what the heck.

No I wouldn't accept it with good grace as I wouldn't want half my family
living in a seperate country. But I *would* accept it if that was the outcome
of the vote and wouldn't whinge about it forever and a day like remainers do.

>(FTAOD I don’t think it would be at all sensible to hold a referendum on
>Scottish independence unless there were well over 60% support for
>independence in public polling, and I can’t see that happening any time
>soon.)

Given how brexit has split the country I tend to agree.

On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 16:24:37 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> No it isn't. As you go in from the old LU entrance there was a staircase
>> at the left that took you down to the northbound TL platform which was a much
>
>> shorter walk than going via the liz line entrance.
>
>That route crossed the busy main entrance/exit flows. They want
>interchanging passengers to use the two Interchange bridges.

For EL fine, for TL <-> LU thats just daft.

>> For reasons best known to
>> themselves they closed that. There were also IIRC 2 sets of stairs linking
>NB
>> LU and SB TL but they closed one set and the remaining one is tucked away
>> unsignposted.
>
>I thought there were still three?

I only found 1 the other week. I'm pretty sure there were 2 back in the day.

>> Perhaps, but TL access seems to have been collateral damage which is absurb
>> when the LU and TL lines are literally side by side.
>
>And it's just as easy to Interchange between them as previously. There are
>two bridges to the westbound TL platform.

Except its a long walk to the bridges from TL depending on where you are on
the platform.

Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
> On 27.02.23 14:46, Recliner wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 13:07:04 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <tti295$38e64$5@dont-email.me>, at 10:56:38 on Mon, 27 Feb
>>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <ttfu9i$2utmo$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:36:19 on Sun, 26 Feb
>>>>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or perhaps eventually you can just have a mobile phone app that knows
>>>>>> exactly where you are and saves all the bother. With your phone acting as a
>>>>>> radio beacon they ought to know where you are.
>>>>>
>>>>> Greater Anglia announced they would be trialing that, maybe 4-5 years
>>>>> ago. Then it went very quiet.
>>>>
>>>> Ditto Chiltern. I never heard the results of the trial, and I don't think
>>>> it's still in operation.
>>>
>>> I suspect that like most ticketing trials, both would be confined to
>>> just their own routes, and then maybe a subset.
>>>

[snip]

>>
>> The Chiltern trial was more ambitious. You simply had to have the app on
>> the phone in your pocket, and the system would
>> track your movements, and charge you appropriately.
>
> Sounds like the Swiss EasyRide system, though that one works with all
> the public transport operators in CH (plus a few in neighbouring areas),
> not just one single TOC.
>

I tried it out last year and it worked very well :)

Anna Noyd-Dryver

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 16:24:37 GMT
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> No it isn't. As you go in from the old LU entrance there was a staircase
>>> at the left that took you down to the northbound TL platform which was a much
>>
>>> shorter walk than going via the liz line entrance.
>>
>> That route crossed the busy main entrance/exit flows. They want
>> interchanging passengers to use the two Interchange bridges.
>
> For EL fine, for TL <-> LU thats just daft.
>
>>> For reasons best known to
>>> themselves they closed that. There were also IIRC 2 sets of stairs linking
>> NB
>>> LU and SB TL but they closed one set and the remaining one is tucked away
>>> unsignposted.
>>
>> I thought there were still three?
>
> I only found 1 the other week. I'm pretty sure there were 2 back in the day.
>
>>> Perhaps, but TL access seems to have been collateral damage which is absurb
>>> when the LU and TL lines are literally side by side.
>>
>> And it's just as easy to Interchange between them as previously. There are
>> two bridges to the westbound TL platform.
>
> Except its a long walk to the bridges from TL depending on where you are on
> the platform.

The lines aren't adjacent at the eastern end, so it's going to be a long
walk regardless of the route. The gateline route is probably the shortest
from that end.

On 27/02/2023 16:18, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <ovcpvhlfars9eq9r5n5b83rl89053j94is@4ax.com>, at 13:46:54 on
> Mon, 27 Feb 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 13:07:04 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <tti295$38e64$5@dont-email.me>, at 10:56:38 on Mon, 27 Feb
>>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <ttfu9i$2utmo$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:36:19 on Sun, 26 Feb
>>>>> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 13:57:43 +0100, Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 26.02.23 12:58, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In message <ttff2h$2teg0$5@dont-email.me>, at 11:16:33 on Sun,
>>>>>>>>> 26 Feb
>>>>>>>>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Completing a journey ('tapping out') that you started with
>>>>>>>>>>>>  CCC], and changing onto a train bound for somewhere outside
>>>>>>>>>>>>  or CCC area, hence needing independent ticketing.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For that use case, you'd want the validator to be at the
>>>>>>>>>>> first/last  (depeding on direction) station in the Oyster
>>>>>>>>>>> zones rather than at a  central location, so Dartford,
>>>>>>>>>>> Swanley, New Barnet, Elstree & Borhamwood  etc.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, and this is hardly a new issue. All that's changed is
>>>>>>>>>> that the ccc  zone has expanded, so the boundary stations are
>>>>>>>>>> further out. This will  continue, of course. So there will
>>>>>>>>>> need  in-station on  the new boundaries, on platforms and
>>>>>>>>>> interchange passages, just as there  already are at the
>>>>>>>>>> previous boundary stations. Strangely enough, TfL had somehow
>>>>>>>>>> managed to work this out for itself, without any guidance
>>>>>>>>>> from  Roland.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Except you've just admitted they hadn't worked it out, most
>>>>>>>>> obviously on  the passageway at Farringdon, of course. Let
>>>>>>>>> alone all the necessary  interchange stations further out.
>>>>>>>>> Where I initially mentioned SPILL, but  this last few days have
>>>>>>>>> been casting the net a bit further out.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Farringdon allows transfer between London Undergronud services and
>>>>>>>> Thameslink services without passing through a gateline. That's not
>>>>>>>> possible at StP because to get to the Thameslink platforms from
>>>>>>>> the LU
>>>>>>>> platforms involves passng through two gatelines.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Roland wants validators on the TL platforms so TL passengers can
>>>>>>> touch in
>>>>>>> and out of the Oyster zone, switching from/to
>>>>>>> some other TL ticket. They will remain on TL, ideally on the same
>>>>>>> train.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, for example, someone coming from Cambridge with a London
>>>>>>> Terminals  ticket (valid as far as KGX or SPI) and wishing  to
>>>>>>> continue on the same train to, say, London Bridge, needs to touch-in
>>>>>>> at that point, even though they are continuing  on TL. In an ideal
>>>>>>> world, there would be pads on the train that knew  where they
>>>>>>> were at
>>>>>>> the time of the touch, but if  not, distributed along the platform.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or perhaps eventually you can just have a mobile phone app that knows
>>>>>> exactly where you are and saves all the bother. With your phone
>>>>>> acting as a
>>>>>> radio beacon they ought to know where you are.
>>>>>
>>>>> Greater Anglia announced they would be trialing that, maybe 4-5 years
>>>>> ago. Then it went very quiet.
>>>>
>>>> Ditto Chiltern. I never heard the results of the trial, and I don't
>>>> think
>>>> it's still in operation.
>>>
>>> I suspect that like most ticketing trials, both would be confined to
>>> just their own routes, and then maybe a subset.
>>>
>>> At one time GA had three different statements about the extent of
>>> coverage of their Smartcard-ticketing rollout, depending on which bit of
>>> the website you went to.
>>>
>>> Posters went up at the station (yes, *that* station) managed by GA,
>>> saying that in future all season tickets [yet another subset to cope
>>> with] would be issued only on Smartcards. The problem being that almost
>>> everyone would have been buying GN-priced seasons to Cambridge or Kings
>>> Cross.
>>>
>>> Because it turned out that what they actually meant was "all GA-Only
>>> seasons". Which obviously is a null set to Kings Cross, and no-one in
>>> their right mind would buy one to Cambridge and deprive themselves of
>>> being able to use 3/4 of the trains. (Being 2tph GN and 1tph XC vs 1tph
>>> GA)
>>
>> The Chiltern trial was more ambitious. You simply had to have the app
>> on the phone in your pocket, and the system would track your
>> movements, and charge you appropriately.
>
> You missed the change of topic - the Smartcard Seasons were a different
> initiative to mobile tracking, where I think the GA scheme sounds
> similar to the Chiltern
>
> The problem (and it's the documentation as much as anything) is whether
> the GA scheme would let you travel from say Harlow to Cambridge on a GA
> train, then switch to an XC/GN to travel a little further north (rather
> than waiting for the 1tph GA train). Or would you (as I suspect) have to
> re-book [whether going out and in the barriers at Cambridge, or
> otherwise] *even if* catching a GA train onwards.
>
> How one negotiated the barriers anywhere with this GA mobile tracking
> scheme, I don't recall. Maybe the phone being tracked also had a magic
> "open any barriers" NFC app? No, that sounds far too complicated.

Perhaps the app could have a barcode to open the gates?

On 27/02/2023 10:45, Bob wrote:
> On 27.02.23 11:00, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <ttfub4$2uplb$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:37:05 on Sun, 26 Feb 2023, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>> On 26.02.23 15:47, Recliner wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 13:57:43 +0100, Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 26.02.23 12:58, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>> In message <ttff2h$2teg0$5@dont-email.me>, at 11:16:33 on Sun, 26 Feb
>>>>>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Completing a journey ('tapping out') that you started with Oyster [or
>>>>>>>>> CCC], and changing onto a train bound for somewhere outside the Oyster
>>>>>>>>> or CCC area, hence needing independent ticketing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For that use case, you'd want the validator to be at the first/last
>>>>>>>> (depeding on direction) station in the Oyster zones rather than at a
>>>>>>>> central location, so Dartford, Swanley, New Barnet, Elstree & Borhamwood
>>>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, and this is hardly a new issue. All that's changed is that the ccc
>>>>>>> zone has expanded, so the boundary stations are further out. This will
>>>>>>> continue, of course. So there will need to be Oyster readers
>>>>>>> in-station on
>>>>>>> the new boundaries, on platforms and interchange passages, just as there
>>>>>>> already are at the previous boundary stations. Strangely enough, TfL had
>>>>>>> somehow managed to work this out for itself, without any guidance from
>>>>>>> Roland.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Except you've just admitted they hadn't worked it out, most obviously on
>>>>>> the passageway at Farringdon, of course. Let alone all the necessary
>>>>>> interchange stations further out. Where I initially mentioned SPILL, but
>>>>>> this last few days have been casting the net a bit further out.
>>>>>
>>>>> Farringdon allows transfer between London Undergronud services and
>>>>> Thameslink services without passing through a gateline. That's not
>>>>> possible at StP because to get to the Thameslink platforms from the LU
>>>>> platforms involves passng through two gatelines.
>>
>>>>  Roland wants validators on the TL platforms so TL passengers can touch in and out of the Oyster zone, switching from/to
>>>> some other TL ticket. They will remain on TL, ideally on the same train.
>>
>>>>  So, for example, someone coming from Cambridge with a London Terminals ticket (valid as far as KGX or SPI) and wishing
>>>> to continue on the same train to, say, London Bridge, needs to touch-in at that point, even though they are continuing
>>>> on TL.
>>>
>>> Under what circumstances would this actually be a thing a person might want to do? There are fares from Thameslink served stations to destinations "through the core" beyond London Terminals, and they are cheaper than a London Terminals ticket + Oyster Z1 fare,
>>
>> Fare regimes ebb and flow (so what's cheaper today might not be tomorrow), and not all journeys have such tickets to zonal destinations available - especially as not everyone started the day on a Thameslink train.
>
> For what journey is this a sensible option? Where would you be starting from that is not served by Thameslink where the cheapest/fastest option is not a train to the MML platforms at St Pancras or into King's Cross?
>
>> See this page which I've been maintaining for over a decade now, especially the first bracketed note to section 2.
>>
>> http://perry.co.uk/avantix_for_dummies.html
>>
>> Meanwhile, I may not want to go forward to just to one zonal destination, there might be several more legs I was anticipating during the day, making perhaps an outboundary travelcard cheaper.
>
> What destinations in London are better served by carrying on via Thameslink rather than changing to the Underground at Kings Cross St Pancras (or perhaps Finsbury Park)?

Well Farringdon, City Thameslink, Blackfriars, Elephant and Castle, and London Bridge. In principle changing to Northern Line at King's Cross might be slightly faster, but in practice the 7 minute walk from SPILL to the tube lines negates that. And all of these are covered by a London Thameslink Stations ticket.

One comment on the above discussion: although there are Oyster validators at Farringdon, and at least one new one near the escalator down to the Elizabeth Line, there aren't any that I have been able to find at other stations where one might want to change from a paper ticket to Oyster such as St.Pancras, or Blackfriars.

I specifically complained to Messrs GTR about the absence of them at Blackfriars, where I wanted to use one to switch to a train on the Severnoaks line, but they refused for some spurious reason that I can't now remember (probably, "there's no demand, and you are the 10 person that I've had to say that to today").

--
Clive Page