• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

London Underground ticket machines using old National Rail fares?

K

KT550

Member
Joined
23 Dec 2020
Messages
529
Location
Surrey
Yesterday, I bought a Harrow-on-the-Hill to Aylesbury return from the LU machine at Harrow-on-the-Hill.

The fare offered was a few pence different than I had researched (£18.20 instead of £19.10).

£18.20 was the fare prior to this year's increase, so looks like an update missed.

Having the return ticket issued as a one piece ticket on LU ticket stock confused me too.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

C

CyrusWuff

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2013
Messages
4,071
Location
London
KT550 said:
Yesterday, I bought a Harrow-on-the-Hill to Aylesbury return from the LU machine at Harrow-on-the-Hill.

The fare offered was a few pence different than I had researched (£18.20 instead of £19.10).

£18.20 was the fare prior to this year's increase, so looks like an update missed.

Having the return ticket issued as a one piece ticket on LU ticket stock confused me too.
Click to expand...
Having queried this with LU Customer Services, their excuse is that NR didn't release the March fares in time for them to update their machines(!) :rolleyes:

Answers on a postcard as to why this is an issue when NR machines can be updated overnight.

It remains to be seen whether it's fixed in June, and arguably the TOCs should be able to make a revenue claim against TfL for knowingly selling tickets at the wrong price.
 
T

thedbdiboy

Member
Joined
10 Sep 2011
Messages
968
And your answer on a postcard is that TfL's fares are processed by Cubic, who have rigid and immoveable timescales. The normal fares setting round schedule takes this into account, but in the past few years the Government has been deciding the annual fare change % figure on a year-by-year basis with insufficient time to meet the schedule. They are aware that this compromises TfL's ability to offer the new fares in a timely manner but they choose to accept this. Revenue (post-Covid) belongs to the Government so there is no point in an income claim, it's just wooden dollars.
 
O

OscarH

Member
Joined
15 Sep 2020
Messages
472
Location
Crawley
thedbdiboy said:
And your answer on a postcard is that TfL's fares are processed by Cubic, who have rigid and immoveable timescales
Click to expand...
Polite way of saying Cubic can't be bothered, because they're hardly going to lose their contract/monopoly
 
Haywain

Haywain

Veteran Member
Joined
3 Feb 2013
Messages
15,539
OscarH said:
Polite way of saying Cubic can't be bothered, because they're hardly going to lose their contract/monopoly
Click to expand...
Its probably just what's in their contract. Doing something that's not in the contract will be subject to additional (hefty) charges.
 
M

MrJeeves

Established Member
Joined
28 Aug 2015
Messages
2,057
Location
Burgess Hill
Haywain said:
They must have some sort of data connection in order to process card payments.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be surprised if they are still doing telephone auth honestly... I wouldn't be able to say one way or another though.

Alternatively, maybe the card machine portion of the machine is somewhat standalone and it has a data connection for itself but doesn't share this with the other components.
 
O

OscarH

Member
Joined
15 Sep 2020
Messages
472
Location
Crawley
Haywain said:
Its probably just what's in their contract. Doing something that's not in the contract will be subject to additional (hefty) charges.
Click to expand...
Indeed. I'm sure the contract with Cubic probably makes for unpleasant reading
 
A

Adam Williams

Established Member
Joined
2 Jan 2018
Messages
1,802
Location
Warks
OscarH said:
Indeed. I'm sure the contract with Cubic probably makes for unpleasant reading
Click to expand...
This is public money being spent.

What were TfL thinking when they agreed to procure something so unfit for purpose? Did nobody have any foresight? Being able to update fares: these are basics, surely?!

thedbdiboy said:
And your answer on a postcard is that TfL's fares are processed by Cubic, who have rigid and immoveable timescales
Click to expand...
I understand they've been just as rigid and immovable with Oval, which you think would be a new project and a chance to demonstrate competence. Well perhaps immovable is the wrong word - because it would imply Cubic actually hit deadlines when they're set really, wouldn't it?
 
Last edited:
T

Tazi Hupefi

Member
Joined
1 Apr 2018
Messages
938
Location
Nottinghamshire
Adam Williams said:
This is public money being spent.

What were TfL thinking when they agreed to procure something so unfit for purpose? Did nobody have any foresight? Being able to update fares: these are basics, surely?!


I understand they've been just as rigid and immovable with Oval, which you think would be a new project and a chance to demonstrate competence. Well perhaps immovable is the wrong word - because it would imply Cubic actually hit deadlines when they're set really, wouldn't it?
Click to expand...
You have to remember that the Cubic/TfL contract would have been negotiated in the early-mid 90s when the technology was still emerging and was genuinely cutting edge at the time. Software and hardware changes would have been extremely complex and implemented in a way very different to standards and methods of today, and therefore expensive even then, albeit it probably represented good value at the time, as the Oyster solution became very popular and well established, helping the London economy massively and improving the TfL reputation worldwide.

However, Cubic then essentially got a monopoly position as no other supplier could reasonably complete or integrate into the well established Cubic ecosystem, and the cost of ripping it all out/starting with a new supplier would not only be costly, but a huge risk.

The status quo then just keeps rolling over - and Cubic can do/charge what they like because TfL don't have any other choice without wholesale replacement of tens of thousands of pieces of equipment, not to mention the software/logic. To be able to support an organisation and operation as vast as TfL, you'd need to be a global supplier yourself with serious financial backing and an extensive track record - there's only one other supplier I can think of who would, just about, fit the bill - but they have their own issues.
 
centraltrains

centraltrains

Member
Joined
3 Jan 2015
Messages
481
Location
West Midlands
Adam Williams said:
What were TfL thinking when they agreed to procure something so unfit for purpose? Did nobody have any foresight? Being able to update fares: these are basics, surely?!
Click to expand...
Speculation corner:
Likely an old/legacy system which was developed before the age of always connected machines, thus was never designed for this functionality as would have been unrealistic at the time, and the development work/cost has just never been requested/agreed (and would likely be large/significant work)?
 
A

AY1975

Established Member
Joined
14 Dec 2016
Messages
1,772
KT550 said:
Having the return ticket issued as a one piece ticket on LU ticket stock confused me too.
Click to expand...
As far as I can recall, at least since London Underground first started issuing credit card sized tickets (CCSTs) in about the late 1980s LU return tickets have always been issued as just one piece, unlike at BR/National Rail ticket offices and machines where return tickets have always been issued as separate outward and return portions at least since the introduction of the 1980s APTIS and (S)PORTIS ticket issuing systems (and ticket vending machines that issue CCSTs).
 
T

thedbdiboy

Member
Joined
10 Sep 2011
Messages
968
Adam Williams said:
I understand they've been just as rigid and immovable with Oval, which you think would be a new project and a chance to demonstrate competence. Well perhaps immovable is the wrong word - because it would imply Cubic actually hit deadlines when they're set really, wouldn't it?
Click to expand...
The decision re the Oval contract as made by the DfT was not greeted with wild enthusiasm by all...
 
A

Adam Williams

Established Member
Joined
2 Jan 2018
Messages
1,802
Location
Warks
Tazi Hupefi said:
You have to remember that the Cubic/TfL contract would have been negotiated in the early-mid 90s
Click to expand...
In a previous life, I spent some time doing trawls of journal articles and patents looking for evidence of prior art, to invalidate tech patents that had been registered speculatively by parent trolls.

If anything, there was a very good appreciation of the way technology was likely to progress/which technologies might be able to be combined and I really think you don't give enough credit to academia or industry here. Expecting a ticket machine to have a reliable network connection at some point is not pie in the sky thinking.

Tazi Hupefi said:
Software and hardware changes would have been extremely complex and implemented in a way very different to standards and methods of today
Click to expand...
I'm sure you didn't mean to come across as patronising here but.. ;)

Everything I do day to day is underpinned by protocols and standards (open ones!) developed well before I was born. TCP/IP was an established thing by '78. The filesystem hierarchy on my machine is pretty similar to what would have existed on a UNIX machine in the late 70s and early 80s. Hell, the fares engine that powers TrainSplit's journey planner is written in the same programming language that these UNIX userspace utilities would have been written in back then. What has changed, for sure, is the scale of connectivity and computational power we all have access to - but even in 1965 people like Moore were predicting that memory and computational power would grow exponentially.

Accounting for changes that could reasonably be expected to happen over the long term is just good management practice, surely?

centraltrains said:
Likely an old/legacy system which was developed before the age of always connected machines, thus was never designed for this functionality as would have been unrealistic at the time, and the development work/cost has just never been requested/agreed (and would likely be large/significant work)?
Click to expand...
Yes, I'd describe it as myopic. What is clear is that TfL have boxed themselves into a corner now, and that there isn't effective competition - which is bad for everybody.
 
E

Edvid

Established Member
Joined
7 Feb 2008
Messages
1,353
Going by the tenor of this thread, am I right in saying Cubic not being awarded the next Revenue Collection Contract (commencing September 2026) - if that comes to pass - would be a major shock?
 
Haywain

Haywain

Veteran Member
Joined
3 Feb 2013
Messages
15,539
Edvid said:
Going by the tenor of this thread, am I right in saying Cubic not being awarded the next Revenue Collection Contract (commencing September 2026) - if that comes to pass - would be a major shock?
Click to expand...
I think "major shock" should be considered an understatement.
 
W

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
6,234
Adam Williams said:
This is public money being spent.

What were TfL thinking when they agreed to procure something so unfit for purpose? Did nobody have any foresight? Being able to update fares: these are basics, surely?!


I understand they've been just as rigid and immovable with Oval, which you think would be a new project and a chance to demonstrate competence. Well perhaps immovable is the wrong word - because it would imply Cubic actually hit deadlines when they're set really, wouldn't it?
Click to expand...
It was likely perfectly fit for purpose at the time that it was specified and contracts signed. TfL ticketing in general seems pretty old tech
 
L

lookapigeon

Member
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
92
MrJeeves said:
I wouldn't be surprised if they are still doing telephone auth honestly... I wouldn't be able to say one way or another though.

Alternatively, maybe the card machine portion of the machine is somewhat standalone and it has a data connection for itself but doesn't share this with the other components.
Click to expand...

There will be some sort of private data link, either wired or cellular, if you look in the TRU news it has some interesting insights.
 
P

plugwash

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2015
Messages
1,576
Wolfie said:
It was likely perfectly fit for purpose at the time that it was specified and contracts signed. TfL ticketing in general seems pretty old tech
Click to expand...
What it sounds like to me is that TFL made the mistake of letting cubic "own" the system, so they are either stuck renewing their contract with them forever, rebuilding the system from scratch or spending some huge some of money to buy cubic out.
 
W

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
6,234
plugwash said:
What it sounds like to me is that TFL made the mistake of letting cubic "own" the system, so they are either stuck renewing their contract with them forever, rebuilding the system from scratch or spending some huge some of money to buy cubic out.
Click to expand...
That is distinctly possible. Public sector outsourcing contracts weren't great on IPR back in the late 80s/early 90s.
 
A

Adam Williams

Established Member
Joined
2 Jan 2018
Messages
1,802
Location
Warks
plugwash said:
What it sounds like to me is that TFL made the mistake of letting cubic "own" the system, so they are either stuck renewing their contract with them forever, rebuilding the system from scratch or spending some huge some of money to buy cubic out.
Click to expand...

The contract being proposed under project Proteus to replace the current RCC requires bidders to take responsibility for the operation of our revenue collection systems, including contactless and Oyster. The Oyster system is proprietary to Cubic, although we have full rights to use and modify the system. Through early market engagement, we understand that while there is appetite from potential bidders to operate the revenue collection system, one of the key elements of the future contract is a migration away from the bespoke technology currently used for Oyster, which is approaching 20 years old.
Click to expand...

Feedback through the early market engagement for Proteus indicates that potential bidders would like to do this as quickly as possible to de-risk the delivery of the services for them
Click to expand...
 
kieron

kieron

Established Member
Joined
22 Mar 2012
Messages
3,063
Location
Connah's Quay
plugwash said:
What it sounds like to me is that TFL made the mistake of letting cubic "own" the system, so they are either stuck renewing their contract with them forever, rebuilding the system from scratch or spending some huge some of money to buy cubic out.
Click to expand...
If Cubic have been in this sort of position since the 1990s then it wouldn't have been TfL at the time, but rather London Regional Transport. They were accountable to the Westminster government, rather than any local government body.

It makes sense to me for the government to foot most of the bill if the choices they and their colleagues have made over the years are largely responsible for the situation.
 
miklcct

miklcct

On Moderation
Joined
2 May 2021
Messages
4,366
Location
Cricklewood
It's a shame that the Oyster system is proprietary. When it was introduced, weren't there any open standards for stored-value transport cards? If not, why didn't TfL make the system an open standard to avoid vendor lock-in and to encourage competition?
 
O

OscarH

Member
Joined
15 Sep 2020
Messages
472
Location
Crawley
miklcct said:
It's a shame that the Oyster system is proprietary. When it was introduced, weren't there any open standards for stored-value transport cards? If not, why didn't TfL make the system an open standard to avoid vendor lock-in and to encourage competition?
Click to expand...
Almost certainly comes down to money, either TfL thought they might be able to sell it or Cubic would have charged more money because they would have had to make material to publish and would have lost potential business.

I completely agree it's a real shame it isn't an open standard, but it is what it is
 
Haywain

Haywain

Veteran Member
Joined
3 Feb 2013
Messages
15,539
miklcct said:
It's a shame that the Oyster system is proprietary. When it was introduced, weren't there any open standards for stored-value transport cards? If not, why didn't TfL make the system an open standard to avoid vendor lock-in and to encourage competition?
Click to expand...
I don't see the problem as being the Oyster system as such, so much as the huge amount of physical equipment that is supplied to TfL by Cubic - gatelines and POMs, for instance, that are intrinsically linked to the Oyster system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top