Greater Manchester smartcard scheme (ATOS agreement terminated and revised plan)

[pemma]

Greater Manchester’s planned ‘Oyster card’ style smart ticketing service has hit a major crisis, the MEN can reveal - after transport chiefs ditched their contractor.

Transport for Greater Manchester has torn up its agreement with private firm Atos after ‘considerable’ delays to the service’s roll-out.

Bosses said it had become apparent the firm ‘cannot deliver’ what they had been signed up to do.

Atos is now handing TfGM ‘substantial compensation’ for the fiasco, although it remains unclear whether taxpayers will still be out of pocket after that or not.

The revelation is a major embarrassment both for council chiefs and the government, which had put smart ticketing a the heart of its ‘northern powerhouse’ plans.

In a joint statement not released to the press but circulated to councillors, TfGM and Atos said: “TfGM contracted Atos in 2012 to design, build and operate a Smart Ticketing System for Greater Manchester to be rolled out initially on Metrolink and with options to roll the system out subsequently to bus and rail.

“Although the system is currently operational for use by our 500,000 concessionary card holders, after a considerable period of delay it has become clear that Atos cannot deliver the smart ticketing system as contracted.

“Therefore, the parties have decided that it is in their best interests to agree to a mutual termination of the contract, on commercial terms, the details of which, remain confidential between the parties, but which provide substantial compensation to TfGM in respect of the costs incurred and which will enable TfGM to develop a Smart Ticketing System with alternative providers.

“Atos are collaborating with TfGM to ensure that the existing services are maintained and transitioned to new providers.”

Tram users will be familiar with the yellow ‘get me there’ boxes on stations across the network, although only people with concessionary passes had so far been able to use them.

They will still be able to, according to TfGM, but the roll-out more generally will now be redesigned.

One town hall insider suggested that working with the region’s bus operators to establish a streamlined fare structure may have been a stumbling block - but added that ‘it should have been possible’ to roll out such a service across the tram network, all of which is controlled by TfGM.

We revealed earlier this summer how TfGM had already spent millions on consultants for the scheme, which it insists will go ahead.

A spokesman added that given the fast-moving pace of technology and plans for bus devolution, it was ‘only right that TfGM re-thinks its approach to the Get Me There scheme to ensure that it is flexible and fit for the future’.

They added: “This has allowed TfGM to bring in a range of experts to look more closely at just what customers want and how we expect their needs to change.

“Therefore, whilst we continue to run the existing Metrolink scheme for our 500,000 concessionary card holders, we will now look at all possible options to deliver the best possible outcome for customers as we move towards a far more integrated world class transport.”

Further announcements are expected later this year, they added.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...-ticket-service-9793971#ICID=sharebar_twitter

With TfL now allowing contactless payment cards to be used in lieu of Oysters and contactless payment cards becoming more and more common, is there really any point in persisting with smartcards?

EDIT: See post 51 onwards for revised plans.

 

[glbotu]

What about the not inconsiderable market from tourists. I'd rather not have to pay an international transaction fee every time I have to touch in at a station were I a tourist. Also, just for people who don't want to pay for everything straight from their account.

There's still a very solid case for smart cards.

 

[pemma]

What about the not inconsiderable market from tourists. I'd rather not have to pay an international transaction fee every time I have to touch in at a station were I a tourist. Also, just for people who don't want to pay for everything straight from their account.

You don't pay the fee every time you touch out as you're charged once per day based on all your usage for the day.

If you put a foreign transaction in Euros on a Mastercard today you'd get an exchange rate of 1.426480. In order Euros from Natwest today you'd get an exchange rate of 1.3699. Allowing for a 2.5% transaction fee you're still better off using a Mastercard abroad than buying currency from the bank. Mastercards from some banks don't even have a foreign transaction fee so you'd benefit from the better exchange rate without having to then pay some of it back. You just have to avoid to using Visa Debit cards abroad particularly RBS/Natwest which charge extortionate foreign currency transaction fees on small amounts.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Atos being incompetent?

Well I never.

 

[Aictos]

Someone with a another chip on their shoulder, well I never...

Hopefully the proposed Greater Manchester smartcard scheme will be completed, just not with ATOS.

 

[rebmcr]

They should subcontract to TfL!

 

[WillPS]

Someone with a another chip on their shoulder, well I never...

Hopefully the proposed Greater Manchester smartcard scheme will be completed, just not with ATOS.

Plenty of people have very good reason to feel aggrieved by Atos.

 

[507 001]

It'll reappear. Hopefully with a different name!

 

[plcd1]

Atos being incompetent?

Well I never.

Exactly. What on earth do ATOS know about smartcard systems for public transport? This is redolent of all of the "aren't we so clever" claims for the Greater Manchester smartcard scheme in the 1990s that went precisely nowhere. 20 odd years later and they only have a scheme where local "twirlies" can touch in. They also rubbished us lowly souls in LT who were plugging away with what became Oyster. I think we know how that one worked out.

I'm gobsmacked about "oh the system needs to be flexible" remarks. Trying to cope with a deregulated competitive bus system means any new ticketing media has to be supremely flexible to cope with that environment. Rail and trams may be a little more stable but someone, somewhere has cocked up in the specification if they said "oh just assume we'll get some overarching common fare structure for all modes and just cater for that".

Even if they get bus devolution in Manchester there will be still be issues with competitive services crossing the boundary from surrounding counties. I expect there may be some "lock in" from having to use the ITSO spec but I understand that it should be perfectly feasible to design "products" within the spec that could cater for what Manchester could conceivably need. Furthermore TfL have offered to "rent out" their bank card transport txn "processing black box" if TfGM wanted to also allow bank card acceptance. The sticking point there may be whatever kit is on the buses but London does show that you can have readers and systems capable of dealing with ITSO spec card and CPCs (plus Oyster) so the technology is there and someone else has done the hard work with the banks.

I'm a fair few years out of date with precisely where smartcard and bank card tech is at but I struggle to see why an effective scheme of commercial rules, product definitions, accounting and settlement can't be devised for Greater Manchester's public transport network. It's not that hard surely?

 

[Greenback]

I've tidied up this thread by deleting some posts that are off topic or refer to them.

May I remind everyone that this thread is for the discussion of ATOS and GM smartcards, and not to discuss LM or members previous posts on unrelated topics.

Thank you.

 

[Altfish]

I'm a fair few years out of date with precisely where smartcard and bank card tech is at but I struggle to see why an effective scheme of commercial rules, product definitions, accounting and settlement can't be devised for Greater Manchester's public transport network. It's not that hard surely?

One key difference between Manchester and London is that currently Manchester has little control over buses when compared with London.

It's still a cock-up though and very disappointing.

 

[Hornet]

Noticed this quote in the OP MEN text. "Atos is now handing TfGM ‘substantial compensation’ for the fiasco".

Can well afford it seeing that they seem unable to pay UK Corporation Tax.

"ATOS, G4S paid no corporation tax last year despite carrying out £2billion of taxpayer-funded work.

Two of the country’s biggest private contractors paid no corporation tax in Britain last year, despite carrying out billions of pounds of taxpayer funded work for the Government, an official audit finds."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...ing-out-2billion-of-taxpayer-funded-work.html

Why are these Companies allowed to tender for any taxpayer funded work when they themselves do not pay tax? Companies like this should not be allowed to tender for Government/Council work unless they pay the appropriate UK Corporation Tax. Also ATOS's competence in recent years has been called into question on a number of occasions. Begs the question as to how these Companies win these Contracts, (although I have an inkling after listening to the shenanigans of the Dublin Smart Card introduction debacle from my office desk).

 

[simple simon]

One key difference between Manchester and London is that currently Manchester has little control over buses when compared with London.

It's still a cock-up though and very disappointing.

also, London's buses have flat fares, so there is no need to 'touch out' when alighting from the bus.

As I understand it, in Manchester there would be a need to 'to 'touch out' at the end of every journey.

Simon

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

also, London's buses have flat fares, so there is no need to 'touch out' when alighting from the bus.

As I understand it, in Manchester there would be a need to 'to 'touch out' at the end of every journey.

Simon

Whilst we are resident outside the borders of the TfGM empire, but having similarly-aged elderly friends who are, I am led to believe that if they wish to travel on the Manchester Metrolink system from East Didsbury to Eccles which requires a change at Cornbrook, they do not "touch in and out" as if making two separate journeys, but only need to "touch in" at the commencement of their journey at East Didsbury and then to "touch out" at their final destination of Eccles.

Is what I have been told correct?

 

[radamfi]

also, London's buses have flat fares, so there is no need to 'touch out' when alighting from the bus.

As I understand it, in Manchester there would be a need to 'to 'touch out' at the end of every journey.

Simon

It depends what fare system GM adopts after devolution. If they use a zonal system then they a button on the reader could be pressed after tapping in to indicate what zone you want like in Helsinki. For the same zone just tap on the reader. That way you don't need to touch out. I would prefer touch in and touch out though.

But I wouldn't be surprised if there is a stupid implementation like in Dublin or the West Midlands where you have to talk to the driver to tell them what fare you want and the card is just used like a debit card.

 

[edwin_m]

It depends what fare system GM adopts after devolution. If they use a zonal system then they a button on the reader could be pressed after tapping in to indicate what zone you want like in Helsinki. For the same zone just tap on the reader. That way you don't need to touch out. I would prefer touch in and touch out though.

I agree touch in and out is better if a flat fare system isn't possible. You don't really want to be fiddling around with zone maps and buttons at a validator with a queue of people building up behind you - it's not much better timewise than having to buy a ticket! And touching out sorts things even if you change your mind during the journey about where you are going.

 

[Jonny]

The AT HOP system in Auckland, New Zealand works perfectly fine when touch in and out is needed on buses (well it's called tag on / tag off) and also covers rail and ferry so there's no technical reason why Greater Manchester couldn't use such a system.

 

[WatcherZero]

The issue that's cropped up is that the bus companies have fudged their ITSO implementation which is leading to corrupted data on the card. Most significantly the buses card readers think they are in other parts of the country (they simply rolled out their pilot implementations nationally without localising them). Its fine if you are doing something simple like a pensioner tapping in and out, but if your trying to set up a zonal or distance based integrated cross modal ticketing system and the buses keep writing on the cards you are in Devon or Wales then you have a problem.

 

[pemma]

The issue that's cropped up is that the bus companies have fudged their ITSO implementation which is leading to corrupted data on the card. Most significantly the buses card readers think they are in other parts of the country (they simply rolled out their pilot implementations nationally without localising them). Its fine if you are doing something simple like a pensioner tapping in and out, but if your trying to set up a zonal or distance based integrated cross modal ticketing system and the buses keep writing on the cards you are in Devon or Wales then you have a problem.

While it's outside Greater Manchester I recall when GHA Coaches initially took over the Crewe to Congleton 42 route from D&G Bus the Cheshire East council owned buses which were used on the route under D&G Bus transferred to GHA but D&G removed the ticket machines as they owned the machines. I recall some people saying GHA initially fitted machines which weren't able to take Cheshire Travelcards because they found some machines in one of their Welsh depots which weren't programmed to accept Cheshire Travelcards.

 

[plcd1]

The issue that's cropped up is that the bus companies have fudged their ITSO implementation which is leading to corrupted data on the card. Most significantly the buses card readers think they are in other parts of the country (they simply rolled out their pilot implementations nationally without localising them). Its fine if you are doing something simple like a pensioner tapping in and out, but if your trying to set up a zonal or distance based integrated cross modal ticketing system and the buses keep writing on the cards you are in Devon or Wales then you have a problem.

So much for a national standard that is then fine tuned. I find it a bit amazing that the big groups haven't localised their ITSO readers but I'm not doubting what you've said. Makes me wonder how local area based company specific smart tickets are being handled in terms of validation and subsequent data analysis. Seems a rather pointless exercise if the data isn't set up properly.

I also wonder whether there was another factor in play in GM land and that was the wish of the politicians to dictate a unified fare scale and simplified smart product range. I can't see the bus companies agreeing to that as it blunts one of their competitive weapons.

 

[WatcherZero]

Cant speak to any talks on fare harmonisation but they have had harmonised multi operator and multi mode product ranges since 1994 through System One, a company that all the local bus, rail and local government companies have shares in.

 

[pemma]

Cant speak to any talks on fare harmonisation but they have had harmonised multi operator and multi mode product ranges since 1994 through System One, a company that all the local bus, rail and local government companies have shares in.

How exactly does that work?

For instance, did Swans Travel have shares and did they forfeit them when they stopped running the 200 and 289 routes. While did GHA Coaches gain shares when they started running buses in Greater Manchester. Then what about D&G Bus who almost started running the Sunday and Bank Holidays service on the 130 route until they found out GHA were continuing to run the service commercially despite losing the contract?

 

[radamfi]

Cant speak to any talks on fare harmonisation but they have had harmonised multi operator and multi mode product ranges since 1994 through System One, a company that all the local bus, rail and local government companies have shares in.

Naturally, multi-operator tickets have been around for years and not just in Greater Manchester. All the ex-PTE areas have had those for years. But they have significant flaws. They are usually undercut by single operator tickets so passengers often have to decide whether they are prepared to change route or miss out on certain companies to save money. Harmonisation would mean that you would pay the same for a single, day ticket or longer period ticket regardless of company or companies used.

 

[HSTEd]

Proper bus regulation would be a big help on the Oxford Road corridor.

It would allow the crowds at rush periods to be cleared out much more efficiently at people would simply get on the first available bus no matter what the company.
(And there would be no need for First to run single decks on the corridor for lack of demand for their service).

But that is obviously socialism and the market must reign.

 

[plcd1]

Cant speak to any talks on fare harmonisation but they have had harmonised multi operator and multi mode product ranges since 1994 through System One, a company that all the local bus, rail and local government companies have shares in.

Oh sure but even that range is extremely complex and there is the quite ludicrous situation that a combined bus, tram and train 7 day / monthly ticket is NOT available. If you can't organise that then why are you bothering? I suspect TfGM and the local politicos want a much simpler system than presently exists and one where PAYG would work. That's not an easy task in a fragmented system where commercial pressures pull in different directions.

 

[WatcherZero]

Yeah, and Manchester has always had the issue that other cities didn't have which was sheer number of operators, at one time there were 60 different bus companies operating in the county while other cities tended to have one or two dominant operators and a couple of smaller operators.

Since the devo deal and upcoming enabling legislation allows bus reregulation in Manchester subject to government approval of the consultation response there is good prospects for change.

 

[edwin_m]

Since the devo deal and upcoming enabling legislation allows bus reregulation in Manchester subject to government approval of the consultation response there is good prospects for change.

I wonder if this is part of the reason they have pulled the contract. If bus fares were regulated or even collected centrally like TfL the smartcard system would be a lot simpler.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Oh sure but even that range is extremely complex and there is the quite ludicrous situation that a combined bus, tram and train 7 day / monthly ticket is NOT available. If you can't organise that then why are you bothering? I suspect TfGM and the local politicos want a much simpler system than presently exists and one where PAYG would work. That's not an easy task in a fragmented system where commercial pressures pull in different directions.

I presume the Get Me There would do what Nottingham plans to do at some point. If you only use one operator during a day your payment would be capped at that operator's day ticket price. If you use more than one it is capped at the relevant multi-operator day ticket price. This doesn't remove the disadvantage of paying more if there isn't a single operator serving your whole journey, but it does at least remove the gamble of whether to buy a single-operator day ticket then find later in the day that someone else's bus turns up first.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

How exactly does that work?

For instance, did Swans Travel have shares and did they forfeit them when they stopped running the 200 and 289 routes. While did GHA Coaches gain shares when they started running buses in Greater Manchester. Then what about D&G Bus who almost started running the Sunday and Bank Holidays service on the 130 route until they found out GHA were continuing to run the service commercially despite losing the contract?

Are shares actually involved or is the company fully owned by the local authority? Anti-competition rules mean a mult-operator scheme must be open to all operators who satisfy the criteria and want to join, and the fare levels are decided by agreement between the participating operators. Since they all wish to grab a bigger slice of the cake for themselves rather than to make the cake itself bigger, the multi-operator ticket ends up costing more than any of the equivalent single-operator tickets. The Competition Commission report on the bus industry had quite a lot to say about how these work.

 

[WatcherZero]

Yes private ltd company and shares are involved, they buy in and can cash out if they no longer operate in the region. Not for profit company that simply collects all the fare revenue centrally then apportions it back to the operators after deducting operating costs.

Currently the board of the company (Greater Manchester Ticketing Limited(GMTL) trading as System One) consists of over 50 bus operators, 16 network operators, TfGM, Metrolink and Northern Rail. GMTL also owns 49% (with TfGM owning the other 51%) of Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Information
Limited (GMPTIL) that prints and produces timetables and travel information, runs websites and information lines as well as running the travel information shops.


Don't know the current market share but in 2011 System One tickets had a 14% share of bus travel up from 4.5% in 2001 with 26m annual tickets sold, the national average for multi operator ticketing schemes was a 5% market share according to Passenger Focus.

 

[HSTEd]

Since the devo deal and upcoming enabling legislation allows bus reregulation in Manchester subject to government approval of the consultation response there is good prospects for change.

Assuming the government will ever approve said consultation after various parties recieve large donations from the bus operators who have every interest in insuring the current system continues.

 

[radamfi]

Assuming the government will ever approve said consultation after various parties recieve large donations from the bus operators who have every interest in insuring the current system continues.

But why would they bother to agree to devolution if they intended that the bus barons would have their way anyhow?