Loss of rights on Cross-London e-tickets

[crablab]

No. Having something within the barcode in a simple PDF or printed sheet of A4 is quite different from having something hidden within a device that can malfunction in some way.

I understand the concern, but to me the "because I can't see it therefore I can't trust it" is a bit of a logical fallacy. I would liken it to my mother carrying a USB stick of Important Documents, instead of backing up up on something (like Google Drive) because she "knows" they are on her "stick".

A printed barcode is susceptible to damage in ways a smartcard is not. Perhaps there is a reason that cash use has declined year on year, whilst contactless has gone through the roof

 

[mrmatt]

It suffers from the same problem as the "people without Apple Pay ready".

My point being they were willing to accept the delay for the number of users who use Apple Pay, if the delay for barcode readers is similar, then the motivation is purely financial. I expect there to be many orders of magnitude more Apple Pay users on LU than cross-london transferring national rail customers.

 

[crablab]

then the motivation is purely financial

Agreed. TfL don't want to spend their money installing barcode readers across their network when they already have a perfectly good smartcard solution, which incidentally is supported in a major standard.

So the mainline rail network needs to get with the program and support ITSO properly.

 

[Bletchleyite]

My point being they were willing to accept the delay for the number of users who use Apple Pay, if the delay for barcode readers is similar, then the motivation is purely financial. I expect there to be many orders of magnitude more Apple Pay users on LU than cross-london transferring national rail customers.

One thing about NR customers on LU is that they tend, mostly, to only use a small specific number of stations. So those stations could have some gates with and some without (clearly signed), so the NR passengers have to wait and the others don't.

Agreed. TfL don't want to spend their money installing barcode readers across their network when they already have a perfectly good smartcard solution, which incidentally is supported in a major standard.

So the mainline rail network needs to get with the program and support ITSO properly.

ITSO was out of date before anywhere even implemented it. People aren't mostly using ITSO/Oyster, they've switched to contactless. And the future is "dumb" RFID cards (or barcodes, or your booking reference written on the back of your hand in biro[1]) with the ticket actually in a database.

[1] This might not be viable for LU transfers But I'm not joking, you can do that on Megabus, Nat Ex and on a number of high speed train services on the other side of the Channel.

 

[crablab]

ITSO was out of date before anywhere even implemented it.

In what sense? ITSO specifications were around in the late 90s/2000s, before Oyster.

And the future is "dumb" RFID cards with the ticket actually in a database.

I disagree For a start, this would require replacing all of the gatelines with RFID instead of NFC readers.

Secondly, phones generally do not support RFID (why should they?) so this doesn't work with mobile payment wallets.

Thirdly, this now requires every device to connect to the internet and centralised databases which is very suboptimal (hence, why bank cards can work offline, why TfL touch-ins/outs aren't instantly updated).

The future is mobile based smart ticketing. Ideally, I would suggest that the tap in/out with your bank card method of transport is what people would prefer (with you automatically getting the best fare, less delay repay etc.), but for many reasons this is not currently easy to implement in the way the railways currently work.

So, we're back at ITSO. A way to load transport tickets onto any ITSO compliant mobile wallet or card, which exists now. And works.

ITSO is probably a good example of edge computing, which is the way IoT is moving right now. It's much simpler and easier to have small, low cost and smart devices which can do much of the processing within local networks, without the need for constant lookups to big data centres.

Ps. we can agree to disagree :P

 

[TUC]

Given that it is a standard flexible fare ticket and not an Advance, can validity legally be different for e-tickets vs paper tickets? I recognise the TfL issue, but is that TfL and the rail industry's problem rather than a legal change to ticket validity?

I still haven't seen an explanation for how contractually TfL can refuse such tickets as per above.

 

[clagmonster]

Can tickets to London Terminals valid between Finsbury Park - Kings Cross (or Amersham - Baker St) be issued as paper roll tickets, either through a guard's machine or through an LNER / Avanti booking office? If so, would they be exchangeable at a booking office for a CCST to allow validity on the Undeground?

What would happen if a passenger with a PRT or other ticket with an aztec code rocked up at the LU barriers at Highbury, Old Street or Moorgate having arrived on the Great Northern & City trains?

 

[paul1609]

I still haven't seen an explanation for how contractually TfL can refuse such tickets as per above.

Id imagine Tfl don't have a contract to accept them with "Nationalrail".
If you enter in to a contract with "Nationalrail" or one of their retailers they cant bind Tfl to a contract without that agreement.
My understanding is that RDG shouldn't be allowing e tickets to be enabled for cross london tickets.
Presumably if a TOC issues such a ticket you should be able to recover any extra costs from the TOC.

 

[maniacmartin]

The Through Ticketting (Non-Travelcard) Agreement is the contract between TTL (a part of TfL) and the TOCs for cross-London transfers. I sadly don't have time to read it in full, however:
Page 23 covers who and how different ticket technologies can be introduced.
Pages 43-44 cover who pays for the cost of equipment upgrades should one party want to change the ticket technology.

My reading is that NR TOCs cannot just introduce a new ticket technology and force TfL to accept it.

 

[SynthD]

Can a phone read your seat booking off a itso card?

Well aware not everyone has a suitable phone. Maybe put an 'ipad' in the wall near every door.

 

[lkpridgeon]

Can a phone read your seat booking off a itso card?

Well aware not everyone has a suitable phone. Maybe put an 'ipad' in the wall near every door.

Yes it can as the ITSO card is read as if it is a bog standard NFC tag then decoded by a relevant app. The main limitation with the cards will be how much data they can actually store.

 

[PeterC]

My reading is that NR TOCs cannot just introduce a new ticket technology and force TfL to accept it.

That sounds far too reasonable.

 

[Wallsendmag]

Yes it can as the ITSO card is read as if it is a bog standard NFC tag then decoded by a relevant app. The main limitation with the cards will be how much data they can actually store.

No seats bookings should be on ITSO

 

[lkpridgeon]

No seats bookings should be on ITSO

Howcome? It's no more opaque than using an e/m ticket on a mobile device.

 

[Haywain]

Howcome? It's no more opaque than using an e/m ticket on a mobile device.

E-tickets and m-tickets can be read by the mark 1 human eye, ITSO cards cannot.

 

[TUC]

Id imagine Tfl don't have a contract to accept them with "Nationalrail".
If you enter in to a contract with "Nationalrail" or one of their retailers they cant bind Tfl to a contract without that agreement.
My understanding is that RDG shouldn't be allowing e tickets to be enabled for cross london tickets.
Presumably if a TOC issues such a ticket you should be able to recover any extra costs from the TOC.

My point is that if a specific fare is set with cross-London travel highlighted as included it is the TOCs responsibility to make sure what they are selling is deliverable, including any arrangements with TfL. From a passenger point of view, if cross-London travel is what they have been sold, how to deliver it is not their problem. If it can't be offered, make that clear when specifying the fare and selling the ticket.

The Through Ticketting (Non-Travelcard) Agreement is the contract between TTL (a part of TfL) and the TOCs for cross-London transfers. I sadly don't have time to read it in full, however:
Page 23 covers who and how different ticket technologies can be introduced.
Pages 43-44 cover who pays for the cost of equipment upgrades should one party want to change the ticket technology.

My reading is that NR TOCs cannot just introduce a new ticket technology and force TfL to accept it.

'Cross-London Tickets' are defined in Schedule 1 of the Agreement as that they 'shall mean single or return tickets of any type (excluding tickets bearing the routeing "DLR not London") issued by an Operator for a journey which may involve interchange between any two of the stations listed below and which begins and ends on Railway Services' (and then gives a list of stations).

Notice that the above refers to ‘single or return tickets of any type’.

Section 7.1 of the Agreement states: ‘Where an Operator or an agent of any or all of the Operators issues a Cross-London Ticket, interchange by Underground or Stationlink Bus Service is included in the cost of such tickets’.

None of the above suggests that electronic tickets are excluded from vslidity. If anything, it goes out of its way to refer to tickets ‘of any type’.

 

[Wallsendmag]

Ah, but now an LNER Advance has come up at 1600 from Waverley to Doncaster, at a decent price, so I've grabbed that, and it's still all much cheaper than walk-ups. Not sure what's open at Waverley right now, but I imagine I'll find something to eat.

My point is that if a specific fare is set with cross-London travel highlighted as included it is the TOCs responsibility to make sure what they are selling is deliverable, including any arrangements with TfL. From a passenger point of view, if cross-London travel is what they have been sold, how to deliver it is not their problem. If it can't be offered, make that clear when specifying the fare and selling the ticket.


'Cross-London Tickets' are defined in Schedule 1 of the Agreement as that they 'shall mean single or return tickets of any type (excluding tickets bearing the routeing "DLR not London") issued by an Operator for a journey which may involve interchange between any two of the stations listed below and which begins and ends on Railway Services' (and then gives a list of stations).

Notice that the above refers to ‘single or return tickets of any type’.

Section 7.1 of the Agreement states: ‘Where an Operator or an agent of any or all of the Operators issues a Cross-London Ticket, interchange by Underground or Stationlink Bus Service is included in the cost of such tickets’.

None of the above suggests that electronic tickets are excluded from vslidity. If anything, it goes out of its way to refer to tickets ‘of any type’.

It's not the ticket type though is it ? It's the ticket fulfillment method. The ticket type would be SDS SOS etc

 

[TUC]

It's not the ticket type though is it ? It's the ticket fulfillment method. The ticket type would be SDS SOS etc

The agreement makes no distinction I can see on ticket fulfilment methods.

 

[Bletchleyite]

My point is that if a specific fare is set with cross-London travel highlighted as included it is the TOCs responsibility to make sure what they are selling is deliverable, including any arrangements with TfL. From a passenger point of view, if cross-London travel is what they have been sold, how to deliver it is not their problem. If it can't be offered, make that clear when specifying the fare and selling the ticket.

But that means it's the TOC who have breached contract, not LU. It doesn't render LU liable to carry them, though it probably does render the TOC liable to pay the Tube fare against a receipt.

To use an example, I could sell you a voucher that said it would give you £50 off a Tesco shop and charge you £10 for it. It wouldn't be accepted, and therefore in selling it I would have committed fraud. But in no way would it render Tesco liable to honour it, even if I had done this in the past and they had agreed to it.

 

[TUC]

Fundamentally this is about, TOCs if you choose to sell a ticket with a particular validity, it's your choice to have made it available and it's your problem, not the customer's, to make sure that what you are selling can be fulfilled.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Fundamentally this is about, TOCs if you choose to sell a ticket with a particular validity, it's your choice to have made it available and it's your problem, not the customer's, to make sure that what you are selling can be fulfilled.

Correct. But the remedy to that does not involve a right for the third party to accept the ticket, unless they themselves had breached contract which they have not. You might instead be entitled to one or more of;
1. A refund
2. A fraud charge against the seller, if it was wilful
3. Being able to reclaim the Tube fare from the TOC

The agreement with LU presumably specifies a framework for ticket acceptance. If that is breached, it's the TOC that has breached the contract, and the passengers' remedy is with the TOC. LU don't have to do anything.

 

[TUC]

Correct. But the remedy to that does not involve a right for the third party to accept the ticket, unless they themselves had breached contract which they have not. You might instead be entitled to one or more of;
1. A refund
2. A fraud charge against the seller, if it was wilful
3. Being able to reclaim the Tube fare from the TOC

The agreement with LU presumably specifies a framework for ticket acceptance. If that is breached, it's the TOC that has breached the contract, and the passengers' remedy is with the TOC. LU don't have to do anything.

I agree with you. The issue is with the TOC, not TfL (although it does raise the question over whether the TOC could separately claim that TfL is not honouring the agreement).

 

[Wallsendmag]

The agreement makes no distinction I can see on ticket fulfilment methods.

Maybe because when the agreement was drawn up there was only one. As someone responsible for enabling eTickets for a TOC I can say that none of our enabled flows cross London.

 

[Argyle 1980]

Back in January I bought an advance single from Horley to Plymouth from Raileasy split site for £19.65 that was split into Horley to Taunton via Paddington and then Taunton to Exeter and Exeter to Plymouth. The cheapest through ticket on offer at time I was booking was £31. Though it was issued as an old fashioned card ticket collected from machine, it didn't include the London transfer, hence no cross on it.
The journey planner instructed taxi from Cannon Street to Paddington, was also quite baffled why the ticket instructed me to continue from London bridge to Cannon Street too.
It made me think if there was a little known issuing system code that can be used to remove the cross London transfer from a ticket to shave a few quid off it. Anyone co e across this instance before?

 

[island]

Back in January I bought an advance single from Horley to Plymouth from Raileasy split site for £19.65 that was split into Horley to Taunton via Paddington and then Taunton to Exeter and Exeter to Plymouth. The cheapest through ticket on offer at time I was booking was £31. Though it was issued as an old fashioned card ticket collected from machine, it didn't include the London transfer, hence no cross on it.
The journey planner instructed taxi from Cannon Street to Paddington, was also quite baffled why the ticket instructed me to continue from London bridge to Cannon Street too.
It made me think if there was a little known issuing system code that can be used to remove the cross London transfer from a ticket to shave a few quid off it. Anyone co e across this instance before?

That’s probably particular to that journey and similar journeys, rather than an across-the-board thing. Horley to Taunton advance tickets can be issued with route +AP SLOUGH or AP READING (AP standing for “Advance Purchase”). The intention is that journeys via London be booked under the +AP SLOUGH route; cheaper tickets routed AP READING should be issued for journeys using the GWR Gatwick Airport to Reading service. However, as a journey on this route via Paddington will inevitably also go via Reading, there is nothing to stop a journey via Paddington being booked on the AP READING route. Lacking the + means that the cost of the cross-London transfer must be met by the passenger separately, such as by Oyster or contactless PAYG.

The walk up routes for Horley to Taunton are, in descending order of price, +VIA LONDON, NOT VIA LONDON, and GUILDFORD READING, which better delineate the different journey choices available – for NOT VIA LONDON I suppose the intended route is up to Clapham Junction and then on the SWR service to Reading.

 

[Argyle 1980]

That’s probably particular to that journey and similar journeys, rather than an across-the-board thing. Horley to Taunton advance tickets can be issued with route +AP SLOUGH or AP READING (AP standing for “Advance Purchase”). The intention is that journeys via London be booked under the +AP SLOUGH route; cheaper tickets routed AP READING should be issued for journeys using the GWR Gatwick Airport to Reading service. However, as a journey on this route via Paddington will inevitably also go via Reading, there is nothing to stop a journey via Paddington being booked on the AP READING route. Lacking the + means that the cost of the cross-London transfer must be met by the passenger separately, such as by Oyster or contactless PAYG.

The walk up routes for Horley to Taunton are, in descending order of price, +VIA LONDON, NOT VIA LONDON, and GUILDFORD READING, which better delineate the different journey choices available – for NOT VIA LONDON I suppose the intended route is up to Clapham Junction and then on the SWR service to Reading.

My ticket was definitely AP Slough and had reserved seats from Paddington. That's why it surprised me a little. Not complaining as it's only £1.60 oyster London Bridge to Paddington.

 

[TUC]

Maybe because when the agreement was drawn up there was only one.

I recognise that it was written a long time ago (The reference within it to the British Railways Board give that away), but again, that's for the industry to sort out and update, not to refuse validity within the terms of the agreement.

 

[infobleep]

Maybe because when the agreement was drawn up there was only one. As someone responsible for enabling eTickets for a TOC I can say that none of our enabled flows cross London.

Well is it another case of regulations not keep up with technology?

So could we have a situation where the passenger is legally allowed to travel cross London because one set of regulations say they can, whilst another set of regulations say they don't have to carry them so legally they can't?

 

[paul1609]

Well is it another case of regulations not keep up with technology?

So could we have a situation where the passenger is legally allowed to travel cross London because one set of regulations say they can, whilst another set of regulations say they don't have to carry them so legally they can't?

Theres no legal right because a contract entered in to with a national rail TOC or re-seller doesn't confer a right to services from TFL/LU.
As Wallsend has posted these flows should not be enable as e tickets. Nothing I buy from Kent that involves a London or Cross London service is available as an e ticket.

 

[TUC]

Theres no legal right because a contract entered in to with a national rail TOC or re-seller doesn't confer a right to services from TFL/LU.
As Wallsend has posted these flows should not be enable as e tickets. Nothing I buy from Kent that involves a London or Cross London service is available as an e ticket.

Two separate issues here. British Rail as was (and so now the TOCs) and TfL entered into a legal agreement for mutual acceptance of tickets. The TOCs sell tickets which include that mutual availability and so enter into a contract with the customer which includes it. It is for the TOCs and TfL how to resolve the ticket acceptance which both organisations are legally committed to, and which TfL remaining legally signed up to as much as the TOCs.