GWR Pay as you go (PAYG) scheme preparations

[JonathanH]

I guess you could have islands of contactless PAYG around each city, but the problem I see with that is the commuter belts of british cities overlap.

That is very much the point - if you look at post 2 https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...placing-off-peak-returns.216411/#post-5092775 there is talk of a 'Bristol area PAYG scheme' and a 'Devon and Cornwall PAYG scheme'.

There are overlapping commuter areas in this country but you just have to draw a boundary point - notably Ashchurch is in a potential Bristol scheme and Severn Tunnel Junction isn't despite their relative proximity to Bristol.

 

[david1212]

Thanks for your reply, but it still doesn't facilitate knowing the cost of one's journey at the time of touching in. In addition, how does a ticket inspector know that one has paid if one uses a bank card rather than a dedicated smart card, without being able to call up one's bank account via a card reader, and presumably access all one's other transactions on that account?

They don't know at the time, they just scan to check your card is valid. Then if it is later determined that you didn't touch in beforehand you're charged a maximum fare.

Use of contactless bank cards for PAYG may work for the london metro area, but I see a few problems with trying to expand it to the wider rail network.

1. Given that you can't deal with irregularities in real time and your only way to deal with them is to bill people a "maximum fare" as part of the journey reconciliation process, how much do you bill them? TFLs "maximum fares" seem to range up to about £25 which puts them in the "minor annoyance" category for most people. To cover long distance journeys the maximum fare would have to be much higher, say £250 but such a penalty would be disproportionate for local commuter journeys.
2. Will the banks accept use of contactles payments for transactions that could run into hundreds of pounds? I understand that transit transactions are a different category from regular contactless transactions but still I would expect there is a limit to what the banks will accept.
3. What do you do about multiple routes? Pink readers and OSIs work for the London commuter system but I don't see them scaling well to a larger more polycentric network where most interchanges are open.

I guess you could have islands of contactless PAYG around each city, but the problem I see with that is the commuter belts of british cities overlap.

This is getting OT to the original topic of GWR pricing rather than the ticket format or payment type.

Given the bank debit card limit is now £45 I can not see the banks allowing more than this for all travel per day not least if a card is stolen but not yet reported.

With TfL there is a defined limit per day even if the user forgets to tap out or this is not registered.

To work nationwide the only route I can see is a dedicated card which regardless of the technology behind it to the user works like ITSO but is much more advanced.
For TfL, West Midlands, Manchester etc plus buses anywhere if linked to a bank account it can work PAYG. If not linked it can be pre-loaded with a credit.

For all other rail journeys a ticket has to be bought as now. The difference is the ticket gets loaded onto the card. For a booking office or ticket machine purchase the card is presented. For online purchases the card has to presented to a reader to load the ticket be that a dedicated reader, a TVM or even if the system can be fast enough the gateline.

The inspector will be able to see both a touch-in and either a working PAYG or a valid ticket.

 

[Hadders]

Thanks for your reply, but it still doesn't facilitate knowing the cost of one's journey at the time of touching in. In addition, how does a ticket inspector know that one has paid if one uses a bank card rather than a dedicated smart card, without being able to call up one's bank account via a card reader, and presumably access all one's other transactions on that account?

This has all been discussed at length in previous threads but contactless in London isn't new, it's been in use for nine years now!

No need to pre-register cards and ticket inspectors have no access to bank account details. They simply scan your card and when the data is reconciled if you're found not to have touched in you get charged a maximum fare. Daily and weekly caps apply which is an advantage for regular travellers.

I do agree that contactless is only suitable for 'metro' areas. It isn't suitable for long distance travel.

In London you don’t purchase a ticket before travel. You tap in at the start of your journey and out at the end. The system calculates the fare based on the stations you’ve travelled between and whether it’s anytime or off peak. Your card is charged once per day for travel and there is a maximum cap for a day’s travel.

As for inspections while travelling the inspector scans your card (and nothing else). This doesn’t give the inspector access to any details at all but during overnight processing a comparison is made to check that cards have been touched in. If they haven’t then a maximum fare is charged.

I do have some sympathy about knowing the cost before travel but in my view finding out the cost of a bus fare before travel outside London (whatever payment method is used) is pretty much impossible anyway.

As I said earlier none of this is new - London has had Oyster PAYG since 2003 and contactless since 2011, if there were significant issues we’d know about it by now.

 

[daodao]

@ Hadders et al

Thanks for all your replies. I shan't ask any further questions on this thread that might take it more off topic. FYI, I last visited London in 2012.

 

[MikeWh]

I guess you could have islands of contactless PAYG around each city, but the problem I see with that is the commuter belts of british cities overlap.

You can only have one operator of a contactless transit system at each station so if two overlap they would both have to be run by the same operator. As to the maximum charge, the transit mode is an authorised mode, albeit that the authorisation is done in the background after the first tap. If it fails you will be let out before then being denied further travel. In theory a passenger could travel back and forth between Paddington and Heathrow on the Express, touching out and in at each end, and rack up a daily bill of hundreds of pounds.

Given the bank debit card limit is now £45 I can not see the banks allowing more than this for all travel per day not least if a card is stolen but not yet reported.

With TfL there is a defined limit per day even if the user forgets to tap out or this is not registered.

Sorry, this is just wrong. There is no limit other than the physical number of times you can travel between Paddington and Heathrow and back in one day.

 

[alistairlees]

Basically there will most likely be islands of PAYG on top of a national fare structure, most likely itself much simplified.

 

[Starmill]

It's worth nothing that Metrolink (a light railway in Greater Manchester) has been accepting contactless PAYG for more than two years without particular difficulty. Indeed its basically as simple as could be because the fare structure doesn't suffer from multiple different scales, carve-outs and surcharges as is the case in Greater London and surrounding area. Paper tickets continue to be available for those who want or need them and they're the same price. A daily cap is less than twice the price of a single. Indeed, it's all so simple that it works very well. The downside is of course that it doesn't inter-operate with any other mode, although the products on paper for this purpose that were previously available do continue to exist.

Simplicity does come at some cost however. No carve-out is available for a short journey which crosses a zone boundary. You will therefore be paying over the odds for a journey from Crumpsall to Heaton Park or Chorlton to Withington.

 

[ThisIsSurbiton]

You can only have one operator of a contactless transit system at each station so if two overlap they would both have to be run by the same operator.

I suppose you could have all taps recorded by a central system and then reconciled later in the journey to decide which scheme should get the data. This system could perhaps handle hot-listing of bad cards as well, as this could be done during the journey.

In any case, wait a few years, and scheme boundaries will get closer to each other, so the problem has to be addressed, or large numbers of people will be excluded by accidents of geography. With enough PAYG schemes, the problem of what to do with an unprocessed card and what maximum fare to charge exists anyway - at the moment we can know that someone inspected in Kent has strayed from London, but will this be true in future? In that case, once the gaps are filled in, I don't really see the benefit of regional schemes over a national one. There would need to be an understandable definition of what size journey can be made on a card. A maximum of one county border crossed, perhaps, or two. This cannot be enforced until it's too late, of course, but the problem of what to do with people who've gone too far will exist anyway, once it's not clear which empire you started in, which only takes one train journey.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I suppose you could have all taps recorded by a central system and then reconciled later in the journey to decide which scheme should get the data. This system could perhaps handle hot-listing of bad cards as well, as this could be done during the journey.

In any case, wait a few years, and scheme boundaries will get closer to each other, so the problem has to be addressed, or large numbers of people will be excluded by accidents of geography. With enough PAYG schemes, the problem of what to do with an unprocessed card and what maximum fare to charge exists anyway - at the moment we can know that someone inspected in Kent has strayed from London, but will this be true in future? In that case, once the gaps are filled in, I don't really see the benefit of regional schemes over a national one. There would need to be an understandable definition of what size journey can be made on a card. A maximum of one county border crossed, perhaps, or two. This cannot be enforced until it's too late, of course, but the problem of what to do with people who've gone too far will exist anyway, once it's not clear which empire you started in, which only takes one train journey.

The natural boundary is for it to be TOC specific, I suppose. The Dutch manage that - you have separate branded readers at each station per TOC.

You would want to make odd exceptions, e.g. you might want to accept it on Avanti from MKC to Euston as part of the LNR scheme, or from Wigan to Preston as part of the Northern scheme.

 

[lkpridgeon]

Surely it'll just be a flat "any permitted" rate between stations based on the going rate at the time of tap in using an ITSO smartcard. With TOC specific tickets bought in advance/at the TVM.

South Western Railways Tap2Go approach seems to be a persistent "ticket" on the card that when tapped logs the last tapped station that I presume shows up when a guard taps the card to check validity. There's a leniency of 3 missed taps/payments in a month before the card is blocked from payg use. When you miss a tap you get an email the next day asking you to confirm your journey (sometimes the system provides a guess based on usual travel patterns). £25 or the estimated ticket cost is automatically charged from your bank account the day after this message.

Say I want a cheaper ticket or to apply a railcard discounted ticket I just select it at the TVM and load it to my card. The system then takes this ticket into consideration when working out the days bill. Should you travel past your destination you are charged the cost of a ticket from your ticket destination to your final destination.*

I think this system would work rather well elsewhere with maybe a few tweeks like maybe an incrementally increasing penalty for missing tapping out.

* There's some issues I know of where the system currently gets confused and doesn't charge you anything extra...

 

[Paul Kelly]

I disagree with people who say the changes to period returns in the Bristol area are a damp squib. I think it's a small but very important first step, and it seems to have been well thought-through so that PAYG will mesh with the existing fares with as little disruption as possible, which certainly wasn't what happened when contactless was extended from West Drayton to Reading - that is still a total mess. I've written a blog post about it here: https://blog.brfares.com/2021/04/29/bristol-payg-fares-reform/

 

[Starmill]

I suppose you could have all taps recorded by a central system and then reconciled later in the journey to decide which scheme should get the data. This system could perhaps handle hot-listing of bad cards as well, as this could be done during the journey.

How would you do that? You can't see any touches that come to another acquirer. This is a core part of the regulation keeping payments secure. Of course you could make it obligatory for multiple schemes to use the same acquirer, but that would give them power to extract monopoly rent in the form of fees. You can't write data to someone's bank card or contactless device either.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How would you do that? You can't see any touches that come to another acquirer. This is a core part of the regulation keeping payments secure.

I think the suggestion was a single national scheme, effectively, but only valid in some areas.

 

[Starmill]

I think the suggestion was a single national scheme, effectively, but only valid in some areas.

That would be fine if the same design and specifications were mutually agreed upon and all applied in England, Scotland and Wales but that does not seem likely from our current vantage.

However as Paul notes above this approach, of modifying the existing paper fares to make them compatible with a new PAYG area in the future, is way, way ahead of the crackers approach taken in London of continuing to roll out a completely separate and totally incongruous PAYG system across an existing paper and smartcard fare structure while continuing to maintain both simultaneously. This has caused no end of issues first in Grays and places like Dartford, Epsom and Cheshunt, and much more major issues to stations between Coulsdon South and Gatwick Airport and west of West Drayton.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That would be fine if the same design and specifications were mutually agreed upon and all applied in England, Scotland and Wales but that does not seem likely from our current vantage.

However as Paul notes above this approach, of modifying the existing paper fares to make them compatible with a new PAYG area in the future, is way, way ahead of the crackers approach taken in London of continuing to roll out a completely separate and totally incongruous PAYG system across an existing paper and smartcard fare structure while continuing to maintain both simultaneously. This has caused no end of issues first in Grays and places like Dartford, Epsom and Cheshunt, and much more major issues to stations between Coulsdon South and Gatwick Airport and west of West Drayton.

The problem in London was trying to use a zonal system for a tap-in, tap-out smartcard ticket - they fundamentally don't work together, hence silly workarounds like the pink readers and assumed routes. They'd have been as well ripping it up and starting again with (crow flies) distance-based or even market priced ticketing.

I agree GWR have got it right here.

 

[XAM2175]

... trying to use a zonal system for a tap-in, tap-out smartcard ticket - they fundamentally don't work together, hence silly workarounds like the pink readers and assumed routes ...

This is a bit of a stretch, no? Zonal systems can and do support tap-in-tap-out smartcard systems on a number of networks around the world - how are they fundamentally dysfunctional?

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is a bit of a stretch, no? Zonal systems can and do support tap-in-tap-out smartcard systems on a number of networks around the world - how are they fundamentally dysfunctional?

Sorry, to clarify, it's concentric zonal systems that are the issue, though cellular ones can be in some cases for the same reason.

They work fine where the system is purely radial, so to get from zone 5 to zone 4 on another route you can only go 5-4-3-2-1-2-3-4, say.

Where you have multiple routes through the zones it creates anomalies because you have to make assumptions, which is the London problem. You can only avoid this by having touch-in-and-out on the vehicle so the system knows the route taken.

The pink readers (touch to give a cheaper route otherwise we will assume the more expensive one) sort of work but they are a clunky workaround. It's better to design a fares system that isn't interested in routes, simply how far you have travelled between the touch-in and touch-out points.

 

[XAM2175]

Sorry, to clarify, it's concentric zonal systems that are the issue, though cellular ones can be in some cases for the same reason.
...
The pink readers (touch to give a cheaper route otherwise we will assume the more expensive one) sort of work but they are a clunky workaround. It's better to design a fares system that isn't interested in routes, simply how far you have travelled between the touch-in and touch-out points.

Ah yes, that's somewhat different. Even still, I think that zonal systems offer a greater convenience and ease-of-use compared to distance-based structures, especially when conducting multi-modal journeys. The pedantry regarding routes can just as easily be resolved by assuming that the passenger has taken the cheaper route, not the more expensive one.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I disagree with people who say the changes to period returns in the Bristol area are a damp squib. I think it's a small but very important first step, and it seems to have been well thought-through so that PAYG will mesh with the existing fares with as little disruption as possible, which certainly wasn't what happened when contactless was extended from West Drayton to Reading - that is still a total mess. I've written a blog post about it here: https://blog.brfares.com/2021/04/29/bristol-payg-fares-reform/

Will be quite disappointing if contactless isn't quick to following.
Worth pointing out that GWR have had an ITSO card that you can use in the Bristol area for a few years now (I believe the Severn Beach line was one of the first GWR rolled it out too) so that side of it isn't that exciting really. Granted I don't think it has ever been PAYG, you've always had to buy tickets and get them loaded onto the card, but given you can do that with an Android NFC phone and the GWR app these days, I think contactless really needs to be rolled out for people to actually want to use the PAYG option.

 

[ThisIsSurbiton]

The natural boundary is for it to be TOC specific, I suppose.

I agree, but wouldn't it be a shame to limit it to TOCs, given that the 'local' day single and return fares have remained largely independent of TOC politics where they want to be, in a fares system more integrated than people give credit for?

South Western Railways Tap2Go approach seems to be a persistent "ticket" on the card that when tapped logs the last tapped station that I presume shows up when a guard taps the card to check validity.

A lot more is possible if you have a card or device that can be updated, but we're hoping, I think, to do this with payment cards.

 

[Envy123]

I like how GTR's keyGo can charge you an excess if you go beyond the destination of your ticket, assuming the ticket is on the same card.

This sort of thing would reduce issues like being called by someone on the way and you have to go further. You could just stay on the train and the PAYG will sort things out, as opposed to having to leave the train and paying for another ticket.

I'd welcome this on more TOC's services - not just SWR and GTR.

 

[thedbdiboy]

PAYG is for city commuting areas. It is not intended to cover longer distance and intercity type journeys. But as alluded to above the fare structure does need to be adapted to suit PAYG including ensuring that there is either a common fare for multiple routeings or a process whereby use of a cheaper route can be identified.
Also, I think they days of these being exclusively TOC schemes are numbered. The long and tortuous debacle of smartcard ticketing has taught the DfT the hard way that if you want to replace the existing interoperable and interavailable ticketing structure the replacement needs to be at least as good....

 

[Bletchleyite]

PAYG is for city commuting areas. It is not intended to cover longer distance and intercity type journeys. But as alluded to above the fare structure does need to be adapted to suit PAYG including ensuring that there is either a common fare for multiple routeings or a process whereby use of a cheaper route can be identified.

It can work for any local journeys, no reason it couldn't work in a local context too. Basically for any journey where there don't tend to be Advances (other than the "sham Advances" Northern issue which save a pittance purely so they can further their petty spat with TPE).

 

[Envy123]

PAYG is for city commuting areas.

Considering crazy London house prices, the commuter belt is really thick and overlaps with other cities' commuting areas.

An example is my town Huntingdon. It predominantly serves as a commuter area for the city of Cambridge but some people like me commute to London.

PAYG is available from its station to London.

Although, the fastest way to get to Cambridge by public transport is to get the bus. So maybe not the best example.

 

[Bletchleyite]

New speculative thread to discuss the general issues coming up here:

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/following-on-from-the-gwr-scheme-how-could-other-payg-schemes-be-implemented-is-a-national-scheme-viable.216841/

 

[thedbdiboy]

It can work for any local journeys, no reason it couldn't work in a local context too. Basically for any journey where there don't tend to be Advances (other than the "sham Advances" Northern issue which save a pittance purely so they can further their petty spat with TPE).

Yes, but for more rural or dispersed local lines the infrastructure needed to operate the system is less viable. Ultimately the various schemes will stand or fall on the politics and the business case.

 

[island]

Given the bank debit card limit is now £45 I can not see the banks allowing more than this for all travel per day not least if a card is stolen but not yet reported.

There is a consultation out on increasing it to £100.