How Oyster can charge via Zone 1 even if you dont go anyway near there

[jumble]

Rayners lane to Archway charged at £3.10 should be £1.50
I wanted to take Thameslink but trains were canceled after I touched in so reverted to overground
All the West Hampsteads are 20 minute OSI
It is not obvious to me which bit of the journey was wrongly priced via Z1
TFL as usual cheerfully refunded the overpaymant

09:40 - 10:43 Rayners Lane to Archway £3.10 £21.85
10:43 Touch out, Archway +£2.50 £21.85
10:34 Touch in, Kentish Town £2.50 £19.35
10:26 Touch out, Kentish Town West +£2.50 £21.85
10:13 Touch in, West Hampstead [London Overground] £2.50 £19.35
10:11 Touch out, West Hampstead Thameslink [National Rail] +£2.50 £21.85
10:08 Touch in, West Hampstead Thameslink [National Rail] £4.10 £19.35
10:04 Touch out, West Hampstead [London Underground] +£4.10 £23.45
09:40 Touch in, Rayners Lane £5.60 £19.35

 

[Bletchleyite]

Because a zonal fares system doesn't suit touch-in touch-out smartcards, basically. They have to guess which way you went, as they have no way to know unless you touched at an interchange validator.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. In this case, I think the issue is that you entered and exited West Hampstead Thameslink as well as West Hampstead. LT Fares shows that the 'avoiding Zone 1' fare is only charged when you do an OSI (change) at West Hampstead Thameslink or West Hampstead, as well as Kentish Town. For any other combination of touches and changes, it will charge the default 'via Zone 1' fare.

At least TfL understand what the problem is if you contact them, and fix it quickly and without quibble. Imagine someone like Northern or GTR... they would probably say "you have been charged the correct fare for travelling via Zone 1" (if they even understood that that was the fare you'd been charged)

 

[jumble]

I get what you are saying
I did touch in or out at all interchanges so it knows precisley where i went
It does not need to guess anything as each individual bit of the journey could not possibly be priced as zone 1 as far as I can see
( I make this journey often with the exception of the Thameslink touch in and out where I did not travel at all in the 3 minutes I was there) it always prices at £1.50 )

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I get what you are saying
I did touch in or out at all interchanges so it knows precisley where i went
It does not need to guess anything as each individual bit of the journey could not possibly be priced as zone 1 as far as I can see
( I make this journey often with the exception of the Thameslink touch in and out where I did not travel at all in the 3 minutes I was there) it always prices at £1.50 )

I agree - a person supervising the system would clearly charge the avoiding Zone 1 fare, but the system can only be programmed to handle so many possibilities. I don't think it's reasonable to expect them to deal with, and ignore, touching in and out at West Hampstead Thameslink. You'd have to have options for "changing at West Hampstead and West Hampstead Thameslink and Kentish Town", and every other possible combination. For the few number of times it happens, it's just not worth it!

 

[PeterC]

You could fix all this but at a cost of a delay of a second or so for every passenger through the gates. You might see a few more stations closed due to crowding issues of course.

 

[Clip]

Because a zonal fares system doesn't suit touch-in touch-out smartcards, basically. They have to guess which way you went, as they have no way to know unless you touched at an interchange validator.

Well it does and has done for many years now so I have no idea how you have come to that conclusion - and this is also why they have pink readers to let the system know you have gone a certain way - as ForTheLoveOf has correctly pointed out the OP has gone into Wet Hampstead and then left some time later which is why it has been charged as it has done - thats how it works. A quick call and im sure it will be all sorted

 

[MikeWh]

There are some interesting replies to this question, and then ...

Because a zonal fares system doesn't suit touch-in touch-out smartcards, basically. They have to guess which way you went, as they have no way to know unless you touched at an interchange validator.

What a complete load of wibble!

Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. In this case, I think the issue is that you entered and exited West Hampstead Thameslink as well as West Hampstead. LT Fares shows that the 'avoiding Zone 1' fare is only charged when you do an OSI (change) at West Hampstead Thameslink or West Hampstead, as well as Kentish Town. For any other combination of touches and changes, it will charge the default 'via Zone 1' fare.

This is nearly right. The "/" betweeen West Hampstead and West Hampstead Thameslink actually indicates that you have to walk between the two stations. An either/or scenario is listed in brackets as with the route via either Camden or Kentish Town.

You could fix all this but at a cost of a delay of a second or so for every passenger through the gates. You might see a few more stations closed due to crowding issues of course.

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about here.

Well it does and has done for many years now so I have no idea how you have come to that conclusion - and this is also why they have pink readers to let the system know you have gone a certain way - as ForTheLoveOf has correctly pointed out the OP has gone into Wet Hampstead and then left some time later which is why it has been charged as it has done - thats how it works. A quick call and im sure it will be all sorted

Again, getting close, but the full explanation follows:

There are two things you need to know about multi-leg journeys on Oyster. The first is that a same-station exit when in the middle of an OSI does not work in the same way as it would at the start of a journey. When you touch in after the OSI your journey is extended. When you next touch out your journey is charged as if it might be ending at that point. The second thing is that once a charge has been made it will never be reduced, even if the new end point would suggest a cheaper fare.

So, when you touched out at West Hampstead you were charged £1.50. When you touched out at West Hampstead Thameslink the system looked at what fare should be charged for Rayners Lane to West Hampstead Thameslink. This is not defined in the fare finder because it is deemed a nonsensical journey, however the system still calculates a fare. It surmises that you've probably gone via Farringdon so it charges the zone 1-5 TfL-LU fare. When you eventually get to Archway it may want to charge the correct zone 2-5 fare but it can't. The proof would be to make the journey using contactless because that charges at the end of the day and isn't restricted by the intermediate charge issue.

 

[bb21]

I don't think it has anything to do with the fact that there was a touch at both West Hampstead and Thameslink. The condition of an interchange is satisfied. These interchange requirements are not "exclusive ors" in logic terms.

My educated guess is that the touch-out at West Hampstead Thameslink broke it. While the Single Fare Finder returned no results for Rayners Lane to West Hampstead Thameslink, TfL usually have a hidden algorithm that still returned a fare for unorthodox journeys. In your case the system calculated a fare via Zone 1, and from that point onwards you are not refunded any difference by the system if your fare ended up below that level. Oyster PAYG do not do refunds from intermediate fares charged.

Edit:

Ooh, Mike. Just got in there before me.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What a complete load of wibble!

Not at all. The horrendous complexity of all the replies proves my point (and the huge amount of manual intervention required to regularise inconsistencies in it). A zonal fares system is designed to make travel using paper tickets simple - it's easy for a person to understand it in order to select their ticket, and easy for an RPI accosting a passenger at any point during their journey to ascertain if they are within their validity or not.

If you designed a system for smartcards/contactless, it'd be more like the Dutch one, which is based on a fixed "starting fee" to touch in then a kilometric fee for that mode. If you touch out then back in within a defined period of touching out (it doesn't matter why, or if it's an OSI, or any of that hideous complexity) you don't pay the "starting fee" again. Dead simple, and designed specifically for smartcard use.

 

[MikeWh]

Not at all. The horrendous complexity of all the replies proves my point (and the huge amount of manual intervention required to regularise inconsistencies in it).

It doesn't prove your point at all. It is as much down to people trying to explain a situation that they don't themselves understand. There will always be unusual situations that can't easily be handled by systems, and leaving a station without travelling is one such situation.

A zonal fares system is designed to make travel using paper tickets simple - it's easy for a person to understand it in order to select their ticket, and easy for an RPI accosting a passenger at any point during their journey to ascertain if they are within their validity or not.

I agree, though the number of people who can't grasp the need to pay for intermediate zones suggests that it isn't necessarily easy to understand.

If you designed a system for smartcards/contactless, it'd be more like the Dutch one, which is based on a fixed "starting fee" to touch in then a kilometric fee for that mode. If you touch out then back in within a defined period of touching out (it doesn't matter why, or if it's an OSI, or any of that hideous complexity) you don't pay the "starting fee" again. Dead simple, and designed specifically for smartcard use.

I'm sure it's good in the Dutch system where IIRC paper tickets aren't available. I don't see it working here where there are numerous cases of different routes where the smartcard can't tell which one has been used.

 

[Surreytraveller]

A few years ago, my child was charged for travelling from New Cross Gate to Greenwich (before 5-10 Zips were free on National Rail), because the system assumed we went via London Bridge on National Rail, even though we went via Canada Water, touching the pink reader there, changing at Canary Wharf onto the DLR. So even though they provide ways of proving which way you go, the system is incapable of getting it right all the time.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It doesn't prove your point at all. It is as much down to people trying to explain a situation that they don't themselves understand. There will always be unusual situations that can't easily be handled by systems, and leaving a station without travelling is one such situation.

Logically that would just result in no charge. I believe it was mentioned upthread that Oyster can't refund automatically once debited, though. Perhaps the new "backoffice based" replacement will be able to solve that one?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm sure it's good in the Dutch system where IIRC paper tickets aren't available. I don't see it working here where there are numerous cases of different routes where the smartcard can't tell which one has been used.

Unless it's a "touch in and out on the vehicle" type system, or a touch was required between lines on the Tube, a smartcard system simply does not support such a concept, and thus the fares system is best designed without one.

As I said, the complexity comes from trying to implement smartcard/contactless payment on a fares system that was not designed for that.

 

[MikeWh]

A few years ago, my child was charged for travelling from New Cross Gate to Greenwich (before 5-10 Zips were free on National Rail), because the system assumed we went via London Bridge on National Rail, even though we went via Canada Water, touching the pink reader there, changing at Canary Wharf onto the DLR. So even though they provide ways of proving which way you go, the system is incapable of getting it right all the time.

It's difficult to tell what was available a few years ago, but it's quite possible that the routes hadn't been set up properly. It's now the default route via Canada Water and Canary Wharf. In fact, you'll get charged the zone 2 TfL-LU fare even if you go via London Bridge using SN and SE.

 

[MikeWh]

Logically that would just result in no charge. I believe it was mentioned upthread that Oyster can't refund automatically once debited, though. Perhaps the new "backoffice based" replacement will be able to solve that one?

Indeed the back office system does solve that issue.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Indeed the back office system does solve that issue.

Do we have any information as to when the back office system will be introduced on Oyster to fix such issues?

 

[MikeWh]

Do we have any information as to when the back office system will be introduced on Oyster to fix such issues?

Not at the moment.

 

[PeterC]

Do we have any information as to when the back office system will be introduced on Oyster to fix such issues?

That would require withdrawal of the first generation cards. To do that arbitrarily would get a lot of bad press when many are forced to replace their cards. No mayor is going to put votes on the line like that.

TfL will need to find a carrot to entice people to upgrade first. At the moment I don't see any point in changing my card.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That would require withdrawal of the first generation cards. To do that arbitrarily would get a lot of bad press when many are forced to replace their cards. No mayor is going to put votes on the line like that.

TfL will need to find a carrot to entice people to upgrade first. At the moment I don't see any point in changing my card.

The first generation cards will need to be withdrawn. All they need to do is offer a free exchange and then specify a shut-down date for the old cards.

They will probably now be regretting not putting an expiry date on them.

 

[higthomas]

That would require withdrawal of the first generation cards. To do that arbitrarily would get a lot of bad press when many are forced to replace their cards. No mayor is going to put votes on the line like that.

TfL will need to find a carrot to entice people to upgrade first. At the moment I don't see any point in changing my card.

I'd have thought that things like weekly capping, and better multi-zone support (as available on contactless) would be the carrot. Could they be made available on second generation cards though, or would it require a third generation?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd have thought that things like weekly capping, and better multi-zone support (as available on contactless) would be the carrot. Could they be made available on second generation cards though, or would it require a third generation?

As I understand it, the new cards will basically be simple RFID cards which will, like contactless, simply communicate an account number to the reader, and all the reconciliation will be done in the back-office. This means that there shouldn't need to be a new generation of cards to add functionality of any kind - the only reason to replace them would then be a serious security breach.

 

[swt_passenger]

Card replacement can be done fairly painlessly using the website, and they post it out to you. Haven’t the cards been a “new type” and ok for future capping changes for a few years now? Is there anything on the Card that tells you the difference?

 

[higthomas]

Card replacement can be done fairly painlessly using the website, and they post it out to you. Haven’t the cards been a “new type” and ok for future capping changes for a few years now? Is there anything on the Card that tells you the difference?

There's a D on the back of new ones. (https://tfl.gov.uk/fares/how-to-pay...contactless-app/first-generation-oyster-cards)

As I understand it, the new cards will basically be simple RFID cards which will, like contactless, simply communicate an account number to the reader, and all the reconciliation will be done in the back-office. This means that there shouldn't need to be a new generation of cards to add functionality of any kind - the only reason to replace them would then be a serious security breach.

The new cards as in 2nd gen that are already around, or the 3rd gen future card. Because yeah, I'd have expected that from the 3rd gen, entirely back office. I know my 2nd gen card does store info on and doesn't work like a contactless card.

 

[plcd1]

That would require withdrawal of the first generation cards. To do that arbitrarily would get a lot of bad press when many are forced to replace their cards. No mayor is going to put votes on the line like that.

TfL will need to find a carrot to entice people to upgrade first. At the moment I don't see any point in changing my card.

I was looking at a new set of TfL Committee papers last night. It includes the annual authority update request for the Technology and Data part of TfL. That covers what is now called "Payments" (i.e. the ticketing system). There is a summary page showing what is in scope for the authority plus milestones. My reading of the new authority is that the previous plan to "force" (my word) people to swap 1st gen cards has been "descoped" with residual risk to be managed by TfL. I assume this is due to cost concerns.

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/pic-20190306-agenda-and-documents-public.pdf

It's a very big document as TfL merge all papers into one large pdf. Look at page 169 of the pdf.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is it possible to effectively convert 1st generation cards to new ones in software, i.e. keep the card as it is, but change what the gateline asks of it so it simply just requests a serial number and treats it as if it was a new generation one, with the balance etc on the card being ignored?

 

[jumble]

I don't think it has anything to do with the fact that there was a touch at both West Hampstead and Thameslink. The condition of an interchange is satisfied. These interchange requirements are not "exclusive ors" in logic terms.

My educated guess is that the touch-out at West Hampstead Thameslink broke it. While the Single Fare Finder returned no results for Rayners Lane to West Hampstead Thameslink, TfL usually have a hidden algorithm that still returned a fare for unorthodox journeys. In your case the system calculated a fare via Zone 1, and from that point onwards you are not refunded any difference by the system if your fare ended up below that level. Oyster PAYG do not do refunds from intermediate fares charged.

Edit:

Ooh, Mike. Just got in there before me.

Thanks Gents
I am sure you are correct as this is the only possible explanation that makes sense
As you both say when touching in at Thameslink it assumed I went via Farringdon even though the time was only a few minutes
I did not know contactless would make a difference and perhaps I will try next time

Every Day is a School Day

 

[317 forever]

I don't think it has anything to do with the fact that there was a touch at both West Hampstead and Thameslink. The condition of an interchange is satisfied. These interchange requirements are not "exclusive ors" in logic terms.

My educated guess is that the touch-out at West Hampstead Thameslink broke it. While the Single Fare Finder returned no results for Rayners Lane to West Hampstead Thameslink, TfL usually have a hidden algorithm that still returned a fare for unorthodox journeys. In your case the system calculated a fare via Zone 1, and from that point onwards you are not refunded any difference by the system if your fare ended up below that level. Oyster PAYG do not do refunds from intermediate fares charged.

Edit:

Ooh, Mike. Just got in there before me.

I think the fact that you accidentally touched in and out of West Hampstead Thameslink threw the system. As you were only on the station for 3 minutes you could not have caught a train anywhere and back. This is a sophistication clearly lacking so far.

 

[MikeWh]

I think the fact that you accidentally touched in and out of West Hampstead Thameslink threw the system. As you were only on the station for 3 minutes you could not have caught a train anywhere and back. This is a sophistication clearly lacking so far.

It has nothing to do with the time spent on the station. When the touch out happened the journey became Rayners Lane to West Hampstead Thameslink and it was charged appropriately. The full explanation is in post 8.