Is St Albans being added to Oyster PAYG, as well as Contactless PAYG?

[ace888]

According to news reports, it was announced that in 2019 Oyster would be extended to St Albans. However as of Nov 2023 this still hasn't happened.

Anne Main MP ‘delighted’ with Oyster extension to St Albans

St Albans MP Anne Main was ‘delighted’ at the decision announced today to extend Transport for London’s Oyster card and Contactless system to St Albans.

www.stalbansconservatives.com

St Albans MP Anne Main was ‘delighted’ at the decision announced today to extend Transport for London’s Oyster card and Contactless system to St Albans. The announcement comes after a prolonged campaign by Mrs Main and other MPs who are served by the Thameslink line between Luton Airport Parkway and Central London.

‘I am so pleased the government have finally confirmed the Oyster card network will be extended to St Albans. This has been a long campaign but I am delighted the plan has been confirmed today’, said Mrs Main.

Does anyone whether this is stil planned or why the announced extension didn't take place?

Also, apparently At Albans is among the most expensive if not the most expensive commute to London related to distance (£33 for day travelcard to London at half an hour to Kings Cross, whereas as Sutton in zone 5 is around £13.50 with one hour to Kings Cross). Would an extension address this anomaly in cost? Is anyone aware of any other plans to address this large cost differential or why it is being tolerated?

 

[SargeNpton]

This is all part of "Project Oval", which has been discussed in several previous threads on here. The roll-out is still being worked on.

 

[JonathanH]

This is all part of "Project Oval", which has been discussed in several previous threads on here. The roll-out is still being worked on.

St Albans already has Contactless. I suspect the story of an extension of Oyster was speculative thinking.

Does anyone whether this is stil planned or why the announced extension didn't take place?

Contactless to St Albans was implemented in October 2019. Oyster has technical limitations which prevent it being extended further.

Would an extension address this anomaly in cost?

No.

Is anyone aware of any other plans to address this large cost differential or why it is being tolerated?

It is tolerated because that is what people are willing to pay. There is a lot of demand for travel from St Albans to London, the trains are quick for the distance and there is a high frequency of service.

Comparing the situation with Sutton is somewhat meaningless. The trains are quicker and more frequent from St Albans and it is outside London. A more meaningful comparison would be somewhere else just outside London.

 

[Edvid]

Perhaps the powers that be may have originally committed to extending Oyster along that stretch but weren't quite aware of its limitations at the time.

AIUI, Oyster has capacity for 16 fare zones, used as follows:
* Zone 0 is reserved for the back-office to allow Oyster to function.
* Zones 1-9 are primarily controlled by TfL. Zones 1-6 encompass all Greater London stations, including Sutton.
* Zones 10-14 (not labelled as such on TfL's Rail and Tube map) are controlled by particular TOCs. Unlike Zones 1-9, they are not contiguous with each other and cover specific corridors/stations only. They are used to store fares more commercially acceptable to said TOCs and the DfT.
* Zone 15 is unused. It was originally reserved for Elizabeth line stations west of West Drayton, but - correct me if I'm wrong - it seems there were irreconcilable commercial differences over what zones would be most appropriate where (and even if, say, you put Reading in Zone 15 by itself, agreement on how Iver-Twyford is allocated is still a must). In retrospect, not a surprise given that stretch is 22 miles long.

 

[swt_passenger]

Perhaps the powers that be may have originally committed to extending Oyster along that stretch but weren't quite aware of its limitations at the time.

AIUI, Oyster has capacity for 16 fare zones, used as follows:
* Zone 0 is reserved for the back-office to allow Oyster to function.
* Zones 1-9 are primarily controlled by TfL. Zones 1-6 encompass all Greater London stations, including Sutton.
* Zones 10-14 (not labelled as such on TfL's Rail and Tube map) are controlled by particular TOCs. Unlike Zones 1-9, they are not contiguous with each other and cover specific corridors/stations only. They are used to store fares more commercially acceptable to said TOCs and the DfT.
* Zone 15 is unused. It was originally reserved for Elizabeth line stations west of West Drayton, but - correct me if I'm wrong - it seems there were irreconcilable commercial differences over what zones would be most appropriate where (and even if, say, you put Reading in Zone 15 by itself, agreement on how Iver-Twyford is allocated is still a must). In retrospect, not a surprise given that stretch is 22 miles long.

Even if “Oyster” were always well aware of its limitations, you can be fairly sure a typical MP wouldn’t have understood it…

 

[Bletchleyite]

Isn't the intention to move Oyster onto the contactless platform, which would mean the cards were effectively just used as basic RFID cards and all the processing move to the back end, at which point Oyster will be accepted on all contactless routes?

 

[Richardr]

According to news reports, it was announced that in 2019 Oyster would be extended to St Albans. However as of Nov 2023 this still hasn't happened.

Anne Main MP ‘delighted’ with Oyster extension to St Albans

St Albans MP Anne Main was ‘delighted’ at the decision announced today to extend Transport for London’s Oyster card and Contactless system to St Albans.

www.stalbansconservatives.com

Does anyone whether this is stil planned or why the announced extension didn't take place?

Also, apparently At Albans is among the most expensive if not the most expensive commute to London related to distance (£33 for day travelcard to London at half an hour to Kings Cross, whereas as Sutton in zone 5 is around £13.50 with one hour to Kings Cross). Would an extension address this anomaly in cost? Is anyone aware of any other plans to address this large cost differential or why it is being tolerated?

Are you comparing like with like - adding a travelcard to the St Albans ticket, but not to the Sutton ticket?

 

[jackdoyle]

St Albans Abbey is due to have it by the end of the year, think I heard it will coincide with the December timetable changes.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/53-train-stations-to-benefit-from-tap-in-tap-out-rollout

 

[swt_passenger]

St Albans Abbey is due to have it by the end of the year, think I heard it will coincide with the December timetable changes.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/53-train-stations-to-benefit-from-tap-in-tap-out-rollout

It’s not starting until well into next year according to the main project Oval discussion thread. The single fares are being introduced in advance.

 

[Edvid]

This thread's a little at cross-purposes - the OP was referring to the Oyster system, whereas the contactless PAYG system (& Project Oval - Phase 1 delayed to essentially June 2024) are a different matter.

Isn't the intention to move Oyster onto the contactless platform, which would mean the cards were effectively just used as basic RFID cards and all the processing move to the back end, at which point Oyster will be accepted on all contactless routes?

Yes, that's my understanding too; not for a few years though, even assuming the Proteus Contract (contract award August 2024; to be fully implemented after the existing Revenue Collection Contract expires after July 2026) isn't delayed like the barcode reader installation at LU-NR interchange gatelines / Project Oval etc.

 

[JonathanH]

This thread's a little at cross-purposes - the OP was referring to the Oyster system, whereas the contactless PAYG system (& Project Oval - Phase 1 delayed to essentially June 2024) are a different matter.

Yes, and even more at cross purposes, St Albans City is already in the Contactless area and has been since October 2019. It is only loosely affected by Project Oval to the extent that fares from St Albans City to Project Oval Phase 1 stations will be amended.

St Albans Abbey is due to have it by the end of the year, think I heard it will coincide with the December timetable changes.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/53-train-stations-to-benefit-from-tap-in-tap-out-rollout

Neither station in St Albans is getting Oyster though.

 

[Haywain]

It is only loosely affected by Project Oval to the extent that fares from St Albans City to Project Oval Phase 1 stations will be amended.

If those fares are being amended, it is not happening in December alongside the Phase 1 stations.

 

[JonathanH]

If those fares are being amended, it is not happening in December alongside the Phase 1 stations.

St Albans City to Sevenoaks or Laindon would suggest it is. Depends who prices the journeys I think. Fares from, for example, St Albans City to Orpington or Redhill don't change.

 

[Haywain]

St Albans City to Sevenoaks would suggest it is. Depends who prices the journeys I think. Fares from, for example, St Albans City to Orpington wouldn't change.

Whilst it might sound picky, that is a Sevenoaks fare (set by Southeastern) being amended, rather than a St Albans City fare, by virtue of Sevenoaks being a Phase 1 station. There is no general change to fares from St Albans City because it is already in the contactless area. It appears those being added under Phase 1 have become subject to a new 'rule' about what the fares structure should look like, and any changes to St Albans City and its neighbouring MML stations may appear at some later stage or with Phase 2.

 

[JonathanH]

Whilst it might sound picky, that is a Sevenoaks fare (set by Southeastern) being amended, rather than a St Albans City fare, by virtue of Sevenoaks being a Phase 1 station.

Yes, but that was the point I was originally making. Fares from St Albans City are changing to the extent they involve the 53 Phase 1 stations, but not to any other destination. My words were "loosely affected".

There is no general change to fares from St Albans City because it is already in the contactless area.

Yes, I agree.

It appears those being added under Phase 1 have become subject to a new 'rule' about what the fares structure should look like, and any changes to St Albans City and its neighbouring MML stations may appear at some later stage or with Phase 2.

Yes, I agree.

 

[Haywain]

Yes, but that was the point I was originally making.

Apologies for misunderstanding.

 

[spag23]

Having commuted into London from St Albans for over forty years, I can cast some light on the history of this line's fare philosophy.
Last century (in the Network South East days?) the setter of the fares one year noticed that SAC had a better service into London than from many other stations. So they increased the fares disproportionately. The following year they again noticed the service was (still) better than on other lines. So they applied yet another inflation-busting increase; neglecting of course that they'd already incorporated this "one-off" premium into the previous year's fares.
This, compounded up over several years, has resulted in the current eye-watering charges on this line. I've heard that it's the only route that turns a profit, with these Hertfordshire commuters effectively subsidising the rest of the country.
Just before I retired, it transpired that my SAC > Shepherds Bush season ticket cost ten times a colleagues', between Norwood and Shepherds Bush. OK, his was half the distance, but the same trip duration.
I can't see the operators bringing SAC's pricing into line with the national average; whether via contactless or otherwise.