Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Fares Advice & Policy' started by swt_passenger, 15 Sep 2014.
Even if there are gates, they are often left open, particularly at evenings/weekends.
And people who are fare dodging have methods of getting past gates without touching in - not sure why that would be different with a CPC or Oyster.
I'm tempted to give this a try if my son wants to go to Hampton Court on Saturday. For some reason, however, I'm slightly wary and may just use the trusty Oyster card.
(As an aside, I've only just realised HC is inside the Oyster system! I've always believed that Surbiton was the boundary on any line. shows what I know...)
Surbiton is, but only on the mainline.
And the New Guildford Line, surely. (By which I mean that the NGL diverts from the main line just after Surbiton at the same point as the Hampton Court branch but is outside the Oyster zones in the same way as the main line.)
Correct. The Guildford and Woking lines both continue away from London whereas the Hampton Court branch ends up at right angles to the main line and is rightly still within zone 6. Even if it wasn't, it would probably have been bought inside in the same way that Epsom Downs, Caterham, Tattenham Corner and Epping have been.
I don't use that branch.
Simple solution. Add gates to the stations and police them for as long as the stations are open. If that's too expensive to it implement vers revenue protected then so be it. There will be a weakness in the defence, which some people might find away of exploiting but not enough to justify the loses.
Neither do I. Not in recent years, anyway!
(I suppose there may have been 455s running last time I was there...)
Obviously it is possible to have totally unmanned gates in operation 24 hours a day, and they exist in cities around the world. But they aren't allowed in the UK, apart from those where you contact staff remotely, and AFAIK they only exist if there are staffed gates elsewhere in the station.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I used contactless for the first time on trains yesterday.
In the morning, I went from Caterham to Surbiton via Clapham Junction. While waiting at Clapham Junction, I checked my online account and the touch in at Caterham was already visible. I also checked it within a few minutes after touching out at Surbiton and that touch out could also already be seen.
In the evening, just after touching in at Surbiton, I checked my online account and it had immediately automatically completed the trip, assuming I was going back to Caterham. It showed:
Surbiton -> Caterham
1727 -> 1727
After touching out at Caterham, the 1727 -> 1727 did change to 1727 -> 1855, but not immediately like on the other touches during the day, but it was within an hour.
So it looks like it will automatically complete your trip on a simple return journey like mine above. This could be useful if you are splitting your journey between contactless and a paper ticket to take you outside of the contactless area. On your way home, you could check whether your journey has been completed automatically and if so, you need not get off to touch out at the station where you switch from contactless to paper.
That assumes that the 'estimated touch out' remains valid once you reach the end of the permitted journey time. Isn't there a chance that they'd invalidate that if they didn't see a real touch out? (I'm not sure why they would but I haven't seen this 'feature' officially documented anywhere so I'd like to see it tested before I decided to rely on it working that way)
That was my thought, too....if somebody fancies testing it out, don't be too surprised if it doesn't work, but do let us know either way!
So is the suggestion that next time in London, I do the contactless thing? I have to make a simple journey to Heathrow via the tube. I nearly topped up my Oyster yesterday, but if I don't have to, I won't.
Are we guessing that this will be working properly, or is it really not something for bumpkins like me to be getting involved in?
I participated in the trial and experienced no problems other than the gates taking slightly longer to open
So it's worth my while just leaving the Oyster at home? Sounds good to me.
Well you could bring it with you and hand it in for a refund of the deposit and/or any credit. You'll need some proof of address (for money laundering reasons).
And with contactless, I too participated in the trial and like Martin had no real issues apart from the touch taking slightly longer.
For pay as you go, I can't see an advantage of using Oyster over contactless. If you make a mistake when touching in, or simply forget to do it, with an Oyster then you risk prosecution. With contactless, you will end up with a maximum fare at worst. And you can check the online account whilst travelling for extra piece of mind. Automatic completion is useful and you can easily fix uncompleted journeys online.
As I don't use Oyster for season tickets, I might as well cash in my Oyster cards. If you lose your Oyster, you lose your deposit. Whereas if you lose your bank card, it just gets replaced for free by your bank.
Oyster is still better for railcard holders or for spending RTVs
I tried a contactless trip out today (Regent's Park, not Hampton Court) and it all worked very smoothly. It's quite reassuring to log into your account while sitting on the train and confirm that the Touch In actually worked. Having said that, if it hadn't registered I'm not sure what I'd have done about it.
The first attempted touch did elicit a 'Try Again' from the Oyster reader at the local SWT station but the second worked and it all ran smoothly after that. No-one tried to check my ticket so I don't know how that would have worked but it's noticeable that most of the signs on the tube lines demand a 'valid ticket' or 'validated Oyster card'. Methinks some new sign writing will be needed sooner or later (particularly if you can now put a Travelcard on Southern's ITSO card.)
(As an aside we had our first go in a 377/6. Rather smart. We followed it up with an ex-508 car of a 455/7. I prefer the 'normal' 455 accommodation...)
Interesting because most signs I've seen all refer to "...a validated Smartcard..."
Jolly good, that's certainly a better form of words. I don't recall the ones I was reading at Camden Town saying that but I haven't made my annual mistake for 2014 yet so maybe this is it?
Most of the ones I've seen have been like the lower sign in this image:
Those were the ones I was looking at (and was technically about to breach) while queuing for the barriers.
It's not anything to do with money laundering. TfL and its subsidiaries are not subject to money laundering regulations. I'm not aware of TfL or its subsidiaries having specified why they require proof of name and address; my own inference is that they are trying to make it difficult for people, particularly infrequent travellers, and visitors, to claim refunds.
I would be very surprised if they are not subject to money laundering regulations, given that nearly everybody else is.
It will become a lot harder to claim refunds of unused credit when ticket offices close, but I'm not sure why it's so difficult now. Most foreign visitors will have proof of their identity already with them, as they'd not be able to get into the UK without it.
Has anyone else been unable to add an AMEX card to their online account, in order to view their journey history?
I can travel successfully using my card but the TfL contactless website doesn't accept it so I can't manage it online, which is frustrating. I've tried adding the card at least 10 times on different days over the last week using the correct details and probably as many times again using slight variations of the details but it never works.
The website tries to authorise a 10p transaction for each attempt, which my bank tell me goes through successfully however the TfL website then declines the transaction and rejects the card:
In a long conversation with TfL they said it's not a known issue. They mostly insisted that I must not be entering the correct card details, but that wouldn't explain why the bank says the transactions are authorised successfully at their side. I also have another card (VISA) that uses exactly the same details except the long card number and check digits, that I was able to add without any issues; it's just the linked AMEX that isn't working with the website. TfL eventually agreed to log my problem, but couldn't promise that a solution will be forthcoming.
I have exactly the same issue with my Visa Debit. The reason seems to be that the TfL website can't cope with my address, which is over two lines (69 Whingey Court, Moaning Road if you're interested). I've tried variations of the address, as some websites seem to transpose the first and second lines, but with no success.
The transactions are showing on my account as pending, and I've used the debit card for contactless bus travel before, so it's not a bankcard issue, but they never go through.
I keep meaning to chase TfL about it, but given I have a paper Z1-6 Travelcard I'm only going to be using contactless once in a blue moon when I have to go to Amersham.
My address is over two lines like that too. The pre-filled details on the form are wrong as it initially tries to put both lines from my TfL profile into the first box and exceeds the maximum length, however my other cards added successfully after correcting my address across two lines.
Given the relatively small values involved, it wouldn't really be a very effective way of laundering money. It could be in case the card is subsequently reported as stolen though - otherwise anyone finding a card could take it into the station and claim £5 + any credit. A bit like we used to do with pop bottles when I was a kid
You are very surprised then.
LUL is not any of the above. It is not subject to the Money Laundering Regulations and any requirement it places on people to produce proof of ID is a matter of its own policy.
(Regulation 4 is a list of exemptions from the regulations and does not add any additional types of business.)
They are unlikely to have documents such as bank statements to prove address however.