Project Proteus: New features in TfL revenue collection tender

[JaJaWa]

I found some of the new features mentioned in the latest TfL revenue collection tender interesting:

During the life of the Proteus Contract, we anticipate that there will be a number of changes, the key planned changes expected to be delivered during the Proteus Contract term include:

• Hina Rail Reader Rollout: The Hina Rail Readers will be manufactured, tested and be readily available for the Proteus Contractor to implement onto the rail estate;

• Payment Account Reference (PAR): This is a unique identifier associated with a specific cardholder PAN and this change will follow-on from the Hina reader deployment and will involve the Proteus Contractor. This change will allow us to link mobile devices with the payment card, allowing the interchangeable use of payment devices;

• Account Based Ticketing / FTP5: This is our programme that will make Oyster an account-based system. Initially this is likely to be a proof of concept involving design and back-office development work which we will lead on. Once the Proteus Contractor is in place, we will engage with developing the wider proposition to develop the system wide solution. This change will involve significant upgrade to our retail assets, changes to the reader to support the new risk management models, changes to the RID software as well as decommissioning the legacy Oyster system;

• Revenue Inspection Device (RID) Replacement and Enhancement: This is the replacement of the current handheld device for revenue inspection. It is expected to be a broadly like for like device upgrade to the android platform device. We expect the next device may need to additionally include the ability to check barcode tickets;

• Cobalt: TfL are currently running a procurement to replace iBus, the on bus Automatic Vehicle Location system that is used for service control and driver communications, and which is the source of live bus arrivals data. This is expected to result in the replacement iBus2 system. Part of the scope of iBus2 is a driver console which will replace the bus Electronic Ticket Machine (ETM) now that paper tickets are no longer issued. To be ready for this, we are developing Project Cobalt, which will prepare the revenue collection system to support iBus2. The Cobalt project has several stages and will run in parallel to the Proteus Contract transition in line with the iBus2 delivery:
o Firstly, Cobalt will decouple the reader from the ETM, allowing the reader to be entirely independent;
o Secondly, it will create the interface between the bus reader and the iBus2 system; and
o Finally, once iBus2 has been delivered, the ETMs will be removed from buses during the iBus2 deployment, will be decommissioned, along with the bus garage equipment that supports the ETMs and the data flows to them.
It is expected that the Proteus Contractor will be responsible for the decommissioning work for both the ETMs and the bus garage equipment; and

• Front-office and Back-office refresh: The front-office and back-office will require performance assurance activities throughout the term of the contract and these changes will be driven by the Proteus Contractor's performance assurance plans.

We are in on-going discussions with the Department for Transport around the scope and timing of the delivery of Project Oval, which seeks to extend contactless PAYG to stations in the broader south-east of England around London. To the extent this is delivered prior to contract award, the relevant assets deployed will form part of the System and the revenue collection services.

The Proteus Contract will enable potential future revenue collection services (and the provision of associated systems and ancillary services), including, but not limited to, in relation to the following: supporting the DfT National Ticketing strategy/aspirations, Heathrow Express services, new emerging forms of mobility including micro-mobility, mobility as a service, new ticketing and fare payment solutions, and commercial utilisation of revenue collection data.

Source: https://www.find-tender.service.gov.uk/Notice/032186-2022

See also: Project Oval: TfL win DfT contract to expand contactless system to 233 rail stations by May 2024, Railcards coming to contactless payment cards

 

[Paul Kelly]

This new contract for supplying and managing all ticket sales, gateline and inspection hardware is supposed to take effect from 2026.

Interesting that it mentions magnetic stripe tickets without any hint that support for them could be discontinued. Maybe the onus is on the supplier to say it will be too expensive to continue to support the legacy hardware.

Project Oval sounds more uncertain than I had assumed. I guess the onus will be on the new supplier to take over here.

In general, I presume TfL has been forced into out-sourcing these key services by the government for ideological reasons? Or has it been in the pipeline since before coronavirus? Does anyone know?

 

[akm]

In general, I presume TfL has been forced into out-sourcing these key services by the government for ideological reasons? Or has it been in the pipeline since before coronavirus? Does anyone know?

All these things (well, except the new ones) are already out-sourced (to Cubic Transportation Systems). This is the periodic re-tender, the last one was somewhere between 5-10 years ago. It coms round every so often; the 'ideology' is simply the usual requiring public bodies to get best-value for services. It's not new.

 

[matt_world2004]

Surprised a successor to the oyster card is not part of the tender unless the account based ticketing for an oyster card would allow it to have more zones

 

[Bletchleyite]

Surprised a successor to the oyster card is not part of the tender unless the account based ticketing for an oyster card would allow it to have more zones

Account based ticketing IS "son of Oyster". It might be that they do it without replacing the cards (but with what's physically written to them becoming inconsequential), or it might be that they replace them. New ones will be cheaper and have lesser functionality, basically just being like a debit card.

 

[Snow1964]

Account based ticketing IS "son of Oyster". It might be that they do it without replacing the cards (but with what's physically written to them becoming inconsequential), or it might be that they replace them. New ones will be cheaper and have lesser functionality, basically just being like a debit card.

The problem is TfL marketed oyster about a decade ago as a long term ticketing system where your balance would be retained and usable forever.

As a result there are hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of Oyster cards held by people who only visit London every few years and would expect them to still work. I have an old oyster leaflet that basically says this (leaflet was given out with mine about 15 years ago).

TfL has no idea where the cards are, so unless there is some sort of free exchange place at every entry point to the system, they have rather stuck themselves with oyster acceptance.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The problem is TfL marketed oyster about a decade ago as a long term ticketing system where your balance would be retained and usable forever.

As a result there are hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of Oyster cards held by people who only visit London every few years and would expect them to still work. I have an old oyster leaflet that basically says this (leaflet was given out with mine about 15 years ago).

TfL has no idea where the cards are, so unless there is some sort of free exchange place at every entry point to the system, they have rather stuck themselves with oyster acceptance.

This was a very, very stupid move, of course. I wonder if some sort of primary legislation could be brought to allow balances of long-unused cards to be wiped and donated to charity, say? TfL really should have said "5 years from the last time the card was used in any form" for example, even logging onto the account online to check the balance could have been enough to restart the clock.

There's a reason gift cards have expiry dates. It's not to screw people over who forget, it's because otherwise you end up with permanent liabilities on your corporate balance sheet which can't be deleted but will never be called in because e.g. it's been lost or forgotten about.

Even if you didn't do that, though, I don't think there would need to be a free exchange at every point of entry. The ability to send a card by post to TfL to be cashed out (i.e. transferred to a bank account of your choice) would be entirely sufficient.

 

[Joe Paxton]

This was a very, very stupid move, of course. [...]

I don't think there's any 'of course' about it, because I don't really think it was.

I don't think there's any real issue about continuing to support older generation Oyster cards that are out in the wild, as and when a new card is introduced. (First-generation Oyster cards have their limitations of course.)

 

[jfollows]

TfL held £400 million of unused balance on Oyster in 2019 ( #37 ), I wonder how much this is today?

The BBC today (11 November 2019) (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-50304437) posts that TFl holds >£399 million (to all intents, £400 million) of customers' cash, of which just over half (£202.8 million) is accounted for by the £5 deposit and the remaining amount (£196 million) of unused pay-as-you-go balances. The average unused balance is £3.46, hence probably why most people don't claim their refund. However 784 cards have not been used for more than a year with a balance of £90, which is apparently the maximum balance that can be held on an Oyster card.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't think there's any 'of course' about it, because I don't really think it was.

I don't think there's any real issue about continuing to support older generation Oyster cards that are out in the wild, as and when a new card is introduced. (First-generation Oyster cards have their limitations of course.)

It is totally contrary to good business accounting principles to have indefinite liabilities. Even if a very long expiry was used e.g. 10 years, there should have been one.

A cynic might say that's because TfL has been insulated from the realities of business and remains so to this day.

 

[hkstudent]

It is totally contrary to good business accounting principles to have indefinite liabilities. Even if a very long expiry was used e.g. 10 years, there should have been one.

A cynic might say that's because TfL has been insulated from the realities of business and remains so to this day.

In another way to say, this was to reassure all travellers that buying oystercard to travel is the best way instead of buying paper tickets.
If without no expiry guarantee, people will keep on refunding oystercard once leaving the UK or keep on using paper tickets instead, which are contrary to TfL's ambition

 

[Bletchleyite]

What's wrong with refunding on leaving if you're not coming back soon?

 

[hkstudent]

What's wrong with refunding on leaving if you're not coming back soon?

It's causing a lot of wastage of oystercard stock. Once they are refunded, they can no longer be able to be reactivated

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's causing a lot of wastage of oystercard stock. Once they are refunded, they can no longer be able to be reactivated

That's a design flaw too, then.

 

[Ianigsy]

It is totally contrary to good business accounting principles to have indefinite liabilities. Even if a very long expiry was used e.g. 10 years, there should have been one.

A cynic might say that's because TfL has been insulated from the realities of business and remains so to this day.

And yet that’s what public sector bodies expect their contractors to provide - part of my day job involves performance bonds and local author and utilities rarely if ever agree to having a finite term.

In the meantime, it’s a nice interest-free loan for TfL, who can be reasonably sure that all those millions aren’t going to be used straight away- and the purchasing power of the money saved on the cards is declining year on year. I probably have a balance on mine from before I had a contactless card- the nuisance is that you have to top it up to be able to use some of these piddling amounts at all!

 

[Feuillesmortes]

What's wrong with refunding on leaving if you're not coming back soon?

I think you have to wait 12 months after purchase date to be able to do that

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Nov 2022 ==

It is totally contrary to good business accounting principles to have indefinite liabilities. Even if a very long expiry was used e.g. 10 years, there should have been one.

A cynic might say that's because TfL has been insulated from the realities of business and remains so to this day.

Apple gift cards also have no expiry date!

 

[Starmill]

There's a reason gift cards have expiry dates. It's not to screw people over who forget, it's because otherwise you end up with permanent liabilities on your corporate balance sheet which can't be deleted but will never be called in because e.g. it's been lost or forgotten about.

See also: Royal Mail's withdrawal of all old stamps.

However, not that I'm defending RM on the short timescale for the final use of the outmoded stamps or the inconvenience of the process of refunds (or rather exchanges), as a business that has been in existence for rather longer than TfL, they can more readily be forgiven for not implementing an expiry date on stamps!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Nov 2022 ==

It is totally contrary to good business accounting principles to have indefinite liabilities. Even if a very long expiry was used e.g. 10 years, there should have been one.

A cynic might say that's because TfL has been insulated from the realities of business and remains so to this day.

Although, if you flip it around, a balance on an Oyster card isn't a liability so much as a deposit. Reserves don't need to be maintained against gift cards because they cannot be exchanged for cash. TfL is required to maintain the balance of Oyster cards in cash, in case someone turns up 15 years after their last contact with TfL and asks for a refund.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Nov 2022 ==

A cynic might say that's because TfL has been insulated from the realities of business and remains so to this day.

A realist would likely reply that, around the world, state transport authorities in large cities do not run their services with any meaningful exposure to "the realities of business", because it makes for very poor transport outcomes to try to do so!

 

[MikeWh]

TfL held £400 million of unused balance on Oyster in 2019 ( #37 ), I wonder how much this is today?

TfL answered a related FOI request yesterday. As at the end of September 2022 there are 55.6m cards which haven't been used for more than 5 years and those cards contain £167.6m.

It's causing a lot of wastage of oystercard stock. Once they are refunded, they can no longer be able to be reactivated

That's a design flaw too, then.

Yes and no. They used to be re-used but I think there were data protection issues with any data still available from the previous use.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes and no. They used to be re-used but I think there were data protection issues with any data still available from the previous use.

Again a design flaw, then. If the card can't be completely wiped then that's a flaw in itself.

 

[jfollows]

TfL answered a related FOI request yesterday. As at the end of September 2022 there are 55.6m cards which haven't been used for more than 5 years and those cards contain £167.6m.

Thank you for that.
https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transp.../foi-request-detail?referenceId=FOI-1729-2223 for reference.
In September 2022, £262m balance on 82 million Oyster cards not used for more than 12 months, average balance £3.20, £259m deposits on Oyster cards not used for more than 12 months.
Compare with all valid Oyster cards: £325m balance on 93 million cards, average balance £3.49, £281m deposits.
I extrapolate: £63m balance on 11 million Oyster cards used in the last 12 months, £22m deposits.
This information updated and regularly published at https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publications-and-reports/oyster-card#on-this-page-1

 

[JaJaWa]

Can TfL actually use the money stored on the cards (like a loan)? If not it's rather ridiculous and they should start eliminating the issue as plenty of the cards will have simply been lost, so they will never see the money again. Hong Kong had this problem and came up with a solution in October 2017 – if you don't use the card at all for 3 years, it will deduct £1.50 from the balance. If you continue not to use the card, it will deduct £1.50 a year. The low amounts make this pretty fair.

We also had the issue of cards needing to be replaced when they moved to a newer system (as will likely need to happen in London). Again, they came up with a pretty neat solution, with machines in stations where you can insert the old Octopus and receive a new one:

From mid-June 2020 onwards, Octopus has been replacing On-Loan Octopus issued from 2002 onwards, in batches. On-Loan Octopus in each batch receive a special prompt – a “Dood~Dood Dood” sound when tapped on Octopus readers. This prompt remains in effect for at least three months, serving as a final call to remind customers that their On-Loan Octopus needs to be replaced. To continue using Octopus services and avoid paying the Overdue Replacement Administrative Fee, customers should replace their On-Loan Octopus at an Octopus Service Point before the card becomes invalid.

Source: https://www.octopus.com.hk/en/consumer/card-replacement/about/index.html

 

[Bletchleyite]

Can TfL actually use the money stored on the cards (like a loan)? If not it's rather ridiculous and they should start eliminating the issue as plenty of the cards will have simply been lost, so they will never see the money again. Hong Kong had this problem and came up with a solution in October 2017 – if you don't use the card at all for 3 years, it will deduct £1.50 from the balance. If you continue not to use the card, it will deduct £1.50 a year. The low amounts make this pretty fair.

If you've committed to indefinite validity, you can't just change that and take the money. That's the problem - they should never have committed to it.

 

[JaJaWa]

If you've committed to indefinite validity, you can't just change that and take the money. That's the problem - they should never have committed to it.

In Hong Kong, they just changed the cards terms & conditions to specify what would happen, giving enough notice for you to return the card if you didn't agree to the new terms & conditions. Most aspects of Hong Kong law remain the same as English law so I presume this would also be acceptable. Looking at the back of an Oyster card, there is also a URL to view the current T&C.

 

[island]

There's nothing to stop them using the money as working capital, they just have to undertake to give it back if it's claimed.

I'm not competent to say whether they could (or even should) attempt to change the conditions of existing cards this way, but there's certainly capacity to do so for cards issued from X day onward.

 

[jon81uk]

If you've committed to indefinite validity, you can't just change that and take the money. That's the problem - they should never have committed to it.

With enough notice I'm sure they can, Royal Mail are currently doing so with standard stamps, there is the option to get the swapped to the new stock, but the old ones will eventually no long be able to be used.

If TfL said you have three years to claim a refund on an Oyster card or to use the card to get another three years that seems fair. Offer the option to post a card back for a refund, or to come to a tube station or phone.
Seems fair to give three years warning.

 

[Bletchleyite]

With enough notice I'm sure they can, Royal Mail are currently doing so with standard stamps, there is the option to get the swapped to the new stock, but the old ones will eventually no long be able to be used.

But can be swapped indefinitely.

 

[jon81uk]

But can be swapped indefinitely.

There is currently no end date for the Royal Mail swap scheme, thats not to say they won't introduce one in the future.
Again if they do I would expect three years to be reasonable warning (on top of the last year of being able to swap).

 

[lookapigeon]

Thanks to the OP for posting this thread and linking to the Project Oval thread, as I live within the orange area mentioned in the other thread this is something that is of interest.

Would the cost of the fares for outside of the official TFL zones be determined by the relevant operator (in my case it is SWR)? Or would my local station be placed in one of the outlying TFL zones and be capped accordingly?

 

[JonathanH]

Would the cost of the fares for outside of the official TFL zones be determined by the relevant operator (in my case it is SWR)? Or would my local station be placed in one of the outlying TFL zones and be capped accordingly?

Existing extensions of the TfL system to stations operated by non-TfL operators outside the zones has involved the relevant operator / DfT generally defining the fares (other than for a handful of stations (Dartford, Swanley etc) very close to the London boundaries).

Zone 1 centric capping is generally the only capping applied.

 

[philthetube]

But can be swapped indefinitely.

They could do this with oyster, no need to have gates with the ability to read them.