Wallsendmag
Established Member
I know. But that wasn’t the questionSomething which should be changing soon!
I know. But that wasn’t the questionSomething which should be changing soon!
Pretty much my experience with Oyster too.My experience with oyster is positive as well - and I also have a railcard discount set on it. I never really encounter problems with it, and topping up at ticket machines is pretty easy (and now that most people use contactless, there's never really a queue anymore). For people without discounts or season tickets, Contactless is clearly a massive improvement and the easiest payment system around.
My understanding is that TfL hasn't introduced eTickets, but that they have reasons for that, and that one is that people are, on average, slower at scanning an eTicket than at using the accepted payment methods (magstripe, contactless, oyster, ITSO), and that at certain key stations that could cause crowding issues.
eTickets are a National Rail thing, and the culture within TfL is very much they are nothing to do with National Rail (even LO/Liz Line parrot this). Anyone who have ever tried to do anything "unusual" but valid at a TfL station like break their journey has probably heard the phrase "National Rail mate, nothing to do with us"My understanding is that TfL hasn't introduced eTickets, but that they have reasons for that
Heavily demonstrated by all the work done to begin accepting E-Tickets...TfL also feel they have done smart ticketing and crossed it off the list. They've had smart tickets in the form of Oyster for 20+ years, and have added contactless. They're not interested in other forms.
To be fair to TfL and Cubic, there is now a go-live date for the half-arsed attempt at phase 1. Both parties should be heartily congratulated for their exemplary work in this area.not even a half-arsed attempt at phase 1 has gone live
Really? That's an interesting statement.To be fair to TfL and Cubic, there is now a go-live date for the half-arsed attempt at phase 1. Both parties should be heartily congratulated for their exemplary work in this area.
Who do you think is to blame for it being 7 months late and covering 11% of the intended stations?Really? That's an interesting statement.
There's been a go live date for ages hasn't there? The problem is it keeps moving further and further back.To be fair to TfL and Cubic, there is now a go-live date for the half-arsed attempt at phase 1. Both parties should be heartily congratulated for their exemplary work in this area.
White paper tickets are a DfT driven thing - so they can say even more people are using "digital" tickets, no real benefit to passengers over CCST version.Regarding physical barcode tickets, they should be in the same format as normal tickets, but with a barcode somewhere, not like Greater Anglia's one where it is not credit card sized, and doesn't fit through the ticket slot and is on plain white paper (link to thread below). That way, it will be valid on the Underground as TfL and maybe Merseyrail are not looking to install barcode readers anytime soon.
Barcoded Tickets from Greater Anglia TVM's
Taken from the Greater Anglia website: ------- East Anglia’s train operator, Greater Anglia, is upgrading some of its ticket vending machines to enable a new type of ticket to be trialled on its network. Ticket machines at 18 stations will be upgraded to enable them to print a barcode onto...www.railforums.co.uk
It can equally be argued that CCST tickets provide no real benefit to passengers over white paper barcode tickets.no real benefit to passengers over CCST version.
Except being more durable (physically, not magstripe-wise!), smaller and thus more convenient to fit into a small wallet, and, at some stations, making use of barriers more efficient (easier/quicker to put a ticket through a slot rather than hunt for a barrier which has a barcode reader as not all are equipped at every station).It can equally be argued that CCST tickets provide no real benefit to passengers over white paper barcode tickets.
They absolutely do. CCST fits into a typical wallet much more easily than a "bog roll" ticket, because as the name says, it's credit-card sized.It can equally be argued that CCST tickets provide no real benefit to passengers over white paper barcode tickets.
Sorry, I disagree. PRT is about the same size as a £20 note and therefore fits a cash wallet comfortably.They absolutely do. CCST fits into a typical wallet much more easily than a "bog roll" ticket, because as the name says, it's credit-card sized.
My wallet carries £20 notes, CCST, credit cards and so forth just fine - but "bog roll" tickets stick out. I wouldn't want a wallet that's any bigger and I shouldn't have to change wallets just to accommodate the latest fad that the railway has cottoned onto!Sorry, I disagree. PRT is about the same size as a £20 note and therefore fits a cash wallet comfortably.
Why should I have to make adjustments when it is the railway that has changed things to a new (and inferior) standard?In which case you have to make "reasonable adjustments", such as folding a ticket.
Of course not, but it's nevertheless an inconvenience and goes against your earlier argument thatIt's hardly the end of the world.
CCST tickets provide no real benefit to passengers
Yeah, sure, a cash wallet... which I don't use.Sorry, I disagree. PRT is about the same size as a £20 note and therefore fits a cash wallet comfortably.
Because, ultimately, you won't get a choice in how physical tickets are delivered.Why should I have to make adjustments when it is the railway that has changed things to a new (and inferior) standard?
I use a railcard wallet, and have no problem getting PRT tickets into it, and being able to scan them without having to remove them.I have a small travel wallet which stores both my CCSTs and credit/debit cards. I'm not planning to get a new wallet just so I can store a PRT.
I don't know how many times it has to be said, but eTickets do not require any special apps.I can just hand them out and not have to wait like 30 seconds to load the app.
On the plus side, the paper is not only thinner but is recyclable unlike the CCST ticket.Not only that, the new GA barcode tickets actually use more paper than the previous one as there bigger.
Ah yes, I forgot to mention that e-tickets can be printed out as it can be a PDF format. But the fact I still prefer normal tickets still stands.I don't know how many times it has to be said, but eTickets do not require any special apps.
On the plus side, the paper is not only thinner but is recyclable unlike the CCST ticket.
That may be the case, but they are wrong - the magnetic strip is a foil film which prevents recycling.And I am pretty sure almost everyone thinks that the CCST ticket is recyclable and can be thrown on the recycling bin with no problems.
"Everyone" thinking it doesn't make it so.And I am pretty sure almost everyone thinks that the CCST ticket is recyclable and can be thrown on the recycling bin with no problems.
https://www.paragon-id.com/en/paragon-id-revolutionises-the-production-of-the-iconic-uk-rail-ticketWe are excited about the launch of these water-based environmentally friendly tickets. The new tickets are the outcome of a successful two-year partnership between RDG and Paragon ID.
Knowing the sort of stock levels that were held in stations, I don't think that can be taken to mean that every CCST ticket is now recyclable. I remember reading about the trial of these new water-based tickets but wasn't aware they had become mainstream or when that happened.RDG themselves state that they’re environmentally friendly.
I helped test them but hean't heard about them being rolled out.Knowing the sort of stock levels that were held in stations, I don't think that can be taken to mean that every CCST ticket is now recyclable. I remember reading about the trial of these new water-based tickets but wasn't aware they had become mainstream or when that happened.
Given the fares have been in the railway fares data feed since last year (as a check of BRFares will confirm), I'd strongly suggest the delay has nothing to do with the TOCs involved.Who do you think is to blame for it being 7 months late and covering 11% of the intended stations?
I'd completely agree with this statement. I also would suggest that DfT are not to blame.Given the fares have been in the railway fares data feed since last year (as a check of BRFares will confirm), I'd strongly suggest the delay has nothing to do with the TOCs involved.