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

[Watershed]

On Greater Anglia, I'm surprised to see they haven't included the Wickford to Southminster line which branches off the Southend Victoria line.

Quite a few journeys are made between stations on both branches so I was expecting both lines to be included at the same time.

I hope people don't tap in (even though it won't work) using the existing smart card readers on the Southminster line then get penalty fared either at Liverpool Street or Southend (or on the train), when the barriers don't open.

Also, as mentioned above, could this create anomalies where for example a paper ticket from Battlesbridge, the first stop on the Southminster line is cheaper / more flexible than a contactless payment at Wickford? (Sorry - even I'm now lost with how these things all work).

The barriers will open as the "touched in" status of a contactless card/device isn't available to barriers in live time - tap data usually takes 5-15 mins to propagate into the system so it wouldn't necessarily know if you've just touched in at Stratford. However, they'll be charged a maximum fare for an incomplete journey afterwards.

It could be cheaper, but probably only at times when the current Super Off-Peak ticket is valid, or at times when the new evening peak restrictions apply (these will be added to the Off-Peak fares).

 

[etr221]

On Greater Anglia, I'm surprised to see they haven't included the Wickford to Southminster line which branches off the Southend Victoria line.

The Southminster branch wasn't included in the original consultation documents for for Project Oval - either the greater or lesser options. I don't recall any explanation as to why. My only thought was as to low traffic (either in terms of passengers or trains) making it uneconomic.

But (a) the Princes Risborough-Aylesbury line - not exactly busy methinks - is included; and (b) from your comment, the Southminster branch stations do have smart card readers: both of which make me query my thought above - so I do have the question as to why the branch isn't included in Oval.

Quite a few journeys are made between stations on both branches so I was expecting both lines to be included at the same time.

I hope people don't tap in (even though it won't work) using the existing smart card readers on the Southminster line then get penalty fared either at Liverpool Street or Southend (or on the train), when the barriers don't open.

If Project Oval readers and others are going to be co-existing, I can see chaos, confusion and anger ensuing...

Also, as mentioned above, could this create anomalies where for example a paper ticket from Battlesbridge, the first stop on the Southminster line is cheaper / more flexible than a contactless payment at Wickford? (Sorry - even I'm now lost with how these things all work).

 

[Farigiraf]

On Greater Anglia, I'm surprised to see they haven't included the Wickford to Southminster line which branches off the Southend Victoria line.

It's most likely to do with it most of the day being just a shuttle service. Likely the same reason why the Maidstone-Tonbridge section of the Medway Valley line wasn't included, despite both ends being included. However, if Maidstone West-Strood is included possibly due to its HS1 limited service to St Pancras, I don't see why the peak hour Liverpool Street to Southminster and vice versa shouldn't qualify the Wickford-Southminster line for Oval.
Outliers are the North Downs Line (an important corridor in itself, and should fix the Gatwick-Reading contactless confusion), Ascot-Aldershot which has both ends within the area, the Marston Vale Line (not sure why, presumably for commuters), and Redhill-Tonbridge (wasn't always a shuttle). Confusing...

 

[iphone76]

The barriers will open as the "touched in" status of a contactless card/device isn't available to barriers in live time - tap data usually takes 5-15 mins to propagate into the system so it wouldn't necessarily know if you've just touched in at Stratford. However, they'll be charged a maximum fare for an incomplete journey afterwards.

It could be cheaper, but probably only at times when the current Super Off-Peak ticket is valid, or at times when the new evening peak restrictions apply (these will be added to the Off-Peak fares).

Thank you. Good to know.

 

[Haywain]

the Southminster branch stations do have smart card readers:

I believe that in some other extension areas existing smartcard readers have had to be replaced for Oval.

 

[SWT_USER]

I believe that in some other extension areas existing smartcard readers have had to be replaced for Oval.

This was certainly the case for the SWR stations

 

[etr221]

It's most likely to do with it most of the day being just a shuttle service. Likely the same reason why the Maidstone-Tonbridge section of the Medway Valley line wasn't included, despite both ends being included. However, if Maidstone West-Strood is included possibly due to its HS1 limited service to St Pancras, I don't see why the peak hour Liverpool Street to Southminster and vice versa shouldn't qualify the Wickford-Southminster line for Oval.
Outliers are the North Downs Line (an important corridor in itself, and should fix the Gatwick-Reading contactless confusion), Ascot-Aldershot which has both ends within the area, the Marston Vale Line (not sure why, presumably for commuters), and Redhill-Tonbridge (wasn't always a shuttle). Confusing...

The GW Thames Valley branches are all included, despite being shuttles, so I don't see that as a valid reason.

My thought on what to include is that you draw a rough Oval round London, whatever is inside it is included in the project: adjusting the Oval so it is sensible - first thing is that any (sensible) journey between two covered PAYG stations should be covered - so including Reading-Redhill-Tonbridge-Maidstone-Strood, etc., then avoid odd variations which won't make sense to the avarage passenger, such as Reading in, but Reading West out, Brighton in, Hove out, etc. and consider carefully lines which start in, but then go a way without going anywhere important, such as to Uckfield, Alton, Southminster. All so it makes sense overall, rather than too many dilemmas for passengers as to whether their journey is included...

 

[NorthLondoner]

I'm not sure if this has been awnsered, though is there a reason why Milton Keynes and Stevenage aren't included in the expansion of Project Oval despite being initially proposed?

 

[Hadders]

I'm not sure if this has been awnsered, though is there a reason why Milton Keynes and Stevenage aren't included in the expansion of Project Oval despite being initially proposed?

It'll be to do with the operator specific fares at both. Milton Keynes is a significant challenge, Stevenage less so.

There are already significant issues with people assuming contactless is already valid to Stevenage. Every time arrive at the station there's someone being dealt with for thinking they can use their card.

 

[A S Leib]

There are already significant issues with people assuming contactless is already valid to Stevenage. Every time arrive at the station there's someone being dealt with for thinking they can use their card.

Which presumably isn't helped by KeyGo being valid from Stevenage to King's Cross / St. Pancras but not onwards by tube.

 

[etr221]

I'm not sure if this has been awnsered, though is there a reason why Milton Keynes and Stevenage aren't included in the expansion of Project Oval despite being initially proposed?

Do we know whether they are permanently excluded, or just not included in the next couple of tranches (but still coming)?

 

[SynthD]

Reading’s two operator problem is dealt with by looking at which Paddington gate line is at the other end of the journey. Is this not (or could it be) the case for Stevenage too, that the fare varies depending on the other end of the journey being Kings Cross or Thameslink/northern city line?

 

[MikeWh]

Reading’s two operator problem is dealt with by looking at which Paddington gate line is at the other end of the journey. Is this not (or could it be) the case for Stevenage too, that the fare varies depending on the other end of the journey being Kings Cross or Thameslink/northern city line?

There is no two operator problem at Reading. The only places where a different fare is charged if you used specific gates in London are Gatwick Airport and Heathrow Airport.

 

[matt_world2004]

Reading’s two operator problem is dealt with by looking at which Paddington gate line is at the other end of the journey. Is this not (or could it be) the case for Stevenage too, that the fare varies depending on the other end of the journey being Kings Cross or Thameslink/northern city line?

You could tap in at the elizabeth line gateline in Paddington and go to Reading on south Western railway via richmond and Wimbledon. It wouldn't exactly be an efficent way to go to Reading but it would be impossible to distinguish what operator you took in those circumstances

 

[etr221]

There is no two operator problem at Reading. The only places where a different fare is charged if you used specific gates in London are Gatwick Airport and Heathrow Airport.

Reading doesn't have a two operator problem because GWR run both the 'inter-city' and 'outer suburban' services, so they have the same fares. Milton Keynes and Stevenage do, because there are different operators, with different tickets and fares. Something that the touch in touch out paradigm of PAYG is totally unsuited for - it is based on there being a single fare for any journey from one station to another.

 

[A S Leib]

Is this not (or could it be) the case for Stevenage too, that the fare varies depending on the other end of the journey being Kings Cross or Thameslink/northern city line?

There's the 2 tph Great Northern stopping service to Cambridge which goes to King's Cross rather than St. Pancras, and Milton Keynes would have the same issue at Euston.

 

[JonathanH]

Reading doesn't have a two operator problem because GWR run both the 'inter-city' and 'outer suburban' services, so they have the same fares. Milton Keynes and Stevenage do, because there are different operators, with different tickets and fares.

Hardly an issue though, the fares can just be harmonised at the any permitted rate. Contactless PAYG is sufficiently popular that very few care about what is charged, as evidenced by all the people who turn up at places where it isn't valid. So long as the operators come up with a reasonably sensible compromise fare, an outcry is unlikely.

How much dissention has there actually been about the Phase 1 Oval fares which have seen a mix of winners and losers?

 

[Haywain]

Do we know whether they are permanently excluded,

At the outset Stevenage was included in Project Oval. Whilst the roll out of phase 2 now seems to be happening incrementally I don't believe anything has happened to suggest that it will not be included eventually.

 

[Meerkat]

Hardly an issue though, the fares can just be harmonised at the any permitted rate.

But then you get intercity services overcrowded with commuters and short distance passengers

 

[A S Leib]

But then you get intercity services overcrowded with commuters and short distance passengers

Compulsory reservations for intercity services within the Oval zone but not with tickets to Rugby, Peterborough or further might solve the issue of overcrowding, but defeats the point of flexibility that PAYG gives.

 

[Jaydubya]

The GW Thames Valley branches are all included, despite being shuttles, so I don't see that as a valid reason.

My thought on what to include is that you draw a rough Oval round London, whatever is inside it is included in the project: adjusting the Oval so it is sensible - first thing is that any (sensible) journey between two covered PAYG stations should be covered - so including Reading-Redhill-Tonbridge-Maidstone-Strood, etc., then avoid odd variations which won't make sense to the avarage passenger, such as Reading in, but Reading West out, Brighton in, Hove out, etc. and consider carefully lines which start in, but then go a way without going anywhere important, such as to Uckfield, Alton, Southminster. All so it makes sense overall, rather than too many dilemmas for passengers as to whether their journey is included...

The Southminster branch has significantly more passengers than the St Albans Abbey branch which is part of the first phase launch. Pre pandemic there was just under 1 million passengers carried from all the stations combined (excluding Wickford). Last year South Woodham Ferrers was around 250k and Burnham on Crouch 163k.

 

[swt_passenger]

Reading doesn't have a two operator problem because GWR run both the 'inter-city' and 'outer suburban' services, so they have the same fares. Milton Keynes and Stevenage do, because there are different operators, with different tickets and fares. Something that the touch in touch out paradigm of PAYG is totally unsuited for - it is based on there being a single fare for any journey from one station to another.

Surely Reading does have a ‘two operator problem’ because SWR have different fares to London Terminals via the Ascot and Staines route? So they’d have to rise to the GWR fare?

 

[etr221]

But then you get intercity services overcrowded with commuters and short distance passengers

A problem that the railway has had to cope with ever since it started having 'express' services for long distance passengers and 'local' trains for short distance ones providing the same journey opportunities, getting on for two hundred years ago. Either it coped with everybody using the same trains, or it established a system of differential ticketing under which 'express' trains could only be used by holders of 'express' tickets: which - traditionally - we did not have in this country - all trains were 'for all', you kept local passengers off 'express' trains by arranging the timetable so that 'express' trains didn't cater for them, or accepted that they would travel by the 'express'. PAYG doesn't change any of that.

And dare I say that the change from virtually all trains and tickets being 'omnibus' ('for all' - any ticket would generally let you use any appropriate train) to one in which many trains and tickets are 'express' - that you can only use a ticket are for specific trains - is one the biggest changes that have hit the railway since privatisation and the cause of the greatest angst grief for passengers, because of the extent to which neither railway nor passengers have come to terms with it, on a system which is frequently unreliable, and generally expects people to self-manage...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Sep 2024 ==

Surely Reading does have a ‘two operator problem’ because SWR have different fares to London Terminals via the Ascot and Staines route? So they’d have to rise to the GWR fare?

That's a two route, not a two operator, problem - but has the same PAYG answer: if you can't tell them apart, they have to be the same.

 

[Meerkat]

Either it coped with everybody using the same trains, or it established a system of differential ticketing under which 'express' trains could only be used by holders of 'express' tickets: which - traditionally - we did not have in this country - all trains were 'for all', you kept local passengers off 'express' trains by arranging the timetable so that 'express' trains didn't cater for them, or accepted that they would travel by the 'express'. PAYG doesn't change any of that.

Yes it does - if you have express tickets you can check them on the train for validity, if you are on PAYG you can’t do that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes it does - if you have express tickets you can check them on the train for validity, if you are on PAYG you can’t do that.

I don't think we are very far from the point where it's possible for every piece of ticket scanning and validation equipment to be online near enough 100% of the time, give or take the likes of tunnels and the Far North and Kyle lines.

In 10 years I'd expect to be able to be online in any location, even if the connection is satellite.

 

[Meerkat]

I don't think we are very far from the point where it's possible for every piece of ticket scanning and validation equipment to be online near enough 100% of the time, give or take the likes of tunnels and the Far North and Kyle lines.

In 10 years I'd expect to be able to be online in any location, even if the connection is satellite.

Not sure what your point is - to have PAYG but not for expresses? That is going to lead to a lot of announcements and still lots of confrontation for ticket inspectors.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not sure what your point is - to have PAYG but not for expresses? That is going to lead to a lot of announcements and still lots of confrontation for ticket inspectors.

My point is that you will soon enough be able to check that a given card has been tapped in.

As for the likes of MKC, the difference between the TOC specific fares is small so getting rid won't make much difference.

More speculative stuff moved here: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...d-fares-policy-how-might-this-pan-out.273628/

 

[pokemonsuper9]

I don't think we are very far from the point where it's possible for every piece of ticket scanning and validation equipment to be online near enough 100% of the time, give or take the likes of tunnels and the Far North and Kyle lines.

Travelled on those two recently, the Kyle line has a pretty good internet connection (4G and some 5G) on like 90% of the journey, likely thanks to following the road a lot, the Far North has nowhere near as good of a connection, but the train WiFi can provide at least enough to read the forums if you don't care about the images.

 

[stuu]

Surely Reading does have a ‘two operator problem’ because SWR have different fares to London Terminals via the Ascot and Staines route? So they’d have to rise to the GWR fare?

Why? if you tap out at Waterloo or Paddington the system knows which way you have gone.

An express vs local problem can surely be dealt with by timing the entry and exits. I guess you could choose to go through the gates and sit on the platform for ages and use the faster train, but I would have thought that would be a marginal choice

 

[Haywain]

Why? if you tap out at Waterloo or Paddington the system knows which way you have gone.

And if you tap out at Finchley Road, how does the system know which way you travelled?