Could the contactless payment increase make widespread PAYG feasible?

[Aictos]

That wouldn't necessarily have to be the maximum fare from that station (which could be hundreds), but could be say £50 (which is probably what a PF should be these days, £20 isn't really a penalty) but if you get three of those in a rolling 12 month period your card is blocked permanently, and you have the faff of having to obtain a new one from your bank if you want to use PAYG again.

That said, that could be an issue with Apple/Android Pay which use virtual card numbers that I think change frequently.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Mar 2021 ==

For once I'm in complete agreement, £20 isn't a penalty but I think it should be set at a higher rate say £80 but reduced to £40 if paid within 21 days as is the London Underground penalty fares system if you get 3 of them in a 6 month period, your card should be blocked permanently and you have to arranged a replacement.

But that wouldn't stop the typical fare evader who would still give a fake address and who would jump or crawl under the gateline barriers or who would push past you when you're going though the gateline.

 

[biko]

Extending contactless or Oyster style payment is complex. What to do with first class is the least of the problems. The size of the UK means there has to be a limit somewhere on the distance you can travel by contactless or the price will be too high. But where to draw the line? There is always one station further down the line that also wants contactless.

 

[wibble]

I'm travelling from London to Coventry. How will the system know if I take West Midlands or Avanti? On-train readers? Do I need to alight at Northampton to demonstrate that's the route I took? What kind of data can be stored on a debit card? On London Underground, I believe a contactless bank card does not return any detailed real-time data to inspectors, just that when you present one the inspector can simply see whether it's a card that *could have been used to touch in* that day (correct type, mark in the back office system, not blacklisted etc).

What if you don't get your ticket checked? That's pretty common. How do you demonstrate you went via Northampton?



I think we need to know a bit more about how much (or little) data can be stored on your debit card.

The solution to that is quite straightforward. A tap in at platforms 16-18 is recorded at 11:00, a tap out at Coventry is recorded at 12:55. Combine that with train running data and you know that the card was used to travel on the 11:15 Euston - Coventry (WMT service). If your card is also tapped on train by WMT staff, the assume routed would be via WMT. However, if you hadn't tapped in at Euston, WMT could charge you the appropriate fare for you journey.

The use of your bank card is anonymised so only your card issuer knows you've started a journey. The only data the TOC would see is a card has made a journey from Euston - Coventry and been charged a WMT fare.

The disbenefit of a using a bank card is you won't get automated delay repay and can't add a railcard, that's where ITSO Smartcards do a better job.

 

[Watershed]

The disbenefit of a using a bank card is you won't get automated delay repay and can't add a railcard, that's where ITSO Smartcards do a better job.

That would only be an issue if the fare were calculated and charged on-the-fly by the validator at the end of the journey (in line with how conventional contactless payments work). That is how Oyster works, which is fine for a stored-value system.

But isn't not how contactless works for most public transport applications - it's only really useful where there is a "card reader" at entrance barriers, and a flat fare.

Instead the card number, or some representation thereof, is sent to a backend system each time a card is touched on a validator. The system then marries up touch in and out records and works out how much to charge, and that amount is charged, just as with a typical card not present transaction (e.g. online/phone purchase).

Despite what some insist, it's really not beyond the wit of man to apply Railcard or other discounts by looking up any details or accounts associated with the card.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The solution to that is quite straightforward. A tap in at platforms 16-18 is recorded at 11:00, a tap out at Coventry is recorded at 12:55. Combine that with train running data and you know that the card was used to travel on the 11:15 Euston - Coventry (WMT service).

That's overcomplicated and prone to failure, as what if an Avanti to Brum was replatformed into 17 about the same time?

FWIW, the Dutch have readers branded by TOC and you touch in/out separately with each TOC you are going to use. If you're going to do it at a non-barriered station, that's probably the least complex way.

 

[Ianno87]

That's overcomplicated and prone to failure, as what if an Avanti to Brum was replatformed into 17 about the same time?

That's the point, if you get to Coventry "too quickly" you must have used the Avanti service.

Of course, this only works in situations where there is a significant journey time difference between operators. And assuming people won't just get the fast train, then hang around at the destination for sufficiently long to tap out for the cheap fare (though you'd need to be pretty determined!).

(I suppose on Oyster you can fraudulently tap a pink reader then travel through Zone 1 anyway, though you usually have to go out of your way for a relatively minor saving).

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's the point, if you get to Coventry "too quickly" you must have used the Avanti service.

Fair point, though I still call "too complex and likely to be prone to issues".

 

[biko]

FWIW, the Dutch have readers branded by TOC and you touch in/out separately with each TOC you are going to use. If you're going to do it at a non-barriered station, that's probably the least complex way

Indeed, but there are still a lot of protests against this as many people touch in with the wrong TOC. And there are just a few routes where actually multiple TOCs run on the same route. So I wouldn’t recommend it to the UK...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed, but there are still a lot of protests against this as many people touch in with the wrong TOC. And there are just a few routes where actually multiple TOCs run on the same route. So I wouldn’t recommend it to the UK...

True. Realistically you need to design the fare structure for the system, which in the case of a touch-in touch-out (mostly) gated system means no TOC specific fares.

 

[BayPaul]

I really like the idea of extending the 'Oyster' contactless system out to cover most of the old NSE area - basically everywhere where a day return is less than the contactless limit i.e. £100 from the summer. I would manage the system as follows:

• Yellow-type readers at all unbarriered stations / platforms in the area, that are properly and clearly positioned at each entrance to the station or each platform as appropriate. Passengers must tap in and out of the system, or hold a different ticket type.
• Guards and ticket inspectors also have a reader. This can work online - so checking whether the card has tapped in, and if so, at what station, and whether the card is linked to any discount products (to allow the guard to challenge people travelling on a child's fare for example.
• Fares would be calculated in real time, so things like peak / off peak would be calculated automatically, single tickets would be upgraded to return for a return journey, multiple journeys would automatically be upgraded to zonal tickets / rovers / weekly seasons etc.
• The system would work out the most likely route(s) that you may have taken, and assume that you have taken the cheapest of these routes. E.g. if your timing means that you went too fast for the LNR service, then it would give you Avanti prices.
• If there are specific operator prices, another option would reader in the train, or for the guard's tap to apply this.
• The system would automatically apply delay repay based on what time you could reasonably have got to your destination based on your tap-in time at your origin station (in large stations with barriered platforms there be a reader in the concourse to allow this)
• First class would have a dedicated (purple?) reader in each first class compartment. Passengers who are found in the first class compartment without having tapped that reader would be treated in the same way as someone travelling without a first class ticket.
• Penalty fares would be set to £100, and would apply in case of a missed tap, so for example if your card is tapped by a guard, and you haven't yet tapped on, you would be charged a penalty fare for the journey. This would happen automatically, so there is no need for conflict between the guard and the passenger. The guard would have discretion to do a manual tap on at a station, which would not create a penalty fare, for example if the passenger 'confesses' the guard can tap them in.
• There would be no such thing as non-permitted routes. Similar to TfL, as long as you tap in and out the system is happy. In general, the vast majority of people simply take the fastest route, and standard ticket prices would be set on this basis, slower, cheaper routes would be managed using the above method. I guess you could have a maximum time to complete a journey as well, to avoid people taking ridiculously scenic routes.
• No break of journey would be allowed on contactless tickets - you would just be charged for the separate journeys. I would see this as part of a move towards single tickets being priced at 50% of current return fares, so that should help deal with this, as should the automatic upgrade to rover tickets etc.
• Like TfL, there would be back-end logic to try to remove penalty fares - so regular commuters who miss a tap at one end of their journey occasionally would have the penalty fare cancelled, perhaps with an email sent to remind them. Also, anyone who calls and explains would have the benefit of the doubt applied, though obviously not if it was a regular occurrence.
• Passengers could set up user accounts, which would allow them to set a card to registered as a child ticket, railcard etc, as well as see journey history etc. Potentially advance purchase and season tickets could be added to cards as well, in which case split ticketing would also be automatically applied if you travel beyond the limit of this ticket.
• People who don't have a contactless card could buy a 'oyster' style card (but using contactless logic). There would be two cost options for this. Either an expensive option (presumably £100) to allow for penalty fares, or having it linked to a bank card, or registered to a person to allow for prosecution
• As far as possible, I would like to see bus transport integrated into the system, in particular it would allow plus bus tickets for bus journeys to the origin station to be managed simply.
• Similar systems should also be set up in the midlands / TfN etc areas, but the system probably shouldn't be valid for journeys in between due to the contactless limit / penalty fare size. If someone taps in at Euston going to Manchester, for example, however, then the guard on the train can use this tap like a PERTIS, which is put towards an appropriate fare, so the passenger is still fine.

I find the TfL system to be fantastic - it makes it so much easier to use public transport, so people do. No need to worry about queuing for a ticket, no need to worry you have bought the wrong ticket. Simple!

 

[James H]

Interesting entry in TfL's list of future contracts - "Project Oval" - "The expansion of Contactless payment beyond the current zonal boundaries."

 

[telstarbox]

Ultimately the likes of Altnabreac will have a minimal proportion of fare evasion anyway because they're lightly used and on guarded routes.

If they did need to be included in a super-Oyster system the guard could have a "variable location" reader which would let pax touch in or out on the train rather than the platform. But a smartphone solution will be cheaper and more scalable.

 

[Hadders]

Interesting entry in TfL's list of future contracts - "Project Oval" - "The expansion of Contactless payment beyond the current zonal boundaries."

The DfT consulted on expanding contactless to places like Milton Keynes, Bedford and Stevenage a year or so ago so I suspect it might be something to do with this.

 

[etr221]

The important thing about PAYG - whether associated with Oyster or similar card, or contactless bank card - is that it is totally different paradigm for revenue collection.

The traditional paradigm was that you paid in advance - say for a journey from A to B, with conditions C, D, E... - and received a ticket to prove that you had, giving you authority to make make your journey (in the course of which possession of ticket, and compliance with the conditions, is verifiable). But, NB, there is no great problem if no ticket check is made.

PAYG on the other hand is pay on completion of journey - when you start your journey at A you promise to pay for it, and when you arrive at B, you are charged the appropriate fare (in practice, in most cases a deposit is paid on starting journey, refunded on completion). And since one of the qualities claimed for it is the simplicity of 'touch in' (at A) and 'touch out' (at B), application of conditions becomes difficult, if not impossible (to get anything beyond place and time, there has to more than a simple touch) - all you have is a 'promise to pay (from A)'. Which is not to say that, if the complexity is acceptable, a system of getting a series of endorsements (by suitable 'touch') that all go to the fare calculation, would not be possible) And, NB, 'touching' (in at start, out at end, for intermediate endorsements) is essential. As much as the passenger has to their part, so does the railway.

So the whole fare structure has to reviewed and revised...

Oyster - as we know it - could be introduced by LT/TfL because they already had a fare structure to suit it; were easily able to provide for, and generally enforce, touching in and out; and were willing to accept a certain amount of loss to introduce it.

If those three conditions aren't met, it's going to be difficult...

A couple of other things: as the stakes get higher, there will be increasing demand for 'transparency' of touches (passengers wanting to know if a touch has been recorded, and if so, what sort). And: if PAYG is based on bank (or such) cards, the standard condition is that they are (remain) property of the bank, and are not railway property.

 

[BayPaul]

The important thing about PAYG - whether associated with Oyster or similar card, or contactless bank card - is that it is totally different paradigm for revenue collection.

The traditional paradigm was that you paid in advance - say for a journey from A to B, with conditions C, D, E... - and received a ticket to prove that you had, giving you authority to make make your journey (in the course of which possession of ticket, and compliance with the conditions, is verifiable). But, NB, there is no great problem if no ticket check is made.

PAYG on the other hand is pay on completion of journey - when you start your journey at A you promise to pay for it, and when you arrive at B, you are charged the appropriate fare (in practice, in most cases a deposit is paid on starting journey, refunded on completion). And since one of the qualities claimed for it is the simplicity of 'touch in' (at A) and 'touch out' (at B), application of conditions becomes difficult, if not impossible (to get anything beyond place and time, there has to more than a simple touch) - all you have is a 'promise to pay (from A)'. Which is not to say that, if the complexity is acceptable, a system of getting a series of endorsements (by suitable 'touch') that all go to the fare calculation, would not be possible) And, NB, 'touching' (in at start, out at end, for intermediate endorsements) is essential. As much as the passenger has to their part, so does the railway.

So the whole fare structure has to reviewed and revised...

Oyster - as we know it - could be introduced by LT/TfL because they already had a fare structure to suit it; were easily able to provide for, and generally enforce, touching in and out; and were willing to accept a certain amount of loss to introduce it.

If those three conditions aren't met, it's going to be difficult...

A couple of other things: as the stakes get higher, there will be increasing demand for 'transparency' of touches (passengers wanting to know if a touch has been recorded, and if so, what sort). And: if PAYG is based on bank (or such) cards, the standard condition is that they are (remain) property of the bank, and are not railway property.

I think many of these concerns are quite possible to manage. One of the nice things about contactless is that the conditions C,D,E that you mention probably aren't necessary - the charge is made based on the journey you have actually taken, so you don't need to select these in advance. The downside is that you might not know your exact fare in advance, though having appropriate NRE type websites, and perhaps dedicated information screens at major stations and ticket machine pages at smaller stations should allow this information to be readily available.

As computing power has increased, I don't think a simple fare structure is necessary, just one with enough logic to it to work. It would be entirely possible for every different journey combination to have a different set of fares, and still have them sensibly applied, with a fairly straightforward back end. Oyster is held back into fare zones by the original system architecture in my understanding - that isn't an issue for the contactless architecture. My post above has some comments on how a fare revision could work, without the need for excessive numbers of taps for the user.

I think revenue protection should actually be simpler than currently - by putting a strong onus onto passengers that they need to tap in and out, and having a clever back end, much of the revenue protection aspect simply becomes tapping cards to check that they are not blacklisted, and to add an automatic penalty fare if they haven't already tapped in. Usefully it also takes away some of the possible points for argument - there is no need for the guard to have an opinion on the validity of the ticket, just to tap it! That also solves the 'railway property' issue - there would never be a reason to need to confiscate the card.

I agree with the transparency - by registering a card it should be a simple process to have taps show in real time, or even for a text / email message to be sent for each tap.

 

[etr221]

I think many of these concerns are quite possible to manage. One of the nice things about contactless is that the conditions C,D,E that you mention probably aren't necessary - the charge is made based on the journey you have actually taken, so you don't need to select these in advance. The downside is that you might not know your exact fare in advance, though having appropriate NRE type websites, and perhaps dedicated information screens at major stations and ticket machine pages at smaller stations should allow this information to be readily available.

As computing power has increased, I don't think a simple fare structure is necessary, just one with enough logic to it to work. It would be entirely possible for every different journey combination to have a different set of fares, and still have them sensibly applied, with a fairly straightforward back end. Oyster is held back into fare zones by the original system architecture in my understanding - that isn't an issue for the contactless architecture. My post above has some comments on how a fare revision could work, without the need for excessive numbers of taps for the user.

I think revenue protection should actually be simpler than currently - by putting a strong onus onto passengers that they need to tap in and out, and having a clever back end, much of the revenue protection aspect simply becomes tapping cards to check that they are not blacklisted, and to add an automatic penalty fare if they haven't already tapped in. Usefully it also takes away some of the possible points for argument - there is no need for the guard to have an opinion on the validity of the ticket, just to tap it! That also solves the 'railway property' issue - there would never be a reason to need to confiscate the card.

I agree with the transparency - by registering a card it should be a simple process to have taps show in real time, or even for a text / email message to be sent for each tap.

As you say, it should be possible to manage, i.e. provide for, all these concerns - the difficulty is actually doing so.

The conditions C, D, E... I mentioned are all those things that affect the fare paid (or vv) - once you move beyond saying the fare from A to B is X (always), you have to have them, and your system of touches has to handle them. And if you put the onus on passengers to touch - in, out, and whatever else (and the more touches, the more complex...) - you also put the onus on the railway to provide for touching (which means, for a start, at every station between every entrance (which might include alighting areas) and every boarding area), with adequate reliability.

Food for thought question: (can you) come up with a COMPLETE question flow for deciding, if you have an Oyster card and are making a journey within the Oyster area, whether on seeing an Oyster reader, you should touch it (so that you are charged correctly) - and when you need to seek out a reader to touch... Or what (equally complete) instructions should be on a reader, as to whether it should be touched.

And you do get into such obscurities as needing a complete definition of 'journey'...