Mistakes by Touch-machines

[Maxz]

During my journey I touched the touch-machines 6 times.
TFL's report contained a mixture of real and imaginary touches.
Unfortunately, TFL's report did not distinguish between real touches and imaginary touches.
Ideally, the report should have distinguished between real touches and imaginary touches.
TFL's report should have told me which touches were real, and which touches were imaginary.

For example, TFL wrote the line:
18:37 Touch out, Buckhurst Hill

Instead, TFL should have written:
18:37 Imaginary Touch out, Buckhurst Hill

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is all caused by TfL trying to implement a paper ticketing system using a contactless mechanism. A new fare structure should have been designed for the new ticketing concept, and all these corrective mechanisms could have been avoided completely.

 

[PeterC]

This is all caused by TfL trying to implement a paper ticketing system using a contactless mechanism. A new fare structure should have been designed for the new ticketing concept, and all these corrective mechanisms could have been avoided completely.

A flat fare for each touch in, as with buses, would have generated the same problem. What do you propose? Preferably without shaking the "magic money tree".

 

[MikeWh]

Exactly. The only mistake here was the OP's, in tapping his card and thereby registering it for a journey which he didn't actually make. I have made a similar mistake before at Waterloo.

The biggest mistake, yes, but compounded by the disruption on the tube causing the additional touch out and in at Paddington LU station.

Problem was the OP here made his successive touch-ins almost an hour apart. That would probably be far too long to consider them as the same 'entrance'.

Indeed.

Well it was just that MikeWh suggested they were there on P4/P5, (and they are gated at the buffers and onto the overbridge), so that's the situation I was asking about.

Their existence on an otherwise un-barriered platform (such as those you mention) is easily justified.

My recollection was from when there was an OSI involving those PVALs and that was a few years ago. I'm pleased to find they have gone from those platforms if they are now gated.

During my journey I touched the touch-machines 6 times.
TFL's report contained a mixture of real and imaginary touches.
Unfortunately, TFL's report did not distinguish between real touches and imaginary touches.
Ideally, the report should have distinguished between real touches and imaginary touches.
TFL's report should have told me which touches were real, and which touches were imaginary.

For example, TFL wrote the line:
18:37 Touch out, Buckhurst Hill

Instead, TFL should have written:
18:37 Imaginary Touch out, Buckhurst Hill

This is definitely a confusing aspect. It used to be described as an incomplete journey, or missing touch out. I'm not sure how easily I could find out what really happened here as it wasn't my card.

This is all caused by TfL trying to implement a paper ticketing system using a contactless mechanism. A new fare structure should have been designed for the new ticketing concept, and all these corrective mechanisms could have been avoided completely.

I really have no idea what you could possibly be suggesting here. And it seems I'm not the only one.

A flat fare for each touch in, as with buses, would have generated the same problem. What do you propose? Preferably without shaking the "magic money tree".

Bletchleyite: I look forward to reading your comprehensive proposal which maintains revenue income and copes with all kinds of disruption related incidents.

 

[PeterC]

I look forward to reading your comprehensive proposal which maintains revenue income and copes with all kinds of disruption related incidents.

Try reading my post in context.

 

[MikeWh]

Try reading my post in context.

Sorry, was talking to Bletchleyite, using your post as backing up my concern.

 

[methethpropbut]

This is all caused by TfL trying to implement a paper ticketing system using a contactless mechanism. A new fare structure should have been designed for the new ticketing concept, and all these corrective mechanisms could have been avoided completely.

My two cents, but if we were to talk about cause I'd say that a bigger issue is the fact the system in London can be seen as an open system, unlike other cities in the world like Hong Kong or Singapore for which their subway systems are fully contained. This includes both through-trains continuing outside of the Oyster boundary, and the presence of ungated stations on the network (including, of course, the ungated platforms at Paddington).

We returned from Newquay on the Great Western Railway. With hindsight, I understand that there was no need to touch the disturbed touch-machine on the GWR platform. The touch caused a surprisingly major upset in the operation of the touch-machines.

I was going to walk past the touch-machine, but my sister told me to touch it, and I unfortunately bowed to her superior knowledge. The disturbed touch-machine was on the GWR platform, at the foot of the stairs which led to the fire engine. The fire engine was near the closed entrance to Paddington Underground Station.

I hope that mistakes by touch-machines, do not lead to wrongful prosecution of unsuspecting travellers.

As for this, I'd offer that there was no chance of *prosecution* in this instance. The mistakes made were that you touched *in* without needing to (and thus were physically outside the system whilst the card was "inside") and not vice-versa, and you were never on a train without having touched in. Of course the opposite could have happened where a person misses the validators at Paddington and boards a train, but that seems like a separate issue..

 

[Bletchleyite]

A flat fare for each touch in, as with buses, would have generated the same problem. What do you propose? Preferably without shaking the "magic money tree".

A fare structure does not in and of itself require shaking said tree. The actual fare levels might, but you can set those later.

A system designed for smartcards is one perhaps more like the Dutch OV-Chipkaart one, of a flat fee per journey (not charged again if you touch in N minutes after the last touch out) plus a kilometric rate for that operation (buses could have been cheaper than trains, if desired, for example). It would be assumed, for journeys inside the Tube/rail network, that you had taken the shortest route.

You wouldn't have the mechanism of discouraging journeys via zone 1, but I'm not sure how much effect that really has. You could, if you wanted, add a "zone 1 supplement" for any journey whose initial start or final end was in zone 1, I suppose, which would not create any anomalies per-se.

It would require touch on and off on buses, but that is hardly insurmountable and is provided in many other places.

A failure to touch in/out could simply mean you being charged, with no refund possible, the highest fare you could have incurred by that mode. So for example failure to touch out on a bus would mean being charged to that journey's terminus.

In the event of an evacuation of a station you could automatically cancel all anomalous journeys that occurred in the timeframe of the incident.

You could have daily caps if you wanted (the Dutch don't) but these would be much simpler and not zonal.

Much simpler.

 

[Clip]

Im sorry Neil but your obsession with everything in Europe seemingly makes things more difficult.

We have flat fares for zonal journeys and thats pretty simple isnt it? And if you avoid zone 1 then there are readers at certain stations where the obvious interchange would be, to facilitate this.

It could not be simpler.

The OPs case just seems to have had a bit of a wobble due to the start and subsequent delays incurred

 

[methethpropbut]

A fare structure does not in and of itself require shaking said tree. The actual fare levels might, but you can set those later.

A system designed for smartcards is one perhaps more like the Dutch OV-Chipkaart one, of a flat fee per journey (not charged again if you touch in N minutes after the last touch out) plus a kilometric rate for that operation (buses could have been cheaper than trains, if desired, for example). It would be assumed, for journeys inside the Tube/rail network, that you had taken the shortest route.

You wouldn't have the mechanism of discouraging journeys via zone 1, but I'm not sure how much effect that really has. You could, if you wanted, add a "zone 1 supplement" for any journey whose initial start or final end was in zone 1, I suppose, which would not create any anomalies per-se.

It would require touch on and off on buses, but that is hardly insurmountable and is provided in many other places.

A failure to touch in/out could simply mean you being charged, with no refund possible, the highest fare you could have incurred by that mode. So for example failure to touch out on a bus would mean being charged to that journey's terminus.

In the event of an evacuation of a station you could automatically cancel all anomalous journeys that occurred in the timeframe of the incident.

You could have daily caps if you wanted (the Dutch don't) but these would be much simpler and not zonal.

Much simpler.

In this case, the following would have happened:

Tap in at Paddington NR, no tap out - maximum fare
Tap in at Paddington LU, tap out at Paddington LU - min flat fee per journey
Tap in at Paddington LU, tap out at Buckhurst Hill - correct fare charged

Doesn't seem too far off from the present day if you ask me.

Also what you said is vastly similar, even almost identical to the system in Singapore.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I do recall paying a minimum fare for a slash at a station in Singapore where the bogs were inside the barrier but I wasn't travelling!

 

[jon0844]

A fare structure does not in and of itself require shaking said tree. The actual fare levels might, but you can set those later.

A system designed for smartcards is one perhaps more like the Dutch OV-Chipkaart one, of a flat fee per journey (not charged again if you touch in N minutes after the last touch out) plus a kilometric rate for that operation (buses could have been cheaper than trains, if desired, for example). It would be assumed, for journeys inside the Tube/rail network, that you had taken the shortest route.

You wouldn't have the mechanism of discouraging journeys via zone 1, but I'm not sure how much effect that really has. You could, if you wanted, add a "zone 1 supplement" for any journey whose initial start or final end was in zone 1, I suppose, which would not create any anomalies per-se.

It would require touch on and off on buses, but that is hardly insurmountable and is provided in many other places.

A failure to touch in/out could simply mean you being charged, with no refund possible, the highest fare you could have incurred by that mode. So for example failure to touch out on a bus would mean being charged to that journey's terminus.

In the event of an evacuation of a station you could automatically cancel all anomalous journeys that occurred in the timeframe of the incident.

You could have daily caps if you wanted (the Dutch don't) but these would be much simpler and not zonal.

Much simpler.

I do think we need to shake up fares in the UK, and consider what we might do in London where zones work well - but there is always scope to improve, especially as more people begin to use National Rail services alongside the tube, DLR, buses etc.

A flat rate fare system could work. As you say, I am not sure many people do avoid zone 1 to save money (and some may not know they can even do it, and have no idea what a pink validator is) and many will opt for the more convenient and quicker option, and pay the extra.

(Key workers and those who know would of course disagree with me, but with smartcards you can give discounts to regular users in different and more innovative ways).

Smartcards and mobile apps can be far more clever, and reduce fraud, as well as making it easier to refund people in times of disruption (GTR is testing automatic notification of delays now, for example) but there is always an underlying fear that it will do nothing but put fares up for everyone.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't think I'd do true flat fares because they don't provide very well for bus-rail interchange, and I don't see interchange penalty as a good thing.

If I wanted to avoid touching out as a concept, I'd go for something like this:-

1. A touch in on the Tube or National Rail starts a journey and charges a fare X

2. A touch in on the bus starts a journey and charges a lower fare Y

3. The touch in is valid for N hours (possibly two, or three, depending on likely journey lengths)

4. If there is another touch in within the N hours, no additional fare is charged

5. If there is a touch-in on rail/Tube within the N hours after the initial touch-in was on a bus, the difference X - Y is charged

6. If, in a railway day (0000-0430), there are two rail touch-ins, no further touch-ins on that railway day are chargeable (basically providing simple capping)

7. If, in a railway day (0000-0430), there is a rail and bus touch in or two bus touch ins, no further bus touch-ins are chargeable (providing a cheaper bus only cap). If there is a further rail touch-in this will only charge up to the cost of two rail touch-ins (avoiding unfair capping)

8. Potentially add weekly/monthly capping (A and B) at specified values.

The values of X, Y, A and B would be set to be revenue neutral.

Other than a very slow dragged-out journey and the possibility of some very short return journeys counting as singles, I can't see much of an anomaly caused by that, nor any need for any retrospective correction. A regular PF would be chargeable if a passenger is within the system with no touch-in or an expired one (would need a little thought as to the meaning of "expired") except in case of severe delays.

 

[MikeWh]

I don't think I'd do true flat fares because they don't provide very well for bus-rail interchange, and I don't see interchange penalty as a good thing.

If I wanted to avoid touching out as a concept, I'd go for something like this:-

1. A touch in on the Tube or National Rail starts a journey and charges a fare X

2. A touch in on the bus starts a journey and charges a lower fare Y

3. The touch in is valid for N hours (possibly two, or three, depending on likely journey lengths)

4. If there is another touch in within the N hours, no additional fare is charged

5. If there is a touch-in on rail/Tube within the N hours after the initial touch-in was on a bus, the difference X - Y is charged

6. If, in a railway day (0000-0430), there are two rail touch-ins, no further touch-ins on that railway day are chargeable (basically providing simple capping)

7. If, in a railway day (0000-0430), there is a rail and bus touch in or two bus touch ins, no further bus touch-ins are chargeable (providing a cheaper bus only cap). If there is a further rail touch-in this will only charge up to the cost of two rail touch-ins (avoiding unfair capping)

8. Potentially add weekly/monthly capping (A and B) at specified values.

The values of X, Y, A and B would be set to be revenue neutral.

Other than a very slow dragged-out journey and the possibility of some very short return journeys counting as singles, I can't see much of an anomaly caused by that, nor any need for any retrospective correction. A regular PF would be chargeable if a passenger is within the system with no touch-in or an expired one (would need a little thought as to the meaning of "expired") except in case of severe delays.

An interesting thought process. Now, how to make it all revenue neutral without disadvantaging all the tourists. Zone 1-2 all day cap £6.60, Zone 1-6 all day cap £12.00.

Plus absolutely diddly squat can happen in the next 3 years thanks to the Mayor's promise to freeze TfL only fares.

 

[jumble]

In this case, the following would have happened:

Tap in at Paddington NR, no tap out - maximum fare
Tap in at Paddington LU, tap out at Paddington LU - min flat fee per journey
Tap in at Paddington LU, tap out at Buckhurst Hill - correct fare charged

Doesn't seem too far off from the present day if you ask me.

Also what you said is vastly similar, even almost identical to the system in Singapore.

It does seem that if one mistake is made it sets off this type of chain of events even if corrected immediately as this journey on Sunday shows

Rayners lane gates open and evidently didn't register touch in
Corrected at Liv St on Oyster machine

13:20 - 14:07 Liverpool Street [National Rail] to Turkey Street £3.10 £16.50
13:18 Topped up, Liverpool Street [London Underground] +£20.00 £19.60
13:18 Pay as you go balance adjusted, Liverpool Street [London Underground] +£2.30 -£0.40
???? - 13:17 Incomplete journey[No touch-in] to Liverpool Street [London Underground] £5.40 -£2.70

I have requested refund of £3.10 for the last journey that should have been a continuation as OSI

Update
TFL usual excellent customer service Response to email
Note they will issue cheques

Thanks for email of 3 July about your recent journey on the 2 July using Oyster card number ending 5696.
I am sorry you have been overcharged on your recent journey from Liverpool street Station to Turkey Street Station. You are correct, in that you should have been charged for your full journey Rayners Lane Station to Turkey Street Station via Liverpool Street.
I have now processed a £3.10 refund via Web credit to your Oyster online account.
Username –
To use web credits, place an order through your online account. Your web credits will be automatically applied against the total amount of your order.
You will then be asked to nominate a station. This is where you will collect your purchase. To do this you will need to touch in at your nominated station as part of a journey.
Alternatively, you can receive your web credits as a payment to your bank account or by cheque. After signing in to your Oyster online account at: https://oyster.tfl.gov.uk/oyster, please follow the instructions below:
• Click Web credits
• Click Redeem cash credit only
• Choose how you would like to receive your web credits
• Amend any details as necessary
• Click Submit
Once submitted, please allow up to 10 working days for the payment to show on your bank account or for the cheque to be received.
Thanks again for contacting us. If there is anything else we can help you with, please reply to this email. Alternatively, you can call us on 0343 222 1234 and we’ll be happy to help you.
Kind regards

Customer Service Adviser
Transport for London Customer Services

 

[swt_passenger]

An interesting thought process. Now, how to make it all revenue neutral without disadvantaging all the tourists. Zone 1-2 all day cap £6.60, Zone 1-6 all day cap £12.00.

Plus absolutely diddly squat can happen in the next 3 years thanks to the Mayor's promise to freeze TfL only fares.

The main problem with anything even slightly like "flat fares" charged on entry is the constant clamour to extend further and further away from the centre, such as to Gatwick, and then there's the latest debate about differential charging of HEx PAYG.

 

[eddp]

I don't think I'd do true flat fares because they don't provide very well for bus-rail interchange, and I don't see interchange penalty as a good thing.

If I wanted to avoid touching out as a concept, I'd go for something like this:-

...

6. If, in a railway day (0000-0430), there are two rail touch-ins, no further touch-ins on that railway day are chargeable (basically providing simple capping)

At risk of sounding contrarian (which I probably am being), what if somebody did:

- Touch in South Croydon, touch out East Croydon
- Touch in East Croydon, touch out South Croydon
- Touch in South Croydon, touch out Uxbridge

(let's say for argument's sake somebody went shopping and then went to visit a friend)

Unless you're charging the same fares for a rail journey from South Croydon to East Croydon as you are from Enfield Town to Oxford Circus, it's incredibly easy to game the system and pay less than you should, and especially so if there's a 15 minute service or better on all lines (the cost of the breakfast you eat at the café next to the station is less than the cost you'd have paid for a return ticket)