|
Post by SILENCED on Feb 14, 2018 9:45:58 GMT
As TfL have for years said Oyster cards can be used for years, I wonder how exactly they intend to force people to change the older (first generation) cards. So person gets on bus, does Driver call special Code Oyster team who wizz along and politely swap your card and transfer the credit? I have no idea what generation my card is, or my wife’s card, or the one we keep for family visitors (and hasn’t been used for about 3 years) all might be at least 10 years old. I will be well narked if they change the rules since they sold it to me, Apparently newer cards have a D before mayor of London so will have to look sometime. They will eventually reach a point where 1st gen cards will be rejected ... Be long way off yet I would suspect.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Feb 14, 2018 9:48:37 GMT
As TfL have for years said Oyster cards can be used for years, I wonder how exactly they intend to force people to change the older (first generation) cards. So person gets on bus, does Driver call special Code Oyster team who wizz along and politely swap your card and transfer the credit? I have no idea what generation my card is, or my wife’s card, or the one we keep for family visitors (and hasn’t been used for about 3 years) all might be at least 10 years old. I will be well narked if they change the rules since they sold it to me, Apparently newer cards have a D before mayor of London so will have to look sometime. They will eventually reach a point where 1st gen cards will be rejected ... Be long way off yet I would suspect. I would certainly hope it's a long way off yet or it'll just be something else to put people off bus travel.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Feb 14, 2018 10:35:45 GMT
They will eventually reach a point where 1st gen cards will be rejected ... Be long way off yet I would suspect. I would certainly hope it's a long way off yet or it'll just be something else to put people off bus travel. It will be whenever the company that supplied them stops supporting them. You do not want to have to develop enhancements on unsupported hardware. They should just get around this by giving them an expiry date like a credit card ... Say approx 3 years from date of issue ... So 3.5 years from manufacture.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Feb 14, 2018 12:09:41 GMT
I would certainly hope it's a long way off yet or it'll just be something else to put people off bus travel. It will be whenever the company that supplied them stops supporting them. You do not want to have to develop enhancements on unsupported hardware. They should just get around this by giving them an expiry date like a credit card ... Say approx 3 years from date of issue ... So 3.5 years from manufacture. •Oyster cards never expire. They can be used again after any length of time. Deposits and balances can also be refunded on return of the card at any timeThis quote is taken from TfL Press release Link second bullet point from the end, this info is still on TfLs website as per link Never means never, doesn't mean until we cant be bothered to maintain it
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Feb 14, 2018 12:10:11 GMT
They will eventually reach a point where 1st gen cards will be rejected ... Be long way off yet I would suspect. I would certainly hope it's a long way off yet or it'll just be something else to put people off bus travel. I don't see how this would put them off bus travel, provide adequate notice, signage and a means of identifying what type of Oyster you have and everyone will quite probably happily change their Oyster card. For everyone that does have an Oyster it's not going to be hard to get to a Station and get it replaced.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 14, 2018 12:14:11 GMT
They will eventually reach a point where 1st gen cards will be rejected ... Be long way off yet I would suspect. I would certainly hope it's a long way off yet or it'll just be something else to put people off bus travel. I don't think people will stop using buses because their 10 year old Oyster Card will be no longer compatible - a number of people have probably lost Oyster Cards, had them stolen or damaged during this time so have had a replacement card at some point.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Feb 14, 2018 12:31:05 GMT
It will be whenever the company that supplied them stops supporting them. You do not want to have to develop enhancements on unsupported hardware. They should just get around this by giving them an expiry date like a credit card ... Say approx 3 years from date of issue ... So 3.5 years from manufacture. •Oyster cards never expire. They can be used again after any length of time. Deposits and balances can also be refunded on return of the card at any timeThis quote is taken from TfL Press release Link second bullet point from the end, this info is still on TfLs website as per link Never means never, doesn't mean until we cant be bothered to maintain it Reality kicks in when the cost of maintaining a small percentage of cards reaches a certain point. If the cost of maintaining 10% of the transactions exceeds the other 90% ... guess what, they will get chopped Press releases have no legal grounds ... so if they change their mind ... They change their mind. And it will be the suppliers that can't be bothered to maintain them, not TfL
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 14, 2018 13:00:52 GMT
As TfL have for years said Oyster cards can be used for years, I wonder how exactly they intend to force people to change the older (first generation) cards. So person gets on bus, does Driver call special Code Oyster team who wizz along and politely swap your card and transfer the credit? I have no idea what generation my card is, or my wife’s card, or the one we keep for family visitors (and hasn’t been used for about 3 years) all might be at least 10 years old. I will be well narked if they change the rules since they sold it to me, Apparently newer cards have a D before mayor of London so will have to look sometime. I see TR has already provided some info. I have a 1st generation card for some PAYG journeys but it's too much of a hassle now to swap it over and get the discount entitlement moved over. It would be fine if there were still LU ticket offices but, of course, they've gone. Ticket office staff generally knew how to do complex stuff. I'm afraid some roving staff really do not know all the aspects of their job and I am not really prepared to be "done" for fare fraud because of an unwitting staff error. If your Oyster cards are registered and you have an online account then TfL would automatically have notified you if you have any 1st gen cards. I have an Oyster a/c for my card - I would recommend having one if your cards are not registered. I think the "force" element will not disable or limit use of cards. Reading between the lines of what is in the TfL paper it looks to me like station ticket machines will be updated to warn people about any 1st gen cards they hold and possibly offer a routine on the machine to surrender the card and buy a new one there and then. I don't see this as affecting buses with "instant swap out squads" appearing as per your example. It seems very clear that TfL are banking on the Oyster App becoming very important - there is certainly an item in the list of initiatives about allowing concession products such as Railcards to be registered via a mobile phone and the app which would solve a significant issue about how people confirm their entitlement to discounts and would seemingly allow people using CPCs but who also have Railcards to benefit from the discount on their fares. This is because Contactless account info is to be integrated into the Oyster App later this year.
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Feb 14, 2018 22:15:26 GMT
As TfL have for years said Oyster cards can be used for years, I wonder how exactly they intend to force people to change the older (first generation) cards. So person gets on bus, does Driver call special Code Oyster team who wizz along and politely swap your card and transfer the credit? I have no idea what generation my card is, or my wife’s card, or the one we keep for family visitors (and hasn’t been used for about 3 years) all might be at least 10 years old. I will be well narked if they change the rules since they sold it to me, Apparently newer cards have a D before mayor of London so will have to look sometime. I see TR has already provided some info. I have a 1st generation card for some PAYG journeys but it's too much of a hassle now to swap it over and get the discount entitlement moved over. It would be fine if there were still LU ticket offices but, of course, they've gone. Ticket office staff generally knew how to do complex stuff. I'm afraid some roving staff really do not know all the aspects of their job and I am not really prepared to be "done" for fare fraud because of an unwitting staff error. If your Oyster cards are registered and you have an online account then TfL would automatically have notified you if you have any 1st gen cards. I have an Oyster a/c for my card - I would recommend having one if your cards are not registered. I think the "force" element will not disable or limit use of cards. Reading between the lines of what is in the TfL paper it looks to me like station ticket machines will be updated to warn people about any 1st gen cards they hold and possibly offer a routine on the machine to surrender the card and buy a new one there and then. I don't see this as affecting buses with "instant swap out squads" appearing as per your example. It seems very clear that TfL are banking on the Oyster App becoming very important - there is certainly an item in the list of initiatives about allowing concession products such as Railcards to be registered via a mobile phone and the app which would solve a significant issue about how people confirm their entitlement to discounts and would seemingly allow people using CPCs but who also have Railcards to benefit from the discount on their fares. This is because Contactless account info is to be integrated into the Oyster App later this year. A few years ago, in my capacity as a bookseller, I was asked how long 'old style' Book Tokens were valid for (i.e. those with a stamp of a certain value stuck on to a gift card). I replied 'forever' at which point the enquirer produced one for seven shillings and six pence (that's thirty seven and a half pence in new money). I said I'd certainly honour it and, more out of amusement than anything, later rang Book Tokens Ltd to ask how I'd account for it in my next statement. They replied that they'd send me a specially-produced form for reimbursement, and they did! Seriously, I've got two old Oystercards, neither registered, and I would expect to be able to use either without let or hindrance. My times in London now start at my sister's place, on a frequent bus route, but nowhere hear a shop of any description let alone a railway station (and the latter are all NR) so changing one at the start of a day's travel would be impossible.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Feb 24, 2018 8:21:48 GMT
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 12, 2018 23:52:45 GMT
Next week's Board papers are now up (20 March 2018). The crucial document is the draft budget for 2018/19. Despite all the back slapping about how patronage has "stabilised" this year the predicted number of pass jnys for 2018/18 is 2,236 which is 9m down on the forecast for this year. More worryingly it is 12m down on what was in the business plan only published a few months ago. Clearly TfL are not expecting much improvement. This text is also a bit concerning. "sometimes need to respond to increases in demand" - in other words only when lots of people are being left behind. Otherwise get used to crowded, congested buses. Note the self congratulatory "improves the environment" self justification for axeing bus services. Funny I thought we were supposed to have a green bus fleet fairly soon and that encouraging people to use buses rather than cars was a good idea? How stupid of me. EDITFrom the Commissioner's Report - on improving bus patronage Note the reference to axeing overlapping services with Kingsway clearly targeted next. Note also the "detailed plans for developing the bus network" - Bus Reshaping the 2019 version due in December this year (that's usually when the business plan emerges). I think the Khan Mayoralty will be marked by the massacre of the bus network.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 13, 2018 0:53:41 GMT
Next week's Board papers are now up (20 March 2018). The crucial document is the draft budget for 2018/19. Despite all the back slapping about how patronage has "stabilised" this year the predicted number of pass jnys for 2018/18 is 2,236 which is 9m down on the forecast for this year. More worryingly it is 12m down on what was in the business plan only published a few months ago. Clearly TfL are not expecting much improvement. This text is also a bit concerning. "sometimes need to respond to increases in demand" - in other words only when lots of people are being left behind. Otherwise get used to crowded, congested buses. Note the self congratulatory "improves the environment" self justification for axeing bus services. Funny I thought we were supposed to have a green bus fleet fairly soon and that encouraging people to use buses rather than cars was a good idea? How stupid of me. EDITFrom the Commissioner's Report - on improving bus patronage Note the reference to axeing overlapping services with Kingsway clearly targeted next. Note also the "detailed plans for developing the bus network" - Bus Reshaping the 2019 version due in December this year (that's usually when the business plan emerges). I think the Khan Mayoralty will be marked by the massacre of the bus network. This makes me worry about other corridors such as Brixton Hill & Streatham - neither area has been particularly looked at for a long while bar and with this talk of looking at high corridors, will they plan to unleash some horrors here. As for the bit about reducing congestion & improving the environment, pull the other one - the bus fleet is greener than practically any other mode of transport bar cycling (you only have to see how many cars are still running around belching out fumes to know this) and if TfL seriously wants to reduce congestion, actually target the offenders like the many cars on the road. Bus routes could then speed up and end up more reliable as a result rather than throwing out incorrect statements.
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Mar 13, 2018 22:23:54 GMT
Next week's Board papers are now up (20 March 2018). The crucial document is the draft budget for 2018/19. Despite all the back slapping about how patronage has "stabilised" this year the predicted number of pass jnys for 2018/18 is 2,236 which is 9m down on the forecast for this year. More worryingly it is 12m down on what was in the business plan only published a few months ago. Clearly TfL are not expecting much improvement. This text is also a bit concerning. "sometimes need to respond to increases in demand" - in other words only when lots of people are being left behind. Otherwise get used to crowded, congested buses. Note the self congratulatory "improves the environment" self justification for axeing bus services. Funny I thought we were supposed to have a green bus fleet fairly soon and that encouraging people to use buses rather than cars was a good idea? How stupid of me. EDITFrom the Commissioner's Report - on improving bus patronage Note the reference to axeing overlapping services with Kingsway clearly targeted next. Note also the "detailed plans for developing the bus network" - Bus Reshaping the 2019 version due in December this year (that's usually when the business plan emerges). I think the Khan Mayoralty will be marked by the massacre of the bus network. This makes me worry about other corridors such as Brixton Hill & Streatham - neither area has been particularly looked at for a long while bar and with this talk of looking at high corridors, will they plan to unleash some horrors here. As for the bit about reducing congestion & improving the environment, pull the other one - the bus fleet is greener than practically any other mode of transport bar cycling (you only have to see how many cars are still running around belching out fumes to know this) and if TfL seriously wants to reduce congestion, actually target the offenders like the many cars on the road. Bus routes could then speed up and end up more reliable as a result rather than throwing out incorrect statements. If you start with the premise that having more than a certain level of bph on any given stretch of road is wrong, rather than enquiring why so many buses have been considered necessary, and why a selection of routes provide those services, then you can start pruning away without regard for passenger needs. Even if you do accept that Kingsway has 'too many' buses passing along it, then you first consider alternative routeings for a proportion of them. If none are available, or only with considerable inconvenience to passengers, then you should question that premise or come up with a really radical alternative e.g. making Kingsway a bus-only road, or building an underground roadway for use by public transport.
Anyway, seeing as how Kingsway seems set to be the scene for the next culling of the fleet, I'm going to stick my neck out and predict what the ensuing changes may look like:- First off, I can foresee the 68 being withdrawn altogether. The signs have been around for a time that some at TfL, mostly on the basis of a map or, much more likely these days, a computer screen with a map on it, consider it expendable because of its overlaps with the 168 and 468. I'd suggest they try staying at Tulse Hill (say) for a few days and travel on it to Euston - while at the latter, see how many come out of the station and board it in the morning peak to go southbound, and then imagine how those people would get on if left to be picked up by the 168 or the 91. You still don't see? Oh well, none so blind as choose not to see. So, the 68 gets withdrawn, with the 468 stepping up to Waterloo and, probably, as a sop the X68 might get an extra 1 or 2 bph, maybe with slightly extended hours or, less likely, even an interpeak service. The 188 would need to be extended from Russell Square to Euston - I don't think this can be cut back because of the tourists staying in the RS area hotels travelling to Greenwich' The 91, as the only route into the area now from King's Cross/St Pancras, and the only one not to extend to Waterloo, should be safe. Apart from the 68, the other route I can definitely see vacating Kingsway is the 171, to terminate at Aldwych. I hope the 1 is safe, but I fear it may not be. The most frequent route of all in the peaks is the 521, and again one might assume it's safe, perhaps with minor trimming (and environmental issues shouldn't feature). However, I don't put it past TfL producing some sort of computer model to show the Elizabeth Line taking some 521 passengers (never mind that the 521 may be the only buses to be seen along Holborn Viaduct if you took a snapshot at certain times of the day). The 168 should be safe if I'm right about the 68.
Brixton is only such a hotbed of bus operation because of the inadequacy of alternative public transport. The Victoria Line is wonderful, but just imagine if Finsbury Park was its northern terminus, disgorging thousands of passengers there per hour. This is the situation at Brixton; the South Eastern does manage 4 trains per hour into Victoria, and, more importantly, out towards Bromley etc these days, but for donkey's years when I used the line it was 2tph even in peaks. The station is also exceedingly unsafe/scary during hours of darkness. The bus rules because, without it, many would not be able to get around. Chanting 'hopper fare' when not chanting 'Elizabeth Line' is not only inappropriate but grossly insulting to anyone with half a brain, but it does seem to be becoming the stock answer to any criticism from TfL, the Mayor and his acolytes..
|
|
|
Post by sid on Mar 13, 2018 23:05:34 GMT
This makes me worry about other corridors such as Brixton Hill & Streatham - neither area has been particularly looked at for a long while bar and with this talk of looking at high corridors, will they plan to unleash some horrors here. As for the bit about reducing congestion & improving the environment, pull the other one - the bus fleet is greener than practically any other mode of transport bar cycling (you only have to see how many cars are still running around belching out fumes to know this) and if TfL seriously wants to reduce congestion, actually target the offenders like the many cars on the road. Bus routes could then speed up and end up more reliable as a result rather than throwing out incorrect statements. If you start with the premise that having more than a certain level of bph on any given stretch of road is wrong, rather than enquiring why so many buses have been considered necessary, and why a selection of routes provide those services, then you can start pruning away without regard for passenger needs. Even if you do accept that Kingsway has 'too many' buses passing along it, then you first consider alternative routeings for a proportion of them. If none are available, or only with considerable inconvenience to passengers, then you should question that premise or come up with a really radical alternative e.g. making Kingsway a bus-only road, or building an underground roadway for use by public transport.
Anyway, seeing as how Kingsway seems set to be the scene for the next culling of the fleet, I'm going to stick my neck out and predict what the ensuing changes may look like:- First off, I can foresee the 68 being withdrawn altogether. The signs have been around for a time that some at TfL, mostly on the basis of a map or, much more likely these days, a computer screen with a map on it, consider it expendable because of its overlaps with the 168 and 468. I'd suggest they try staying at Tulse Hill (say) for a few days and travel on it to Euston - while at the latter, see how many come out of the station and board it in the morning peak to go southbound, and then imagine how those people would get on if left to be picked up by the 168 or the 91. You still don't see? Oh well, none so blind as choose not to see. So, the 68 gets withdrawn, with the 468 stepping up to Waterloo and, probably, as a sop the X68 might get an extra 1 or 2 bph, maybe with slightly extended hours or, less likely, even an interpeak service. The 188 would need to be extended from Russell Square to Euston - I don't think this can be cut back because of the tourists staying in the RS area hotels travelling to Greenwich' The 91, as the only route into the area now from King's Cross/St Pancras, and the only one not to extend to Waterloo, should be safe. Apart from the 68, the other route I can definitely see vacating Kingsway is the 171, to terminate at Aldwych. I hope the 1 is safe, but I fear it may not be. The most frequent route of all in the peaks is the 521, and again one might assume it's safe, perhaps with minor trimming (and environmental issues shouldn't feature). However, I don't put it past TfL producing some sort of computer model to show the Elizabeth Line taking some 521 passengers (never mind that the 521 may be the only buses to be seen along Holborn Viaduct if you took a snapshot at certain times of the day). The 168 should be safe if I'm right about the 68.
Brixton is only such a hotbed of bus operation because of the inadequacy of alternative public transport. The Victoria Line is wonderful, but just imagine if Finsbury Park was its northern terminus, disgorging thousands of passengers there per hour. This is the situation at Brixton; the South Eastern does manage 4 trains per hour into Victoria, and, more importantly, out towards Bromley etc these days, but for donkey's years when I used the line it was 2tph even in peaks. The station is also exceedingly unsafe/scary during hours of darkness. The bus rules because, without it, many would not be able to get around. Chanting 'hopper fare' when not chanting 'Elizabeth Line' is not only inappropriate but grossly insulting to anyone with half a brain, but it does seem to be becoming the stock answer to any criticism from TfL, the Mayor and his acolytes..
I think the 68 would be needed at peak times but I could well see it being reduced to a Mon-Fri peak hour only service as indeed the X68 is of course. I've said before that both the 68 and 171 between Holborn and Camberwell are a bit excessive off peak. That's a good point about Brixton and ideally the Victoria Line would go further south. The Southeastern station is one of the worst in London, even Elephant & Castle looks good by comparison. I think the hopper fare is here to stay, I've just got back from a few days in Berlin and they've got something similar there with a single ticket being valid for two hours on bus, train or tram although it can't be used for a return journey.
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Mar 13, 2018 23:20:06 GMT
If you start with the premise that having more than a certain level of bph on any given stretch of road is wrong, rather than enquiring why so many buses have been considered necessary, and why a selection of routes provide those services, then you can start pruning away without regard for passenger needs. Even if you do accept that Kingsway has 'too many' buses passing along it, then you first consider alternative routeings for a proportion of them. If none are available, or only with considerable inconvenience to passengers, then you should question that premise or come up with a really radical alternative e.g. making Kingsway a bus-only road, or building an underground roadway for use by public transport.
Anyway, seeing as how Kingsway seems set to be the scene for the next culling of the fleet, I'm going to stick my neck out and predict what the ensuing changes may look like:- First off, I can foresee the 68 being withdrawn altogether. The signs have been around for a time that some at TfL, mostly on the basis of a map or, much more likely these days, a computer screen with a map on it, consider it expendable because of its overlaps with the 168 and 468. I'd suggest they try staying at Tulse Hill (say) for a few days and travel on it to Euston - while at the latter, see how many come out of the station and board it in the morning peak to go southbound, and then imagine how those people would get on if left to be picked up by the 168 or the 91. You still don't see? Oh well, none so blind as choose not to see. So, the 68 gets withdrawn, with the 468 stepping up to Waterloo and, probably, as a sop the X68 might get an extra 1 or 2 bph, maybe with slightly extended hours or, less likely, even an interpeak service. The 188 would need to be extended from Russell Square to Euston - I don't think this can be cut back because of the tourists staying in the RS area hotels travelling to Greenwich' The 91, as the only route into the area now from King's Cross/St Pancras, and the only one not to extend to Waterloo, should be safe. Apart from the 68, the other route I can definitely see vacating Kingsway is the 171, to terminate at Aldwych. I hope the 1 is safe, but I fear it may not be. The most frequent route of all in the peaks is the 521, and again one might assume it's safe, perhaps with minor trimming (and environmental issues shouldn't feature). However, I don't put it past TfL producing some sort of computer model to show the Elizabeth Line taking some 521 passengers (never mind that the 521 may be the only buses to be seen along Holborn Viaduct if you took a snapshot at certain times of the day). The 168 should be safe if I'm right about the 68.
Brixton is only such a hotbed of bus operation because of the inadequacy of alternative public transport. The Victoria Line is wonderful, but just imagine if Finsbury Park was its northern terminus, disgorging thousands of passengers there per hour. This is the situation at Brixton; the South Eastern does manage 4 trains per hour into Victoria, and, more importantly, out towards Bromley etc these days, but for donkey's years when I used the line it was 2tph even in peaks. The station is also exceedingly unsafe/scary during hours of darkness. The bus rules because, without it, many would not be able to get around. Chanting 'hopper fare' when not chanting 'Elizabeth Line' is not only inappropriate but grossly insulting to anyone with half a brain, but it does seem to be becoming the stock answer to any criticism from TfL, the Mayor and his acolytes..
I think the 68 would be needed at peak times but I could well see it being reduced to a Mon-Fri peak hour only service as indeed the X68 is of course. I've said before that both the 68 and 171 between Holborn and Camberwell are a bit excessive off peak. That's a good point about Brixton and ideally the Victoria Line would go further south. The Southeastern station is one of the worst in London, even Elephant & Castle looks good by comparison. I think the hopper fare is here to stay, I've just got back from a few days in Berlin and they've got something similar there with a single ticket being valid for two hours on bus, train or tram although it can't be used for a return journey. I think the hopper fare is here to stay as well: I'm not against it per se, I'm against it being pronounced as a cure to all known ills when it is nothing of the sort, and the increasing use of its existence as an excuse to make some route changes that really should not happen because of the numbers who wish to make use of a 'through' service. I can't see the 68 being retained as a peak service, though: despite their professed dislike for the practice, I think it more likely the 468 could get peak short journeys from Norwood Garage, and the 168 from Euston Station, in the central London direction. Maybe journeys, rather than a regular interval service.
|
|