Talk:Oyster card/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Oyster card. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Registration

According to Transport for London, you are not obliged to provide your real identity when applying for an Oyster Card, however the station officers are not obliged to accept an application that is blatently bogus. If you apply for a card with a false name and address, you are unlikely to be able to recover your funds or season ticket in the event that it is stolen. --Salimfadhley 23:29, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

National Rail

I don't understand the statement Pre Pay is not planned to be launched on the rest of London's Rail network, mainly because of the difference in pricing structure between train operators. If that is the reason, it is a real criticism of the Oyster technology; after all the similar Octopus Card in Hong Kong has been around for a lot longer and supports all sorts of different pricing structures by different operators, ranging from buses to soft drink vending machines. -- User:chris_j_wood 15:56, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I doubt it has anything to do with the technology whatsoever. More likely cost and corporate politics. I mean, the article presents a card which is pretty sophisticated. --kingboyk 13:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Why "Oyster"?

I don't think it says anywhere in the article where the name comes from. Does it have anything to do with an oyster? <KF> 20:19, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

I have been led to believe it comes from the phrase "The world is your oyster" KrisW6 04:22, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps also a sideways acknowledgement of the earlier Octopus card in Hong Kong, which was the first really successful city-wide smart card ticketing system. -- Chris j wood 12:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I was sure it had to do that the Oyster card itself is a "container" for tickets - since it can hold both pre-pay money and a travelcard at the same time. --PkerUNO 02:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Capping

I've reverted the description as it was slightly misleading. The system is set up so for example if you made one short tube journey and then got the bus for the rest of the day, capping would convert to a bus pass and charge for the single journey instead of a travelcard. If you use the tube once before 9:30 (i.e in the peak) and several times after 9:30 (off-peak) the capping might be to a single journey + off peak travelcard instead of a peak travelcard (as it works out cheaper). In effect you pay for the cheapest combination of tickets. This complexity is deliberately hidden in publicity to make the system easier to understand by users MRSC 10:14, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's fair enough. The problem I have with the current wording is that on the Oyster statement and the readout on the barriers, the conversion doesn't exist. Instead, journeys suddenly cost £0.00. The article should mention this. --Dtcdthingy 10:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The bit about people getting a 'free ride'

This is invalid. First, the article says 'when it was introduced' it was possible to travel say from zone 6 to zone 6 on the other side of london because the system didn't know which zone you were travelling through. There are two issues with that statement:

first, the use of the past tense and the words 'when it was introduced'. It still works that way, the article suggests it doesn't.
second, it suggests users would get a 'free ride' or 'get away with' some sort of fee. This is dubious at best. To do so, you would have to stay on the same line between point a and point b, never change, and, of course, never be controlled. If you get controlled and you don't hold an oyster valid for the current zone you're in, you would have to pay a penalty.

This is not to say that the oyster is not without its flaws. I've regulary been overcharged on certain journeys (especially when taking the DLR then switching to another line, where it's really easy to forget to swipe in and out the doorless DLR), and was affected by the 'negative balance' issue described in the article many a time. (again, probably due to not swiping IN doorless DLR stations) 80.195.188.100 22:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The article didn't make clear enough that this "bug" affected season ticket travelcard holders (weekly/monthly/annual) and not "pure" prepay users (as you describe above) - I've tried to make that more clear.

And to elaborate here further: The old paper system worked by each barrier being set to accept tickets for the zone it is in. So a barrier at Whitechapel will only accept Zone 2 tickets and a barrier at Hammersmith would only accept Zone 2 tickets. If someone were to make the journey between Whitechapel and Hammersmith they could technically do it with a Zone 2 only ticket although the rules say you need a Zone 1&2 ticket as you pass through Zone 1 between the stations. When the first Oyster cards were issued they did not have prepay function active and so continued to let you do this until January 2004. When prepay went live in Jan 04 on all Oyster card (including cards containing season tickets - where it is used for zone extensions) it started charging for the "missing" Zone 1 fare as a "prepay extension".

Hope this clears it up. MRSC 05:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Not really. How do the barriers at Hammersmith know that the traveller has gone through zone 1, as opposed to around it?. True, they may in some cases be able to assume this because there are no other valid underground routes, but surely that was equally true of the case pre-Oyster. In which case this effect has nothing to do with Oyster cards at all, but is just a co-incidental effect of the introduction of new barriers. -- Chris j wood 12:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Technical details

Well you deleted the 'relay exploit' section which I think was relevant. Anyway Oyster is a "Proximity card" not a "contactless smartcard." The range is also not 10cm - the range is determined by the power of the reader (ticket gate or pay station) which as you read in the link has been tested to 50m with the standard phillips kit.

There certainly needs a section on either privacy (other than that specific to tfl), fraud (stealing from someone else's card), or plain hacking (turning your own card into someone else's - adding prepay).

also some discussion about the Jan 2006 fare structures. As a zone 1 resident & commuter it's cheaper for me to use prepay than the zone 1-2 monthly (no zone 1 monthly is available now). The paper (3UKP) vs oyster (1.5GBP) is a good point & I have also been stung by this one (paystation out of order).

The 'negative balance' issue - I have had a zone 1 monthly blocked by a 40p debit (Not £1). My belief is that negative balances of any values are disallowed. Which is different to the Hong Kong MTR as you know.

Incidentally, where did the figure of 10cm range arise from? Any reader that I've experienced is much less sensitive than that. I tried my home one at Beckton Park this morning by gradually bringing the flat card nearer, and I reckon it tripped at about 15mm. The ones at the end of the journey are even less sensitive at Old Street - requiring not just a tap, but momentarily holding the card flat against the pad. I note that many people don't get this, and frantically rub the card against it, which probably confuses it further. Ian Tindale 16:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

External Links

I can't help but feel that one of the external links (http://www.softwarereality.com/design/OysterGotcha.jsp) is not neutral.

It criticises pretty much everything, starting with the name and compares eating oysters to "licking snot off a tortoise shell" which I can't help but think has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject, and is in pretty poor taste. The first blog the site links to (http://www.electricdeath.com/blog/786) continues this in an even worse manner.

"The Oyster Gotcha" and the blogs it quotes do raise some valid and perhaps valuable criticisms on both the system and the service provided, but unfortunately the style borders on, and sometimes crosses into, verbal abuse.

Seeing as most of the good points raised on those sites have already been covered in the wikipedia article, I feel that the link is superfluous anyway, and recommend its removal.

I can't help but agree - the points put forward are based on little factual information and for an article that calls itself an analysis, calling the Oyster readers "magnetic detector things" is inexcusable. There are good pages on the shortcomings of the Oyster system, but this isn't one of them. --PkerUNO 03:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Ray 20:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Design

States that you have to incur a minimum debt of £1.00 for travelcard to be invalidated; not true. £0.50pence was enough to prevent me from exiting barriers with a £30 travelcard stored on the card, all because of fault through LU. Don't know how much dedt you can incur, but I know they go potty over £0.50, and literally 'steal' your invested money in the system to use on TfL network, especially when its them who don't have a sufficient refund policy system. Complexity on this system is a joke and will continue to be so until compatibility issues with London network carriers devise a compromise. Sun 14 January 2007; 22:00hrs (GMT) - User: anonymous —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.210.15.35 (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

Pre pay launch 'bug'

The article contains the following:

On the day the pay as you go system went live on all Oyster cards, some season ticket passengers were prevented from making a second journey on their travelcard. Upon investigation each had a negative prepay balance. This was widely reported as a major bug in the system. However, the reason for the "bug" was that some season ticket holders, either knowingly or otherwise, were passing through zones not included on their tickets. The existing paper system could not prevent this kind of misuse as the barriers only checked if a paper ticket was valid in the zone the barrier was in.

The description of why this isn't a bug ('However, ...') does not make any sense to me. The location at which Oyster Cards are checked (ie. the barrier lines on underground lines) is no different to the location at which old-fashioned paper tickets are checked. There are no hidden 'on-train' or 'in-corridor' sensors to tell what route somebody took. Can somebody (the original author, perhaps) clarify. -- Chris j wood 12:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Oyster checks tickets differently. It has been programmed in advance with which zones are needed for each and every possible journey. Paper tickets/barriers only check the ticket is valid in the zone the barrier is situated.

If I have a zone 2 paper season travelcard and go from Mile End to Hammersmith (a journey through zone 1) the paper ticket will let me through. If I have an Oyster card with a zone 2 season on it I will get charged a prepay debit for the "missing" zone 1. MRSC 19:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

In this particular case there is actually a route between the two that bypasses Zone 1, though as Oyster PrePay isn't yet available on the North London Line and the West London Line it wouldn't be valid. But when that happens (next year) the fare conscious traveller/tourist of North London could bypass Zone 1 completely. Do the fare gates charge the most direct route in such circumstances? Timrollpickering 22:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You are charged for the direct route no matter how elaborate a detour you make. MRSC 05:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay here's one. Any Central Line station east of Leyton (Zone 4) to any District Line station east of East Ham (ditto). One could either interchange once at Mile End in Zone 2 or twice using the Jubilee/North London Line (valid here) between Stratford and West Ham (in Zone 3). Which is the "direct route" for such journeys? A lot of passengers do seek to minimise the value of their journeys and particularly avoid going through Zone 1 if they can reasonably help it. When/if the ELL, NLL, WLL and SLL are linked up into an orbital route this will become quite an issue.

And without checking, I think Stratford to Richmond is faster via Zone 1 than over the North London Line, but more direct on the latter. Again how does Oyster know which route one takes? Timrollpickering 11:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I replied to this some time ago but an editor deleted my reply. So here it is again:

Not sure about the rest but I've used PAYG from Central to District as you describe via Mile End but got charged via Stratford, so it does work in your favour sometimes. MRSC 08:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, some journeys are defined to go through Zone 1, (and presumably others if it ever matters). There are big lists up in most tube stations telling you the fare to every other tube station and what zones you need to do this. Thus there are times when you could travel through zone 1 and not get charged it, and vice versa. This also applies to the paper ticket, just the machines don't check it very well.

Pay as you go nonsense

I've just spent all morning changing everything on the Oyster from Pay as you go back to Prepay. The story that the LU is rebranding Prepay to Pay as you go is completley unfounded, and as a London citizen, and regular tube user, I have had no signs that this change is taking place. I think prepay is here to stay. I have added a better explantion of what Prepay is to help any confusion. Please do not change anything back to pay as you go, until we can find out the details of this rebranding. Come on guys, this is meant to be an Encyclopedia. Try and keep it accurate. --Staticfish 09:08, 10 Apr 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. We should follow not lead on terminology like this. However it does strike me that if Oyster does become more of an e-money card, that would have an impact on this naming. If people really start thinking about the Oyster card as being an electronic wallet, then the moment of spending when travelling on a 'non-season-ticket' card will be the point at which you swipe the card to get on/off the underground/bus/whatever, and not the point when you top it up. From that perspective calling it 'prepay' is plain wrong and 'pay as you go' much more accurate. -- Chris j wood 09:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Well if you look at it like that, the name 'pay as you go' assumes one is paying for the mars bar as soon as they are scanning their Oyster card, whilst the name 'Prepay' assumes the user has already paid for the said item beforehand, which is much nearer the truth as the user could have paid the credit on the card months beforehand StaticFish 16:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Mrsteviec: Stop reverting the pages back to Pay as you go. Until Pay as you go is used around tube stations, announcements, and the LU in general, this page should state Prepay. Linking to some obscure PDF does not gain any significance over this fact.

Also, never revert Talk pages without a really good reason. A few of us commented on this change and agreed that it should stay as Prepay for now, until the LU adopts the 'Pay as you go' reference. You reverted this page back, thus deleting all discussions on this. This is considered vandalism of Wikipedia. Please do not do it again --Staticfish 12:48, 17 Apr 2006 (UTC)

There are some areas of the Tube that still haven't noticed that Hammersmith & City Line isn't the Metropolitan Line anymore... Timrollpickering 00:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The talk page was not "reverted", it was refactored so it ran in chronological order. I have put it back in the correct order again. Please add new talk to the bottom of the page in future.

To the matter in hand, look in the 2006 fares guide - it was rebranded from there.

Instances of "prepay" in this document = 0, instances of "pay as you go" = 31.

Also I have seen plenty of posters referring to this as "pay as you go". It is not a matter for debate, it is something that has happened and you have failed to recognise. MRSC 05:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Type of Mifare card?

It's not made clear either here or on the article MIFARE exactly which type of MIFARE card is used in Oyster; Standard, T=CL or DESFire. (MIFARE seems to imply DESFire but it's worded oddly so I'm not sure.) Anyone know?

The dates also suggest this (2002 - DESFire > 2003 - Oyster). --anskas 17:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, this site claims that oyster uses MIFARE standard chips. --anskas 22:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This site confirms this. I will edit the page accordingly. --anskas 22:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Securiy Issues

Mifare classis has been hacked and it is possible to exploit the system.. not easy but we will get there http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/MIFARE However back office check can still be performed...

can be bothered to update the page so somebody else do it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.17.223 (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Photos and pics

Any chance of a pic of the Oyster reader and perhaps an Oyster card actually being used on a reader? Ian Tindale 14:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Charges when user forgets to swipe out

The article says that the user gets charged a £4 or £5 fare if they forget to swipe out. It also says that the maximum charge for a day is calculated so as not to exceed the price of a Travelcard. What I'm wondering, and the article should make clear, is if the second point applies when the user forgets to swipe out? Let's say they do that twice in a day, the penalty fare *2 is likely to be more than the price of a Travelcard. How much do they pay? --kingboyk 13:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, the penalty fare applies to each "unresolved journey" but there may be a cap on that. It's independent of the calculation for travelcards, which is based only on "legitimate" fares. I'm not going to change the article though, because I'd like to see the info referenced from the official terms & conditions, which I don't have to hand. – Kieran T ^(talk) 18:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

On the 27th December 2007 my wife managed to get through a barrier without the card registering properly. The ticket office said that "unresolved journey" fares (then £4) are not included in the cap. They refunded £2.50 but that still leaves my wife £1.50 out of pocket if she hits the cap that day. Since the word of one man in a ticket office is hardly official policy I'm not going to change the article either. 22:21 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I got a "seek asistance message" when I checked in and an assistant opened the gate for me. When I arrived at the destinantion and checked out, I got charged £4. When I noticed this, nobody was willing to help. Oyster is fraud to the customer! There must be thousands of people every day who make the same experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.55.18 (talk) 23:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Architecture

Would it be possible for anyone who knows about the subject to write about the technical architecture?

To write about the technical architecture openly would potentially open the system up to fraud or hacking. It is safe to say that the technical architecture is fully documented in painstaking detail and designed to be extremely resilient and robust. Techniques such as Finite State Machine were used during design to ensure safety and reliability and no loss or corruption of data. As noted in the failures section, the only failues that have occurred have resulted from incorrect configuration data.

What intelligence is there in a station gate line?

The gate line is frequently updated with information about Oystercards than need to be disabled for what ever reason.

What further machinery acts as a comms concentrator in a station?

There is a station computer.

What communications network is used?

The network is IP based.

Where is the central database?

On a large mainframe.

What software is it made out of?

Various programming languages were used. Within the closed system there are over 30 different systems of varying ages and technologies.

Who built it?

CUBIC, Fujitsu Retail (although completed by CUBIC) Fujitsu Enterprise Systems (although completed by CUBIC),

How long did it take?

Started 17 August 1998, planned to finish on the milestone date called NSLD "New Service Live Date" 4 years later. There were multiple milestones in the programme plan. Delays by LT caused delays in the go live date.

How do non-networked validators, eg on buses, work?

The same way as networked validators. They have the same electronics and sofware, just the downstream/upstream data occurs only when the device is docked.

The article as it stands describes the user experience well, but is very thin on the guts of this system. In my opinion it's very reliable and I'd be interested to learn how that was achieved. David Colver 20:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

http://rfid.idtechex.com/knowledgebase/en/casestudy.asp?freefromsection=122 has a useful technical overview. Perhaps someone could abstract the interesting data into this wikipedia page?
Kim SJ 11:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Maximum Cash Fares

Regarding maximum cash fares, they still apply even if you have reached the daily price cap. You must still touch in and out at Oyster readers. I have edited the article to reflect this - SteveMcSherry 22:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

A Bug in the System?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.191.224 (talk) 16:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no notice about a reported bug in the Oyster system If I touch in at Barons Court and then in 5 minutes decide to leave and touch out - nothing happens, I am not charged If I touch in at Barons Court, wait for a train which is massively delayed and leave after 18 minutes - the system will take it I have made 2 incomplete journeys and deduct 2 maximum cash fares. This was revealed this week. Stephen Howe 01:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

If you find a reliable source detailing this, feel free to add it to the article. It should be easy - I remember reading about that bug myself. :) Daniel^C/_T+ 10:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This page describes a related bug, namely that Oyster allows a maximum time of two hours between touch-in and touch-out, even though there are valid journeys within the system which take longer than this (Upminster to Heathrow was the example given). An attempt to touch-out after two hours will be counted as a new touch-in, incurring two maximum fares (one for each touch-in). 217.155.20.163 17:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not a bug but part of system design. Oyster journeys are required to be completed within two hours of start; otherwise they count as two separate journeys. There are no journeys on the system that should routinely take more than two hours although there are some possibilities for exceeding this time when there are train delays or disruptions. The system charges the minimum fare from the station for entering and exiting from the same station within a 30 minute period. After that it is counted as two incomplete journeys and two max fares apply. All of this is done to prevent opportunities for fraud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shashi verma (talk • contribs) 09:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... I put Uxbridge to Heathrow Airport Central into the TFL journey planner, and the time is 1h58 (I had to disable travel by rail, since I didn't want to pay for the Heathrow Express). With luggage that could easily take an additional two minutes. I've been charged for entering and leaving a station (after the last train had departed). ƕ (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it is important that the truth about maximum daily charges is presented. I would like to document the system behaviour with regard to the daily cap charge being exceeded in a scenario of severe delays. @Alarics removed my experience because it is an unverified anecdote. The system behaviour I describe (which happened to me - I quoted my card number in an attempt to show the veracity of the incident - my card number was removed by @Captain_Cornwall why?) corresponds with the charging of two max fares after waiting more than 30 minutes, as described above by @Shashi_verma. I've rewritten this anecdote as an abstract scenario, rather than a particular incident. If you want more detail then please ask: I still have emails of my exchange with TfL (Ref: 6691535). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.2.190 (talk) 11:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Your experiences are original research, and therefore cannot be used. Find an authorative source that states that the situation you experiences is a) possible, and/or b) common. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Virus(?)

Today (12/07/2008) every London bus had paper taped over the oyster readers saying not working. Several bus drivers claimed there was a virus on the system. The underground oyster card barriers seam to be operational however. http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/news/oyster.aspx.

More tweaks...

I've done some general cleaning up and have changed the positioning of the photos so they are all together. SteveMcSherry 23:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Travelcard zoning

Would a zone 2-4 travelcard on oyster work for a journey from (say) Hounslow East to Finchley Road? This would require a change at Rayners Lane (zone 5) or travel through zone 1, but no ticket barriers to pass through. Also what about travelling between zones 2 and 4 on national rail, but where the train passes through zone 5? (e.g. Hounslow Loop Line Richmond to Isleworth? If anyone knows I would like to add this information to the article.129.31.72.52 06:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You pay for the zones you pass through, not those you start and end in. When you go via Rayners Lane or either of the possible Zone 1 changes the user would be assumed by the system to have traveled outside the zones covered on the card and would be liable for an extension. This is no differenet on Oyster to what you have happened withe "paper" Travelcard. Of course, there is a theoretically possible route between HE and FR that stays within Zones 2-4, but it would take "forever," and anyone taking it would doubtless have trouble convincing the staff at FR when they get there that that is what they did! Richmond to Isleworth direct would also be liable for an extension, although again there are feasible alternative routethat do not. Nick Cooper 09:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, well it seems like an awful lot of logic to code on the ticket barriers. The "forever" route would require changing at West Hampstead from rail to tube I think, but any other travelcard besides the 2-4 one would work. Might try it and be prepared to pay an extension fare. 129.31.72.52 15:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The "forever" route would actually work without a problem because you'd have to touch in at West Hampstead. Paper travelcards are always checked for validity at the entry/exit point, not the "logical route".

Incidentally you don't actually pay for the extra zones you "pass through" but rather the "natural route" - there are some journeys where you can go into one further zone for easier interchange without being charged for it (e.g. using Mile End rather than Straford/West Ham for switching between the eastern ends of the Central and District lines). Indeed there may be routes where someone staying entirely within the validity of their card would still be charged extensions - London Overground is going to be interesting as not everyone is in a hurry. Timrollpickering 16:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, obviously when I said "pass through" I meant in the sense of what the system assumes the customer to have passed through. Nick Cooper 22:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that one of the reasons for introducing the Oyster is to reduce cheating from paper travelcards where people didn't pay for "passing through"? e.g. going from W to E london but only getting an outer zone one? Could just damage the magnetic strip. and then there are train stations without ticket barriers so if you knew your routes well enough you could "save" some money. Ohwell32 19:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the magnetic strip paper tickets ever actually carried that information - it was just about whether the passenger had a valid ticket at entry/exit. Although any development can have multiple benefits and reasons, I think the main one for Oyster is that it (theoretically) cuts down on ticket sales in the tube stations by allowing the passenger to pay automatically at the barrier. It also helps get rid of the problems of buying extensions (which can be time consuming as they involve queueing up for the manned window). The only area where it cuts down fraud is the requirement to have touched in at the start of the journey and, when this happens, to calculate the extension required. Even then someone with a travelcard can enter the system through an ungated point (or a National Rail station that doesn't yet do Pay As You Go) and travel across zones they don't have to emerge back in a zone they do and the system may not be able to catch them. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Touching at Bank during interchange

In the article it says "When using the DLR at Bank using PAYG you must touch the reader by the DLR platform even if you are changing to/from the London Underground."

However the following suggests that this is not correct:

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.transport.london/tree/browse_frm/thread/976d45b2501da5f5/9eee351c6433c4e8?hl=en&rnum=11&q=touch+oyster+bank+underground&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fuk.transport.london%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F976d45b2501da5f5%2Fbfeb7392e051d332%3Fhl%3Den%26lnk%3Dst%26q%3Dtouch%2Boyster%2Bbank%2Bunderground%26#doc_cbaa5400aea958f6

However this is contradicted by a letter in last night's thelondonpaper:

http://www.thelondonpaper.com/cs/Satellite/london/talk?packedargs=cat...

"No need to touch out twice with Oyster

"In response to Melvyn Windebank's letter (24 November), the new rules for Oyster cards have been implemented to benefit honest passengers and cut down on fraud. There is no need for a passenger to touch in and out when transferring from DLR to Tube at Bank station.

"The Oyster card can calculate the correct fare when you touch out with the card after completing your Tube journey. The only circumstance where a customer needs to touch in at the validators at Bank when transferring from the Tube to DLR is when the customer has a Zone 1-2 travelcard but intends to terminate his journey outside Zone 2.

"Shashi Verma, Transport for london"

(The link in the usenet posting doesn't give this letter any more - I guess the letter must have been 1st Dec 2006 but I don't know how/whether this can be accessed via www.thelondonpaper.com)

199.172.169.32 16:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The official TfL site says: "If you are joining DLR at Bank and are planning to use pay as you go to travel outside of your Travelcard zones, you must touch your Oyster card on the reader on the DLR concourse to ensure you have a valid ticket to travel on DLR." Geoking66_talk 08:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Officially, when changing between the DLR and tube at Bank, you are supposed to touch your Oyster Card on the reader on the DLR platform, however, I have made that interchange without touching on the DLR platform reader and still been charged the correct fare. Jenks1987 (talk) 00:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Example journey from Cambridge Heath to Liverpool Street

According to the article, a person travelling from Cambridge Heath to Liverpool Street using a zone 2-3 travelcard and Oyster PAYG would be charged a penalty fare, even though Oyster PAYG was technically valid. This, I believe, is incorrect. This route is currently not available on Oyster PAYG- a person could only use an Oyster card on this route if they held a travelcard covering zones 1 and 2. The travelcard must cover the entire journey. Jenks1987 (talk) 00:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the example to Forest Gate. Stratford to Liverpool Street on "one" is covered by PAYG so it's a legitimate extension. (I did consider the larger Ilford but there are readers there, albeit only for checking travelcard validity, and I think the example would get over complicated.) Timrollpickering (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the new example is a legitimate use of Oyster PAYG. For a user to be charged the correct fare, they would have to get off at Stratford, touch in with their Oyster card and then continue their journey to Liverpool. I have edited the article to reflect this. Jenks1987 (talk) 11:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Beyond London - Incomprehensible text

The article reads:

... Oyster was developed before the Integrated Transport Smartcard Organisation (ITSO) smartcard specification was agreed, and does not meet this specification. Consequently many of the modern computer-based, rail ticketing systems are able to issue Oyster-compatible tickets as of 2006; some older ticket-issuing equipment at stations served by London Underground but managed by Network Rail or their operators has been converted for use with Oyster Card. ...

Can somebody explain why the fact that many modern rail ticketing systems can issue Oyster compatable tickets is a consequence of Oyster *not* being ITSO compliant. This seems totally counter-intuitive.

Presumably if Oyster happens to be a subset of the ITSO spec then the paragraph quoted above can make sense. Edwin Greenwood (talk) 11:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Oyster is not a subset of the ITSO spec. It is a completely unrelated and incompatible system. ITSO is the new standard but unfortunately TfL decided that their system was better only to find out everybody else decide it wasn't.... CrossHouses (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

TfL designed a system that met their needs and got on with implementing it while ITSO was very much still a talking shop. It is only recently that ITSO implementations of any complexity have started to appear. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 15:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The article also reads:

... many of the modern computer-based, rail ticketing systems are able to issue Oyster-compatible tickets as of 2006; some older ticket-issuing equipment at stations served by London Underground but managed by Network Rail or their operators has been converted for use with Oyster Card. However, a derivation of Cubic FasTIS ticket machines (derived from the LUL Ticket Office Machine developed for the TfL Prestige Project) called FasTIS+ can retail TfL Oyster products and the Shere ticket machines installed at London Overground stations can issue Oyster products in addition to National Rail tickets for same, next day or next working day travel.

I don't even begin to understand that 'However'. It seems to be akin to 'Apples are red. However New Zealand apples are red'.

I'm beginning to wonder if this paragraph has been vandalised. Certainly both issues would be resolved if you put a not in the middle sentence to make it:

Consequently many of the modern computer-based, rail ticketing systems are not able to issue Oyster-compatible tickets as of 2006; ...

Thoughts?. -- Chris j wood (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I've taken the plunge and decided the text in question is too incromprehensible to meet WP's quality standards. I've therefore pulled it from the article for now. Please free to reinstate a cleaned up version, if you can. -- Chris j wood (talk) 10:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Oyster is based on Java technology

Is it worth mentioning under the techie bit that Oyster is based on JavaCard and Java technologies throughout?? James Gosling from Sun just mentioned it in a keynote at the Mobile and Embedded Developer Days Conference... I certainly didn't know it before, so if anyone knows of any references to this, that would be interesting to throw in perhaps. 17:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Oyster is not based on Java technology. The back office systems were built using ICL's Forte 4GL system. Since the demise of ICL the Forte system has become obsolete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.60.98.133 (talk) 10:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

"Attacked other systems" section

How revelant is this, given that it explicityly states that the sytsem technology mentioned is not used in Oyster? Nick Cooper (talk) 12:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - I have removed it. It has absolutely nothing to do with Oyster (it even said so directly in the text itself that it was not applicable). Nzseries1 (talk) 16:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Added photo showing the chip inside the card

If anyone can figure out a better way of revealing the chip and the aerial, please message me... Spent ages chiselling away at the thing! Maybe sticking it the oven at a low heat?! --Tomhannen (talk) 23:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Far too many photos

There are two pictures of underground trains, both with a caption explaining that Oyster is valid on all underground trains. There also seems to be a whole column of pictures of trains, buses, etc, with each caption explaining that the Oyster is valid on them. This is obviously decoration rather than illustration - a picture of a bendy bus from the outside does not illustrate the fact that there are Oyster readers inside. What's more, we have a picture of the three types of Oyster card, and then a separate picture which again includes each type of card, but also the respective holders for each one. The latter would be sufficient. --194.203.201.92 (talk) 11:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A good point, whoever you are, 194.203.201.92. Images are supposed to support the content of an article and not just decorate it. I've made some effort at re-arranging images into more relevant places which should help. The article could benefit from more photos specific to the subject matter, rather than just GVs of a random bus or whatever. Contributors might also consider using the gallery function rather than littering the article with images. Cnbrb (talk) 17:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Paper Travelcard costs more than Oyster Travelcard?

The article mentions that there is essentially no difference between a paper travelcard and of one loaded onto an oyster. Aren't day travelcards cheaper with an oyster? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.245.224 (talk) 03:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Day travelcards aren't available on Oyster; however, the daily price capping scheme ensures that Oyster PAYG users pay no more than 50p less than the equivalent day travelcard they would require to cover all the journeys they make in one day. Jenks1987 (talk) 08:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)