Talk:Oyster card

Securiy Issues

Mifare classis has been hacked and it is possible to exploit the system.. not easy but we will get there http://en.wikipedia.org/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? What intelligence is there in a station gate line? What further machinery acts as a comms concentrator in a station? What communications network is used? Where is the central database? What software is it made out of? Who built it? How long did it take? How do non-networked validators, eg on buses, work? 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)

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)

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)

"The Oyster card acts as an aerial while the reader acts as a receiver" : receiver only?

Does the reader act as receiver only? Doesn't it act as both transmitter and receiver, transmitting a radio signal constantly?Haircut3603 (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Oyster Card and Travelcard

I would like to know if I should buy an Oyster Card or a Travelcard to see the sights in the City of London using public transportation. I do not plan to travel outside the London area.

Also can the Travelcard fees be loaded on the Oyster Card. raff —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralph Wimberly (talk • contribs) 21:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Deposit of £3 for all new cards?

Oyster_card#Sales says "A refundable deposit of £3 is paid for all new Oyster cards." But this TfL page says Visitor Oyster cards cost £2. Nurg (talk) 23:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

National Rail rollout

I have made a number of updates to reflect the full rollout on National Rail from Jan 2009. Now that this hurdle has been overcome, I've taken the opportunity to create a Validity section and consolidated all the repetititve references to where Oyster is and isn't valid. Previously there were several setnecnes telling me Oyster wasn't valid on NR all over the article and it makes more sense to have this informaiton all in one place. The Use section should now be concerned only with the method of using the card, not with any issues around validity. The long and tortuous history of getting Oyster onto NR is now under the Rollout history section, as again, this information was scattered in repetitive paragraphs all over the article. I hope everyone finds this easier to read.Cnbrb (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Early History

Should the following information be added into the article? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/smart-card-bus-tickets-go-on-trial-1394394.html Coatgal (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Citation request for authority on the Brand section by Andrew McCrum.

As a brand name creator and linguistic validator, I was employed by Saatchi and Saatchi design to find a name for the new automated travel card to be used on various methods of public transport in London in 2001. The brand values mentioned in the article were all cited in my submission to Saatchi and Saatchi Design. In addition, I pointed out that it had a high integrity rating, meaning that there were few phonetically or visually simillar words. I also stated that it had a luxury element to its meaning that will be useful in some cases and not in others.

The pre-existence of the Octopus card in Hong Kong and the support of the Saatchi and Saatchi team was important in the selection. Although graphically not dissimilar both with an initial O and semantically similar, as both are marine animals, the componential meaning for the octopus and oyster, and consequently any attendant brand values, are very different. The octopus, a cephalopod with a head contained in each of its eight arms, is arguably a much better choice for a multi functional, multi-destinational smart card. The oyster, a bivalve, with its digestive and reproductive system and secured within its hard, calcified shells has a whole host of different component meanings that were used in its promotion to Saatchi and Saatchi design as indicated on the paragraph I added to the Wikipedia page about three yeaers ago. I am not sure how to avoid having the [citation needed] alongside this para but I would be chuffed to the gunwhales if my entry could be substantiated in some way having just spotted this rather arbitrary disqualifier probably a long time after it was entered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.30.52.40 (talk) 13:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

As a brand name creator and linguistic validator, I was employed by Saatchi and Saatchi design to find a name for the new automated travel card to be used on various methods of public transport in London in 2001. The brand values mentioned in the article were all cited in my submission to Saatchi and Saatchi Design. In addition, I pointed out that it had a high integrity rating, meaning that there were few phonetically or visually simillar words. I also stated that it had a luxury element to its meaning that will be useful in some cases and not in others.

The pre-existence of the Octopus card in Hong Kong and the support of the Saatchi and Saatchi team was important in the selection. Although graphically not dissimilar both with an initial O and semantically similar, as both are marine animals, the componential meaning for the octopus and oyster, and consequently any attendant brand values, are very different. The octopus, a cephalopod with a head contained in each of its eight arms, is arguably a much better choice for a multi functional, multi-destinational smart card. The oyster, a bivalve, with its digestive and reproductive system and secured within its hard, calcified shells has a whole host of different component meanings that were used in its promotion to Saatchi and Saatchi design as indicated on the paragraph I added to the Wikipedia page about three yeaers ago. I am not sure how to avoid having the [citation needed] alongside this para but I would be chuffed to the gunwales if my entry could be substantiated in some way having just spotted this rather arbitrary disqualifier probably a long time after it was entered.

Andrew McCrum, Appella brand naming and validation, 28.1.10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.30.52.40 (talk) 13:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Oyster Card Overcharging

Based on a real incident on 25 January 2010 during morning rush hour, when trains were held up in a tunnel for an hour, resulting in the total delay of about 90 minutes, the Oyster Card systems split up a single journey into two incomplete journeys.

The result was a £6 charge for the Incomplete journey based on Entry before 9am, and a £4.30 charge for the second incomplete journey. Thus I was overcharged by a total of £10.30 for a single journey, which normally costs £2.70. As the delay was well over 15 minutes, the total cost should have been refunded.

I estimate 25,000 passengers would have been caught by the same long delays on 25 January, of which say 25% would have been using Oyster Pay as you Go Cards. The total overcharged by LT would be 25,000 x 25% x £10.30 = £64,375.

Using the statistics on the main page (£18M charged but only £800k refunded), I calculate the proportion who take the time and effort to claim their money back as 4.5%. Therefore, the ill-gotten "profit" to LT would be approx £61,500.

As I had touched in and out, I was not aware until the next evening when I checked my Oyster balance that there was anything amiss. Many others would have failed to notice this. Of those who did notice, I would guess that a large number would have been discouraged from recovering the money, which required visits to two tube station ticket halls to recover the first £4.30, a lond telephone conversation with the Oyster Helpline, to recover the next £3.30, and the completion of a form and a long wait to receive the remaining £2.70 voucher. I am assuming that having taken these steps, I will get my money back. If any of these processes fails, I may need to become involved in further correspondence.

My experience is listed below.

I am still trying to recover my money. The Station where I entered the underground was able to reverse only the £4.30 charge, while the £6.0 charge was blocked. I tried at the station at the other end, but they were not able to cancel the charge either. I was advised to telephone, which I did, however, they were only willing to reimburse me an additional £3.30 - they have yet to do so. The balance, £2.70, which was what my journey would originally have cost. The Oyster Helpline were not willing to refund the full charge, even though the journey was delayed by well over 15 minutes. To get that money back, I have to complete a form, cite all the details, and wait several weeks before my money can be returned.

Thus it seems that there is a glitch in the system which turns incidents on the underground into profitable money spinners for LT.

Is this charging method by LT legal? Shouldn't they be required to take steps to refund their customers? After all, it was the LT computer systems which assume that a single unusually long journey should be interpreted as two incomplete journeys which automatically take punitive charges. The information of a points failure at Baker Street was certainly known to LT, as was the fact that there is no way of getting from the starting station to the end station which avoids Baker Street.

Any ideas? Is anyone else collecting information about how our money is being incorrectly taken from our Oyster Cards?

62.254.3.224 (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Incidents such as this are picked up by Transport for LOndon and automatic refunds issued. As the account closing only happens three days after the date of travel and it can take a further day to get the refund to the gates it may take four or five days before refunds are given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.60.98.133 (talk) 10:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Stratford

This is a complicated station with many different oyster installations. As a foreigner it dificult to know when to touch in or out. You have:

• barriers at the entrance
• barriers at the Julilee line (now open)
• check in/out for DLR
• route validator on the London overground.

Several combinations are posible where maybe you need to touch in:

• DLR - National rail
• DLR - Central line
• DLR - Jubilee line
• National rail - Jubilee line

Could someone bring some clarity? Smiley.toerist (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

circular routes

The works on the basis that the traveler takes a logical route. But what if you take a circular route? For example: I took a direct train from King Cross to Wimbledon. I wanted to continue to take the district line to Earls court. Without going out of the station I touched in at LU platform. I was not certain and I checked the card by the station supervisor. I was checked out! She let me out the gate and I entered the station via the barrier. What happens when you take a loop route and remain in the train on the return leg. At what point is the PAYG stil valid? With a paper travelcard you dont have this problem. Smiley.toerist (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Presumably you took the Thameslink route from Kings Cross to Wimbledon. By touching out at Wimbledon, you would have closed this leg and therefore needed to touch in again to use the District, although that begs the question of why you didn't just go from K-X to EC using the Piccadilly line. The comparison with a paper TC is false, because that ticket covers you for all journeys within the valid zones, while PAYG keeps taking off single fares until you reach the cap for the zones you've used, at which point it effectively "becomes" a TC. If you only make one single journey on PAYG, you only get charges for a single journey; if you buy a paper TC, but only make a single journey on it, you don't get the difference refunded. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I am a railhobbyist and I frequently travel without a particular purpose, just to enjoy the scenery. I agree that the tarif system shouldnt be adapted for this kind of travel. However there is an implicit rule for the PAYG to be valid:

• You have to travel "from" the place where you last touched in. You cannot travel "toward" it.

If you travel from A to B and then to C and back to A (circular route) you have to break (exit) the station somewhere. The card can combine journeys but there are limits. example: Watford Euston, (short break at station) then Euston Kings Cross ---> Journey Watford Kings-Cross. I suspect the combinations have to be in a logical direction of travel. Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

PAYG

I think Pay as you go, PAYG, should be more pedagogically introduced and that capitals should be used. The use of PAYG here does not correspond any of the descriptions in PAYG. --Ettrig (talk) 10:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, found it. But the concept is used in the text long before it is explained. --Ettrig (talk) 11:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Out of Station Interchange

The article details Out of Station Interchange in what seems the only WP explanation but OSI is not confined to Oyster Card use or even to the Great Wen.--SilasW (talk) 18:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Negative balance?

Does anyone know the maximum negative balance you can get on an oyster which will still let you exit? For example, you enter a zone 6 station with £1.30 on your card and then travel across zone 1 to another zone 6 station. This should cost £4.20 peak, which would leave you with £-2.90. Will the barriers still let you through or will they display a "seek assistance" message? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.122.171 (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The gates will always let you out provided that you touched in at the start of your journey. The cards go into a negative balance at the time you start your journey as a maximum fare of up to £6 is charged. The system lets you in if you have the minimum fare payable from that station on your card. Upon exit the correct fare is charged and a refund applied to the card. If you did not touch in at the start of your journey then you will be charged a maximum fare upon exit and if that is higher than the balance on your card you will be refused exit. A "Seek Assistance" message will show on your card with error code 36 ("Insufficient Balance") where the gate is able to display the data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.79.208.20 (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Unencrypted Oyster information

"While it has been suggested that a good reader could read personal details from quite a distance there has been no evidence of anyone being able to unencrypt Oyster information."

Incorrect. http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~mgv98/MIFARE_files/report.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.212.74 (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Map

TFL produce a map of all stations you can use your oyster card on. I think it would be a good idea to incude this map. It shows both Underground and Overground stations along with normal train stations: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/oyster-rail-services-map.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.242.82 (talk) 14:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

We can use it as a reference but we can't include that actual map in the article. It is TfL's copyright and we can't copy it into Wikipedia. TfL is very serious about protecting its copyrights. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I am a student. I need to travel zone 2 to zone 6. I am wondering to use a oyster photocard. For this reason I want to know how much the weekly fare is.