Welcome to Reconnections’ Friday Reads. This week’s lineup:
-
- • The forgotten West London Air Terminal (RB Kensington & Chelsea)
- • Legible London’s tenth anniversary (1LondonBlog)
- • Redesign of British train tickets (SadHedgehog)
- • Paris Métro line bedevilled by drugs (CityLab)
- • How subway tile became farmhouse chic (Washington Post)
- • Philadelphia to modernise its streetcar system (StreetsBlog)
- • Toronto prepares Plan B after more Bombardier streetcar delays (Toronto Star)
- • Soviet Metro triangles (Pedestrian Observations)
Check out our most popular articles:
-
And some of our other sections:
I found the article on ticket “design” depressingly amusing & very much to the point.
@Greg: The fact that Accountancy comes before Passenger Ticket in APTIS speaks volumes….
I must admit, I could never see why they got rid of the Edmonson punched-card, or a replica thereof.
Greg: Either reading the article, or thinking about it, immediately suggests two difficulties with the Edmonson format. Not big enough to contain the necessary information at a legible font size (particularly, of course, when the ticket is only valid on specific trains – sometimes several specifications in the same journey). And too thick – providing problems where blank ticket stock (or used tickets) have to be stored in a confined space or within limited weight.
Of course, tickets offered could be limited to those where the above problems do not arise, but it would seem slightly tail-wags-dog to tailor rail offerings to suit a historic ticket format.
@ SHLR – “pedant alert” – as someone with a fair bit of involvement in ticketing matters in the past it is absolutely essential that revenue is properly accounted for. Every major ticketing project I’ve worked on has had finance / accounting people as part of the team to ensure proper process and minimise / remove the risk of fraud.
For as long as the ticket product range is rather complex and involved then you need effective accountancy. The other issue is ticketing is one of the few areas where the responsible engineer (and yes there are fare collection engineers) hands a key component to passengers be it a piece of cardboard, a mag stripe ticket or a smartcard. It is only in very recent times that we have moved the ticketing medium outside the hands of the railway with the use of bank cards and telephones.but even these are all engineered items and their data still has to support proper accountancy and audit trails.
I’m not very au fait with current rail tickets as I rarely use main line trains. I have seen endless threads on forums bemoaning the layout changes and the apparent new addiction to issuing endless pieces of paper / card. Strikes me the railway is going backwards rather than forwards when it comes to ticketing matters but then there is no “guiding mind” anymore, just a standards organisation in the guise of Rail Settlement Plan.
Those redesigned tickets sure do look nifty — but unfortunately it doesn’t look like they’ll be coming to a ticket machine near you anytime soon.
The article is curiously silent about the context of the redesign it shows. In particular there is no “RDG commissioned me to sketch a blah blah blah” introduction. The few other posts in the blog suggest that the author is a visual design student at university, so what is presented here is more likely a term project than something the industry will actually take notice of.
It does look like they’ve been collaborating with someone in the industry, with access to an actual ticket machine printer and authentic stock to run prototypes with — so it’s not just someone’s idle crayoning, but not quite for real either. Especially not so soon after the 2014 redesign the article talks about.
@WW: As a traveller I see a ticket primarily as a travel document. That there might be some accounting going on in the background is of no importance to me. It might be important to the industry, but quite frankly if it doesn’t make my journey better, I don’t care!
As is often mentioned on Railforums, tickets should just be pointers to database entries in the form of barcodes/QR codes. These can be printed at station ticket machines or at a printer or displayed on a device. Then only relevant information can be displayed to passengers and different information can be displayed to guards/RPIs, customer services for refunds, or delay compensation checkers. The internet is accessible from the vast majority of the rail network so database entries can be updated when tickets are inspected. In the places where internet access is sporadic, it doesn’t matter if the database is not updated until the train reaches a major station where the guard’s device can connect to Wifi.
@John
VIA Rail, Canada’s intercity rail network, does exactly this. Whilst there are printed tickets that one buys from a station, they are about four times larger than British ones, and they include the QR code. However most travellers book online, to show the QR code from their phone, or print out a piece of paper.
Now, VIA carries a small percentage of what British railways carry, but over a far greater distance, with many long distance trains outside of Internet and mobile network coverage. Conductors carry mobile phones which scan QR ticket codes, the data for which are uploaded once network contact is reestablished. Works very well.
@LBM: Do VIA Rail tickets really not contain any human-readable information about where and when the ticket is valid for, such as John wants them to be? If so, why do they need to be four times larger than British ones just to contain a QR code and nothing else?
“QR” codes – I don’t doubt that my “Samartphone” could possbily “read” them – so what? [Note]
As a Traveller/Passenger, I want ticket that says ( like the article suggests ) the following:
From / To
Class of travel & validity
That should do, quite frankly … oh & it should be an easi;ly-readable order/priority, which current tickets are all-too-plainly not so ordered.
{ Note; Technoluddite moment. I know QR codes have been around for some time now, but I’ve never used one, have no idea how I can get my phone to recognise them & am wondering “what’s the point?”
User-friendly explanations welcomed.
P.S. I refuse, at any point to have a train fare on my phone rather than a separate ticket, for security/theft reasons that should be obvious, except that many people don’t seem to have appreciated the problems …. Um – time for a specialist technical discussion on this subject , perhaps? ]
It would be interesting to know just what proportion of VIA rail tickets are still paper, as indeed, for companies like BA. In my experience, paper is now a rarity for airlines, whether you are talking about tickets (almost never paper, now) or even boarding cards (not often paper on the flights I take). Whatever the outcome of what happens at present, I would have expected the TOCs to want to minimise the share of anything paper based that they issue (printers, ink and paper all cost money to buy and maintain) or even paper based that are printed by customers. Even where customers print their own tickets, checking and auditing are far more easily and cheaply done if the data is digital. So, personally, I couldn’t care what’s on a paper ticket, I would far rather be able to have my ticket on my phone, digitally. Of course, it’s unlikely that you can get rid of paper entirely – some people won’t have smart phones – but you could reduce it to about the same levels as cash payments on TfL (about 4% if I remember correctly).
Quinlet
Interesting
Whereas I will positively refuse to have any form of “ticket” on my phone, unless I am seriously ( like at the barrel of a gun ) refused any other alternative …
For real-security-&-theft reasons that should be obvious.
A slight divergence of opinion here ….
There is some resistance to phone-held data, and not just from Greg. Cash payments on TfL are a different matter altogether, though the fraction may be much higher if you only consider tourists. (And yet it’s zero for buses, of course).
It may be that I travel on different planes, but in my experience phone-held boarding cards still seem to be in a minority.
@Henning
I see that my VIA ticket description was incomplete, my apologies. The official VIA tickets do print the traveller’s name, origin, destination, train number, date and time, plus fare paid, basic exchange / refund information, and reward program number if applicable. But embedded in the QR code would be any fare discount applied, when and where purchased, which agent, exchange / refund details etc. Multiple segment trips, like returns, are printed on a another page, connected by perforation. On the back are the conditions of carriage, exchange / refund policy.
The tickets purchased online has all of this information, but as it’s on an 8 1/2″ by 11″ page, is a bit more readable.
“The tickets purchased online has all of this information, but as it’s on an 8 1/2″ by 11″ page, is a bit more readable”
Or a 210mm x 297mm page, if you live outside the USA and have changed the default paper size in MS Word.
I think of a ticket as something to carry about in pocket/wallet/purse etc which makes the full paper size (of either standard) a bit of a pain. Though typical readers don’t seem deterred by folds, fortunately.
@Quinlet – Airline tickets are now (virtually…) 100% paperless (eTicket). IATA mandated transition from paper “neutral” (OPTAT) stock in 2004 and by 2008 the industry had migrated entirely to eticket other than for a tiny number of Airline-specific (TAT) tickets. Pretty impressive turnaround for such a complex, interlocked business. See
http://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/Pages/2008-31-05-01.aspx for a brief summary.
Mobile / home printed Boarding Passes using (again, standardised) 2D Barcodes are now near-universal, with home-printed BagTags rolling out. Coming from that very fractious, competitive industry I find it amazing that UK rail seem completely unable to agree a single standard for Mobile ticketing.
I don’t buy the idea that Rail ticketing is somehow more complex than airline (take a look at the IATA Fares and Ticketing manual if you want an insomnia cure) although, having tried many years back to adapt an Airline Reservation system to Rail I do see some differences – thankfully unusual, for example, for an aircraft to arrive at a destination with half the number of seats (carriages..) that it started with ….
Phil. Rail ticketing IS much more complicated than airlines. You don’t just turn up at an airport and catch the first train – you always have to have a booked seat on a particular service.
As a sort of analogy, air tickets are all “advance” type (albeit some are changeable without cost).
@Phil: Planes don’t seem to have multiple mutually exclusive destinations either. e.g.: Charing Cross to Dover & Ramsgate….
@Greg: There’s an app for that! Actually to have a QR code for reading by a QR code scanner (e.g. at a ticket barrier) all you’d need is an image file. QR code readers adapt the pixel sizing by looking for the four corners. I still can’t work out you don’t like electronic tickets, does your phone get stolen that often? 😉
SHLR
I have no idea whether my smartphone would or would not recognise a QR code if I showed it one – what am I supposed to do, anyway – I’ve tried to find out, but there is no information at all – you are apparently supposed to know what to do …..
Actually, I prefer to keep the functionality separate, it’s a simple as that.
The other day, a pair of oyster-gates half-opened then slammed shut on me – I dropped my oyster & 3/4 lost my glasses – a phone would have shattered on the floor!
Phone stays in pocket when negotiating gates …..
I find it hard to see why trains that split are so much more difficult than planes. Just think of them as two planes that fly together for one segment of each journey.
In any case, the issue is what is needed to be shown on a ticket rather than the fares/reservation system, and the basic information required on a train ticket and the reasons for it is pretty similar to those for an airline ticket.
@Greg
I understand the some people really don’t like to use electronic tickets, but the number is surprisingly small. As an example, I was responsible for organising a channel shift for Freedom Pass holders from physical renewals to web based renewals in 2015. As the audience was people aged between 65 and 100 our expectations were that we would be happy with a 50% switch to internet. In fact, we got an 80% switch. Non-internet channels were still available for those not wishing to use the net, but were not prioritised. So for electronic tickets. It would be simple to retain printed paper tickets as a fall back but to prioritise e-tickets for those willing to use them.
What would the necessary investment be to adapt all existing ticket barriers to incorporate QR readers (for Home-printed paper tickets and phone screens) as well as existing card tickets issued from machines(for, say, tourists paying a walk-up fare? Presumably an issue?
I won’t use e-only tickets – not because of privacy fears which I assume is Greg’s issue, but because I just don’t trust a smartphone not to run out of battery/connectivity at the wrong moment.
Silenos: It would not just be the hardware at the gate. Existing ticket types can be accepted if they are for a suitable journey and on the correct date. Home-printed or phone-held tickets used at an entry gate will also need near-instant background checks against a central database to ensure that the ticket (or rather an identical ticket using the same id number) has not already been used anywhere on the system, and to immediately register the id number for all future checks at the same or a different entry gate. This is quite a big ask of the software and network. Break of journey and on street interchanges are a further headache.
Tickets on flights are not checked during the journey, and mobile phone use is discouraged. This is not the case for trains. People who think there will be a wholesale shift to e ticketing on trains neglect the fact that paper train tickets are a superior technology for the purpose they are put to.
Quinlet
But: An Oyster or a Freedom Pass IS an “electronic ticket” isn’t it?
I think we are having a semantics problem here. Whereas I think that putting your ticket into your phone is a very bad idea, for different reasons – as eloquently expressed by Phil E.
Silenos
QR readers take TIME – they are quite significantly slower than Oyster-type machines & something tells me that this would not be a good idea.
@Greg
“I refuse, at any point to have a train fare on my phone rather than a separate ticket, for security/theft reasons that should be obvious, ”
Quite so – having seen a moped rider snatch a mobile phone out of a man’s hand right in front of me I know how quick it can be. And the victim did indeed have his train ticket home on his phone.
@SHLR
“The fact that Accountancy comes before Passenger Ticket in APTIS speaks volumes….”
But that what tickets are for – to enable the accounts to be reconciled and ensure that the service being used (whether a train, a theatre, a lottery, or whatever) has been paid for. Unless there is only one individual involved in providing the service, some kind of proof of purchase is always necessary.
The rail companies have confused the issue by issuing two proofs of purchase, a “ticket” and a “receipt”.
Logically it must be possible for a rail ticket to be separable from a receipt. The ticket is usable by the bearer, who may not be the person who has purchased it. Children, employees etc. If I can prove that I bought a particular ticket, that does not entitle me to use it (I may have given it to someone else, or subsequently got a refund).
However, air tickets (and VIA rail tickets) are not usable by any old bearer. They are usable only by any person who has the name that was given when the ticket was bought. (Does not have to be the person whom the buyer intended, as witness non-refundable air tickets given away, or sold, to a like-named person when the intended traveller could not travel).
timbeau,
I don’t understand. It has always been clear to me.
You buy a journey. The ticket states what journey you have bought and is your token to show your authority to make the journey. Technically the ticket is always the property of the railway company. Other non-physical intangible forms of token are available.
If requested, and often automatically, you also get a receipt. A receipt is a legal document showing that you have purchased a particular item. It is always the property of the purchaser.
The fact that the ticket shows the price paid is technically irrelevant but it is helpful. It also means that if you still have the ticket and your employer is happy to accept it in lieu of a receipt then you can get away without the receipt.
Of course, it gets a lot more complicated in the modern world. The ‘ticket’ may be a credit-card size piece of plastic or a QR code on a phone. The ‘receipt’ could be an email or obtained by you logging onto a website. If using a form of pay-as-you-go then you have effectively agreed to have a reconciliation of your payment due at the appropriate time – no different from a conventional (non-Uberlike) taxi journey.
Re: Fare Gates and Phones/e-tickets
It’s not hard–and in fact your reasonably new smartphone probably has the gubbins in it to do this–to get a phone to work the same way as an Oyster card for fare-gate purposes. I’m actually quite surprised that this isn’t offered yet in the UK.
I also find the arguments about how complicated ticketing is to be an example of the tail wagging the dog–simplifciation of the fares system would have extrinsic benefits over and above making everyone’s life simpler. In the Japanese system, for instance, just about every journey in the country is TUAG with an Oyster-style card; the exception is express trains for which one needs a supplement/reserved seat, which one typically buys at the station upon arrival. (It is possible to buy them in advance, but few outside holidaymakers do.)
This works because the fare paid via the simple and easy system is the _only fare there is_. It is not at all clear to me what benefit (societally) the insanely complicated fare system in the UK has.
Anyhow, the redesign I’d use is to issue everyone with an Oyster(-style) card and be done with it.
@EX-PAT: You can already use a phone to travel in London, TfL support Apple Pay and Android Pay. Most gates however don’t have optical readers, so a QR code can’t be used…
Any sign of the next printed issue?
@poP
“The ticket states what journey you have bought and is your token to show your authority to make the journey. A receipt is a legal document showing that you have purchased a particular item. It is always the property of the purchaser.”
Many ticketing and receipting systems have two parts – one kept by the purchaser and one (the counterfoil) by the vendor, allowing both parties’ accounting systems to reconcile their accounts. One part remains the property of the vendor and is essentially the vendor’s copy. In transport the vendor’s part is issued to the traveller to be returned to the vendor on completion of the journey (in theory at least).
But the ticket is still a form of receipt – it is the proof that the service has been paid for.
But John, “tickets should just be pointers to database entries in the form of barcodes/QR codes” fails to solve two issues which rail tickets are generally expected to satisfy.
Firstly, that two people can’t use the same ticket – physical medium solves this one, as do airplanes where everyone has a reserved seat.
Secondly, you can’t ‘punch’ a non-card/paper ticket for multi-stage journeys (now happening less, I understand, but still a way to show a ticket has been used where the use-by date is not the day of issue.
Heathrow Express uses phone based ticketing and they don’t seem to have any problem with stopping multiple people using the same ticket. It’s not hard for single or return tickets – once they have been scanned once, they can’t be scanned again. For pay-as-you go systems it’s similarly easy. Even if two people use it they will be charged twice, just as needed. Even for travel cards, it’s not too hard to to prevent multiple use, just as existing ticket gates manage this.
I think the arguments about stolen phones are very weak – if you run your phone without needing a password then more fool you.
Similarly running out of battery – most people manage just by taking a little care. I use my phone for most flights I take and I have never had a battery problem yet. I just make sure I charge up in good time.
I don’t think anyone has suggested phones as a mandatory or sole method of ticketing, but as a popular and useful addition which, in time, I suspect, would become the preferred mode.
quinlet: “ Even for travel cards, it’s not too hard to to prevent multiple use, just as existing ticket gates manage this.“.
I don’t think they do. At least, not in real time. They rely on the difficulty of copying travelcards. The paper ones would be a piece of forgery, and a travelcard on an Oyster cannot be reproduced by any old user. (Of course, professional criminals are another matter, but different systems exist to try to catch these).
The principle of “Once (something) has been scanned, it can’t be scanned again” requires real time communication among all possible scanning sites. Fairly easy for Colchester Zoo entry tickets, or indeed Heathrow Express, but not quite so simple for a generic Zones-1-and-2 tube ticket, or indeed a hopper-type bus ticket.
@quinlet
“I think the arguments about stolen phones are very weak – if you run your phone without needing a password then more fool you.”
I think you’ve missed the point – if your phone is stolen you can’t use the ticket loaded on it, even if it is password protected. I always keep phone, wallet and travel tickets separate for that reason.
.
@Malcolm “I don’t think [ticket gates prevent multiple use of travel cards]. At least, not in real time. ”
They do – by the blunt instrument of preventing the same card being used twice within a few minutes. As anyone who has ever had to return through the barriers having missed a train, or because of a cancellation or platform alteration, or who has used a barriered area as a short cut (such as crossing the Thames at Blackfriars avoiding the rain………..) will have discovered.
@Quinlet
“I think the arguments about stolen phones are very weak – if you run your phone without needing a password then more fool you.”
I think you missed the point. Passwords won’t protect you from having your phone stolen, it only prevents the thief from gaining access to it. Either way, you lose your ticket home…
Stolen phones:
If your paper ticket is stolen or lost you also lose your ticket home. Moreover, evidence of an e-ticket is also on the train operator’s database, associated with your phone – a paper ticket is not. If it’s lost, it’s lost. Or are you suggesting that it’s much more likely that you will lose or have your phone stolen than that you will lose or have your paper ticket stolen?
I don’t see Heathrow Express having issues with phones that are stolen, lost or out of battery.
There is an important difference between plane and train travel. If someone unauthorised gets on a train, that is an unfortunate loss of revenue. If someone unauthorised gets on a plane, it is a massive security breach which will lead to (at least) reputational damage for the airline and airport, and quite possibly the loss of operating licences. It is ludicrous that I can travel halfway around the world with an electronic token on my phone, but when I get back to Gatwick I have to queue up to buy a piece of cardboard
DH in RTW
I am very much afraid that your argument is of the nature usually called a “strawman”.
Particularly as on the rare occasions I have flown, I have always had a physical, non-electronic ticket. ( Even if I’ve printed it off at home! )
DH: You are quite right about the difference.
But your second sentence does not really follow on. Queues at Gatwick could be avoided by several expedients – you could buy an Oyster before you go, or (with some slight risk) buy a train ticket before you go, or perhaps travel to the city centre could be provided free by the airport or the state (some hope!), or someone could install more ticket machines. Other expedients are possible. But contrasting the queues with your (?queue-free?) air travel does not really make sense, because (as you say) air travel and train travel are rather different things.
@ Quinlet at 10:53
Or are you suggesting that it’s much more likely that you will lose or have your phone stolen than that you will lose or have your paper ticket stolen?
I suspect the answer is’Yes’!
I read in the news oftimes reports of atolen mobile ‘phones, aometimes by gangs on mopeds, but cannot recall stolen train tickets.
And IIRC the number of mobile ‘phones that end up in London Transport’s Lost Property Office each year runs to 1,000s, rather than 100s – actually 34,322 mobile phones in 2016-17 according to this
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/aug/28/inside-transport-for-london-lost-property-office
No mention of train-tickets.
.
Ah yes, but train tickets aren’t very newsworthy are they? And as tickets tend to have dates on them they turn into rubbish at midnight (or so). So they are unlikely to be treated as anything other than rubbish.
@SH(LR)
The point still stands that phones are a much more obvious target for thieves than a train ticket.
@ANON E. MOUSE 23 January 2018 at 13:43
Complex expensive devices like smart phones, in addition to being targets for theft, can also be dropped, knocked, soaked, can simply run out of power or just fail in service in so many different ways that to rely solely on such a device to be able to travel, especially if, en route, such a failure could result in a very severe unexpected penalty, is a very bad idea. I believe for a good universal travel payment system our pre-purchased tickets need to be held in an account in the cloud which can be accessed by a number of alternative means to mitigate against such occurrences: Print at home (or elsewhere) if you want, retrieve, store and display on a phone/other portable device, or resolve via combinations of station gates or in conductors’ on board readers using a secure card such as a contactless bank card associated with the account. Now that sort of system could be more secure and reassuring for the passenger than paper tickets are today.
AlisonW mentions above that two people can’t use the same ticket but elsewhere, in parts of Europe more advanced than us, you easily can. See here in Freiburg, Germany, for example:
http://welcome.vag-freiburg.de/tickets-prices/tickets.html
where e.g., “…to explore the region over the next 24 hours and will have family or friends with me” up to five persons can be covered by a single ticket. Have a look at the other options, too. Maybe an eye-opener to some.
Moreover, it’s long been the practice to my personal knowledge and experience that the tickets for long-distance rail travel in Germany and Switzerland will automatically include a single onward journey by tram/bus/trolleybus/U-Bahn from the destination station to the nearest stop to one’s hotel and vice versa. Most hotels also sell at least card day tickets for their local transportation system.
See also the several other options readily available in Freiburg.
AlisonW and Graham Feakins are clearly talking at cross purposes. In Alison’s case it is about preventing an electronic form of ticket (i.e. QR code) being used twice and in Graham’s case it is about multiple people on one ticket.
To take Alison’s case first, the situation is no different from a physical ticket and ticket gates. There has to be some logic programmed in to stop a single ticket being purchased and put in multiple times through the gates. Same with Oystercard. I suspect, in practice, it is the same with wave-and-pay by normal card to prevent the cardholder being debited twice by mistake on occasions.
To take Graham’s case, it always was the case in the latter years of BR that one could issue a paper ticket and specify the number of people it was valid for. This feature was replicated in Aptis (those red credit card size tickets) hence every ticket having ‘one’ printed on it to indicate the number of people it was valid for. To my knowledge the multiple person feature was never used due to the introduction of ticket gates and people preferring to have individual tickets.
Group tickets are nowadays done by railcards such as ‘Two Together’ and ‘Family and Friends’ railcard. So there is nothing in Germany that isn’t done here. It is just we choose to do it differently.
If the issue is transferrable tickets then technically pay-as-you-go Oyster is transferrable though I am not quite sure if all rail operators fully understand that. It is less relevant and less of a potential loss of revenue problem now the daily cap is so high.
@PEDANTIC OF PURLEY
With Oyster the feature to stop re-use of the card for the same trip is called “passback prevention”.
Thus the gate “error” codes
41 Pass back through Zigzag – e.g. in, out, in
42 Pass back Just used in same direction
This FOI-provided list of error codes tells you quite a lot about how Oyster worked and Contactless works now.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/189010/response/471377/attach/4/Gate%20Reject%20Codes%20FOI%20request.pdf
Briantist,
I hope there is a more up-to-date version (not necessarily in the public domain). In many cases, and throughout the Underground, ‘refer to ticket office’ is not exactly helpful.
All of which reminds me…
On a “freedom pass” I can & have used Blackfriars station-bridge as a through passageway, but it is implied, if not stated, that a “regular oyster” user will either be charged some fare, or refused exit.
Can someone please clarify?
@Greg
See “same station exits” here
https://tfl.gov.uk/fares-and-payments/oyster/using-oyster/touching-in-and-out#on-this-page-6
Greg/Timbeau
I recently travelled from Charing Cross (NR) to Waterloo East and exited via Southwark (LU). This was a strange experience as I touched out from WE and found myself in an area which I could only leave by returning to Waterloo or touching in to Southwark. On enquiring of the lady guarding the gates I was assured that it was accepted practice to touch in to Southwark, walking through the station and touching out at the main entrance. I do not seem to have been charged anything for this apart from the NR journey.
Why one cannot exit to the street from the intermediate no-mans land I do not understand as it is at street level and fully gated.
JJ
Long ago, we discussed this strange area, partly on safety grounds ( No escape, inside barriers ) – but the modus operandii there has changed now. It’s a real weirdo, resulting ( I think ) from DfT/TOC paranoia about losing revenue, even though there are still gates at the outer ends (!)
@Jim Jordan
I think a concession was introduced at Southwark station to allow South Eastern passengers to use the Blackfriars Road entrance, particularly when Waterloo East trains were not calling at London Bridge during the Thameslink 2000-and-counting works.
I often walk through Waterloo East and Southwark, using my (SWR) “London Terminals” season ticket. Never had any problem at the LU gates, but usually get an error code when leaving the SE gated area, as I have entered at the other end of the station too recently. (The same thing happens at Blackfriars)
@ Jim Jordan – there was never a plan for the western exit at Southwark LU to have an exit to the street. It was only ever designed as an interchange route to Waterloo East. When originally built and specified there was no conception that Waterloo East would ever be fitted with ticket gates. I know because I worked very closely with the JLE project team on ticketing matters and reviewed all of the station plans. I have a vague recollection of there being plans for an overstation development at Southwark that might also have affected the possibility for any street exit at that west end. The development never materialised but I understand revised plans are now being considered some 20+ years on.
If gates had been planned at W’loo East then LU might have put in an “interchange” gateline at Southwark West. However the subsequent introduction of Oyster PAYG required the removal of the interchange gateline at Stratford JLE because PAYG can only work properly on the basis of “in” then “out” transactions at gatelines. Interchange gatelines worked on the basis of “in” “in” then out or “in” “out” “out”. The middle transaction in those sequences is the interchange gateline use by passengers either entering then accessing the JLE at Stratford and then exiting elsewhere or entering somewhere else, leaving the JLE platforms at Stratford then exiting at Stratford or elsewhere. The need to enter then exit is why you have that very odd arrangement at Southwark with gatelines beside each other belonging to two different operators.
How does the shared gateline and gateless interchange at Wimbledon work then?