Leap Card - NFC support on the way

coylemj

Arbie wrote: »

I got an email on 22nd Dec with a survey asking for feedback on the trial, so the end date must have been around then.

They could tweak the app to reflect feedback so more surveys could follow. Just because they send out a survey doesn't mean the trial is ending, it could drag on until March.

bruno1x

bk wrote: »

BTW these ticket checkers are normally contractors, not salaried employees and their pay is based as a percentage of the fines they take, which is why they take no messing, unlike our rubbish ticket checkers. I also hear that despite the relatively large number of them, the fines more then pay for them and fare evasion is relatively low on these open systems.

It cost DB money every time a fare evader is taken to court, the RPU team who gave the ticket must attend the court, this is taking them away from working, their duties must be covered by OT, the fine comes no where near to covering this, then you have the chance the offender does not show up, so another day in court and more costs. That is the reason DB did not bother checking tickets for years, only reason they do so now is because the NTA put it in the new contract.
RPU on DB won't give you a fine if you are normal and not a prick, you will be asked to pay the difference to make up the fare. The RPU are mostly out to get those on false free travel pass.

bruno1x

devnull wrote: »

That's without even considering the fact that the big difference between London and Dublin with operators business models such as that fares go direct to TFL who pay the operators fees to run routes and distribute the fair revenue. In Ireland fares remain the property of the company who have an interest in farebox revenue and that is not really compatible with a London style contactless debit/credit card system.
.

As far as i knows this is the same in Dublin Bus, all cash goes to NTA and DB get a flat fee.

bruno1x

devnull wrote: »

I agree that it would be a great solution since the current staff on irish Rail gates just watch people evade and don't do a thing, but I can't see it happening.

I would like to see a law passed like there is in the UK though, where if it is found you had no intention to pay a fare you can be prosecuted pay a much larger fine than here and get a criminal record, or there is a smaller offence of not having a valid ticket with a smaller fine and no risk of prosecution. €100 is too little, there needs ot be enough inspections and a high enough fine so that if someone does evade all year get caught twice a year they are still not better off than they would be if they paid the whole year.

Can only speak as as DB driver, we where told with a nod and a wink, it cost the company money to take a fare evader to court, turn a blind eye.
Maybe make the fine bigger, don't require the staff to attend court and it would be cost effective?

bruno1x

bk wrote: »

They seem to forget that Ireland is now the silicon valley of Europe with some of the bright minds from all over Europe working here.
.

How many of these bright sparks work for the NTA?

bruno1x

bk wrote: »

All already there, the existing ticket machines and readers already support NFC and RFID for Leap, which uses the same specs as contact less debits cards. Also the buses already record all Leap transactions and upload the results nightly via wifi in the depots to servers for overnight processing.

So really no changes there at all. The only changes you would need are new software for the existing ticket machines to support contact less EMV. Non trivial, but not particularly difficult either.

The ticket machines are obsolete junk, every time they add a ticket or feature it causes problem, the only thing to do is replace them with newer machines and then add new features.

bruno1x

bk wrote: »

And that is the core problem with public transport in Ireland. The semi-state companies are purely focused on the employees and not focused on delivering the best customer experience possible. Too many very obvious improvements are stymied by threats of strikes from the unions.

Really, a bold statement back up with nothing, name 3 improvements "stymied by threats of strikes from the unions."

plodder

bruno1x wrote: »

Can only speak as as DB driver, we where told with a nod and a wink, it cost the company money to take a fare evader to court, turn a blind eye.
Maybe make the fine bigger, don't require the staff to attend court and it would be cost effective?

Definitely make the fine bigger and allow a judge to increase it in court and also every additional time someone is caught, but you can't avoid staff attending court. You can't convict someone of an offense without evidence in person.

AngryLips

bruno1x wrote: »

The ticket machines are obsolete junk, every time they add a ticket or feature it causes problem, the only thing to do is replace them with newer machines and then add new features.

Speaking of which ...whatever happened to DB plans to replace their entire compliment of horribly slow card reading machines in 2015?

bruno1x

AngryLips wrote: »

Speaking of which ...whatever happened to DB plans to replace their entire compliment of horribly slow card reading machines in 2015?

Not DB"s plan , the NTA's plan. Must have spent the money on a new logo instead.

markpb

bruno1x wrote:

Really, a bold statement back up with nothing, name 3 improvements "stymied by threats of strikes from the unions."

Introduction of AVLS was delayed because of negotiation with the unions to make sure they weren't being monitored.

Introduction of CCTV was delayed while the union negotiated that the company can't use the cameras to check for staff breaking company procedure or rules.

Network direct was delayed endlessly while every driver in the company was consulted on every change.

Cost saving measures, introduced when the country was bankrupt, thousands of people were losing their jobs and emigrating, were resisted to the point of a strike.

Mention by the government of privatizing a small number of routes led to a strike threat.

Opening of the depot in H'town led to more strike threats

bruno1x

markpb wrote: »

Introduction of AVLS was delayed because of negotiation with the unions to make sure they weren't being monitored.

Introduction of CCTV wad delayed while the union negotiated that the company can't use the cameras to check for staff breaking company procedure or rules.

Network direct was delayed endlessly while every driver in the company was consulted on every change.

Cost saving measures, introduced when the country was bankrupt, thousands of people were losing their jobs and emigrating, were resisted to the point of a strike.

Mention by the government of privatizing a small number of routes led to a strike threat.

Opening of the depot in H'town led to more strike threats[

1, running time insufficient
2,false, cctv has been on the buses for years
3, running time insufficient.
4, the union and drivers agreed to all cost saving measures, so i don't know what you are going on about .
5, not about loss of routes, it was about TUPE after the greyhound fiasco.
6, was the opening of the depot delayed? No

So we have 1 and 2, the company tried to bring in unrealistic running times and the unions said hold on, i see posters here complain about RTPI being wrong, why do you think this happens? The running time given for a journey is insufficient, bus has not even arrived at the terminus and the RTPI will show it has left.
They was no union throwing a spanner in the works, it was the company coming up with fantasy running times and the union pulling them up on it.

markpb

bruno1x wrote: »

They was no union throwing a spanner in the works, it was the company coming up with fantasy running times and the union pulling them up on it.

In each of those cases, changes to the company were held up by the unions. With only one exception (part privatisation), changes which works have no impact on working conditions were delayed while the union got involved.

Unless drivers are routinely fired for not managing to keep to a timetable, there is no reason for them to have veto over route or timetable changes. If the planners get it wrong, so be it. Why did the drivers take it so personally that they refused to work the rosters and caused a strike? http://m.rte.ie/news/2009/0427/116701-dublinbus/

As for unions agreeing to cost saving:
http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/fears-of-new-strike-as-dublin-bus-drivers-split-over-costcut-plan-29700345.html

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/dublin-bus-drivers-vote-against-strike-action-in-dispute-29732875.html

bruno1x

markpb wrote: »

In each of those cases, changes to the company were held up by the unions. With only one exception (part privatisation), changes which may have been beneficial to the passenger were delayed while the union got involved.

Unless drivers are routinely fired for not managing to keep to a timetable, there is no reason for them to have veto over route or timetable changes. If the planners get it wrong, so be it. Why did the drivers take it personally?

all thinks you complain about where to do with running time,How can insufficient running time be beneficial to the public?
As for the driver, Insufficient running time means drivers lunch break is reduced and you don't finish your days work when you are supposed to.
Now late breaking and finishing still happens on occasion, but honestly who would be happy if it happened every day all because of insufficient running time, of course the union had to pull the company up on this, is that not what we pay them for.

devnull

markpb wrote: »

Introduction of AVLS was delayed because of negotiation with the unions to make sure they weren't being monitored.

Also fuel and driver monitoring software that is commonplace in other countries was rejected for the same reasons.

Introduction of CCTV was delayed while the union negotiated that the company can't use the cameras to check for staff breaking company procedure or rules.

The unions have an agreement according to staff on here that the CCTV is to keep an eye on passengers and their behavior in-case it is needed for court cases for example for incidents of passengers acting wrongly towards drivers or passengers and other passengers.

However if a driver was to do something wrong in the bus or break a rule, the unions have an agreement that they cannot use footage from CCTV as evidence in any disciplinary procedures. This kind of agreement would not stand up in almost any other company.

Aircoach recently fired a driver because he was captured on coach CCTV using an iPad as he was driving his coach along the motorway. The CCTV pictures would have been crucial in convicting someone who drove recklessly.

xband

I thought this thread was about NFC ticketing ?

Just wondering is there any progress on it at all?

Seems like vapourwear again.