Off peak fare structure

[dwb]

No matter what way you put it Stillwater, giving away a peak demand seat for offpeak cost to the already highest subsidised passengers is not good policy, financially or equitably.

To really encourage peak spreading yes we need peak shoulder services, but we also need a sizeable differentiation in pricing, my gut feel is somewhere rather higher than 30%. The higher this discount gets the more wasteful it is so give long distance high peak passengers (ie who board prior to 7am) the discount.

In other places around the world, I'm thinking Chile right now, their metro system has an independently (ie station by station) defined peak period and direction. Any passing of fare gate during the specified peak for that station incurs a charge 2-3 times higher than offpeak if my memory serves me correctly.

Go card always knows location by virtue of the reader (static for rail, moving for buses), I really think we should be aiming for a location defined peak. In the meantime I think we should focus our effort not on changing the time definition of peak, but rather increase the discount. In my view offpeak travel should be the same cost now (or lower) than peak travel in 2004, it makes no sense whatsoever to have it more expensive.

[somebody]

No matter what way you put it Stillwater, giving away a peak demand seat for offpeak cost to the already highest subsidised passengers is not good policy, financially or equitably.

To really encourage peak spreading yes we need peak shoulder services, but we also need a sizeable differentiation in pricing, my gut feel is somewhere rather higher than 30%. The higher this discount gets the more wasteful it is so give long distance high peak passengers (ie who board prior to 7am) the discount.

In other places around the world, I'm thinking Chile right now, their metro system has an independently (ie station by station) defined peak period and direction. Any passing of fare gate during the specified peak for that station incurs a charge 2-3 times higher than offpeak if my memory serves me correctly.

Go card always knows location by virtue of the reader (static for rail, moving for buses), I really think we should be aiming for a location defined peak. In the meantime I think we should focus our effort not on changing the time definition of peak, but rather increase the discount. In my view offpeak travel should be the same cost now (or lower) than peak travel in 2004, it makes no sense whatsoever to have it more expensive.

I must say, I'd much rather push for service improvements than highly questionable IMO changes to the fare structure.  Although if we have to argue for any change getting rid of the planned fare hikes and increasing the off peak discount would be the main things I would want.

[O_128]

I dont get why people want to subsidize peak passengers and especially long distance passengers who are the most subsidized off all. Off peak I would like to see the discount upped to 30% while keeping the 50% off after 10 trips so some people will effectively get 80% off.

[petey3801]

7am for Sunshine Coast and Gold Coast lines IS PEAK PERIOD!! For the Sunshine Coast, IMO the 0550 train off Nambour (arrives Central 0744) is the start of their peak period. X970 (the Gympie train) would be the last train of the Sunshine Coast peak period, departing Nambour at 0657, arriving Central at 0844. I don't see why these people should be getting off-peak discounts for peak-period services.

[Gazza]

What it comes down to me is peak hour train paths (And bus capacity too I guess)
It doesn't matter whether the vehicle starts its run right out at the Gold or Sunshine coasts, or as near as Ferny Grove, they all converge at the same point at a concentrated period, and this is where capacity issues occur.

So off peak discounts should be based upon touch off time, because it means services are hitting the CBD sooner, so you can get them turned around and squeeze out another peak hour run.
If a vehicle is getting in by 7 (And those passengers get the off peak discount), that gives it an hour to get back out to the terminus, and then another hour to do an inbound run to be into the city at 9. Obviously if we are sending vehicles to nearer termini, like Richlands, Ferny Grove, Shorncliffe etc then things become less tight. Same goes for buses.
Basically, if we make these early services more popular, that's less vehicles that have to sit back in stabling waiting to run, and more pax carried with the same amount of rolling stock since it gets worked harder.
By encouraging people to exit the system earlier, the greater efficiency means discounting this early bird travel is in fact less of burden.

I don't get why the system cant calculate this when you touch off. I thought the way it worked is that it takes $10 when you touch on, and then 'gives back' at the end of the journey  depending on where you touch off to adjust the fare to the correct level (or takes more in the case of fares which cost more than $10). Of course, if you don't touch off, it doesn't 'give back', and keeps the whole $10 as a penalty.
Why then cant it simply be programmed to 'give back' extra when the touch off happens prior to 7.00-7.30am?

[somebody]

I dont get why people want to subsidize peak passengers and especially long distance passengers who are the most subsidized off all. Off peak I would like to see the discount upped to 30% while keeping the 50% off after 10 trips so some people will effectively get 80% off.

That would be 65% off.  At least on current rules.

Still the concept a number of posters are against is leading this poll!

I think it is largely vested interests who would argue for cheaper peak fares.  Does anyone want to challenge that one?

So off peak discounts should be based upon touch off time,

Only in the AM.

I don't get why the system cant calculate this when you touch off.

I'm sure it can, but it likely requires programming, which is expensive.

[Arnz]

IMO, the touch off window for early morning arrivals should be 7:15am (or 7:20am).  

This allows for the last early morning Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast services (5:53am ex-VSY, arrive Central at 7:08, and 5:25am ex-NBR, arrive Central at 7:11am) to utilise the early morning discount.  

This effectively also allow/promotes passengers to catch early bird services before 6am (or 5:50 in the case of NBR) on the Sunshine Coast and Gold Coast to get in early, thus spreading out the loads.

Any touch off after 7:15am (or 7:20am) should be the full fare after that.

[Gazza]

Only in the AM.

Indeed.
Even if this programming constraint does exist, then the other option is just to make the off peak discount for touch ons prior to 3pm....Get trains out of the CBD sooner, have them at termini by 4, then turned around and into the CBD by 5pm.
Its still the same sort of efficiency, and it makes no difference to pax wether its the morning trip or the evening one that is the discounted one right?[/quote]

Yes I understand that Bob, but you have strongly taken a stance in support of a small group of vocal people and are presumably going to be pushing that perspective to the detriment of a much larger proportion of people and upon disagreement of a lot of people on this forum, in the restricted forum that is the Ministerial consultation group and in the media and under the name of RBOT (and implying its members/contributors to).

Would agree with this.
I've yet to see RBoT come to a consensus on wether we should even have periodicals.


Since 'RBoT' has only one representative at the PTAG, then perhaps we should present our position as a set of dot points or similar for the pros and cons of each option.
I would be disappointed if alternatve viewpoints on the issue (Myself, Simon, DWB etc) weren't making it up to the PTAG.

[Derwan]

Since 'RBoT' has only one representative at the PTAG, then perhaps we should present our position as a set of dot points or similar for the pros and cons of each option.
I would be disappointed if alternatve viewpoints on the issue (Myself, Simon, DWB etc) weren't making it up to the PTAG.

Bob's very good at tabling everyone's items and points of view at the various forums he attends.  Keep an eye on the members forum for his requests for items/suggestions. 

[dwb]

I dont get why people want to subsidize peak passengers and especially long distance passengers who are the most subsidized off all. Off peak I would like to see the discount upped to 30% while keeping the 50% off after 10 trips so some people will effectively get 80% off.

+1, altho as simon identifies the 50% is applied after the offpeak, so its really a 65% discount. I would tend to think that the higher the offpeak discount is the more you would want to get rid of FUS.

[dwb]

7am for Sunshine Coast and Gold Coast lines IS PEAK PERIOD!! For the Sunshine Coast, IMO the 0550 train off Nambour (arrives Central 0744) is the start of their peak period. X970 (the Gympie train) would be the last train of the Sunshine Coast peak period, departing Nambour at 0657, arriving Central at 0844. I don't see why these people should be getting off-peak discounts for peak-period services.

+1

[dwb]

So off peak discounts should be based upon touch off time,

Only in the AM.

I don't get why the system cant calculate this when you touch off.

I'm sure it can, but it likely requires programming, which is expensive.

I believe it is to do with the overlap with how transfers are calculated, although TL have previously said that each leg is calculated independently. If you do a part in and part out of peak journey, does anyone know how it calculates?

[dwb]

IMO, the touch off window for early morning arrivals should be 7:15am (or 7:20am).  

This allows for the last early morning Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast services (5:53am ex-VSY, arrive Central at 7:08, and 5:25am ex-NBR, arrive Central at 7:11am) to utilise the early morning discount.  

This effectively also allow/promotes passengers to catch early bird services before 6am (or 5:50 in the case of NBR) on the Sunshine Coast and Gold Coast to get in early, thus spreading out the loads.

Any touch off after 7:15am (or 7:20am) should be the full fare after that.

So if you/we're talking touch OFF it would probably be best to round it to 730am. But the poll isn't talking touchOFF, so to summarise you're another non-supporter of the touchON idea.

[dwb]

Its still the same sort of efficiency, and it makes no difference to pax wether its the morning trip or the evening one that is the discounted one right?

Really wouldn't we want a system that encourages peak spreading both morning and evening, perhaps if programming wasn't an issue, we would want touch off time in the morning and touch on time in the evening to be what mattered.

Yes I understand that Bob, but you have strongly taken a stance in support of a small group of vocal people and are presumably going to be pushing that perspective to the detriment of a much larger proportion of people and upon disagreement of a lot of people on this forum, in the restricted forum that is the Ministerial consultation group and in the media and under the name of RBOT (and implying its members/contributors to).

Would agree with this.
I've yet to see RBoT come to a consensus on wether we should even have periodicals.


Since 'RBoT' has only one representative at the PTAG, then perhaps we should present our position as a set of dot points or similar for the pros and cons of each option.
I would be disappointed if alternatve viewpoints on the issue (Myself, Simon, DWB etc) weren't making it up to the PTAG.

Since 'RBoT' has only one representative at the PTAG, then perhaps we should present our position as a set of dot points or similar for the pros and cons of each option.
I would be disappointed if alternatve viewpoints on the issue (Myself, Simon, DWB etc) weren't making it up to the PTAG.

Bob's very good at tabling everyone's items and points of view at the various forums he attends.  Keep an eye on the members forum for his requests for items/suggestions.  

Yes I'm aware that Bob tables other people's suggestions, and has explicitly done so in the past with my information that I think he's personally luke warm on. However we all know that there is a big difference in closed room environments where something is tabled and where something is fought for.  I'm actually acknowledging how good Bob is at fighting for things here, I'm just saying that sometimes I think he fights for the wrong things to the detriment of good policy, and it is often thought/ portrayed in the media that these things ARE consensus view points from RBOT (irrespective of whether Bob himself presents them that way).

And no for the record I'm not automatically inferring what I ie dwb says is good policy, I'm just saying that I think there are times when RBOTs media does more harm than good.

[ozbob]

Yes, all points of view from members are tabled, and besides posting ideas, comments and suggestions also means it is read. 

Feedback from media and others indicates that our efforts are well regarded.  No one is going to agree with everything, that's accepted. 

Draft a media release if you think an issue has merit. 

[ozbob]

Poll results are interesting ....  70% in favour of a 7pm to 7am window ...

[dwb]

Poll results are interesting ....  70% in favour of a 7pm to 7am window ...

That is a disingenuous statement at best, and one that I hope you wouldn't use to preface your introduction of such an idea at the ministerial forum.

Firstly only 20 people did the poll, secondly many of them interpreted the question as asking touch OFF before 7am, not touch ON before 7am, several of those have identified themselves already, thirdly the options were highly leading.

As per the discussion on the page, only Bob, Fares_Fair and Stillwater support.

The commentators against include myself (dwb), Cam, Arnz, Derwan, O_128, Petey3801 and Gazza - each of these members has clearly stated their displeasure at the idea of wasting money on giving what are effectively peak customers an offpeak discount.

[O_128]

The main reason Im against Peak hour discounts as there is no need, Demand continues to climb and these demographics of people dont care about cost nor will change there habits. Its in the off peak where significant patronage can be gained. Off peak from 7pm to 6am would be better. And on top of that any kind of off peak discount must be on a touch off basis not touch on

[somebody]

Poll results are interesting ....  70% in favour of a 7pm to 7am window ...

That is a disingenuous statement at best, and one that I hope you wouldn't use to preface your introduction of such an idea at the ministerial forum.

Firstly only 20 people did the poll, secondly many of them interpreted the question as asking touch OFF before 7am, not touch ON before 7am, several of those have identified themselves already, thirdly the options were highly leading.

As per the discussion on the page, only Bob, Fares_Fair and Stillwater support.

The commentators against include myself (dwb), Cam, Arnz, Derwan, O_128, Petey3801 and Gazza - each of these members has clearly stated their displeasure at the idea of wasting money on giving what are effectively peak customers an offpeak discount.

It would be helpful if all these commentators would ensure that they haven't selected the second or fourth options and remove their vote and re-vote before the poll closes.

[ozbob]

Poll results are interesting ....  70% in favour of a 7pm to 7am window ...

That is a disingenuous statement at best, and one that I hope you wouldn't use to preface your introduction of such an idea at the ministerial forum.

Firstly only 20 people did the poll, secondly many of them interpreted the question as asking touch OFF before 7am, not touch ON before 7am, several of those have identified themselves already, thirdly the options were highly leading.

As per the discussion on the page, only Bob, Fares_Fair and Stillwater support.

The commentators against include myself (dwb), Cam, Arnz, Derwan, O_128, Petey3801 and Gazza - each of these members has clearly stated their displeasure at the idea of wasting money on giving what are effectively peak customers an offpeak discount.

LOL, I kind of figured you would take the bait.  Fair dinkum, people read and vote, it is very clear what is meant and my intro explains it.  In anycase I don't take small sample polls as gospel,  it is interesting though as you and others continue to froth over a non issue the vote goes up!  Other people have views too.

I have no intention of raising this directly at the PTAG, I will raise issues that members have tabled as I have always done.



For people going on about touch off, again I have been informed that is not an easy thing to do, and we assume that the system will remain touch on.  The present off peak is touch on, all that was suggested was a change in  timings and discount quantum.  You can start you own  poll as you wish.

[somebody]

LOL, I kind of figured you would take the bait.  Fair dinkum, people read and vote, it is very clear what is meant and my intro explains it.  In anycase I don't take small sample polls as gospel,  it is interesting though as you and others continue to froth over a non issue the vote goes up!  Other people have views too.

I wouldn't say very clear.  It doesn't say it explicitly in the poll options.  Although I have noticed the effect you are referring to.  Likely, as FF commented, who wouldn't want the higher discount?

It is interesting though that more people have commented against that option than have voted against it.  Perhaps the commenters haven't voted?

[dwb]

LOL, I kind of figured you would take the bait.

Of course you did and of course all good forum moderators troll their contributors.  For some reason I'm still here and I will continue to ask the hard questions when RBOT suggests bad policy.

[ozbob]

Lighten up.  Everyone has their view and perspective, they won't all agree. 

Bad policy to you might well be good policy to others.  As I said earlier, live and let live.

[ozbob]

LOL, I kind of figured you would take the bait.  Fair dinkum, people read and vote, it is very clear what is meant and my intro explains it.  In anycase I don't take small sample polls as gospel,  it is interesting though as you and others continue to froth over a non issue the vote goes up!  Other people have views too.

I wouldn't say very clear.  It doesn't say it explicitly in the poll options.  Although I have noticed the effect you are referring to.  Likely, as FF commented, who wouldn't want the higher discount?

It is interesting though that more people have commented against that option than have voted against it.  Perhaps the commenters haven't voted?

The reason why I am interested in improving off peak is to make that a more attractive option, and help manage peak loadings. There is not much more peak capacity to be got, so gains will need to be off peak.  Additionally I would much prefer to see off peak assets being used more effectively.  There are some constraints with the go card, so I have thought through ways of doing that. 

I would say the responses clearly indicate that off peak is one area for improvement.  How that is done, will be an ongoing discussion process.

Now and again, just stand back and think through the broader issues. 

[somebody]

I differ on a number of your points there.

ozbob: Not much to be gained in peak
Simon: Plenty to be gained.  Shorncliffe, Beenleigh, Cleveland and Ferny Grove lines desperately need improved peak hour timetables to reduce the incentive to drive.  All stations should have at least a 15 minute frequency.  Doomben also, but that requires infrastructure.  There is also counter peak commutes, and particularly Ipswich and Milton.

ozbob: There are some constraints on the Go Card
Simon: I presume you mean peak/off peak based on touch on time.  I cannot believe that this is too hard to fix.  How many times have we been told that it is too hard and then it is done?

I also would differ with the focus on fares.  It is services which make the difference.  With go card fares now almost 60% higher than they were just 3 years ago, there is no drop in patronage.  One wonders if this can be continued though.

[Derwan]

I would interpret the results (and posts) something like this:

While there is over 70% support for a 7pm to 7am off-peak window, there is a push from members to base the pre-7am off-peak discount on touch-off time - with some indicating they would not support the pre-7am off-peak discount if it were to be based on touch-on time.

[Fares_Fair]

I would interpret the results (and posts) something like this:

While there is over 70% support for a 7pm to 7am off-peak window, there is a push from members to base the pre-7am off-peak discount on touch-off time - with some indicating they would not support the pre-7am off-peak discount if it were to be based on touch-on time.

Conversely,
While there is over 70% support for a 7pm to 7am off-peak window, there is a push from members to base the pre-7am off-peak discount on touch-on time - with some indicating they would not support the pre-7am off-peak discount if it were to be based on touch-off time.

I know that a significant portion of Sunshine Coast commuters support my views.
Certainly more than there are local SC members here at Rail - Back on Track.

I suspect we Sunny Coasters may be significantly outnumbered here, but we are definitely not out there where the train hits the tracks.
I would not pursue them (and succeed) if it wasn't the case.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[ozbob]

I differ on a number of your points there.

ozbob: Not much to be gained in peak
Simon: Plenty to be gained.  Shorncliffe, Beenleigh, Cleveland and Ferny Grove lines desperately need improved peak hour timetables to reduce the incentive to drive.  All stations should have at least a 15 minute frequency.  Doomben also, but that requires infrastructure.  There is also counter peak commutes, and particularly Ipswich and Milton.

ozbob: There are some constraints on the Go Card
Simon: I presume you mean peak/off peak based on touch on time.  I cannot believe that this is too hard to fix.  How many times have we been told that it is too hard and then it is done?

I also would differ with the focus on fares.  It is services which make the difference.  With go card fares now almost 60% higher than they were just 3 years ago, there is no drop in patronage.  One wonders if this can be continued though.

Cross River Rail justification has been based on the looming capacity constraints. Obviously more can be done but we are starting to reach capacity.

Go card has limitations, reality.  Might be best to reprogram it from scratch, not sure if they will though.

Services are important, but so are fares.  The feedback on that point is considerable.  A holistic policy for improvement includes all aspects.

[somebody]

Go card has limitations, reality.  Might be best to reprogram it from scratch, not sure if they will though.

I never meant that the rewrite from scratch should be done.  I'm pretty sure if we dug long enough we would find some statement saying that they couldn't put capping on the Go Card, but it is on the Go Card for Seniors now.

Services are important, but so are fares.  The feedback on that point is considerable.  A holistic policy for improvement includes all aspects.

Well, fares aren't irrelevant.  However, just because there is a lot of feedback doesn't necessarily mean that the feedback should be listened to.  You're probably going to say that "we support the community" there.  I really think that most of the feedback is driven by people wanting to pay less.

[Fares_Fair]

Go card has limitations, reality.  Might be best to reprogram it from scratch, not sure if they will though.

I never meant that the rewrite from scratch should be done.  I'm pretty sure if we dug long enough we would find some statement saying that they couldn't put capping on the Go Card, but it is on the Go Card for Seniors now.

Services are important, but so are fares.  The feedback on that point is considerable.  A holistic policy for improvement includes all aspects.

Well, fares aren't irrelevant.  However, just because there is a lot of feedback doesn't necessarily mean that the feedback should be listened to.  You're probably going to say that "we support the community" there.  I really think that most of the feedback is driven by people wanting to pay less.

Did someone say TRANSLink ?

Regards,
Fares_fair.

[somebody]

Go card has limitations, reality.  Might be best to reprogram it from scratch, not sure if they will though.

I never meant that the rewrite from scratch should be done.  I'm pretty sure if we dug long enough we would find some statement saying that they couldn't put capping on the Go Card, but it is on the Go Card for Seniors now.

Services are important, but so are fares.  The feedback on that point is considerable.  A holistic policy for improvement includes all aspects.

Well, fares aren't irrelevant.  However, just because there is a lot of feedback doesn't necessarily mean that the feedback should be listened to.  You're probably going to say that "we support the community" there.  I really think that most of the feedback is driven by people wanting to pay less.

Did someone say TRANSLink ?

Regards,
Fares_fair.

Touche!

[Fares_Fair]

Go card has limitations, reality.  Might be best to reprogram it from scratch, not sure if they will though.

I never meant that the rewrite from scratch should be done.  I'm pretty sure if we dug long enough we would find some statement saying that they couldn't put capping on the Go Card, but it is on the Go Card for Seniors now.

Services are important, but so are fares.  The feedback on that point is considerable.  A holistic policy for improvement includes all aspects.

Well, fares aren't irrelevant.  However, just because there is a lot of feedback doesn't necessarily mean that the feedback should be listened to.  You're probably going to say that "we support the community" there.  I really think that most of the feedback is driven by people wanting to pay less.

Did someone say TRANSLink ?

Regards,
Fares_fair.

Today they listened and acted. 

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[somebody]

I must say I do look at that in a much less positive light than you.  Why didn't they foresee the overcrowding on that service?

[Fares_Fair]

I must say I do look at that in a much less positive light than you.  Why didn't they foresee the overcrowding on that service?

I'm not sure Simon, every other commuter on the Sunshine Coast saw it coming.
A Courier-Mail story on June 6 quoted a commuter who predicted the service that night would be crowded.
It wasn't rocket science ...

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[O_128]

I would interpret the results (and posts) something like this:

While there is over 70% support for a 7pm to 7am off-peak window, there is a push from members to base the pre-7am off-peak discount on touch-off time - with some indicating they would not support the pre-7am off-peak discount if it were to be based on touch-on time.

Conversely,
While there is over 70% support for a 7pm to 7am off-peak window, there is a push from members to base the pre-7am off-peak discount on touch-on time - with some indicating they would not support the pre-7am off-peak discount if it were to be based on touch-off time.

I know that a significant portion of Sunshine Coast commuters support my views.
Certainly more than there are local SC members here at Rail - Back on Track.

I suspect we Sunny Coasters may be significantly outnumbered here, but we are definitely not out there where the train hits the tracks.
I would not pursue them (and succeed) if it wasn't the case.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

It has to be a To be a touch off time, why is fare to basically give SC commuters discounts for there entire peak period..not on. A touch off time is much farer and it supports staggered work times.

[petey3801]

I know that a significant portion of Sunshine Coast commuters support my views.
Certainly more than there are local SC members here at Rail - Back on Track.

Of course they bloody well support those views, it means they'll be paying less. But like I said earlier, 7am IS IN THE MIDDLE, IF NOT CLOSE TO THE END OF THE SUNSHINE COAST LINE PEAK PERIOD! Why in the hell do you deserve off-peak fares for PEAK PERIOD trains just because you choose to live so damn far away from your workplace?!?

[#Metro]

I think priority #1 for the Sunshine Coast line is concrete in the form of proper duplication and more and faster services.
Fares will have little effect on Sunshine Coast patronage- that's because the infrastructure, not the fares, is the limiting factor there. No point in encouraging a shift to off-peak period when you can't run more trains in the off peak period anyway.

[O_128]

I know that a significant portion of Sunshine Coast commuters support my views.
Certainly more than there are local SC members here at Rail - Back on Track.

Of course they bloody well support those views, it means they'll be paying less. But like I said earlier, 7am IS IN THE MIDDLE, IF NOT CLOSE TO THE END OF THE SUNSHINE COAST LINE PEAK PERIOD! Why in the hell do you deserve off-peak fares for PEAK PERIOD trains just because you choose to live so damn far away from your workplace?!?

Exactly 

[colinw]

Go card has limitations, reality.  Might be best to reprogram it from scratch, not sure if they will though.

I know we are being told that there are limitations, but I have my doubts as to whether these are technical vs cultural or financial.

Go Card is based on the same reader & card technology that is used in London, Atlanta, and several other places, many of which DO implement the kind of pricing schemes that we are apparently being told are impossible.  That includes capping, and periodical options.

WARNING! Speculation follows.  This is not based on any inside knowledge at all.

Cubic's offering almost certainly is based on a software & hardware platform that is common to the various deployments around the world, but various operators would purchase different configurations (either build time configuration or actual configuration files).

I used to work on a road toll collection system that was similarly based on a mix of build time optioning & configuration.  The system I worked on was quite expensive to reconfigure, because we charged like wounded bulls if a customer either purchased additional software modules or used our services to reconfigure the system. Things were priced knowing that the customer was typically a Government organisation with deep pockets.

Likewise another embedded system I worked on - this time performing supervisory control & data acquisition (SCADA) for power distribution systems - had a vast range of possible software build configurations, which customers selected from when they purchased the system.  They could then only configure the system to use the features that were built & linked into their customer specific software build.  If they wanted to add another module (say a new communications protocol, or a set of functions to implement a PID control algorithm), that was again quite expensive.

I very much suspect that Cubic's reader & back office software functions are built & configured along similar principles, and resistance to adding options to Go Card is based on the cost of purchasing the additional functionality and/or configuration services.

I may be wrong, but to me it seems that their business model may be similar to those previous employers of mine.

[somebody]

Thanks for that.  That makes a lot of sense.