eTickets/ITSO ticket acceptance on London Underground

[bcarmicle]

From LU’s Ticketing and Revenue Update 152:

Our current agreements with other Train Operators are that during engineering works we will accept Oyster, valid ITSO Travelcards and magnetic tickets, but as we do not have the facility to validate barcode tickets or ITSO products that would not normally be valid on LU services, we will not accept these.

We have recently raised this with Southeastern whose customers are sometimes directed to use Embankment during weekend engineering works at Charing Cross or Cannon Street and have asked them to clarify to their customers that LU cannot accept barcode format tickets or non-Travelcard products on ITSO cards.

We definitely should not be letting customers through the gateline with invalid tickets as it will cause problems for colleagues at their destination when they are unable to exit and will then unlikely be willing to pay the additional fare due.

For all my questions below, assume ITSO excludes Travelcards on ITSO.

1. Does that mean that LU will not accept eTickets and ITSO during ticket acceptance due to disruption, or does this only apply to ticket acceptance due to planned engineering works?

2. Does anything oblige LU to accept eTickets and ITSO during ticket acceptance? For routes normally valid via LU then presumably they are (even though such tickets should only be enabled for CCST), but I’m not sure what the legal position is in relation to tickets not normally valid on LU services.

3. What is the situation with London Overground stations: are they normally able to accept eTickets/ITSO? If so, why can’t LU adopt the same solution?

4. If this situation is in fact permitted, what should a customer holding an eticket/ITSO do?

5. What is the analogous situation with respect to ticket formats on London Buses, Trams, and other TfL services where ticket acceptance has been arranged?

 

[redreni]

I don't know, but in relation to (1), I think it's concerning that TOCs can actively encourage their customers to switch their season tickets from paper to ITSO without telling them that ITSO is inferior inasmuch as it won't include LU ticket acceptance in circumstances where a paper ticket will.

I used to hold a paper London Terminals season ticket that was valid into London Bridge, Cannon Street, Blackfriars, City Thameslink, Waterloo East, Charing Cross and Victoria. I availed myself of LU ticket acceptance put in place between Cannon Street, Blackfriars, Embankment and Victoria quite a few times - it was a fairly regular occurrence for it to be put in place during both planned engineering works and general disruption.

If the answer to your question (1) turns out to be that ITSO and e-tickets aren't accepted even during disruption, then that is something I will bear in mind even when buying single or return tickets that are routed 'not underground' but might plausibly require LU acceptance to be agreed if disruption were to occur. Slade Green to Aldershot would be a recent example of this that I've bought. I would think twice now before buying it on any format other than paper.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

London Underground do accept e-tickets etc without any issues on interavailable routes, such as Liverpool Street to Stratford or Moorgate etc.

There is nothing that says London Underground have to accept any other tickets during disruption, or any at all. They can pick and choose what they accept. Ultimately it is down for Southeastern (or whatever TOC is dealing with the disruption) to put measures in place, and complaints need to go there, not via TfL.

I do have some sympathy with TfL in that during mass disruption, loads of customers turning up with incompatible tickets that don't work their ticket gates could (and does) cause genuine safety issues as the the usual gate line throughput cannot be maintained and leads to significant congestion. TfL shouldn't be expected to make all of their equipment compatible on the off-chance of disruption, at least not at their expense (interavailable routes aside).

It will self resolve in time as infrastructure is enhanced, but there's an awful lot of gates and a very difficult provider to get past first!

 

[redreni]

I do have some sympathy with TfL in that during mass disruption, loads of customers turning up with incompatible tickets that don't work their ticket gates could (and does) cause genuine safety issues as the the usual gate line throughput cannot be maintained and leads to significant congestion. TfL shouldn't be expected to make all of their equipment compatible on the off-chance of disruption, at least not at their expense (interavailable routes aside).

It will self resolve in time as infrastructure is enhanced, but there's an awful lot of gates and a very difficult provider to get past first!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but when we're talking about tickets that are not normally valid on LU but for which ticket acceptance is in place, don't e-tickets and paper tickets both require manual inspection? In which case, surely your point falls away with respect to e-tickets?

For what it's worth I agree with you with respect to ITSO.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but when we're talking about tickets that are not normally valid on LU but for which ticket acceptance is in place, don't e-tickets and paper tickets both require manual inspection? In which case, surely your point falls away with respect to e-tickets?

For what it's worth I agree with you with respect to ITSO.

Yes, but the number of e-tickets seen in normal circumstances, e.g. for interavailable routes is very low, mainly because people don't know that validity exists. Stations with normal interavailable validity are also starting to have technology availabile to support this, but only because National Rail trains also call.

It's very different to sending an entire London terminal worth of customers with incompatible tickets to the nearest underground station and have them manually let through gates, especially if it is at a time that is already crowded.

 

[Adam Williams]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but when we're talking about tickets that are not normally valid on LU but for which ticket acceptance is in place, don't e-tickets and paper tickets both require manual inspection? In which case, surely your point falls away with respect to e-tickets?

Passengers who have already been inconvenienced should not be further inconvenienced by LUL during disruption due to engineering works (which may well have been announced after they booked) simply because they chose to use a modern ticket fulfilment method, that's unacceptable.

Why is the risk of a potentially localised increase in fare evasion taking priority over enabling fare-paying passengers to get from their origin to where they need to go? Pretty sure most LU stations have a way of opening a gate to bypass the usual gateline if there is an influx of passengers that arrive. There's a very deliberate choice being made here

 

[Watershed]

It's very different to sending an entire London terminal worth of customers with incompatible tickets to the nearest underground station and have them manually let through gates, especially if it is at a time that is already crowded.

How is the issue of manually needing to let them through gates any better with paper tickets than it is with ITSO singles/returns or e-tickets? In all cases it remains a manual process.

I'm afraid this is simply yet another example of TfL's intransigence when it comes to National Rail ticketing matters. They come up with their own rules and stick with them no matter whether they are lawful or reasonable to passengers.

 

[redreni]

Yes, but the number of e-tickets seen in normal circumstances, e.g. for interavailable routes is very low, mainly because people don't know that validity exists. Stations with normal interavailable validity are also starting to have technology availabile to support this, but only because National Rail trains also call.

It's very different to sending an entire London terminal worth of customers with incompatible tickets to the nearest underground station and have them manually let through gates, especially if it is at a time that is already crowded.

It would be no different to what used to happen when everyone was using paper tickets, though. All tickets that are not normally valid on LU would have to be manually inspected.

If safety requirements dictated that throughput was more important than checking tickets then barriers could be opened.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

It would be no different to what used to happen when everyone was using paper tickets, though. All tickets that are not normally valid on LU would have to be manually inspected.

If safety requirements dictated that throughput was more important than checking tickets then barriers could be opened.

Gates can be set (locally) to ignore geography and just check the date on magnetic stripe formats - so you don't need to keep all of the gates open and manually inspect.

You can't obviously do that with eTickets as the scanners don't exist.

And I think you're missing the wider point - London Underground would be doing this as a favour, there's rarely any money that changes hands. The general principle of ticket acceptance is to grant it if:

1) It's reasonable in the circumstances;
2) An operator has the capacity for it;
3) There's no or just a very minor impact on the usual/original customers of the company granting ticket acceptance, i.e. accepting tickets won't cause a deterioration for their existing customers.

Ticket acceptance should be refused otherwise.

Leaving their gates wide open, with the huge revenue loss and subsequent administrative effort dealing with calls and queries around missing taps etc just to accommodate a TOC is excessive and unfair for TfL to absorb.

The gates also play a very significant part in controlling crowds and ensuring there are steady flows - keeping the gates wide open is likely to be outright dangerous at peak times at certain locations, especially during periods of severe disruption. They aren't just there for ensuring customers have a valid ticket - they're a real and critical part of the safety infrastructure.

 

[redreni]

The general principle of ticket acceptance is to grant it if:

1) It's reasonable in the circumstances;
2) An operator has the capacity for it;
3) There's no or just a very minor impact on the usual/original customers of the company granting ticket acceptance, i.e. accepting tickets won't cause a deterioration for their existing customers.

Ticket acceptance should be refused otherwise.

It would be a high priority for me, if appointed Transport Secretary, to ensure the mindset that leads railway people to believe the second and third of those conditions are acceptable, was eradicated.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

It would be a high priority for me, if appointed Transport Secretary, to ensure the mindset that leads railway people to believe the second and third of those conditions are acceptable, was eradicated.

You must be insane to think it is acceptable for a potential network already at capacity to suddenly handle an influx of displaced customers from a major London terminal. You absolutely must consider what a network is capable of handling before agreeing anything.

If a network is at already at, or close to it's peak capacity, it's full - where do you propose all of these additional people will go? Bearing in mind, this scenario is without any pre-planning (so not planned engineering work), so no time to erect queuing systems, hire security/stewards, arrange for additional trains etc, set up Gold/Silver/Bronze control commands etc.

GB Railways in a post-nationalised world may improve ticket acceptance eventually between DfT controlled TOCs, but it has the same problem - during disruption, there is always going to be a huge strain on capacity. Just look what happens when there's a fatality at Watford and they close Euston for an hour or two, you end up with really quite dangerous crowding conditions, very quickly, which spread to nearby alternative routes/stations, none of which are resourced to deal with an event of such magnitude at the drop of a hat.

 

[furlong]

It is the responsibility of the train company concerned to provide an alternative medium that IS acceptable to TfL. For example, nothing stops them in this case from having a stock of gate passes available at Charing X and Cannon St which can be handed out to affected passengers or, particularly in the other direction, collected from ticket machines if they send those passengers a collection code. They could alternatively station employees at Embankment to hand out these passes to travellers departing with valid tickets and to assist TfL with checking the validity of tickets of passengers arriving there.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

It is the responsibility of the train company concerned to provide an alternative medium that IS acceptable to TfL. For example, nothing stops them in this case from having a stock of gate passes available at Charing X and Cannon St which can be handed out to affected passengers or, particularly in the other direction, collected from ticket machines if they send those passengers a collection code. They could alternatively station employees at Embankment to hand out these passes to travellers departing with valid tickets and to assist TfL with checking the validity of tickets of passengers arriving there.

Exactly this - it's Southeastern's problem, and they need to sort a solution that works for the customer. The ultimate solution would be for RDG to fund upgrades to LU gates and equipment to handle this scenario, but it isn't realistic when you consider how many thousands of gates would need an upgrade "just in case" and the overheads, administration etc of that. A good starting point would be the interavailable stations, which is planned to happen eventually.

Realistically, it's probably easier, faster (and preferable) for any affected customer to just pay the LU fare and reclaim it back from Southeastern, or rather, I suspect most customers would submit a delay repay claim later and consider that any compensation received from that effectively resolves the matter.

 

[redreni]

You must be insane [...]

Thank you for your judgement, but I'll stick to the issue if it's all the same to you.

Passengers don't just disappear when you compound the disruption they're facing by not agreeing ticket acceptance. They cause just as much crowding if you make them pay again as they would if you didn't. They still need to get home.

I do agree on the fundamental point that if a TOC requests TfL to accept its tickets, it is to some extent incumbent on them to make it as easy as possible for TfL to do so. The fact the TOCs and TfL have taken such different and often incompatible routes to modernising ticketing doesn't help, of course, and nobody emerges particularly well in my humble opinion. The exception, I suppose, being Contactless PAYG, which TOCs did participate in, but that doesn't appear to support the principle of not charging people extra when they've been forced by disruption to take an alternative route at all. I strongly suspect the facility to do so was never even in the specs. So if, for example, you're intending to come into Charing Cross on Southeastern using Contactless PAYG but it turns out you can only get to Cannon Street, then as far as I'm aware TfL will still charge you a higher, mixed mode fare if you continue your journey from Cannon Street to Embankment via the District Line even if it has agreed ticket acceptance with Southeastern between those stations. I may be wrong about that and hopefully I am?

From a passenger perspective, though, modern ticketing appears so often to mean a greatly increased likelihood of having to pay extra for the privilege of having your journey disrupted. All the alternatives to a paper ticket, for one reason or another, seem to result in having to pay more.

 

[thedbdiboy]

Exactly this - it's Southeastern's problem, and they need to sort a solution that works for the customer. The ultimate solution would be for RDG to fund upgrades to LU gates and equipment to handle this scenario, but it isn't realistic when you consider how many thousands of gates would need an upgrade "just in case" and the overheads, administration etc of that. A good starting point would be the interavailable stations, which is planned to happen eventually.

Realistically, it's probably easier, faster (and preferable) for any affected customer to just pay the LU fare and reclaim it back from Southeastern, or rather, I suspect most customers would submit a delay repay claim later and consider that any compensation received from that effectively resolves the matter.

But hang on, the gates don't work even for magstripe tickets to London Terminals when being passed by the Underground during disruption. What happens during diversions is that the customer shows their ticket and is manually let through the gate. So there's a serious case of 'not invented here' happening by saying the same can't be same can't be done with an e-ticket. I believe discussions are in hand to address this...

 

[185143]

It is the responsibility of the train company concerned to provide an alternative medium that IS acceptable to TfL. For example, nothing stops them in this case from having a stock of gate passes available at Charing X and Cannon St which can be handed out to affected passengers or, particularly in the other direction, collected from ticket machines if they send those passengers a collection code. They could alternatively station employees at Embankment to hand out these passes to travellers departing with valid tickets and to assist TfL with checking the validity of tickets of passengers arriving there.

This is effectively what HoverTravel do when they cannot run. Passengers head over to Wightlink and get sent to the HoverTravel staff who pitch up a table in the terminal. HoverTravel's staff then verify your booking and give you either a token or a ticket, I can't remember, to take to the Wightlink check in staff. They then issue you a boarding pass.

 

[Belperpete]

I think we need to remember that the underground has a ticketing system that works well for its customers, and was supported by both local and national government. TfL has a very constrained budget, and should not be expected to adapt their system to accept someone else's format tickets unless someone pays for it (either TOC, RDG or local or national government).

If a TOC wants to redirect its customers onto the TfL network, then it is up to that TOC to organise it in a way that TfL can handle. It is unreasonable to expect TfL to suddenly lay on extra trains and disrupt its ticketing arrangements.

If I were a passenger that a TOC had redirected to TFL but my ticket wasn't accepted, and had to buy a new ticket, then I would certainly look to the TOC to refund that fare, in addition to any delay compensation I might be due.

As to the original OP's question about whether the same applies on the overground, I suspect that it would depend on whether the station was overground only, or also had other mainline services. Would be interested if anyone had a more definitive answer.

 

[Adam Williams]

I think we need to remember that the underground has a ticketing system that works well for its customers

I would very much disagree with this. Everything about Oyster is incredibly painful from a customer experience perspective.

Applying Railcard discounts is an antiquated, ridiculous process that requires me to go to London in off-peak times every year and waste a member of gateline staff's time for something that could be done online.

Buying a top-up online? Hope you've accounted for the fact that you have limited time to pick it up. Customer support is all outsourced too, there's a bias towards requiring you to phone up to get stuff refunded.

Cross-London NR customers are also Underground customers, too. TfL is paid for these tickets. They don't have a good experience today when using London Underground.

It's not all sunshine and roses in National Rail land, but it's better than this. It's okay though, because customers can simply use contactless and pay more than they should. This system works very well for TfL, I'm sure.

 

[Starmill]

I would very much disagree with this. Everything about Oyster is incredibly painful from a customer experience perspective.

Applying Railcard discounts is an antiquated, ridiculous process that requires me to go to London in off-peak times every year and waste a member of gateline staff's time for something that could be done online.

Buying a top-up online? Hope you've accounted for the fact that you have limited time to pick it up. Customer support is all outsourced too, there's a bias towards requiring you to phone up to get stuff refunded.

Cross-London NR customers are also Underground customers, too. TfL is paid for these tickets. They don't have a good experience today when using London Underground.

It's not all sunshine and roses in National Rail land, but it's better than this. It's okay though, because customers can simply use contactless and pay more than they should. This system works very well for TfL, I'm sure.

It's a the sort of thing that, in the run up to 2003, when it was first being developed, was genuinely ground-breaking. But 20 years later it of course seems fairly primitive technologically. Unfortunately, there's many things which haven't been funded to be upgraded since then pretty much, or have been "upgraded" but by building something else to tack on to it, leaving the original process intact. I think ultimately all of these pain points you rightly raise can be traced back to this way of implementating things. Contactless isn't subject to anything like as many pain points and is far more capable, but obviously for now all of the hardware, processes and so on still need to take account of Oyster which is still high in circulation (compared with magstripe). I'd say the result is something that overall does not work too badly, unless you get tripped up by one of the many pain points. Another good example of this is when service patterns change, such as the Elizabeth line opening, Oyster always messes up some of the interchanges, because of the amount of manual coding for them that's necccesary. For example, I got a no touch out charge on the DLR at Custom House because I touched in before boarding the DLR and then again to enter the Elizabeth Line gates. That was over a year after the Elizabeth Line opened too. I think it's been corrected now after correspondence between me and customer service, and with MikeWH. Contactless wasn't applying the no touch out charge.

 

[Belperpete]

As an Oyster card user with railcard discount, my experience is exactly the opposite. I have auto top up - if you want to burden yourself with having to do manual top ups that is hardly the fault of the Oyster system. And I just load my railcard discount onto the card on my next trip after I have renewed my Railcard.

And I regularly make cross London journeys with NR tickets, and have never had any issue. Okay, sometimes the barrier doesn't read the ticket and I have to be let through manually, but that happens far more frequently on National Rail than it does on TfL barriers.

My big issue is with my local TOC, who have made it difficult to obtain to obtain TfL compatible tickets, but that is the TOCs fault, not TfLs. And most of the big issues seem to be with TOCs introducing systems that are no longer compatible with TfL, which is hardly TfLs fault.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

I would very much disagree with this. Everything about Oyster is incredibly painful from a customer experience perspective.

Applying Railcard discounts is an antiquated, ridiculous process that requires me to go to London in off-peak times every year and waste a member of gateline staff's time for something that could be done online.

Buying a top-up online? Hope you've accounted for the fact that you have limited time to pick it up. Customer support is all outsourced too, there's a bias towards requiring you to phone up to get stuff refunded.

Cross-London NR customers are also Underground customers, too. TfL is paid for these tickets. They don't have a good experience today when using London Underground.

It's not all sunshine and roses in National Rail land, but it's better than this. It's okay though, because customers can simply use contactless and pay more than they should. This system works very well for TfL, I'm sure.

On the point of Railcards - TfL (well London Underground specifically) has absolutely no obligation to participate in them or to offer any discount. The number of people registering Oyster cards with a Railcard discount is also falling significantly. People seem to prefer using their debit/credit card, even if it costs more.

On that basis, I'm not really sure that TfL would be inclined to spend any significant amounts of money in making that process easier, especially as it is largely voluntary in the first place.

 

[Adam Williams]

if you want to burden yourself with having to do manual top ups that is hardly the fault of the Oyster system

"Some of the functionality offered is bad, but it's your fault as the user for using it"

that is hardly the fault of the Oyster system

My point is, they do not need to be nearly as painful as they currently are because of the way they've implemented it. There are many reasons why some customers may prefer to manually top-up their account, budgeting being just one example. This is the sort of thing you'd think about in an EQIA, and try to ensure the system meets the needs of all of your potential customers as a public body, not just the ones who can "tap and forget" without needing to worry about how much money they're spending.

And I regularly make cross London journeys with NR tickets, and have never had any issue

I have a problem every single time I try to make a cross-London NR journey, and it materialises like this:

It's a the sort of thing that, in the run up to 2003, when it was first being developed, was genuinely ground-breaking

I would agree with this. It just hasn't kept up since.

Unfortunately, there's many things which haven't been funded to be upgraded since then pretty much, or have been "upgraded" but by building something else to tack on to it, leaving the original process intact. I think ultimately all of these pain points you rightly raise can be traced back to this way of implementating things

The problem I have with this is that I .. don't think (in a well architected system) that any of these issues should be that difficult or expensive to fix. But given it's Cubic, you can bet it'll magically cost a ridiculous amount of money to sort it all out and bring it in line with expectations from customers in 2024. I am not sure that that's the best use for public funds, so we are left with this status quo.

On the point of Railcards - TfL (well London Underground specifically) has absolutely no obligation to participate in them or to offer any discount. The number of people registering Oyster cards with a Railcard discount is also falling significantly.

Who would've thought that when you make people jump through ridiculous hoops that fewer of them bother to waste their time doing it? A truly profound observation, and the whole forum is better for this contribution.

Railcard discounts on contactless was an Oval deliverable. It should've been done years ago, but here we are and not even a half-arsed attempt at phase 1 has gone live.

 

[island]

Southeastern offers me cross-London tickets fulfilled to ITSO, so presumably LUL accepts these? And therefore has the capability to accept London Terminals tickets? Just sounds like heads need bashed together between SE/LUL, rather than finger-pointing.

 

[Haywain]

And therefore has the capability to accept London Terminals tickets?

A ticket from the Great Northern route to London Terminals held on ITSO will work barriers at both Moorgate and Kings Cross St Pancras, so the capability undoubtedly exists.

 

[Starmill]

A ticket from the Great Northern route to London Terminals held on ITSO will work barriers at both Moorgate and Kings Cross St Pancras, so the capability undoubtedly exists.

Yes exactly. And same for any Travelcard in the relevant zones or on a bus, which is held in ITSO. It totally undermines the wording LU have chosen here in their internal document.

Railcard discounts on contactless was an Oval deliverable. It should've been done years ago, but here we are and not even a half-arsed attempt at phase 1 has gone live.

Clearly Oval currently is still riddled with issues that just affect bog standard adult single fares, I don't think we can hold out much hope for a pain-free launch, nor for anything beyond that like railcards for some time.

 

[redreni]

Southeastern offers me cross-London tickets fulfilled to ITSO, so presumably LUL accepts these? And therefore has the capability to accept London Terminals tickets? Just sounds like heads need bashed together between SE/LUL, rather than finger-pointing.

A fair presumption, however, I wish I was more confident than I am that it's an accurate one. I was specifically advised against putting cross-London tickets on ITSO as forum users reported it had caused friction at LU gatelines for them. The opening post of this thread implies TfL gateline staff are being discouraged from letting people enter the LU system on a Smartcard that cannot be checked (albeit the scope of that particular bulletin is narrower than that).

 

[Trainbike46]

"Some of the functionality offered is bad, but it's your fault as the user for using it"


My point is, they do not need to be nearly as painful as they currently are because of the way they've implemented it. There are many reasons why some customers may prefer to manually top-up their account, budgeting being just one example. This is the sort of thing you'd think about in an EQIA, and try to ensure the system meets the needs of all of your potential customers as a public body, not just the ones who can "tap and forget" without needing to worry about how much money they're spending.


I have a problem every single time I try to make a cross-London NR journey, and it materialises like this:

View attachment 159668


I would agree with this. It just hasn't kept up since.


The problem I have with this is that I .. don't think (in a well architected system) that any of these issues should be that difficult or expensive to fix. But given it's Cubic, you can bet it'll magically cost a ridiculous amount of money to sort it all out and bring it in line with expectations from customers in 2024. I am not sure that that's the best use for public funds, so we are left with this status quo.


Who would've thought that when you make people jump through ridiculous hoops that fewer of them bother to waste their time doing it? A truly profound observation, and the whole forum is better for this contribution.

Railcard discounts on contactless was an Oval deliverable. It should've been done years ago, but here we are and not even a half-arsed attempt at phase 1 has gone live.

My experience with oyster is positive as well - and I also have a railcard discount set on it. I never really encounter problems with it, and topping up at ticket machines is pretty easy (and now that most people use contactless, there's never really a queue anymore). For people without discounts or season tickets, Contactless is clearly a massive improvement and the easiest payment system around.

My understanding is that TfL hasn't introduced eTickets, but that they have reasons for that, and that one is that people are, on average, slower at scanning an eTicket than at using the accepted payment methods (magstripe, contactless, oyster, ITSO), and that at certain key stations that could cause crowding issues.

 

[bcarmicle]

Thanks all - sounds like an unfortunate state of affairs where LU are technically in the right even if it results in a worse customer experience all round, and passengers anticipating potential disruption should get a CCST. I assume the same applies to other non-NR TfL services (e.g. Buses).

No one's said explicitly, but I'd hope that an affected customer would be able to apply for reimbursement of the Oyster fare from the TOC.

Would still be good to know about London Overground as they are a TOC unlike most TfL services - I haven't been through an Overground station in ages so can't remember if they have eTicket/ITSO-capable barriers.

 

[Wallsendmag]

Thanks all - sounds like an unfortunate state of affairs where LU are technically in the right even if it results in a worse customer experience all round, and passengers anticipating potential disruption should get a CCST. I assume the same applies to other non-NR TfL services (e.g. Buses).

No one's said explicitly, but I'd hope that an affected customer would be able to apply for reimbursement of the Oyster fare from the TOC.

Would still be good to know about London Overground as they are a TOC unlike most TfL services - I haven't been through an Overground station in ages so can't remember if they have eTicket/ITSO-capable barriers.

ITSO yes Barcode readers no

 

[Bungle965]

ITSO yes Barcode readers no

Something which should be changing soon!