> Are you trying to suggest that TfL are using are a cyber attack as cover to permanently cancel Oval? I'm suggesting it likely would've been delayed anyway, b

> Are you trying to suggest that TfL are using are a cyber attack as cover to permanently cancel Oval? I'm suggesting it likely would've been delayed anyway, based on how the project was going prior to the cyber attack, and the cyber attack is the latest convenient reason for it not being rolled out according to the (already behind) schedule. It's not just Oval, it very much appears from an external perspective that most projects that TfL touch don't get done on time or completed to the promised standard. There are countless examples, the 4G/5G coverage rollout on the underground is yet another: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/lu-elizabeth-line-4g-update.240342/post-6923717 https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/lu-elizabeth-line-4g-up... It's tiresome to see repeatedly happening. > You honestly don’t seem to have any real grasp of how long project like Oval actually take to implement I don't think the timeframes in the original tender were that unrealistic, and to be clear, the tender was published well after the lifting of the Covid-19 lockdown restrictions in the UK. If TfL didn't think those timescales were realistic, it shouldn't have bid for the contract. What I have heard are - if true - some truly ridiculous stories (manual fares data entry, instead of automated ingest of the NR fares data, which already has all of the PAYG fares) about how this is being implemented, which would explain a lot about some of the reasons behind the delays if correct. It's certainly not the fault of the TOCs involved, that's for sure.