RailUK Forums
RailUK Forums > Fares, Ticketing & Routeing > Fares Advice & Policy


Closed Thread
Thread Tools
Unread 9th June 2012, 17:09   #16
trivran
Member
 
Join Date: 23 Apr 2012
Posts: 61
Default

FCC have their ticket barriers set to reject all Child tickets. Apparently there was a bit of a problem with fare evasion.
trivran is offline  
Sponsored links - Registered users do not see these banners - join today!
Unread 25th September 2012, 20:43   #17
big_dirt
Member
 
Join Date: 16 Feb 2011
Posts: 124
Default

I was challenged today at Tulse Hill in relation to my North Dulwich - Elephant and Castle season ticket.

Without wanting to refer to routing guides, as I don't understand them, I just said that in order to go from Elephant to N Dulwich I have to pass through Tulse Hill so therefore I can get off early. This was enough to have him open the gate. I don't know if he was entirely convinced though.

Having to ask them to open the gate has become a bit of a pain. I'd love it if Southern would just programme the barrier to make it operate.

By the way, if I do Tulse - Elephant most often, do Southern earn a bit more if I buy the ticket from North Dulwich because I need to travel on both companies' trains?
big_dirt is offline  
Unread 25th September 2012, 20:55   #18
wintonian
Established Member
 
wintonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: 15 Jan 2010
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 4,889
Default

Had smiler trouble a couple of weeks ago with a Winchester to Eastbourne SDR route Not London ticket a Clapham Junction, the security guard (why are they checking tickets at clapham Junction?) kept insisting it wasn't valid at clapham Junction as the origin was Winchester, after I persisted he he reluctantly let me pass though the gate so I could show it to a member of SWT staff.

It's rather annoying when they program the gates to reject BoJ particularly in an area where its rare for BoJ to be prohibited.
wintonian is offline  
Unread 25th September 2012, 21:28   #19
DaveNewcastle
admiring the bridges
Fares Advisor
 
DaveNewcastle's Avatar
 
Join Date: 21 Dec 2007
Location: Newcastle (unless I'm out)
Posts: 4,691
Default

I wonder if you might be confusing some of the explanations which have already been posted here, with the complex validity arising from the Routing Guide? The programming of barriers is certainly not attempting to replicate that coding of validity; they are attempting to capture a proportion of passengers which is proportionate to the available inspection staff, and whose tickets fall within recognised parameters of abuse.
The best example given above was the setting to reject all Railcard discounted tickets.
That has nothing to do with Routing or validity. Its not even something which a barrier COULD confirm. But it is just a recognised form of fare evasion which is easily confirmed if the barrier rejects the ticket in the first instance and requies manual verification (of the Railcard). A similar check might be applied to Child tickets or Off-Peak tickets during peak hours.

Quote:
Originally Posted by big_dirt View Post
I'd love it if Southern would just programme the barrier to make it operate.
I think you are wrong to argue that the barriers are not operating as designed. In each instance you have held a valid ticket, but not one with that station as its destination. For that reason, the barrier has required manual confirmation, and you have been given that.
I've deduced that they are probably operating correctly.
DaveNewcastle is offline  
Unread 25th September 2012, 21:36   #20
Urban Gateline
South West Trains
Member
 
Urban Gateline's Avatar
 
Join Date: 8 Mar 2011
Posts: 983
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wintonian View Post
the security guard (why are they checking tickets at clapham Junction?) kept insisting it wasn't valid at clapham Junction as the origin was Winchester
That would have been STM agency staff who cover the Gateline role at London stations, they don't get much ticket training but are not as bad as G4S I'd say!
__________________
Twitter: @Urban_Gateline
South West Trains Gateline Assistant in the London Area
Urban Gateline is online now  
Unread 25th September 2012, 21:42   #21
wintonian
Established Member
 
wintonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: 15 Jan 2010
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 4,889
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveNewcastle View Post
I wonder if you might be confusing some of the explanations which have already been posted here, with the complex validity arising from the Routing Guide?
On the flip side I think there are some pepole acting on behalf of TOC's who do as well, though how many seems to vary by TOC and as usual depends on the amount and quality of training provided.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Gateline View Post
but are not as bad as G4S I'd say!
Agreed, everything G4S touch seems to end in a right cack-up in my experience and I'm not just thinking of Olympic security either!

Last edited by wintonian; 25th September 2012 at 21:42. Reason: Double post prevention system
wintonian is offline  
Unread 25th September 2012, 21:55   #22
34D
Established Member
 
34D's Avatar
 
Join Date: 9 Feb 2011
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 3,133
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveNewcastle View Post
I think you are wrong to argue that the barriers are not operating as designed. In each instance you have held a valid ticket, but not one with that station as its destination. For that reason, the barrier has required manual confirmation, and you have been given that.
I've deduced that they are probably operating correctly.
I think I agree with the OP. Many other stations accept some common 'break point' tickets so this one _could_ be added in theory.
34D is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT. The time now is 15:01.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright © 2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© RailUK Forums 2005 - the year after 2012