York Station revenue block

[RJ]

I was in York the other day.

When I entered the station to make my onward journey, I was surprised to find that a barrier had appeared, consisting of staff from various TOCs, the BTP and private hire security guards. I was on my phone at the time so was distracted, but not expecting any problems. I presented my ticket for travel to a TPE RPO and was surprised to find that for an extended period of time, he was inspecting my ticket intently. He had removed it from the wallet and started going through it to find out what else was in there.

I explained to this member of staff a number of times which train I was taking and why my ticket was valid, but it didn't seem to amount to anything. I looked more closely at the RPO and upon seeing his name badge, realised it was the same TPE RPO from the incident at Liverpool a few months ago - the one who tried and failed to have me arrested by the BTP, also stating that I would get a criminal record and never work for the railways again. I've long since forgiven his actions on that day but it seems the guy remembered me and decided the best course of action was to delay me getting through to catch the train. I didn't say a word about the previous indiscretion and wanted to get through the situation saying as little as necessary.

Somehow my ticket wallet ended up in his hands. As he went through the wallet, he saw my Priv/Staff Travel Card boxes and stated that if I wanted to travel, I'd have to date a box. I said no and once again reiterated that the ticket I held was valid in its own right. The ticket was in no way obscure - guards up and down the country know all about it and having used such a ticket on several occasions, I had never had any issues whatsoever until this point. He handed the ticket over to a CrossCountry employee on the barrier, who then went into the ticket office to investigate the validity. I took a step back and continued on with my telephone conversation, leaving them to get on with it. He eventually came back and said that none of the ticket office staff he spoke to knew about the validity of the ticket so they would not be letting me through.

Given that I'd not long since finished my shift at work and was in uniform, I found myself wondering why this was even a problem. The CrossCountry employee told me to go to the Travel Centre and seek assistance from them on the validity of the ticket. I said no, because they had already contradicted what I said and I knew I was right. I also said that I'd never had any issue on the trains and suggested that he should come with me and verify it with the guard. He then decided to make a phone call to someone at East Coast. The person on the phone confirmed that I was right and that my ticket was valid. The CrossCountry employee apologised for the inconvenience and let me through. I got my passes back from the TPE RPO. Thankfully I was not in any particular hurry! I arrived with 15 minutes until the departure of the train I was catching.

This does highlight an issue with these makeshift revenue protection blocks. If the staff are not equipped with an appropriate level of product knowledge on each other's services, why are they authorised to perform these checks? I don't think telling passengers to stand aside for an indefinite period of time whilst they play catch up with the knowledge is a particularly efficient way of doing things. I worked at a London Terminal and prior to working in the Customer Information Point, there were collaborative meetings with employees from all appropriate TOCs and Network Rail. Product knowledge was shared that way and understandings reached so we could all assist each other in practice. I've travelled through St Pancras in the past when the low level station was shut, FCC services are segregated from EMT's and the ticket inspections remain separate.

Has anyone else had any issues with ticket checks at stations which multiple TOCs pass through, especially at the behest of staff who are not employed by the TOC you were travelling with?

 

[Crossover]

It wasn't a Fri or Sat evening was it, if you don't mind me asking? Myself and another forum member came up against a line of staff not admitting anyone without a travel ticket for purposes of health and safety (stopping the drunks becoming a danger to themselves and others)

We were stopped by the York Tap and soon after the guy vanished leaving it totally unmanned. When I entered a little while later at the main entrance, I think my ticket was checked by a member of GC staff

 

[yorkie]

He then decided to make a phone call to someone at East Coast. The person on the phone confirmed that I was right and that my ticket was valid. The CrossCountry employee apologised for the inconvenience and let me through.

I would suggest writing to TPE and, separately, XC asking them if it is correct that staff do not allow you through until they are sure your ticket is valid, and if so, how long before your train, should you arrive in future, to ensure that there is enough time for them to check?

I'd be interested to see what the response is.

The purpose of these checks (which occur during York races and/or Friday/Saturday evenings) is apparently to deter drunks and deal with the unusually large numbers of passengers (who may otherwise not have their ticket checked) rather than catch people out who are using routeing anomalies. They don't tend to check the entrance heading towards the NRM, and the entrance towards the cycle parking is rarely checked. I did once see one person checking near the York Tap. As for people using the ticket office, only people who didn't approach the ticket machines were checked, leaving just the main archway where most of the ticket checking was going on.

Annoyingly, despite the reason being given to apparently stop drunks getting on the platforms, they do appear to let plenty of drunks through, leading to unpleasant scenes if arriving on a train heading towards (in order of nastiness), Teeside and, to a lesser extent, Tyneside. Sometimes you can be presented with a wall of drunk bodies who refuse to let you off the train! I do wish they'd enforce Byelaws 4, 5 and 6!

 

[Be3G]

On the subject of ticket inspections by one TOC not ‘understanding’ another TOC's tickets, this thread comes to mind. Not the same thing I know, but perhaps pointing to a similar lack of knowledge/care.

 

[Harpers Tate]

In South Yorkshire, there is a PTE organised ticket called "Day Tripper". It's valid for one day's travel on all local buses, trams and, importantly, on all Rail services that call at at least two stations within the county (only after 0930 weekdays for rail services). That includes XC services that call at both Sheffield and Doncaster.

The same ticket can be bought from train conductors, as a scratchcard from PTE outlets, and from bus drivers. They all have exactly the same validity.

Tickets bought on a bus are issued on standard bus ticket stock. They are clearly imprinted "SY Day Tripper" (or similar) and bear the price - currently £6.30.

A couple of years ago, I boarded an XC service at Sheffield, going to Doncaster. On being presented with my (valid) "bus" ticket, the guard insisted that it was only valid "on the little local trains".

In fact, he did not choose to charge or penalise me, but he did get very awkward briefly, accusing me of arguing with him (which, of course I very politely was doing) and threatening some sort of action.

I wasn't affected, in fact. And I raised it later with the PTE who undertook to try and increase awareness of such things amongst XC staff. I know nothing of any outcome here.

However, the point is, he was clearly mis-informed and his actions, if taken against a less well-informed passenger than I, would have been wholly incorrect.

It's clearly unreasonable to expect every single member of staff - especially those who may work from well outside the area (or company or whatever) - to instantly recall every one of the plethora of odd things that ARE in fact valid for travel.

I think, though, that where some (mercifully few) let themselves down is by a failure to acknowledge they may be wrong; to give the benefit of any doubt they may have; and/or to be equipped with and (importantly) be prepared to go and check with, appropriate and accurate information to guide them.

 

[sarahj]

Yes, I know. I'm still around.

But I'm gonna say something that may shock you.

This RPO proves the saying 'there is always one'.:roll:

You had priv tickets,boxes,staff pass and in uniform and he stopped you. I have a view on this which cannot be shown in a public forum, but just to say this attitiude to another member of rail staff grates on me. Come on my train and you will see what my view is.


SJ

 

[crispy1978]

Is this a temporary thing at York - I have seen them now and again there, or is this going to become permanent?

 

[thelongestroad]

Do you still work on the railways RJ? I was perhaps under the (mis) understanding you'd left and were going about other work now?

 

[Darandio]

Do you still work on the railways RJ? I was perhaps under the (mis) understanding you'd left and were going about other work now?

I did see RJ confirm in another recent thread that he is indeed still staff.

 

[RJ]

Do you still work on the railways RJ? I was perhaps under the (mis) understanding you'd left and were going about other work now?

I did and now I'm back. I sell tickets for a living.

Yes, I know. I'm still around.

But I'm gonna say something that may shock you.

This RPO proves the saying 'there is always one'.:roll:

You had priv tickets,boxes,staff pass and in uniform and he stopped you. I have a view on this which cannot be shown in a public forum, but just to say this attitiude to another member of rail staff grates on me. Come on my train and you will see what my view is.


SJ

Glad to see you back

I don't even bother asking myself why I'm subject to that kind of treatment any more. I just get on with what I'm doing and leave them to get on with what they're doing, then put through a formal complaint if necessary. Fortunately, I didn't miss the train I was intending to catch, although I didn't have enough time to pick up refreshments.

Some staff in revenue protection roles simply have a superiority complex - from my experiences, I can spot them a mile off and learnt to say as little as necessary to people like this. Personally I feel those types who derive pleasure from bullying passengers and withdrawing passes from other staff are in the wrong job. I take pride in my work and enjoy being as helpful as possible.

It wasn't a Fri or Sat evening was it, if you don't mind me asking? Myself and another forum member came up against a line of staff not admitting anyone without a travel ticket for purposes of health and safety (stopping the drunks becoming a danger to themselves and others)

We were stopped by the York Tap and soon after the guy vanished leaving it totally unmanned. When I entered a little while later at the main entrance, I think my ticket was checked by a member of GC staff

It was on Saturday as it happens!

 

[09065]

Some staff in revenue protection roles simply have a superiority complex - from my experiences, I can spot them a mile off and learnt to say as little as necessary to people like this. Personally I feel those types who derive pleasure from bullying passengers and withdrawing passes from other staff are in the wrong job.

Unfortunately the revenue Protection team are about in a Catch 22 situation as you can get. Evil in the eyes of the those that are troubled by them and evil in the eyes of the managers who don't see them taking enough money. RPO's who are trying to crack down on staff abusing their facilities (I am not saying you were) can hardly be in the wrong job. Just like there are scrotes who bunk their fare and hide in toilets; there are (for example):

ex-members of staff who keep their passes and uniform to carry on using them when not entitled,
new employees who think that rather than use their 75% discount they will bunk trains "because they are staff",
infrastructure/maintenance staff who are not entitled to travel concessions but do not accept it,
enthusiasts who acquire uniform to try and make themselves look like staff,

the list can go on and on but the problem is that in the eyes of a lot of staff these people are seen as the enemy. The fact that a lot of TOC on-board staff turn a blind eye to some of these makes the RPOs jobs harder and then even more of an enemy because they have to be more proactive in their work.

Maybe if our colleagues around the UK were a bit less inclined to open themselves to misconduct charges (which is what TOCs mostly see travel concession misuse as now) then Revenue Protection would not have to be so invasive against everyone. I know if an RPO had an aggressive member of staff at a set of barriers when I was walking through I would be standing behind the RPO and offering my assistance.... and that comes from someone who gets no travel concessions apart from a 75% discount on my season ticket to the office.

 

[yorkie]

...I know if an RPO had an aggressive member of staff at a set of barriers when I was walking through I would be standing behind the RPO and offering my assistance.... .

What if the RPO was wrong and/or the RPO was the one being aggressive?

Is it always the RPO who gets the assistance regardless, or is it who's right, or is it based on who is the least aggressive or what?

Genuinely curious about this one.

I've seen RPOs and guards be both wrong and aggressive, and to me that's just as bad as a passenger (but, in some ways worse, as they are supposed to be professional).

 

[09065]

The question should be whether the RPO be getting varying levels of abuse from their own industry colleagues in the middle of the station.

I agree that there are RP staff and Guards/Conductors/Train Managers/next years new title that are rude and obnoxious but that that point in time they are trying to do their job.

The original context of the statement from RJ was that Revenue Protection bully passengers and withdraw staff passes; if a RPO wants to withdraw your staff pass then to a large extent they are entitled to do so. If they had a habit of withdrawing staff passes en-masse then the flood of complaints would soon see them being looked at themselves, no?

There are ways and means of doing things and the TOCs perception in the eyes of the public is a big factor; being seen arguing over a ticket issue with an RPO is hardly going to be flavour of the month whether you are right or wrong.

 

[RJ]

Unfortunately the revenue Protection team are about in a Catch 22 situation as you can get. Evil in the eyes of the those that are troubled by them and evil in the eyes of the managers who don't see them taking enough money. RPO's who are trying to crack down on staff abusing their facilities (I am not saying you were) can hardly be in the wrong job. Just like there are scrotes who bunk their fare and hide in toilets; there are (for example):

ex-members of staff who keep their passes and uniform to carry on using them when not entitled,
new employees who think that rather than use their 75% discount they will bunk trains "because they are staff",
infrastructure/maintenance staff who are not entitled to travel concessions but do not accept it,
enthusiasts who acquire uniform to try and make themselves look like staff,

the list can go on and on but the problem is that in the eyes of a lot of staff these people are seen as the enemy. The fact that a lot of TOC on-board staff turn a blind eye to some of these makes the RPOs jobs harder and then even more of an enemy because they have to be more proactive in their work.

Maybe if our colleagues around the UK were a bit less inclined to open themselves to misconduct charges (which is what TOCs mostly see travel concession misuse as now) then Revenue Protection would not have to be so invasive against everyone. I know if an RPO had an aggressive member of staff at a set of barriers when I was walking through I would be standing behind the RPO and offering my assistance.... and that comes from someone who gets no travel concessions apart from a 75% discount on my season ticket to the office.

No, they're not in a Catch 22 situation. If a passenger is not a fare evader then they're not a fare evader, simple. Targeting certain people and deliberately trying to find something to pin on them in the hope of finding something worth logging is not the way to go about the job. RPOs should apply common sense to the situation and know to treat each passenger before them on their individual merits. You'd think someone who has been in the job for many years should be proficient in distinguishing a chancer from someone who isn't one. I was a teenager when I got my Penalty Fare badge and I don't seem to recall there being any "enemy," nor any crass categorisation of potential targets.

As for getting yourself involved in situations which don't directly concern you, without being in full possession of the facts, I laud your nobility. I have experienced members of staff involve themselves in the way that you describe, seeing their colleague in discussion with a "youth" and jump straight in with full bravado. They do not expect that I speak in a calm and educated manner and one of two things usually happen. They either choose to back away upon realising that the matter is not as simple as they assumed it to be, or they are very quickly humbled and end up causing their colleague to feel humiliated by actually becoming the voice of reason. This is usually done in an attempt to save face by pretending that they haven't realised that they were completely wrong to jump in in the way they did. In either case, that bravado bubble is promptly popped. So by all means, go ahead!

I will never pledge allegiance with staff who mistreat the customers and I don't actually see anything remotely respectable about backing up someone you know is in the wrong for the sake of some misguided sense of comradeship which doesn't appear to extend to all of us who are employed in the industry.

The question should be whether the RPO be getting varying levels of abuse from their own industry colleagues in the middle of the station.

I agree that there are RP staff and Guards/Conductors/Train Managers/next years new title that are rude and obnoxious but that that point in time they are trying to do their job.

The original context of the statement from RJ was that Revenue Protection bully passengers and withdraw staff passes; if a RPO wants to withdraw your staff pass then to a large extent they are entitled to do so. If they had a habit of withdrawing staff passes en-masse then the flood of complaints would soon see them being looked at themselves, no?

There are ways and means of doing things and the TOCs perception in the eyes of the public is a big factor; being seen arguing over a ticket issue with an RPO is hardly going to be flavour of the month whether you are right or wrong.

I can't really provide you with a reasoned response when you are engineering your posts in such a way that you're deliberately changing the account given of what happened. Nobody said anything about being aggressive to RPOs, abusing them in the middle of the station or arguing over a ticket issue. When you're prepared to respond without introducing such inferences to the thread then I'll be quite prepared to take the points you make more seriously.

You aren't the first person to try and make sense of a situation by deducing that the passenger must have been actively antagonistic to staff and generally try to find a logical reason that justifies the actions of the staff involved. Try putting yourself in my size 17s - no amount of politeness, explaining myself concisely or referring to appropriate material ever seems to be enough. More often than is acceptable, I am subjected to the "easy target" fare evader treatment until proven otherwise and there is nothing I can do about it, except ensure that I am whiter than white in my actions and patiently await a satisfactory outcome. People who are genuinely aggressive will either generally bulldoze their way through situations without giving their details or get themselves arrested. This is something you will be aware of given you clearly empathise with a number of issues that RPOs face.

When the CrossCountry member of staff apologised for the inconvenience at the end of the exchanged, I actually smiled, thanked him and said don't worry about it.

 

[jon0844]

It's amusing (even though it's not funny) to see that someone who has been proven wrong before takes it so personally that they then try extra hard to 'get you' the next time. Just as was with the case with me, as I suddenly became the only person on a train to have my ticket inspected extra closely by him - and the time when I was stuck for hours - had all the tickets and cards taken out of my wallet for inspection close-up (and then the ridiculous fraud claim).

However in my case, the colleague with him stuck by him - even though for the best part of four hours didn't really say a word. He was a lot younger and clearly wasn't sure of what was going on, so didn't get involved. However, he never acted as a voice of reason or attempted to use this time hanging around at Finsbury Park bus station (near the ticket office) to do something like make some enquiries about the combination of two Travelcards being valid - as I was being interviewed about 'did you do this yesterday', 'the day before' and so on, going back months!

I was also incredibly polite, as to be fair was the RPI (even though he clearly thought he'd finally got one over me) and it was quite surreal. In fact the only time it came close to an argument was when I asked at the ticket window for the name of the young girl (trainee) who said she actually thought it was valid. Her manager then came storming out demanding to know why I was taking names and then said she'd call the police on me (yes, the manager at the ticket window at FPK). You know, one of those types of people that will call the police for anything, before thinking through that you'd have to have a reason to get the police out - and someone asking for the name of a member of staff isn't one of them.

It's disappointing that staff all seem to stick together, as clearly anyone else that worked for FCC seeing two RPIs speaking to me will have instantly assumed that I was a major criminal. I mean, you're standing outside from 9.15 to almost midday, so it's not just a regular penalty fare. But, even with so many people involved, nobody was making any queries - so it was me emailing FCC within about 30 minutes of leaving that got it resolved and the prosecution cancelled! How could I do something so quickly that they all failed to do? All because of one thing - one man who had it in for me, and everyone else played along.

 

[09065]

An interesting response in that quoting a statement is engineering. New one on me; but anyway:

No, they're not in a Catch 22 situation. If a passenger is not a fare evader then they're not a fare evader, simple. Targeting certain people and deliberately trying to find something to pin on them in the hope of finding something worth logging is not the way to go about the job. RPOs should apply common sense to the situation and know to treat each passenger before them on their individual merits. You'd think someone who has been in the job for many years should be proficient in distinguishing a chancer from someone who isn't one. I was a teenager when I got my Penalty Fare badge and I don't seem to recall there being any "enemy," nor any crass categorisation of potential targets.

Define a fare evader? Having "held a badge yourself" you will know that fare evaders come in every shape and size from the down and out alcoholic tramp to the big businessman, pregnant women and young children. Targeting certain people can be the objective of an exercise, hence why some operations will involve stopping all children's tickets from going through ticket gates to target "adult-on-child" offences.

If they were to stop and interrogate everyone they would be in the wrong, if they let everyone through regardless they would be in the wrong. Catch 22.

As for getting yourself involved in situations which don't directly concern you, without being in full possession of the facts, I laud your nobility. I have experienced members of staff involve themselves in the way that you describe, seeing their colleague in discussion with a "youth" and jump straight in with full bravado.

I am glad you "engineered" my reply to assume that I would jump in with bravado and get involved. That is not what I said at all; I said I would be stood behind in support. Standard training when I was a conductor and we were expected to work as a team with our Revenue Protection staff; never block off all the exits (so not standing directly behind the "suspect") and make sure wherever possible you are identifiable as staff (as a conductor relative easy - now less so as I only carry a hi-vis with sponsors logo and my ID which is usually on display and clearly displays my employers logo).

Now I am sure you remember things like that from your conflict training as a former badge holder.

They do not expect that I speak in a calm and educated manner and one of two things usually happen. They either choose to back away upon realising that the matter is not as simple as they assumed it to be, or they are very quickly humbled and end up causing their colleague to feel humiliated by actually becoming the voice of reason. This is usually done in an attempt to save face by pretending that they haven't realised that they were completely wrong to jump in in the way they did. In either case, that bravado bubble is promptly popped. So by all means, go ahead!

Or they dynamically risk assess the situation and review their actions as a situation unfolds... is that not something you would have learnt when getting your Penalty Fare badge? Certainly again something that was taught to conductors.

I will never pledge allegiance with staff who mistreat the customers and I don't actually see anything remotely respectable about backing up someone you know is in the wrong for the sake of some misguided sense of comradeship which doesn't appear to extend to all of us who are employed in the industry.

Likewise I do not condone staff who mistreat customers, but I also do not condone staff in uniform mistreating staff who are trying to do their job.

I can't really provide you with a reasoned response when you are engineering your posts in such a way that you're deliberately changing the account given of what happened. Nobody said anything about being aggressive to RPOs, abusing them in the middle of the station or arguing over a ticket issue. When you're prepared to respond without introducing such inferences to the thread then I'll be quite prepared to take the points you make more seriously.

See above about quoting and engineering posts. I simply reprinted what you said.

You aren't the first person to try and make sense of a situation by deducing that the passenger must have been actively antagonistic to staff and generally try to find a logical reason that justifies the actions of the staff involved. Try putting yourself in my size 17s - no amount of politeness, explaining myself concisely or referring to appropriate material ever seems to be enough. More often than is acceptable, I am subjected to the "easy target" fare evader treatment until proven otherwise and there is nothing I can do about it, except ensure that I am whiter than white in my actions and patiently await a satisfactory outcome. People who are genuinely aggressive will either generally bulldoze their way through situations without giving their details or get themselves arrested. This is something you will be aware of given you clearly empathise with a number of issues that RPOs face.

So what makes you an "easy target" or is it just that you need to crave the attention to be? I very much doubt that Revenue Protection at York want to be seen picking on members of staff in uniform in front of customers any more than you want your unusual range of ticket combinations questioned. Just because you remembered the member of staff it does not mean that you are memorable to them. You would think that easy targets are those that look like potential fare evaders; tramps, chav-esqe families with a hundred children that are all 4 Years 11 Months old... Not a member of staff who works in railway ticketing, a former holder of a PF Badge (being as you think it was a deliberate act by an old enemy) and in uniform.

He might not have as much a grudge on you as you appear to have on those that check your ticket; whether you are aggressive, passive or benign.

Oh and you keep using that "whiter than white" statement; I won't repeat the comment that got my last post removed (*wink* moderators).

When the CrossCountry member of staff apologised for the inconvenience at the end of the exchanged, I actually smiled, thanked him and said don't worry about it.

At least they did not have to call the police again. I can it imagine it would be quite embarrassing for a TOCs management to read in their control logs that one of their ticket staff got arrested at a station for alleged ticket infractions.

 

[jon0844]

Sounded to me like an obvious case of an embarrassed member of staff trying to get one over RJ, making it personal. And that doesn't automatically mean RJ was in any way rude (far from it - being calm and polite only enrages some people more when they're actually after conflict so they can call in the cavalry) the first time or this time.

It happens. I've experienced it myself, once.

In all my other time travelling, with far more clearcut tickets (combining two Travelcards isn't the same as the combinations RJ is using, especially as most of my travel is in London where the zones cover every possible route combination) I have never had any grief. Staff are professional and so it's not a widespread problem, but still a problem as long as there's just one or two people that seem to think their badge gives them more powers than they really have.

Yes fare evaders come in all shapes and forms, but when someone is insisting their ticket is valid and even offering to explain why, you can't just jump for the notepad and then go into tunnel vision thinking 'Got one'.

In the defence of staff though, if they are making checks with colleagues that aren't sure but won't say, simply guessing or siding with the railway man, there's a bigger problem. Everyone working in revenue should have the ability to contact someone that can make checks and understands the system fully, perhaps even speaking to the likes of RJ directly then passing back to the RPI to say yes or no.

I saw how some staff clearly didn't know, but that was taken to mean the RPI was obviously correct. Erm, no. It has introduced doubt, and therefore that doesn't help either side - but does mean further checks need to be made!

 

[bb21]

In the defence of staff though, if they are making checks with colleagues that aren't sure but won't say, simply guessing or siding with the railway man, there's a bigger problem. Everyone working in revenue should have the ability to contact someone that can make checks and understands the system fully, perhaps even speaking to the likes of RJ directly then passing back to the RPI to say yes or no.

You are wildly optimistic in assuming that such a person always exists available to be called during operational hours.

 

[Edmondson]

.....

 

[RPI]

I'll be honest to say that i've only skimmed this thread, but i'll be brutally honest, if someone continues their phone call whilst i'm trying to speak with them then I would find that very rude and i usually become extra thourough with checking tickets of people who do it.

 

[Deerfold]

Likewise I do not condone staff who mistreat customers, but I also do not condone staff in uniform mistreating staff who are trying to do their job.

Quite. But that doesn't seem to be what's happening here.

So what makes you an "easy target" or is it just that you need to crave the attention to be? I very much doubt that Revenue Protection at York want to be seen picking on members of staff in uniform in front of customers any more than you want your unusual range of ticket combinations questioned. Just because you remembered the member of staff it does not mean that you are memorable to them. You would think that easy targets are those that look like potential fare evaders; tramps, chav-esqe families with a hundred children that are all 4 Years 11 Months old... Not a member of staff who works in railway ticketing, a former holder of a PF Badge (being as you think it was a deliberate act by an old enemy) and in uniform.

I hardly think RJ is trying to attract this attention - he's just trying to travel (I'd guess on a reasonably priced ticket). The staff on the train seem to have had no problem with him travelling on this ticket. It shouldn't matter if he has a staff pass on him if he's not using it for this journey and there certainly shouldn't be threats that it will be confiscated.

He might not have as much a grudge on you as you appear to have on those that check your ticket; whether you are aggressive, passive or benign.

I don't think RJ has any problem with people checking his ticket. People going on a power trip may be a problem though.

At least they did not have to call the police again. I can it imagine it would be quite embarrassing for a TOCs management to read in their control logs that one of their ticket staff got arrested at a station for alleged ticket infractions.

Has anyone ever *had* to call the police on RJ?

If the staff member has done nothing wrong I don't see why his employer would have a problem. I would have thought the employer of someone calling the police on someone with a valid ticket would have more of a problem.

Did we give up on "Innocent until proven guilty" at some point? Police involvement does not mean someone has committed a crime.

 

[RJ]

I'll be honest to say that i've only skimmed this thread, but i'll be brutally honest, if someone continues their phone call whilst i'm trying to speak with them then I would find that very rude and i usually become extra thourough with checking tickets of people who do it.

That's a fair point. Given the ticket I was using is very well known about and I've travelled several times without an issue, I did not envisage any level of exchange would be necessary. Of course, I did pause the telephone conversation when speaking to the members of staff concerned and as I say, took a step back and continued the conversation when it transpired they would sooner launch an investigation into whether the ticket was valid than assume that I was being genuine. There wasn't much else I could do while the XC member of staff went off into the Travel Centre to find a member of staff whose word he perceived to be more veritable than mine.

I don't like engaging in small talk with people who hold a grudge against me and to be honest, after my wallet was explored, every pass checked for a signature and clues of who I work for, the photocard being scrutinised and all the rest of it, I didn't particularly fancy the prospect of then being verbally interrogated. This is not the way a member of staff ordinarily treats a passenger, based on the fact that I've had hundreds of ticket inspections whilst bearing staff passes and have issues probably less than 1% of the time.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So what makes you an "easy target" or is it just that you need to crave the attention to be? I very much doubt that Revenue Protection at York want to be seen picking on members of staff in uniform in front of customers any more than you want your unusual range of ticket combinations questioned. Just because you remembered the member of staff it does not mean that you are memorable to them. You would think that easy targets are those that look like potential fare evaders; tramps, chav-esqe families with a hundred children that are all 4 Years 11 Months old... Not a member of staff who works in railway ticketing, a former holder of a PF Badge (being as you think it was a deliberate act by an old enemy) and in uniform.

He might not have as much a grudge on you as you appear to have on those that check your ticket; whether you are aggressive, passive or benign.

Oh and you keep using that "whiter than white" statement; I won't repeat the comment that got my last post removed (*wink* moderators).



At least they did not have to call the police again. I can it imagine it would be quite embarrassing for a TOCs management to read in their control logs that one of their ticket staff got arrested at a station for alleged ticket infractions.

The BTP were already there - I clearly stated that they were on the barriers accompanying the TOC staff in my first post. I'm not sure which story you've been reading but given you've missed that and seen something pertaining to abuse towards the staff and other things that didn't happen, I'd politely suggest posting in the thread that pertains to what you read, rather than this one.

Someone who is in uniform, easily identifiable and polite in their manner is a very easy target. Much easier than an aggressive drunk or abusive person, especially when there aren't any police around. The TPE RPO knew exactly who I was. This is a person who previous stated that he would report me, that I would get a criminal record and never work for the railways again. Given I lodged a formal complaint which saw him spoken to and me compensated for his errant actions, I would not put it past him to try his hardest to catch me out. Given that as I say, I invariably travel within the rules at all times, he is wasting his time.

 

[jb]

Going back to the original point of the thread (remember that?)

This does highlight an issue with these makeshift revenue protection blocks. If the staff are not equipped with an appropriate level of product knowledge on each other's services, why are they authorised to perform these checks?

I know next to nothing about protection blocks or railway operations at all, but I do wonder - what percentage of ticket-holders are likely to be affected by such lack of knowledge and is it necessary / reasonable / proportionate that staff should have such knowledge?

If they are essentially checking that 1000s of people have the right CDR to Leeds (or any ticket at all) is it reasonable to conclude that fairly rudimentary knowledge is sufficient here? (Leave aside any broader issues of the appropriate level of ticketing knowledge or training to be involved in revenue protection at all).

 

[RJ]

I would imagine it was less your casual racism that got the last post removed and more your direct, unproven allegation of theft with regards ALRs.

The poster in question is best off left to their own devices. There is having an educated, justified difference of opinion, then there is being the opposition just for the sake of it. My time is better spent not mithering about the latter.

Going back to the original point of the thread (remember that?)



I know next to nothing about protection blocks or railway operations at all, but I do wonder - what percentage of ticket-holders are likely to be affected by such lack of knowledge and is it necessary / reasonable / proportionate that staff should have such knowledge?

If they are essentially checking that 1000s of people have the right CDR to Leeds (or any ticket at all) is it reasonable to conclude that fairly rudimentary knowledge is sufficient here? (Leave aside any broader issues of the appropriate level of ticketing knowledge or training to be involved in revenue protection at all).

Yes. Staff should have knowledge of local concessionary arrangements and rover/ranger tickets that are valid at the station they are checking tickets at, or at least have a reference point in which to check in a timely manner. It's not their job to bounce holders of such valid tickets away or cause them to miss their trains because they aren't aware of them and don't know where to look to find out. Training should be done in their own time, not the passenger's.

 

[Altnabreac]

I know next to nothing about protection blocks or railway operations at all, but I do wonder - what percentage of ticket-holders are likely to be affected by such lack of knowledge and is it necessary / reasonable / proportionate that staff should have such knowledge?

If they are essentially checking that 1000s of people have the right CDR to Leeds (or any ticket at all) is it reasonable to conclude that fairly rudimentary knowledge is sufficient here? (Leave aside any broader issues of the appropriate level of ticketing knowledge or training to be involved in revenue protection at all).

Lack of total ticketing knowledge is not a problem where staff are willing to give passengers the benefit of the doubt where there is uncertainty.

My recent run in with a member of staff regarding an unusual ticket exposed the fact that she did not understand the routing guide or permitted routes at all. She just thought my ticket looked "wrong". Ultimately though she listened to my explanation, admitted she didn't understand it and allowed continued travel, giving me the benefit of the doubt.

The staff members who are a problem are those who have rudimentary knowledge but think they know everything.

 

[RJ]

Lack of total ticketing knowledge is not a problem where staff are willing to give passengers the benefit of the doubt where there is uncertainty.

My recent run in with a member of staff regarding an unusual ticket exposed the fact that she did not understand the routing guide or permitted routes at all. She just thought my ticket looked "wrong". Ultimately though she listened to my explanation, admitted she didn't understand it and allowed continued travel, giving me the benefit of the doubt.

The staff members who are a problem are those who have rudimentary knowledge but think they know everything.

Very true. The vast majority of staff out there are very good at handling such situations. The minority who have a complex which precludes them from saying "I don't know" are the ones who let the side down.

 

[Wolfie]

At least they did not have to call the police again. I can it imagine it would be quite embarrassing for a TOCs management to read in their control logs that one of their ticket staff got arrested at a station for alleged ticket infractions.

This comment in isolation is accurate but in context absolutely outrageous. Given that RJ appears to have neither done nothing wrong nor indeed were the police involved why would you make this assertion? What you are effectively implying is that a situation where someone who has previously proved to be inadquately trained (as he got things badly wrong leading to his employer having to formally apologise) could seriously damage the employment status of a perfectly innocent person. If TOC management were actually stupid enough to take action against someone who had been wrongly accused they would deserve all of the consequences they would undoubtedly get.....

 

[RJ]

I'm biased, but even so, I don't think it has ever been necessary for any member of staff to call the BTP for assistance for the following reasons;

- I didn't commit a crime
- No aggravating factors
- No aggression or refusing to co-operate on my part, except for not handing over money I don't owe.
- Member of staff has chosen not to pursue options such as TIRs or UFNs.

Invariably the BTP have been called because the inspectors have let their emotions get the better of them. They get frustrated because I don't hand over money that I don't owe them plus I'm relentlessly polite, yet consistent in defending myself. What does often happen, is the inspector finds that they are being questioned by the BTP instead, which is never what they expect to happen.

 

[Tibbs]

Very true. The vast majority of staff out there are very good at handling such situations. The minority who have a complex which precludes them from saying "I don't know" are the ones who let the side down.

The bit that gets me is that they have six months to decide whether a ticket is valid or not.

There's no reason to keep a dispute going if the traveller insists the ticket is valid. Take details of the ticket (withdraw if necessary) and get name & address. It should be that simple, but I guess some people like to abuse the power they have.

 

[RJ]

The bit that gets me is that they have six months to decide whether a ticket is valid or not.

There's no reason to keep a dispute going if the traveller insists the ticket is valid. Take details of the ticket (withdraw if necessary) and get name & address. It should be that simple, but I guess some people like to abuse the power they have.

Some staff won't do that, because they think it gives off a perception of weakness and lack of authority/knowledge. They feel it gives off a far better impression to their colleagues and other passengers if they either take money off someone, or kick them off the train.

Personally, I don't think this is the way revenue protection operations should be run. Using people who have no control over their emotions and continually lose their professional judgement is more likely to cause a bigger monetary loss to the TOC than their more tactical counterparts who employ common sense and remain professional at all times.