LM Cross City Revenue Blocks

[Realfish]

Those of us that feel frustrated when pax are seemingly treated unfairly by the TOCs (me included - see the current thread elsewhere) might find this BBC Midlands Today story provides a context and an insight of the extent of evasion that the industry is having to deal with.

In short, since LM stepped up their ticket checks:

An average of 100 per day have been caught without tickets
In one day at Longbridge and Northfield stations, nearly 200 offenders were caught.

Yet for one, the message doesn't seem to get through, shamelessly calculating that if he is caught once every six months a £20 'fine' is still cheaper than buying a ticket every day. No doubt he will be coming in for some special attention.

Item begins at 5m 30secs but sadly will only remain on their iPlayer until 20:45 this evening.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b050b78r/midlands-today-28012015

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yet for one, the message doesn't seem to get through, shamelessly calculating that if he is caught once every six months a £20 'fine' is still cheaper than buying a ticket every day.

These people will never change. Which is why I take the view of decriminalising and setting the PF level and number of inspections such that ticketless travel covers its own cost.

Neil

 

[Agent_c]

In regards to the persistent non-payer, could the Railways exclude him from their services completely, and then seek redress for Tresspass should he return?

 

[455driver]

These people will never change. Which is why I take the view of decriminalising and setting the PF level and number of inspections such that ticketless travel covers its own cost.

Neil

Why do you want to decriminalise fraud?
PFs are for people who have made a genuine mistake, I would say that 90% of those caught in the article had not made a mistake and so a PF would not normally be appropriate, LM are just being nice to trying and convince people that buying a ticket is cheaper than a Court imposed fine!

 

[PermitToTravel]

In regards to the persistent non-payer, could the Railways exclude him from their services completely, and then seek redress for Tresspass should he return?

Yes, but it would be very difficult to enforce. It's done a lot with vandals.

 

[Class377]

Yet for one, the message doesn't seem to get through, shamelessly calculating that if he is caught once every six months a £20 'fine' is still cheaper than buying a ticket every day. No doubt he will be coming in for some special attention.

Why has he not been reported for a prosecution under RoRA?

 

[bb21]

I can't help but feel that the programme was doing a disservice by giving out the wrong impression that the damage to fare dodging would just be a £20 Penalty Fare. I wonder how many would think that it was all that could happen to them.

 

[Geronimo]

Those of us that feel frustrated when pax are seemingly treated unfairly by the TOCs (me included - see the current thread elsewhere) might find this BBC Midlands Today story provides a context and an insight of the extent of evasion that the industry is having to deal with.

In short, since LM stepped up their ticket checks:

An average of 100 per day have been caught without tickets
In one day at Longbridge and Northfield stations, nearly 200 offenders were caught.

Yet for one, the message doesn't seem to get through, shamelessly calculating that if he is caught once every six months a £20 'fine' is still cheaper than buying a ticket every day. No doubt he will be coming in for some special attention.

Item begins at 5m 30secs but sadly will only remain on their iPlayer until 20:45 this evening.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b050b78r/midlands-today-28012015

Absolute madness.
Nowhere in that report does it mention that fare dodgers can be prosecuted, with a large cost, be it OoCS or actual fine, or of course the biggie, a criminal record.
By issuing PF like that, LM are actually exacerbating the problem: the wannabe utility-maximiser at the end of the report is sadly correct.

It's incredible that the industry is not making the point that fare dodging can result in a criminal record much more visible. Even ATW's mug campaign didn't do that, unbelievable.

 

[Blindtraveler]

These people will never change. Which is why I take the view of decriminalising and setting the PF level and number of inspections such that ticketless travel covers its own cost.

Neil

Agreed totally however to pick up on what 455 Driver said about decriminalising froad, the repeat offenders will soon be caught as Im sure many revenue staff, guards, platform staff etc will recognise them and BTP can take it on.↲↲


PFs do indeed need to cover there cost and not be a crime many TOCs go the whole way and attempt to criminalise to soon and for the wrong reasons. I do however support action on regular offenders.

 

[CC 72100]

As Neil Williams said in another thread, time to barrier the Cross-city line?

 

[Class377]

I really fail to see the problem.

Especially on this line, I get the impression that ticket facilities are excellent, so how can one make a "genuine mistake" when it's REALLY easy to remember to buy a ticket? Funnily enough whenever I catch a train I've NEVER forgotten to buy a ticket, and so far I've never got issued a PF or reported for prosecution!

The 3 or 4 passengers shown getting abusive in that report should definitely be reported for RoRA offences as they clearly showed no intention to buy a ticket, and the rest should be done for the byelaws as that seems to be the fastest way to drive home the message that buying a ticket is not optional!

 

[bb21]

As Neil Williams said in another thread, time to barrier the Cross-city line?

Yes, and staff them properly.

The cross-city line would be a perfect candidate for barriers. The fares are low so even if someone only pays a short fare to get through the gate, a good proportion of the fare would have been collected.

Couple this measure with increasing the Penalty Fare to a level at least in line with that of the TfL scheme (£120/£60 would be my preference but £80/£40 is a step in the right direction), suddenly fare dodging looks a lot less attractive.

 

[87015]

As Neil Williams said in another thread, time to barrier the Cross-city line?

Doesn't make any difference to those that don't pay anyway if your revenue protection is weak as LM's seem to be. Southern have barriers throughout South London that (in theory) are staffed all day, but the ticket office isn't so the agency(?) staff on the barriers can't/don't do anything other than let people through who don't have validity.

 

[CC 72100]

Yes, and staff them properly.

The cross-city line would be a perfect candidate for barriers. The fares are low so even if someone only pays a short fare to get through the gate, a good proportion of the fare would have been collected.

I agree with that - poorly staffed barriers are sometimes not worth the effort, if they are being staffed a) sporadically, and so left open much of the time and b) by those who are rent-a-security-guard and not actual informed rail staff.

Doesn't make any difference to those that don't pay anyway if your revenue protection is weak as LM's seem to be.

I must admit, when the man interviewed said "We've changed our strategy because our previous one wasn't as effective as it could be" or something along those lines, my first thought as a translation was "We didn't bother in the past and now we're going to sort of try a bit".

I should add that the above isn't a dig at Plastictaffy et al - rather trying to highlight the chronic lack of resources and the difficult nature of the Cross-City line for revenue protection compared to an implication that the staff that do exist on the ground are lazy/uninterested/ insert derogatory opinion about railstaff here.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It's a good point about LM's weak revenue protection. Round here the ticket offices are chronically understaffed- because LM sacked all the clerks- and prone to opening late and closing early (and that's after they officially cut the hours the other year). I don't know if LM have the same attitude in Centro-land, or if they get money for more staff, but LM's attitude doesn't seem to be supportive of ticket offices.

The TVMs are card-only, and without wishing to open that can of worms again, it does make a robust revenue protection initiative much harder.

 

[Kristofferson]

The x-city is a hotbed of fare dodging bored teenagers anyway, but LM don't make it easy for themselves. Unbarriered stations and "gateline" staff at New Street who let you through if you show them anything that looks vaguely like a ticket aren't exactly conducive to revenue protection.

The other extreme was their attendance at Kings Langley the other morning - 6 or 7 RPIs, with some standing at the entrance from the car park... They must have forgotten that passengers need to pass through that entrance in order to buy a ticket!

 

[DaveNewcastle]

These people will never change. Which is why I take the view of decriminalising and setting the PF level and number of inspections such that ticketless travel covers its own cost.

Eh?
I have some sympathy for decriminalising certain consequential offences committed by someone who is not of sound mind, but why would anyone want to decriminalise a deliberate fraud?
It only encourages it!
The cost of revenue protection is a sadly misguided benchmark for lawful behaviour.

 

[Clip]

These people will never change. Which is why I take the view of decriminalising and setting the PF level and number of inspections such that ticketless travel covers its own cost.

Neil

What? Im of the view that the Penalty should be much much higher as someone said earlier £100 or something - a proper deterrent which should make most of them change. The hardcore you never will but after 1 PF an instant prosecution- with no chance of an OOC settlement. Should be enough PFs to cover the staffing required.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Eh?
I have some sympathy for decriminalising certain consequential offences committed by someone who is not of sound mind, but why would anyone want to decriminalise a deliberate fraud?
It only encourages it!

To be honest I would go the way of just making sure dishonest people (in a railway sense) cover their cost as a whole and leave them to it. PFs and prosecutions won't change that for most people - most criminals reoffend, particularly if all that's happened is a fine. If they'd rather pay £50 a week than £4 a day, say, so be it. Just means there needs to be enough checking and a higher PF.

I might still prosecute for cases where a standard fraud charge would be likely to stick (e.g. deliberate altering of tickets, but only where this was clearly deliberate), though. But I would get rid of the Byelaw offences and the Regulation of Railways Act ones.

You would probably have to get as far as prison sentences for a real deterrent, not fines in the hundreds. And these people don't care about a record.

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What? Im of the view that the Penalty should be much much higher as someone said earlier £100 or something - a proper deterrent which should make most of them change. The hardcore you never will but after 1 PF an instant prosecution- with no chance of an OOC settlement. Should be enough PFs to cover the staffing required.

I agree the PF is too low. For a first offence you could say £80, reduced to £40 for prompt/on the spot payment, increased to £120 for delayed payment. For subsequent offences in a calendar year (say[1]), no option to reduce to £40. In all cases the appropriate walk-up fare that would have been sold had it been purchased on the day before travel[2] would be added on top.

[1] The clock could do with resetting every now and then, because a lot of fundamentally honest people are just forgetful.

[2] I think this is better than the Anytime, because I think £200-odd if you get on a long-distance non-stop VT having forgotten your ticket is excessive and disproportionate to the offence, meanwhile the Anytime for a short distance journey is no deterrent at all as it's what you're likely paying anyway.

Neil

 

[Clip]

I agree the PF is too low. For a first offence you could say £80, reduced to £40 for prompt/on the spot payment, increased to £120 for delayed payment. For subsequent offences in a calendar year (say[1]), no option to reduce to £40. In all cases the appropriate walk-up fare that would have been sold had it been purchased on the day before travel[2] would be added on top.

[1] The clock could do with resetting every now and then, because a lot of fundamentally honest people are just forgetful.

[2] I think this is better than the Anytime, because I think £200-odd if you get on a long-distance non-stop VT having forgotten your ticket is excessive and disproportionate to the offence, meanwhile the Anytime for a short distance journey is no deterrent at all as it's what you're likely paying anyway.

Neil

The mind boggles as on other posts you advocate the disposal of lower priced tickets in favour of higher ones(which encourages fare evasion) and now you want to give those people a chance by resetting the clock on them!!

Yours,

Amazed of Tonbridge.

 

[Flamingo]

One thing that needs mentioning is that very few of the staff involved in Revenue Protection and ticket checking can issue Penalty Fares, and that there are very large areas of the country where Penalty Fares do not apply.

In the vast majority of cases of fare evasion, the only thing that happens is the passenger, when caught, is asked (not even forced) to pay for the journey they are making.

The stars really have to be in alignment before anybody without a ticket on a train ends up in court.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

To be honest I would go the way of just making sure dishonest people (in a railway sense) cover their cost as a whole and leave them to it. . . .

I might still . . . . .

I would get rid of the Byelaw offences and the Regulation of Railways Act ones . . . .

I think . . . .

Oh dear, another "I think . . . . the first thing that pops into my head ". . . . post. With an 'idea' which is likely to put the annual losses to the industry through fare evasion at well over £1bn, and probably see an increase in smoking on trains, skateboardng on platforms, double parking in car parks, forgery, drug dealing, sleeping rough in stations, cramming into First Class and busking. I see that your "idea" still leaves the offence of paying for a journey to the first station no matter how far a passenger is travelling.

Why make such a fool of yourself with these "my idea" posts?

 

[RPI]

The decriminalise whining is obviously from someone who has no first hand experience of the front line of Revenue Protection, I would invite that person to spend a couple of weeks working with an RPI team so that they can see exactly why these offences shouldn't be decriminalised. The whole point of a Penalty Fare is to dispose of the lesser offences without the need to go to court.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
And to get the thread back on topic, I'm glad that LM are finally tackling the free service on the X city line, I don't think I've ever had my ticket checked on that line in twenty years! I can't help but think that a lot of those PF'S issued should really have been MG11'S

 

[Class377]

because a lot of fundamentally honest people are just forgetful.

I really fail to understand how people "forget" to buy a ticket when they have to walk past a ticket office or machine! Especially when there would usually be at least one other person queuing to use said facilities!

 

[Tibbs]

Oh dear, another "I think . . . . the first thing that pops into my head ". . . . post. With an 'idea' which is likely to put the annual losses to the industry through fare evasion at well over £1bn, and probably see an increase in smoking on trains, skateboardng on platforms, double parking in car parks, forgery, drug dealing, sleeping rough in stations, cramming into First Class and busking. I see that your "idea" still leaves the offence of paying for a journey to the first station no matter how far a passenger is travelling.

Why make such a fool of yourself with these "my idea" posts?

How did you get to £1bn, could you show your workings please?

Or did you just pull "the first thing number that pops into my head "

:roll:

 

[Flamingo]

How did you get to £1bn, could you show your workings please?

Or did you just pull "the first thing number that pops into my head "

:roll:

Well, what do you think revenue would drop by if there was no penalty or threat of one for travelling without a ticket?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

How did you get to £1bn, could you show your workings please?

Workings? I took the most recent assessment I could find at the time, from 2013, where the industry estimated that loss as £400mil p.a.

I then increased the figure on the presumption that the number and value of passenger journeys undertaken without payment would increase as a consequence of the repeal of the legislation which captures fare evasion. The estimated figure I chose as a multiplier for that presumed increase in the value of ticketless travel was some number greater than 2.

Or did you just pull "the first thing number that pops into my head ":roll:

On reflection overnight, I'm happy to stick with my estimate that, everything else being equal, fare evasion would increase more than twofold following the repeal of the legislation to protect it, which was precisely Neil Williams 'idea'.

In the absence of a more recent figure from the industry, we can base any future prediction on that recent estimate. So that's an increase from £400m to over £1b. Happy now, rolling eyes?

 

[Tibbs]

Well, what do you think revenue would drop by if there was no penalty or threat of one for travelling without a ticket?

I have no idea, but than again I didn't pitch a number in the first place.

 

[Flamingo]

I took the most recent assessment I could find at the time, from 2013, where the industry estimated that loss as £400mil p.a.

I then increased the figure on the presumption that the number and value of passenger journeys undertaken without payment would increase as a consequence of the repeal of the legislation which captures fare evasion. The estimated figure I chose as a multiplier for that presumed increase in the value of ticketless travel was some number greater than 2.

On reflection overnight, I'm happy to stick with my estimate that, everything else being equal, fare evasion would increase more than twofold following the repeal of the legislation to protect it, which was precisely Neil Williams 'idea'.

In the absence of a more recent figure from the industry, we can base any future prediction on that recent estimate. So that's an increase from £400m to over £1b. Happy now, rolling eyes?

I would say you were being optimistic. In my (oft quoted) example of tickets to/from Grangetown (a popular short fare destination near Cardiff Central), between 2004 and 2007 there was a drop in ticket sales from 0.601 million to 0.115 million. What happened was the other stations along the main line in South Wales were barriered, not just Cardiff Central. If that level of fare evasion was extrapolated nationwide, the costs would be unimaginable.

I would say that the pay when challenged mentality would become "F*** off, you can't do anything" in even more cases than already occurs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Oh dear, another "I think . . . . the first thing that pops into my head ". . . . post. With an 'idea' which is likely to put the annual losses to the industry through fare evasion at well over £1bn

Why? My idea very specifically states that the PF and enforcement levels would be set such that there would be zero loss to the industry through fare evasion. It's just that some evaders would pay more than others. Make it financially inviable to evade, and people won't evade.

and probably see an increase in smoking on trains, skateboardng on platforms

As this discussion is about fare evasion, I made no reference to removing prosecutions for other offences. Though I don't think I've ever seen anyone skateboarding on a platform, nor do I suspect it would be all that much an issue if they did, provided they didn't fall on the track.

double parking in car parks

Car park enforcement elsewhere than the railways is a civil matter, it might well be on the railways as well. I don't see much double parking in supermarket car parks. Why should the railway be any different from any other organisation?

forgery

Fraud, to be prosecuted via a standard fraud charge. I'd imagine that is what would happen if you stole goods from a supermarket by using falsified vouchers of some kind? Again, why should the railway be any different?

drug dealing

Illegal generally, no need for Byelaw offences.

sleeping rough in stations

Civil trespass (having had the permission to enter removed). No need for a Byelaw offence. Again, why should the railway be any different from any other public outdoor location?

I accept that trespass *on the track* would need to remain an offence, though, as that carries rather different dangers.

cramming into First Class

See above - this is "fare evasion".

busking

I frankly don't care about this. It was never out of hand on LUL when it wasn't officially allowed but happened. The licenced buskers have never annoyed me, indeed they cheer up journeys on what is quite a drab system. General begging - well, again, why are the railways any different to anywhere else in public? It is no more or less annoying or appropriate on the railway than any other public place.

I see that your "idea" still leaves the offence of paying for a journey to the first station no matter how far a passenger is travelling.

I don't quite get your point there. PF plus fare for the *entire* journey being made. This makes the PF effectively a supplement for paying on board where there was not an opportunity... (which of course needs defining, particularly the bit on what methods of payment are being carried etc).

Why make such a fool of yourself with these "my idea" posts?

Uncalled for and unnecessary. Refute my points with logical argument if you wish (that's what a discussion forum is for), but otherwise there is no need for this kind of personal attack.

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I really fail to understand how people "forget" to buy a ticket when they have to walk past a ticket office or machine! Especially when there would usually be at least one other person queuing to use said facilities!

Let's see...

1. Thought you bought one earlier on and had it in your wallet but didn't.

2. Forgot your Railcard was out of date.

3. Forgot your Season Ticket was out of date.

I've done all of these with no *intention* to evade any fare. Not everyone has a perfect memory!

My mother also recently spoke of:

4. Had an unused return half (genuinely unused, not re-used) but forgot it was out of date.

A PF in all those situations would be completely justified, but I would have been quite brassed off had a prosecution been pursued for an intention to avoid the fare. Or indeed for a Byelaw offence. Fortunately, though, Bletchley has barriers so these are unlikely to happen now as the barrier will serve as a reminder (except for number 2).

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I have no idea, but than again I didn't pitch a number in the first place.

And nor (to those who think I did, not to yourself) did I suggest the removal of any threat for not holding a ticket. Indeed, you'll note that I suggested replacing the threat of prosecution for anything other than demonstrable fraud (for which a regular fraud charge would stick) with a somewhat beefed-up civil Penalty Fares scheme rather closer to the Swiss one. The aim of which would be for those travelling without a ticket to, between them, pay the losses to the railway from ticketless travel in their PFs. Why not?

Neil