GBR and Staff Travel

[Starmill]

Just to clarify there wasn't an official right to unlimited free travel on BR, apart from senior managers, the general scheme was/is a certain amount of free days travel and 25% "Priv rate" travel for leisure purposes only. There's also Priv Season tickets for work purposes which for short journeys would in effect be free. I suspect some TOC staff maybe be disappointed if they have "unlimited" TOC/Owner Group travel perks and that gets removed and replaced with the old BR national system.

The issue of Rail Staff believing they have a right to free First Class upgrades as normal practice is an issue and looks terrible to paying passengers, if the guard/conductor offers you a free upgrade then fine but I think asking puts them in a terrible position.

The thing to do is to politely and discreetly offer to buy an upgrade, provided you can see there will be a free seat available after everyone who's already got a first class ticket is sat down. Then the guard can make a choice how to proceed for themselves, without prejudice. For £15 it's a bit rich to be annoyed with paying it if you're getting free standard class travel over and above your technical entitlement.

 

[43096]

I don't really understand it to be honest, especially given there's a fairly long standing agreement already there with EMR.

I assume that dates back to EMT and VTEC days when both were Stagecoach companies.

 

[LowLevel]

I assume that dates back to EMT and VTEC days when both were Stagecoach companies.

It does - but despite the usual riders about changes in ownership or whatever else meaning they can be withdrawn they just never did with the LNER/EMR travel. I suppose David Horne still being in post might have something to do with it.

 

[Harpo]

This thread fits in with the general delusion that GBR means better and harmonised T&Cs with only winners and definitely no losers.

 

[Andrew1395]

Could you explain this bit to an outsider please?

if the employer provides services to staff that does not increase its costs, it’s not a benefit in kind. For example if a private school does not charge fees for the children of its employees attending the school. It is not considered a benefit in kind, because the school has not employed more teachers or provided more accommodation to do so.

if the railway incurs no additional costs then to offer staff free travel is “de minimus” as the visits of administration the scheme is minimal and no different than the. It’s of managing payroll. No additional trains are provided.

This principle was established in law in the early 1990s, and in its final years BR staff did not get a benefit in kind tax bill for the provision of free and private travel.

At privatisation there was a separation between the employers . It was agreed that TOCs would be compensated for providing staff travel. So the employer (of say a track maintenance unit) had to pay for its safeguarded staff to keep their travel. That charge generated a benefit in kind.

For TOCs they do not charge each other for carrying each others staff. It’s a reciprocal arrangement. Same as the current arrangement between Rail Staff Travel and TfL for staff to use each network.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Feb 2025 ==

This thread fits in with the general delusion that GBR means better and harmonised T&Cs with only winners and definitely no losers.

there will be losers. Particularly for non safeguarded staff getting benefits from their TOC employer.

For non dafeguarded TOC Staff , the principle that travel is not contractual was established at franchise change. Staff TUPEd say from say a National Exprees group to a First Group TOC would lose travel privileges on other National Ecpress group TOCs (but of course gain travel on other First Group TOCs). They would therefore not retain the same benefits. Whereas the safeguarded group of employees would retain their contractual safeguarded rights to get staff travel on all TOCs. Different from Pensions that were contractual.

 

[43066]

The issue of Rail Staff believing they have a right to free First Class upgrades as normal practice is an issue and looks terrible to paying passengers, if the guard/conductor offers you a free upgrade then fine but I think asking puts them in a terrible position.

Asking to sit in first really doesn’t do anything of the sort. It’s entirely down to the guard’s discretion and paying passengers are none the wiser in any case.

 

[Tester]

Asking to sit in first really doesn’t do anything of the sort. It’s entirely down to the guard’s discretion and paying passengers are none the wiser in any case.

[Citation needed ]

 

[43066]

[Citation needed ]

Last time I asked to sit in first on an LNER train, I spoke to the guard on the platform at Kings Cross, and was dressed in civvies.

It’s no business of anyone else’s, in any case.

 

[Tester]

Last time I asked to sit in first on an LNER train, I spoke to the guard on the platform at Kings Cross, and was dressed in civvies.

It’s no business of anyone else’s, in any case.

So on a sample of one, nobody would know!

Sadly not everyone is as discreet as you.

Anyhow, the bolded bit makes clear where you are coming from

 

[43066]

Anyhow, the bolded bit makes clear where you are coming from

Well it’s true, isn’t it? What on earth does it have to do with anyone else?

 

[357]

So on a sample of one, nobody would know!

Sadly not everyone is as discreet as you.

Anyhow, the bolded bit makes clear where you are coming from

I've been asked to sit in first on a few occasions due to overcrowding in standard class.

Remember that for many staff of various departments, their break is taken on the train, and in my case if I had to stand all the way to London I would be demanding a proper break once in London, delaying a northbound working.

 

[Meerkat]

paying passengers are none the wiser in any case.

They are when they see the pass being shown and the awkward exchange about whether they had to pay for an upgrade.

What on earth does it have to do with anyone else?

Same as any other ticketless travel - it annoys people who have paid often large sums for their ticket.

 

[3RDGEN]

Asking to sit in first really doesn’t do anything of the sort. It’s entirely down to the guard’s discretion and paying passengers are none the wiser in any case.

On a recent UK journey of mine it was very clear some none UK railway staff had asked on boarding and been granted a First upgrade on a Standard pass, they later complained another UK TOC guard had pointed out their pass was for Standard when they had asked for a First upgrade. First wasn't busy and there was plenty of seats but it looks awful to those who have paid.

 

[bramling]

Asking to sit in first really doesn’t do anything of the sort. It’s entirely down to the guard’s discretion and paying passengers are none the wiser in any case.

It can put guards in a difficult position if there’s likely to be a crew change on route. I once offered to pay a weekend upgrade on (what was then) VWC. The train manager asked where I was going, and on saying London replied “I’d better charge you, it will be a London TM taking over at Preston and they can be funny about this, if you were just going to Preston I wouldn’t have worried”. Given it was only something like £15 I wasn’t particularly bothered, indeed I’d offered and expected to pay.

What it more of an issue is where staff really draw attention to themselves in first (or any other accommodation come to that) by engaging in loud messroom banter. This always gives such an awful impression, as well as being irritating to others.

 

[43066]

Same as any other ticketless travel - it annoys people who have paid often large sums for their ticket.

If the guard gives permission it isn’t “ticketless travel”.

First wasn't busy and there was plenty of seats but it looks awful to those who have paid.

So they asked and were given an upgrade. Fair enough then! It strikes me as bizarre that anyone would be so petty as to get indignant about the arrangements of others, that have nothing to do with them. Each to their own, I suppose! I don’t think that attitude is widespread, thankfully.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Feb 2025 ==

What it more of an issue is where staff really draw attention to themselves in first (or any other accommodation come to that) by engaging in loud messroom banter. This always gives such an awful impression, as well as being irritating to others.

Agreed. Although this is more likely when it’s people passing on their own operator’s services, rather than discretely asking to travel in first on another TOC, when not at work.

 

[87 027]

Thanks - I was assuming it was value rather than cost based. Though if I was HMRC I would argue that it does cost the employer in lost income…..then get mired in whether that’s 100% or guesswork as you wouldn’t use it so much if paying for yourself!!

if the employer provides services to staff that does not increase its costs, it’s not a benefit in kind. For example if a private school does not charge fees for the children of its employees attending the school. It is not considered a benefit in kind, because the school has not employed more teachers or provided more accommodation to do so.

if the railway incurs no additional costs then to offer staff free travel is “de minimus” as the visits of administration the scheme is minimal and no different than the. It’s of managing payroll. No additional trains are provided.

This principle was established in law in the early 1990s, and in its final years BR staff did not get a benefit in kind tax bill for the provision of free and private travel.

Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart 1992. Hart was a teacher at a private school which allowed a staff discount of 80% off the normal fees. On appeal it was held that the taxable benefit should be restricted to the additional cost to the school of providing the places. The school was not full so it was not a case of income foregone from a full-fee paying place, and the 20% contribution was more than enough to cover extras such as food, books etc.

The judgement went on to say explicitly in the case of rail staff, that if the taxable benefit was calculated as a proportion of the overall cost of running the service, then because the railways run at a loss, a strict interpretation of the law would result in a taxable benefit for staff greater than the equivalent fares offered to the general public.

Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart [1992] UKHL 3 (26 November 1992)

As Nicholls L.J. pointed out in the Court of Appeal, for present purposes such benefits can be of two kinds. First, the benefit may be of a kind bought in from outside the employer's business, such as a car or medical insurance (“external benefits”). Second, the benefit may consist of the enjoyment by the employee of services or facilities which it is part of the employer's business to sell to the public, for example concessionary travel for railway or airline employees or concessionary education for the children of schoolteachers (“in-house benefits”). In both cases the benefit falls to be quantified by reference to the expense of providing the benefit. In the case of external benefits this does not normally raise any major problems because such cost is an isolated expenditure. But in the case of in-house benefits there is an obvious problem, since the employer is, for the purpose of selling the facility to the public, incurring the cost of running the train, airline or school the use of which is provided on a concessionary basis to the employee. What then is the cost to the employer of providing the in-house benefit for the employee? Is it only the additional or marginal cost to the employer providing the service for the employee, or is it a proportionate part of the total costs incurred by the employer in providing the facility to be used both by the public and by the employee?

In the case of passenger transport undertakings such as railways and airlines which allow free travel to employees the test would provide mind-boggling difficulties of calculation and when the undertaking was running at a loss would result in a charge to tax that exceeded the fare charged to the general public; this would also be the case where school fees were heavily subsidised by endowments. I could not believe that this was the intention of Parliament. Nor could I believe that it was the intention to bring in at a single stroke a charge to tax that would be calculated to interrupt the education and expectations of so many parents and children, for it is surely common knowledge that the provision of free or subsidised education for the children of those teaching in independent schools was part of their usual terms of employment and that the salaries paid would be wholly insufficient to meet a charge to tax based on the full fees of the school. By the same token, bearing in mind that the salary level at which the tax bit was £5,000 a year, it will put the travel facilities attached to their employment out of the reach of many airline and rail employees.

The strongest argument in favour of the taxpayers is the anomaly which would arise if the employer's business were running at a loss or was subsidised by endowment. As I have explained, in such a case the adoption of the literal meaning of the statutory words would lead to a result whereby the taxpayer is assessed at an amount greater than that charged by the employer to the public for the same service. The Crown have no answer to this anomaly as such. But there are other anomalies which arise if the taxpayer's argument is correct. For example if, unlike the present case, the school could have been filled with boys paying the full fee, the school would have lost the fee income from the places occupied by the children of the taxpayers for whom only the concessionary fee was payable. Without deciding the point, it seems to me arguable that, on the taxpayer's argument, such loss or part of it would be an expense incurred by the school in providing the concessionary places. If so, the amount on which the taxpayer would be assessed to tax would vary from year to year depending upon the success of the school in attracting applicants. To my mind such a variation on a year by year basis by reference to an extraneous factor would be a most anomalous result, and would involve great difficulties in quantifying the cost to the employer in each case.

 

[greatkingrat]

It not about being ”entitled“ it’s about being fair between TOC employees and those who work for Network rail who seem to get a rough deal despite the fact we all work for “the railway”.

Lots of people "work for the railway" but you have to draw the line somewhere. Should maintenance staff who work for subcontractors rather than Network Rail directly get free travel? How about fitters who maintain the trains but are actually employed by Alstom/Hitachi/Siemens etc? People working in station cafes?

 

[Oxfordblues]

I joined BR in 1974 and worked my share of unsocial hours and 12-hour nights on diesel-fumed stations and rain-lashed marshalling yards. The relatively-low hourly pay rate was made up for by regular overtime and rest-day working, but the free and privilege travel was a compensation for our commitment to the industry. I still treasure my Western Region status pass (second class) and believe I've properly earned it over many years' service.

 

[Scotrail84]

So what do we think will happen? Will it go back to the days of BR travel passes and everyone will get 'boxes'? Or will it still be free travel on your own companies services and still 75% off others?

Also where would that leave ScotRail and Caledonian Sleeper employees are these are both Scottish companies ran by SRH and the Scottish Government. At present they both get free unlimited travel on each others services.

 

[Starmill]

Will it go back to the days of BR travel passes and everyone will get 'boxes'? Or will it still be free travel on your own companies services and still 75% off others?

So far it appears that the DfT Operator companies are sticking pretty closely to the latter idea. I am not sure if that tells us much as it's probably just a holding position but it isn't unthinkable that it could become geographically bound rather than brand bound.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Feb 2025 ==

Also where would that leave ScotRail and Caledonian Sleeper employees are these are both Scottish companies ran by SRH and the Scottish Government. At present they both get free unlimited travel on each others services.

I would imagine same as Merseyrail, Transport for Wales, London Overground, Elizabeth line, Hull Trains, Grand Central, Lumo, Eurostar and NIR - probably just a similar thing to what they get now.

 

[Falcon1200]

For the great majority of my railway career I was entitled to Second/Standard Class free and privilege travel only, and it never occurred to me to ask to sit in First; Having the staff travel facility at all was a huge benefit. The only times I travelled in First was when paying full fare, for example on the Freedom of Scotland railrover I did in 1979 (and it was wonderful). But what others do, passengers, staff or Traincrew, is no business of mine.

 

[dk1]

For the great majority of my railway career I was entitled to Second/Standard Class free and privilege travel only, and it never occurred to me to ask to sit in First; Having the staff travel facility at all was a huge benefit. The only times I travelled in First was when paying full fare, for example on the Freedom of Scotland railrover I did in 1979 (and it was wonderful). But what others do, passengers, staff or Traincrew, is no business of mine.

I too never ask to sit in first. I find it cringing to do personally. If I do sit in 1st it’s because I’m with my own TOC to which I am entitled but on any other with my dated BR boxes it’s because I’m paying the Weekend 1st upgrade. If then the guard refuses to take my offer of payment then that’s fine and I am totally discreet.

 

[Starmill]

I too never ask to sit in first. I find it cringing to do personally. If I do sit in 1st it’s because I’m with my own TOC to which I am entitled but on any other with my dated BR boxes it’s because I’m paying the Weekend 1st upgrade. If then the guard refuses to take my offer of payment then that’s fine and I am totally discreet.

Most operators who participe in Seatfrog allow staff travel facilities for standard to be upgraded to first in this way too, it seems. Same for Avanti West Coast Standard Premium, despite some slightly confused wording.

 

[dk1]

Most operators who participe in Seatfrog allow staff travel facilities for standard to be upgraded to first in this way too, it seems. Same for Avanti West Coast Standard Premium, despite some slightly confused wording.

I really don’t know much about Seatfrog mate.

 

[irish_rail]

I too never ask to sit in first. I find it cringing to do personally. If I do sit in 1st it’s because I’m with my own TOC to which I am entitled but on any other with my dated BR boxes it’s because I’m paying the Weekend 1st upgrade. If then the guard refuses to take my offer of payment then that’s fine and I am totally discreet.

The trouble with never asking to sit in First on say GWR is that the standard class searing has degraded to such a point (seat cushioning now completely non existent and painful metal bar digs into bum and legs), so those of us travelling longer distances pretty much have our hands tied!. I don't think I'd be in much of a state to drive a train from London to Plymouth if I'd just had to endure travelling up to London passenger for 3 and a half hours on one of the standard class seats in their current appalling state.

 

[dk1]

The trouble with never asking to sit in First on say GWR is that the standard class searing has degraded to such a point (seat cushioning now completely non existent and painful metal bar digs into bum and legs), so those of us travelling longer distances pretty much have our hands tied!. I don't think I'd be in much of a state to drive a train from London to Plymouth if I'd just had to endure travelling up to London passenger for 3 and a half hours on one of the standard class seats in their current appalling state.

I honestly don’t find it bad enough to state anything like that. It’s just a seat with less padding, no more no less to me.

 

[43066]

For the great majority of my railway career I was entitled to Second/Standard Class free and privilege travel only, and it never occurred to me to ask to sit in First; Having the staff travel facility at all was a huge benefit. The only times I travelled in First was when paying full fare, for example on the Freedom of Scotland railrover I did in 1979 (and it was wonderful). But what others do, passengers, staff or Traincrew, is no business of mine.

I too never ask to sit in first. I find it cringing to do personally. If I do sit in 1st it’s because I’m with my own TOC to which I am entitled but on any other with my dated BR boxes it’s because I’m paying the Weekend 1st upgrade. If then the guard refuses to take my offer of payment then that’s fine and I am totally discreet.

I will generally ask on long distance services, because why not? I prefer the ambience, the seats are more comfortable and I’m generally just a first class kind of guy . I get free travel on LNER anyway, and have never had a TM say no - it’s just a matter of approaching them, introducing myself as a staff member and asking politely. Generally get the meal service too, although that’s down to the host.

 

[dk1]

I will generally ask on long distance services, because why not? I prefer the ambience, the seats are more comfortable and I’m generally just a first class kind of guy . I get free travel on LNER anyway, and have never had a TM say no - it’s just a matter of approaching them, introducing myself as a staff member and asking politely. Generally get the meal service too, although that’s down to the host.

It’s something I am very uncomfortable with. Whether that’s because of the way I see others creep up and ask the guard whilst we are having our break or just that it doesn’t sit well with me as I prefer not too do such things, I don’t know. I’m more than happy in an airline seat in standard. Always been that way in over 40 years of staff travel.

 

[43066]

It’s something I am very uncomfortable with. Whether that’s because of the way I see others creep up and ask the guard whilst we are having our break or just that it doesn’t sit well with me as I prefer not too do such things, I don’t know. I’m more than happy in an airline seat in standard. Always been that way in over 40 years of staff travel.

Fair enough mate, each to their own. It’s important to ask politely, of course, and to be prepared to take no for an answer.

 

[Llanigraham]

Due to something else I am involved in I have a TfW Duty Pass, which I keep in my National Rail blue ticket holder along with my Disabled Persons Card. Was on an Avanti to Euston the other week and decided I would sit in Premium Class and when the Train Manager came around I offered to pay the up-grade but he refused to take it and said "Your staff mate, carry on".
I have in the past, when I was a signaller and the Guard knew me, been invited to sit in First but was always advised just to accept tea/coffee and a light snack, and not the full meal.