Discussion about "Train ticket enforcement must be fair and proportionate, watchdog warns"

[NARobertson]

I noticed in this report that the LNER has the highest number of prosecutions relative to the number of passengers. I wondered if this is related to their very limited range of fares. Certainly, this is contrary to the expectation that it is a complex range of tickets that tends to increase travel with the wrong ticket type. Recently I travelled between London and Edinburgh on a full fare flexible ticket. I could not guarantee I would be in time in get any particular train. But less pecunious passengers my take the risk of buying a cut price ticket that is limited to a particular train. They may then find they have no valid ticket and be compelled to buy a full price ticket in addition to what they have already paid. The GWR is better in having a much wider range of tickets and, incidentally, fewer prosecutions.

 

[duffield]

Also worth remembering one rule which attempts to help customers can actually harm them. Especially if you apply it to TVMs. Think about having to verify your railcard every time you use a tvm...

Just specifically on that point, the thing to do would be to be able to register a link between your payment method (card or phone) and your railcard so that when you made a physical or digital payment your railcard status would automatically be checked.

This doesn't solve other problems like buying for other people etc. but it does solve the problem of manually inputting your railcard reference on the TVM. Of course it wouldn't work for cash, but for that you could issue physical railcards which can be read contactless by the TVM rather than requiring manual input.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I noticed in this report that the LNER has the highest number of prosecutions relative to the number of passengers. I wondered if this is related to their very limited range of fares. Certainly, this is contrary to the expectation that it is a complex range of tickets that tends to increase travel with the wrong ticket type. Recently I travelled between London and Edinburgh on a full fare flexible ticket. I could not guarantee I would be in time in get any particular train. But less pecunious passengers my take the risk of buying a cut price ticket that is limited to a particular train. They may then find they have no valid ticket and be compelled to buy a full price ticket in addition to what they have already paid. The GWR is better in having a much wider range of tickets and, incidentally, fewer prosecutions.

Could this simply be because LNER is not a Penalty Fare TOC and GWR is, so the latter has an alternative?

 

[Hadders]

A few things that I think need calling out:

• The report blames the 'complex' fares system and I agree that fares can be complex but I don't believe this is the root cause of the problem. My suspicion is part of the reason for the rise in prosecutions in recent years is due to e-tickets making it easier to purchase doughnut tickets. E-tickets are not going to go away (nor should they) but the industry does need to step up their chacking an interception on them.
• The legal framework around rail fare evasion needs urgent reform. The report says it is a long term objective but I really don't think it can wait that long. The Regulation of the Railways Act dates from 1889, and the current Byelaws from 2005 - neither from a time which envisaged ticket purchasing onoine or through apps. We have the old chestnut of a ticket purchased onboard from a guard being valid but the same ticket purchased onboard through a phone app being viewed as invalid and this situation needs to be clarified - urgently!
• My view is that onboard sales of tickets should cease. The industry should be capable of providing a TVM at every station. I know that view won't be popular with some on here but until the ambiguity about whether onboard purchase is allowed, or people saying to an RPI who's just caught them without a ticket 'but the guard always sells me a ticket', passengers will continue to be confused.
• Train company data trawls - I have some real concerns about how some train companies are behaving. Effectively demanding out of court settlements or threatening prosecution where the law (as it currently stands) doesn't allow them to prosecute. I really wish we could get some journalists to take note of this and expose what is going on....
• I'm not against out of court settlements (I spend far too much time each week telling people how to obtain them!) but I really don't think it's right that people who have comitted industrial level fare evasion are allowed to settle. These are exactly the sort of cases that should end up in court with a prosecution under the Regulation of the Railways Act resulting in a 'full fat' criminal record.
• Decriminilising fare evasion is often mentioned as a solution, but I do have reservations as I believe there will be unintended consequences. Currently, someone convicted of a Byelaw offence gets a criminal record spent after a year. Ordinarily the offence won't show on a basic or enhanced DBS check and is likely to not be disclosed at all (although a criminal conviction is a matter of public record). Civil proceedings could mean a County Court Judgement. Then try and get a mortgage, loan, credit card, even a mobile phone contract for the next six years and it's going to be difficult.

Fare evasion is rife in many parts of the country and I do think the railway industry has lots of work to do to create a culture where it is accepted that you have to pay. There needs to be an effective revenue protection strategy that includes:

• Make it easy to buy tickets
• Have a decent fares structure - the old British Rail structure was excellent in this respect
• Install ticket barriers at large stations and for journeys where carrying out onboard checks can be difficult
• Carry out onboard checks, particularly on long-distance routes where there is typically a longer time between station calls
• Carry out high profile revenue blocks
• Have a Penalty Fares policy
• Make use of investigation in the 'back office'
• Prosecute those who do not co-operate with train company investigations, repeat offenders and those engaging in industrial levels of fare evasion

Not all of the above are appropriate to every route but train companies need to create an environment where it is accepted that people pay. Equally, what is not needed is a hostile environment - that was seen not so long ago on Chiltern with a number of awfully written notices on trains and toilets which gave totally the wrong impression to travellers.

 

[furlong]

They missed that in its previous incarnation (and when Penalty Fares came in) byelaw 18 breaches did not lead to a fine (rather removal from the railway, ref. historic ultra vires considerations) - RORA was used requiring "intent". I think the gradual realisation (with increasing boldness) that a strict liability offence was now available (both this and often also RORA given its case law ref. "Strict liability for fraud?") is one of the factors driving the increase in prosecutions.

One thing in the report needing more emphasis is the importance of designing evasion out of the system. You can only ever detect and punish a small fraction of the true level of fare evasion. The only sensible approach is to try to design it out. They give one good example of this - extend child fares to all 16- and 17-year-olds - but there should be many more examples like that that the feedback systems they envisage could help the industry imagine and implement.

Prevention is better than cure: Data trawls don't appear to be mentioned (too recent?), but they should focus on dissuading people from proceeding with fraudulent transactions in the first place. At the same time as extending accreditation to include a strong focus on consumer law as the report envisages, accreditation should also focus on flagging up potentially-fraudulent activity before it is allowed to happen. Warn the consumer they've just put two tickets with a hole in the middle into their basket and sell them the one that bridges the gap or require them to explicitly confirm they don't need it in a way that could be cited later if they've lied. With appropriate safeguards, allow individual e-tickets to be flagged for manual inspection at ticket gates based on the account holder so in that situation, for example, the doughnut tickets issued would not open ticket gates automatically - which of course tales away the primary reason people buy them - and a manual scan by a gateline attendant would say specifically what needed to be checked and confirmed by the staff on the system as OK to remove the flag. (If staff scanned this on the way in, they'd be able to ask how the hole was going to be filled and sell any extra ticket still necessary - proactively preventing crime.) I think much of the opportunistic cheating could be avoided with nudges like that and persistent offending detected much closer to real time. If an e-ticket wasn't scanned in at its origin when barriers were in operation, don't automatically open the gate at its destination so the appropriate question can be asked.

 

[Harpo]

• My view is that onboard sales of tickets should cease. The industry should be capable of providing a TVM at every station.

An approach that’s eminently sensible when there are regular headway services in reasonably populous areas with staffed booking offices, but it doesn’t fit extremely rural unstaffed stations with infrequent services.

 

[MatthewHutton]

An approach that’s eminently sensible when there are regular headway services in reasonably populous areas with staffed booking offices, but it doesn’t fit extremely rural unstaffed stations with infrequent services.

You could allow onboard tickets to only be purchased on the ultra rural lines.

Mid wales, west highland, far north etc.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Jun 2025 ==

If an e-ticket wasn't scanned in at its origin when barriers were in operation, don't automatically open the gate at its destination so the appropriate question can be asked.

You would need to provide readers at stations without barriers then.

 

[Hadders]

An approach that’s eminently sensible when there are regular headway services in reasonably populous areas with staffed booking offices, but it doesn’t fit extremely rural unstaffed stations with infrequent services.

Why? I'm talking about installing ticket machines at all stations. Nothing to do with service frequency.

Given the reduction in TVMs at many stations due to changing purchasing habits I doubt you'd even need any new TVM, just relocate existing machines.

You could allow onboard tickets to only be purchased on the ultra rural lines.

Mid wales, west highland, far north etc.

No. That just adds ambiguity which is what needs removing. Before anyone says phone signals etc find a way round it.

 

[Watershed]

Whilst I agree with @Hadders proposal to install TVMs at all stations to avoid there being confusion as to where you can buy on board, I think the bigger issue is that TVMs are currently not capable of selling all tickets, including some surprisingly popular ones like monthly and longer season tickets.

Plus, as long as cash is accepted on the railway (which I hope remains the case indefinitely) you then face the question of whether to accept it at TVMs. If you don't (as Northern decided at most of their stations), then how do you deal with the consequences of that? "Promise to Pay Notice" is a highly suboptimal scheme in a lot of ways.

 

[Harpo]

Why? I'm talking about installing ticket machines at all stations. Nothing to do with service frequency.

The Cambrian has been mentioned and the Pwllheli line is a good example of the impact of frequency. It’s mostly one train every two hours which means passengers often turn up in considerable numbers just before trains arrive, such as at Morfa Mawddach with holidaymakers expecting a bus-like journey into Barmouth.

 

[Richardr]

Figure 5.1 compares numbers of prosecutions by TOC.

The chart doesn't match the relative numbers of TOCs people post about in this forum.

LNER top, Northern second. LNER rarely features here. Different approaches presumably somehow mean one company features regularly with people requesting assistance here but the other doesn't. Is there some other explanation, or is LNER doing things in a better way than Northern?

Interesting that by far the highest numbers in that table on Long Distance come from LNER and in London and the South East come from Southeastern, both owned by the government.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Whilst I agree with @Hadders proposal to install TVMs at all stations to avoid there being confusion as to where you can buy on board, I think the bigger issue is that TVMs are currently not capable of selling all tickets, including some surprisingly popular ones like monthly and longer season tickets.

Plus, as long as cash is accepted on the railway (which I hope remains the case indefinitely) you then face the question of whether to accept it at TVMs. If you don't (as Northern decided at most of their stations), then how do you deal with the consequences of that? "Promise to Pay Notice" is a highly suboptimal scheme in a lot of ways.

I was going to mention cash - most TVMs don't take it. Unlike yourself I wouldn't be opposed to the ending of cash acceptance, though; there are ways it could be accepted differently, e.g. with some form of railway-endorsed prepaid debit card loadable at PayPoints and PayZones.

With regard to rural lines I think BR had it pretty much right with the idea of marking specific trains/routes as Paytrains, where sales on board would always be permitted even if you board at a station with facilities* and staffing set up to make sure people don't get away with it. This would be marked with a clear symbol in the timetable in the way Penalty Fares are, and ideally on displays too as the Swiss mark Penalty Fare trains (all of them now) with the "eye" symbol. Or you do what some rural German lines do and put a TVM on the train, though that does require dedicated units for the branch, which TfW don't practice for the Conwy Valley, say.

* Subject to not being stopped by a gateline, of course. Though I have seen people be let through at Bletchley with a remark of "Oh, you're going to Bedford, that's a Paytrain" even in the last 5 years or so!

 

[Hadders]

Plus, as long as cash is accepted on the railway (which I hope remains the case indefinitely) you then face the question of whether to accept it at TVMs. If you don't (as Northern decided at most of their stations), then how do you deal with the consequences of that? "Promise to Pay Notice" is a highly suboptimal scheme in a lot of ways.

Cash is a potential issue. Short term I really don't see an alternative to a Promise to Pay system but we've seen cash eliminated on buses in London so it can be done (I know it's not exactly the same scenario but we need to look at the art of the possible here). There are also efficiency and security savings eliminating cash onboard trains.

I don't want paytrains or symbols in timetables denoting trains where payment on board is accepted.
I don't want an exception for the Cambrian or any other line.
That just adds ambiguity and confusion and that is what needs to be eliminated. Just look at the debate we had last week about using a standard class ticket in 1st class when 1st isn't shown in the timetable.

 

[Benjwri]

I don't want paytrains or symbols in timetables denoting trains where payment on board is accepted.
I don't want an exception for the Cambrian or any other line.
That just adds ambiguity and confusion and that is what needs to be eliminated. Just look at the debate we had last week about using a standard class ticket in 1st class when 1st isn't shown in the timetable.

Yes I definitely agree with this. I think this forum vastly overestimates how many people are still looking at timetables these days, as opposed to putting their needs into Google Maps etc.

Even those who do pay on the train are either using an app/website to suggest it, or a line which has a turn up and go/clockface service pattern.

 

[Starmill]

The trouble I think is that the industry is financially incentivised to make things awkward then enforce. Those settlements must add a fair bit to the bottom line just because of the typical forgetful student.

I've been that forgetful student, fortunately it was Manchester Piccadilly booking office that noticed it and I renewed there and then, and nothing was done about the month or so worth of journeys I made with it out of date before it was noticed. Suspect nowadays that same thing would have cost me upwards of £300.

Could have easily resulted in a conviction too if you were caught with say a Travelcard by TfL revenue control, or by the TIL staff on Transport for Wales. Not overly likely but entirely possible.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Just look at the debate we had last week about using a standard class ticket in 1st class when 1st isn't shown in the timetable.

Like with the annoying ambiguity about what happens when reservations aren't displayed, that would be easily resolved by simply stating in the NRCoT and signage clearly what applies in that situation.

I don't think it is a problem to have different rules for different situations as long as those rules are clear, consistent and well-signed. The ultimate conclusion of your "everything has to be the same" line is that we don't have anything other than Anytime Day Singles because otherwise it would be confusing!

With increasing online sales having TVMs at stations is increasingly unnecessary and costly - they are a big cost and they are often vandalised.

 

[ArranArchie]

TVMs break down way too often to be a reliable answer IMO, and the rural ones don't get serviced very often.

I think the answer would be something along the lines of a nationwide card reader network. There's no tickets to print on the readers, so they seem to be more reliable. Season tickets would be ITSO. The only thorn is cash users, but perhaps a top-up method like Oyster would work.

 

[swt_passenger]

TVMs break down way too often to be a reliable answer IMO, and the rural ones don't get serviced very often.

I think the answer would be something along the lines of a nationwide card reader network. There's no tickets to print on the readers, so they seem to be more reliable. Season tickets would be ITSO. The only thorn is cash users, but perhaps a top-up method like Oyster would work.

If you’re suggesting some sort of a nationwide pay as you go or contactless touch in/touch out system there have been many explanations here of why it is not workable.

 

[NARobertson]

There are interesting points in this report. One is a description of the Swiss penalty fare system. It has a graduated system of fines; about 80 SFr for a first offence, SFr 110 for a second and SFr 140 for third. The report notes that the Swiss have a simpler fares system than the UK (although the LNER is an exception). A second point is why the railways do not use the civil Law: it would apparently be more expensive for them. A third point is the unfairness in using railway bylaws dating from a period when most tickets were bought at ticket offices where passengers could get information about the validities of different types of tickets. Today most tickets are bought remotely or from TVMs where there is often little or no information about ticket validity. A point that occurs to me is that railways know how much money they have recovered through their revenue protection measures. But how much money have they lost through loss of business of disgruntled customers who consider they were unfairly treated over a mistake or oversight?

 

[NorthernSystem]

A big thing as well is how trained up certain TOC staff are

For example at TPE guards cannot Penalty Fare anyone, or even issue a UFN (Unpaid Fares Notice). Only revenue protection can do these. But we can report them for prosecution, and after 1y competency as a guard, we can directly issue a TIR (Travel Irregularity Report) to them, without having to go "via the back office"

Contrast that to LNER, where TMs can issue UFNs, or Northern, where guards can PF people - to my knowledge at least

This is a big problem IMO as it means there will always be different outcomes - if someone comes across a TPE guard they'll probably just get sold a new ticket, but if they came across a TPE RPO or they were doing the exact same journey on a Northern service (York - Leeds fx), they'd probably get penalty fared. If they made the same journey on LNER (York - Newcastle fx), they would probably get a UFN. Three different possible outcomes all for the same "crime" of not having a valid ticket, all with varying severities and impacts - £20 for a new ticket, £50/100 PF + £20 new ticket, or reported for prosecution (potentially offered a £150+ settlement) and given a criminal record...

Northern Guards cannot PFN people, but can UFN or TIR.

 

[Titfield]

I don't think it is a problem to have different rules for different situations as long as those rules are clear, consistent and well-signed.

But that doesn't seem to work as evidenced by the issues seen at Stansted Airport by passengers who boarded at Tottenham Hale.

IMHO the whole system: fares, ticketing and enforcement needs to be made much much simpler so the process of educating the travelling passengers (and they understanding and complying with it) can be achieved ie the virtual elimination of honest mistakes thus allowing revenue protection to focus on the deliberate fare evaders (no ticket, short faring etc).

 

[Krokodil]

My view is that onboard sales of tickets should cease. The industry should be capable of providing a TVM at every station.

A TVM capable of accepting cash at every last station, no matter how remote? Not remotely economic. Paytrain concept is fine for rural routes.

They give one good example of this - extend child fares to all 16- and 17-year-olds

I found that the 16-17 Saver really helped cut down on youths of a questionable age claiming child fares. It provided a way in which they could legitimately have a half-fare ticket but have to prove eligibility for it. Having two expiry dates creates confusion though. Just make it a one-time issue and set the expiry date as the 31st August following their 18th birthday.

 

[Hadders]

I do think that complex fares are used as an excuse. On a network with 2,500+ stationsit is inevitable that there will be complexities and you just know the simplification proposed will be the removal of good value fares.

A TVM capable of accepting cash at every last station, no matter how remote? Not remotely economic. Paytrain concept is fine for rural routes.

A promise to pay system would need to be used in some circumstances. Buses in London haven't accepted cash for over 10 years.

Define a rural route. The Cambrian? Settel & Carlisle? Felixstowe Branch? Southminster Branch? Hertford Loop? The problem is it creates confusion. We need to change the culture where people have to accept, and unambiguously know, they must possess a ticket before boarding the train.

No more 'but the guard normally sells me a ticket', 'where I come from I'm allowed to buy on board' etc etc.

 

[Krokodil]

If you’re suggesting some sort of a nationwide pay as you go or contactless touch in/touch out system there have been many explanations here of why it is not workable.

I've seen nothing to say that it could never work.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I do think that complex fares are used as an excuse. On a network with 2,500+ stationsit is inevitable that there will be complexities and you just know the simplification proposed will be the removal of good value fares.

As I've said many times, the simplest ticket of all is one that is valid on the train(s) printed on it, and needs to be rebooked in case of a missed connection or cancellation. Any form of walk-up flexible ticket will have some sort of complexities involved somewhere.

So yes, be careful what you wish for.

 

[Hadders]

I've seen nothing to say that it could never work.

If I touch in at Penzance and travel to Wick but fail to touch out what is charged?
How would this be different to someone touching in at Penzance and travelling to St Erth but forgetting to touch out?

 

[MarlowDonkey]

As I've said many times, the simplest ticket of all is one that is valid on the train(s) printed on it, and needs to be rebooked in case of a missed connection or cancellation. Any form of walk-up flexible ticket will have some sort of complexities involved somewhere.

Isn't a Season Ticket between A & B valid at all stations, all trains and all routes between the two also simple?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Define a rural route. The Cambrian? Settel & Carlisle? Felixstowe Branch? Southminster Branch? Hertford Loop? The problem is it creates confusion. We need to change the culture where people have to accept, and unambiguously know, they must possess a ticket before boarding the train.

While the Swiss now have moved to a "PFs for breakfast, lunch and tea"* approach, they used to define when you could buy on board clearly by showing the "eye" symbol on any train you could not. It would be on the platform displays, destination displays and timetable, and sometimes even stuck to the door of the train where that unit was only used on penalty fare (Selbstcontrolle) services. It wasn't possible, other than by not knowing what the "eye" meant, to get confused about it.

* Ish. Since they moved away from it there's actually more confusion - on services with a guard (IC/IR/ICN if they still have it, I forget) the guards have a small amount of discretion to sell a ticket if someone makes certain specific excuses, stuff like broken TVM or clueless tourist. On the regional DOO services it is absolute - if the TVM isn't working and you can't get one on your phone or similar, you can't travel. I seem to recall Manchester Metrolink used to have a system that kind of bridged that gap - if the TVM was broken you phoned up to get a reference number and report the broken TVM, and got a free single journey in return - that might work, but probably wouldn't at Corrour or Altnabreac!

 

[furlong]

I found that the 16-17 Saver really helped cut down on youths of a questionable age claiming child fares. It provided a way in which they could legitimately have a half-fare ticket but have to prove eligibility for it. Having two expiry dates creates confusion though. Just make it a one-time issue and set the expiry date as the 31st August following their 18th birthday.

That would align itself more closely with schemes for buses, TfL etc. In effect it becomes a 'proof of age' card for anyone who looks close to the cut-off age, simplifying enforcement. It also suggests alternatives such as IDs accepted for alcohol.

 

[Krokodil]

I do think that complex fares are used as an excuse.

Yes and no. Take Manchester Stns to Manchester Airport for example. A ticket should be a ticket on a high-frequency, urban flow. In reality there are all manner of TPE only, TfW Only, Advances, Off Peaks etc. Is it any wonder that people who don't often take the train, who may well have a poor command of English get caught out?

Define a rural route. The Cambrian? Settel & Carlisle? Felixstowe Branch? Southminster Branch? Hertford Loop? The problem is it creates confusion. We need to change the culture where people have to accept, and unambiguously know, they must possess a ticket before boarding the train.

Clear and obvious signage at stations. Either "you must buy your ticket before you board" or "buy your ticket from the conductor"