Announcing the presence of Revenue Protection

[zwk500]

It seems to me that you’re disappointed because you want people to get fines, which although not wrong isn’t exactly pleasant. I mean, fare evasion is wrong, but openly expressing intent to see people be fined is a little… well, let’s just say it screams of that kid in primary school that would remind the teacher to check homework.

Schadenfreude (Joy in the displeasure of others). In this case the attitude is also quite vindictive.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Schadenfreude (Joy in the displeasure of others). In this case the attitude is also quite vindictive.

That’s exactly what I meant, thank you. It can’t be about preventing fare evasion because none happened if culprits alighted.

 

[zwk500]

That’s exactly what I meant, thank you. It can’t be about preventing fare evasion because none happened if culprits alighted.

Quite the opposite - it may have actively prevented some fare evasion, and therefore protected customers from being liable for a criminal record. Very customer-friendly, showing the railway isn't just out to gouge your cash.

 

[Hadders]

It is much better to deter people from travelling without a tickets than to catch them without one. The announcement is about deterring. A good revenue protection regime will involve three main parts:

Education about the need for a ticket - e.g. notices and publicity and making it easy to buy a ticket
Deterring - announcements like the one made on the train, a visible staff presence
Enforcement - ticket checks and dealing appropriately with people without tickets

Ticket barriers have a role in bothe deterring and enforcement.

It's impractical and not cost effective to enforce all of the time but good education and deterring are a big part of maximising revenue.

 

[Towers]

No different to train managers announcing prior to departure that if you have an advanced purchase ticket then it must be for the train in question and if it isn't you must either leave the train or remain on the train and purchase a brand new ticket.

Disagree; that's a customer service gesture relating to something that causes significant confusion to many.

I think what the OP is getting at here is that revenue protection has to catch people in order to provide both punishment to the offenders in question and a deterrent to the wider public. Yes, honest customers making a mistake etc might benefit, but that's Penalty Fare territory anyway. The 'hardcore' work, if you will, of revenue protection relies on catching and prosecuting people; as much as that's an unpleasant business, it is what it is. Giving prior warning simply allows that 'hardcore' element, were they present, to get away with it on that one occasion when they would otherwise have been caught.

Criminals import all manner of illegal nasties into the country, Customs & Excise don't prewarn them which shipments will be searched! Like many things, fare evasion is a game of chance. That chance is rather unfairly weighted if you get a fore warning every time that you might otherwise have been caught!

 

[spyinthesky]

That’s exactly what I meant, thank you. It can’t be about preventing fare evasion because none happened if culprits alighted.

One of the biggest deterrents is people seen to be caught. These announcements have their uses but when checks don’t happen they become pointless.
Once again social media assumes the state of mind of a complete stranger.

 

[zwk500]

Disagree; that's a customer service gesture relating to something that causes significant confusion to customers.

I think what the OP is getting at here is that revenue protection has to catch people in order to provide both punishment to the offenders in question and a deterrent to the wider public. Yes, honest customers making a mistake etc might benefit, but that's Penalty Fare territory anyway. The 'hardcore' work, if you will, of revenue protection relies on catching and prosecuting people; as much as that's an unpleasant business, it is what it is. Giving prior warning simply allows that 'hardcore' element, were they present, to get away with it on that one occasion when they would otherwise have been caught.

BIB - no it doesn't, because it's an open question whether they have done anything wrong until the train is departing.

Criminals import all manner of illegal nasties into the country, Customs & Excise don't prewarn them which shipments will be searched! Like many things, fare evasion is a game of chance. That chance is rather unfairly weighted if you get a fore warning every time that you might otherwise have been caught!

HMRC is a slightly different ball game though. However you could say that this announcement is like when they ask the driver 'have you got anything you should declare right now?' before opening up the truck.

 

[Towers]

I think that's a tad harsh! I would imagine a significant proportion of honest, fare paying passengers would prefer that persistent fare evaders were actually caught rather than warned off so they can buy a ticket on one particular journey.

BIB - no it doesn't, because it's an open question whether they have done anything wrong until the train is departing.

I think we all know what the score is with persistent fare evasion, I fail to see the point you're making here. Anybody is innocent of committing a crime up until the moment that they do so, and all have the option of not doing so - I don't really see the relevance?

 

[RPI]

I find on the trains out of Paddington that stop at all the B&H stations (Newbury, Hungerford, Bedwyn, Pewsey) most of the honest commuters actively point out the regular fare evaders anyway, often when working the 16:36/17:36 Padd-Exeter a fair number of season ticket holders will stop us and tell us about regular fare evaders and those two trains are the only ones really where season ticket holders actively tell us (RPI's) that its good to see us on there!

Personally I'm not bothered if a guard announces we're on there or not, often at Paddington i will make an announcement about ticket restrictions before departure and will state that I'm standing on the the platform by the rear/front of the train should anyone wish to check, obviously this only really works at Paddington!

 

[Tetchytyke]

The 'hardcore' work, if you will, of revenue protection relies on catching and prosecuting people; as much as that's an unpleasant business, it is what it is. Giving prior warning simply allows that 'hardcore' element, were they present, to get away with it on that one occasion when they would otherwise have been caught.

The "hard-core element" don't get caught and don't get convicted, though. They simply walk off when challenged, and RPIs are usually powerless to stop them.

Announcing the RPIs' presence makes them more visible, which is what it's really about. It's the message: do this and you'll get caught. So most people won't.

The only ones who benefit from overly aggressive revenue protection are the bottom-feeding owners of Transport Investigations Ltd.

 

[Titfield]

It is much better to deter people from travelling without a tickets than to catch them without one. The announcement is about deterring. A good revenue protection regime will involve three main parts:

Education about the need for a ticket - e.g. notices and publicity and making it easy to buy a ticket
Deterring - announcements like the one made on the train, a visible staff presence
Enforcement - ticket checks and dealing appropriately with people without tickets

Ticket barriers have a role in bothe deterring and enforcement.

It's impractical and not cost effective to enforce all of the time but good education and deterring are a big part of maximising revenue.

Yes an excellent summary.

The TOCs en bloc need a twin track approach but with a common objective.

(1) Educating prospective passengers to reduce the incidence of "honest mistakes" by passengers who do not have intent to avoid paying the correct fare
(2) Deterring, Catching and applying sanctions to those who do have intent to avoid paying the fare.

As @Hadders notes some of the measures cover multiple elements.

 

[mpthomson]

People who are knowingly on the train without a valid ticket are not customers. Making fare evasion easier is certainly not customer-friendly to the majority of genuine customers!

Generic announcements are fine and encouraged (automated on many lines); specific announcements of RPI presence benefits only those who know they are dodging a fare.

How does it benefit them? They either pay the (larger than it would otherwise have been) fare, they get a penalty fare or they don't travel. None of those options are beneficial to the fare dodger.

 

[SCDR_WMR]

Some revenue protection bods I work with ask me to do a spiel about penalty fares etc without specifically mentioning their presence before they go down the train, usually having already stationed someone to watch the bogs. It works quite well.

Absolutely, I do a full ticket spiel if RPIs board. In my experience it works well for all parties

I've heard these sort of announcements before, those without tickets probably get off again and it makes the revenue staff job a lot easier. And assuming the ticket gates were operating at Paddington isn't it a bit pointless checking tickets again?

Having a ticket that gets them through the gate is no the same as having a valid ticket for the entirety of their journey, plus Railcard fraud etc

 

[class68fan]

Better than where the guard give a full speach about restrictions this that and the other then don't cheque tickets.

 

[ExRes]

Are these the same announcements that were being made, at least on NSE services, thirty years ago?

 

[Edsmith]

Absolutely, I do a full ticket spiel if RPIs board. In my experience it works well for all parties


Having a ticket that gets them through the gate is no the same as having a valid ticket for the entirety of their journey, plus Railcard fraud etc

I know and they could tailgate someone else through the gate but surely fare evasion will be more rife where there are no ticket gates?

The "hard-core element" don't get caught and don't get convicted, though. They simply walk off when challenged, and RPIs are usually powerless to stop them.

Announcing the RPIs' presence makes them more visible, which is what it's really about. It's the message: do this and you'll get caught. So most people won't.

The only ones who benefit from overly aggressive revenue protection are the bottom-feeding owners of Transport Investigations Ltd.

Exactly that, the hard core element just walk off or give fake details and yes I think it's a good idea to announce ticket checks etc, it could avoid conflict later.

 

[AlterEgo]

It is much better to deter people from travelling without a tickets than to catch them without one. The announcement is about deterring. A good revenue protection regime will involve three main parts:

Education about the need for a ticket - e.g. notices and publicity and making it easy to buy a ticket
Deterring - announcements like the one made on the train, a visible staff presence
Enforcement - ticket checks and dealing appropriately with people without tickets

Ticket barriers have a role in bothe deterring and enforcement.

It's impractical and not cost effective to enforce all of the time but good education and deterring are a big part of maximising revenue.

100% agree.

It can be satisfying to watch someone get caught by a hidden speeding camera, but they were still speeding and increasing risk to everyone around them.

Much better if the speeding camera is bright yellow and ensures people really do travel at 30mph in the 30 zone.

 

[superkopite]

Slightly off-topic but when I used to travel on the 25 bendy bus in London, when the bus got very busy and people could not get on, 1 particular driver would always announce that RPI's were boarding at the next stop and to have tickets ready. It normally resulted in ~20% of people getting off the bus and everyone at the bus stop being able to board. There were never any RPIs at the next stop

 

[SCDR_WMR]

I know and they could tailgate someone else through the gate but surely fare evasion will be more rife where there are no ticket gates?

Depends on which type of evasion you're looking for.

Ticketless travel will obviously happed predominantly at non-gated stations as unless there is an RPI block it's highly successful. High number between say Runcorn/Liverpool Lime St.

Fraudulent ticketing through short faring, doughnutting, railcards will be more likely at gates stations given the need for a ticket either at the start, end or both. High number between say Crewe/Euston.

 

[W-on-Sea]

This seems to a positive approach - everybody wins. Fraudulent travel is avoided, and prosecutions are avoided.

I was recently on a train, boarding at a relatively busy stop, on which the train manager announced that holders of advance tickets not valid on that specific journey should be sure to leave the train at the next (much less busy) station (to await the correct one, presumably). This struck me as an unusually generous offer, and not necessarily warranted (given the absense of any special circumstances). On the other hand there is something to be said for this generous, non-punitive, approach.

(Was there a ticket inspection following the next station? I can't remember if there was)

 

[martin2345uk]

I remember in my Manchester days on a couple of occasions getting a late evening tram from Rochdale town centre... before closing the doors and setting off the driver announced that there would be a ticket inspection at the next stop so please have tickets ready... and about 60% of the passengers immediately cleared off of the tram There never was a ticket inspection at the next stop...

 

[zwk500]

I remember in my Manchester days on a couple of occasions getting a late evening tram from Rochdale town centre... before closing the doors and setting off the driver announced that there would be a ticket inspection at the next stop so please have tickets ready... and about 60% of the passengers immediately cleared off of the tram There never was a ticket inspection at the next stop...

There was a great moment on one of the Channel 5 (I think) fly-on-the-wall programmes following GWR where the Reading Night manager decided to keep the gates closed. One passenger wanted to complain that the ticket office wasn't open so their only option to buy had been from the TVMs, some of which weren't working. However he'd only bought a ticket to Reading West to get through the ticket barriers and when he compained to the Station Manager he duly pointed out the short faring. Cue a trip to the TVMs to buy the correct ticket!
(the chap did basically admit to it, IIRC, although I think there was a certain amount of detective work that if you were going to Reading West from Reading Town centre at that time of night you'd not be using the train). Of course lots of these programmes are setups, but it's still a funny sequence.

 

[reb0118]

I occasionally make such announcements on my train even though we have no revenue enforcement officers. It's quite funny seeing ticketless passengers scurry off to try and get a ticket from the adjacent TVM before departure time.

 

[Llanigraham]

This seems to a positive approach - everybody wins. Fraudulent travel is avoided, and prosecutions are avoided.

I was recently on a train, boarding at a relatively busy stop, on which the train manager announced that holders of advance tickets not valid on that specific journey should be sure to leave the train at the next (much less busy) station (to await the correct one, presumably). This struck me as an unusually generous offer, and not necessarily warranted (given the absense of any special circumstances). On the other hand there is something to be said for this generous, non-punitive, approach.

(Was there a ticket inspection following the next station? I can't remember if there was)

Something similar is often said by Avanti managers just after leaving New St towards London on applicable trains, and about non-Avanti tickets, and suggesting they get off at International. It generally seems to work.

 

[Towers]

The "hard-core element" don't get caught and don't get convicted, though. They simply walk off when challenged, and RPIs are usually powerless to stop them.

Announcing the RPIs' presence makes them more visible, which is what it's really about. It's the message: do this and you'll get caught. So most people won't.

The only ones who benefit from overly aggressive revenue protection are the bottom-feeding owners of Transport Investigations Ltd.

Can't disagree with your first point! I'm not sure what's "overly aggressive" about revenue staff catching people who choose to fare evade though.

 

[Meerkat]

Seems mad to me, like our old security guards going round noisily to make sure they never found any intruders!
Tell people they must have a ticket etc. If they decide to stay on the train they deserve to be caught.
But warning offenders about the RPIs is crazy - the most annoying thing about paying for train tickets is seeing people get away with not doing it.
This policy encourages fraud - 'I wont bother getting a ticket unless they announce there are RPIs.

 

[zwk500]

Seems mad to me, like our old security guards going round noisily to make sure they never found any intruders!
Tell people they must have a ticket etc. If they decide to stay on the train they deserve to be caught.
But warning offenders about the RPIs is crazy - the most annoying thing about paying for train tickets is seeing people get away with not doing it.
This policy encourages fraud - 'I wont bother getting a ticket unless they announce there are RPIs.

But surely they only get away with not paying if they actually manage to travel? Being booted off before departure means they haven't got away with skipping the fare that time.

 

[SCDR_WMR]

Seems mad to me, like our old security guards going round noisily to make sure they never found any intruders!
Tell people they must have a ticket etc. If they decide to stay on the train they deserve to be caught.
But warning offenders about the RPIs is crazy - the most annoying thing about paying for train tickets is seeing people get away with not doing it.
This policy encourages fraud - 'I wont bother getting a ticket unless they announce there are RPIs.

Prevention is better than cure, so they say.
Cheaper for them to get off and buy a ticket now PF has increased, not necessarily the case before.

The better announcement would be to say all the ticketing information and not mention RPIs are on that train. Possibly state they are mobile across the network. That way fare avoiders really are taking a chance. Also more likely to catch the ticket fraud issues

 

[Meerkat]

But surely they only get away with not paying if they actually manage to travel? Being booted off before departure means they haven't got away with skipping the fare that time.

'That time' being the important bit. They clearly didn't intend to pay - they are fraudsters and need catching. Pour encouragez les autres or whatever

The better announcement would be to say all the ticketing information and not mention RPIs are on that train. Possibly state they are mobile across the network. That way fare avoiders really are taking a chance. Also more likely to catch the ticket fraud issues

Exactly that

 

[Tetchytyke]

Can't disagree with your first point! I'm not sure what's "overly aggressive" about revenue staff catching people who choose to fare evade though.

In itself, there's nothing aggressive about it. Although when we start getting towards plain clothes RPIs, etc, I do start to wonder what the point is, much as I can sometimes see the point (e.g. catching a persistent doughnutter).

I always find it hilarious to see loads of people scuttling off the train when announcements like this get made. Far more entertaining than seeing someone get chinged for a £100 Penalty Fare and certainly better than being delayed for a fare-dodger who won't leave the train.