3141
Established Member
Is it possible to programme all the ticket barriers between one station and another (say Paddington to Reading) so that if a season ticket between those two stations is reported lost or stolen and someone else tries to use it, the barrier would either reject the ticket, or swallow it and not return it?
In the latest issue of Which (known in our household as Whinge) the chief executive describes difficulties getting a replacement season ticket for his daughter after she lost it for a second time in twelve months. This was because the rule is that only one duplicate will normally be allowed for any lost or stolen season ticket.
He eventually got a replacement because the ticket had been renewed at some date after the first loss and replacement, so his daughter started again with a clean slate. This seems to be the correct and reasonable outcome.
But he and his daughter were told that no more than two duplicates could be issued in twelve months, and he considers this is unfair. He argues that as the season ticket must be used with a photocard that reduces the chances of anyone else getting away with using a lost or stolen ticket.
I doubt that last point, because I expect that anyone who checks tickets looks mainly at the expiry date and the route, and if they are OK he or she moves on to the next passenger. Checking photocards would take extra time, and if the season ticket was in the name of a woman it would be difficult to challenge the identity of another woman of similar age and general appearance who might be using it dishonestly. Women are quite likely to alter their appearance during twelve months by a changing their hair style or its colour, and men may also change appearance if they grow a beard or shave one off.
But if it is possible to tell all the ticket barriers at stations along the route of a lost season ticket not to open if the lost ticket is inserted, or to accept the ticket but not return it, then a lost or stolen season would be no use to anyone else.
The incident does raise other questions about the importance of taking care of valuable property which may be difficult to replace, or insuring it against loss or theft.
Edited because I made a mistake in the original thread title.
In the latest issue of Which (known in our household as Whinge) the chief executive describes difficulties getting a replacement season ticket for his daughter after she lost it for a second time in twelve months. This was because the rule is that only one duplicate will normally be allowed for any lost or stolen season ticket.
He eventually got a replacement because the ticket had been renewed at some date after the first loss and replacement, so his daughter started again with a clean slate. This seems to be the correct and reasonable outcome.
But he and his daughter were told that no more than two duplicates could be issued in twelve months, and he considers this is unfair. He argues that as the season ticket must be used with a photocard that reduces the chances of anyone else getting away with using a lost or stolen ticket.
I doubt that last point, because I expect that anyone who checks tickets looks mainly at the expiry date and the route, and if they are OK he or she moves on to the next passenger. Checking photocards would take extra time, and if the season ticket was in the name of a woman it would be difficult to challenge the identity of another woman of similar age and general appearance who might be using it dishonestly. Women are quite likely to alter their appearance during twelve months by a changing their hair style or its colour, and men may also change appearance if they grow a beard or shave one off.
But if it is possible to tell all the ticket barriers at stations along the route of a lost season ticket not to open if the lost ticket is inserted, or to accept the ticket but not return it, then a lost or stolen season would be no use to anyone else.
The incident does raise other questions about the importance of taking care of valuable property which may be difficult to replace, or insuring it against loss or theft.
Edited because I made a mistake in the original thread title.
Last edited:
