• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

E-ticket "battery" issue - is names on tickets an option for a fix?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
With yet another thread having come up in D&P about a battery having run out and a hefty out of court settlement being demanded, is there a simple fix to all this staring the railway in the face?

Most train tickets are bought by the person who will use them with no intention of transfer, and of the ones that aren't, they are bought for a known individual such as husband, wife, friend or children. So why not offer the option of tickets being named, in return for which if a phone battery had run out, you could later produce the ticket in the same manner as you can a forgotten Railcard or season ticket to have any penalty cancelled, as with a name on it it wouldn't likely have been used by someone else?

There doesn't seem to be much scope for abuse unless you know someone of the same name, and e-ticket scans can similarly be checked which would identify misuse like someone going through a gateline with it showing that transfer had taken place. Yet it would deal with this issue quite nicely. It could be limited how often an individual could do it in order to further control abuse - perhaps free the first time in a rolling 12 months and then £10 admin fee for the second and third instance - beyond that you really do need to think about what you're doing.

Obviously tickets could still be issued unnamed for those who prefer that, but then if you can't produce the ticket you could be prosecuted.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,035
Location
No longer here
I assume named tickets would also come with a requirement to produce ID to support the name on the ticket?
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I assume named tickets would also come with a requirement to produce ID to support the name on the ticket?

It would be necessary to have this as a possibility for a random check, like with seasons, the vast majority of which are used much of the time in gatelines with no identity check. However, the vast majority of adults do have and carry photo ID of some kind, typically a driving licence, but for younger people very often a Railcard. Those who don't could choose to have an un-named ticket with rights remaining as before but without the additional benefit.

Moving on from this, of course, if the railway ever got to true e-ticketing (i.e. a single database of ticketing "truth"), it would be feasible to show your ID and have them reprint your ticket on the spot - the ultimate convenience. They could even do it based on name, origin and destination with no ID shown; if you check into a UK hotel you are never* asked for ID, you just give your name in, and you don't get random people walking into hotels guessing names.

No good if your wallet was nicked as well, but this is getting down to a very small number of cases compared with the cases of lost/dropped phones and flat batteries.

Having said all that, if I was in charge of a TOC's revenue department I'd just issue power banks to RPIs with one of each cable type (there are only two common ones, three if you count older phones), which would cover the vast majority of it. I get the feeling some TOCs like the extra income of these £100 settlements and aren't motivated to solve it in the first place. Maybe even get the for-profit charging locker providers to put one on the inside of gatelines.

* If paying cash it's legally required for them to check ID, but paying cash for hotels is very niche these days.
 
Last edited:

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,035
Location
No longer here
I'd just issue power banks to RPIs with one of each cable type (there are only two common ones, three if you count older phones), which would cover the vast majority of it. I get the feeling some TOCs like the extra income of these £100 settlements and aren't motivated to solve it in the first place.
I quite agree.
 

Alex27

Member
Joined
11 Mar 2020
Messages
141
Location
Oxford
I personally carry a power bank (work issued) and charger with the most common types of phone charger on (I got that myself) when I check tickets. It comes in incredibly handy and saved at least one passenger somewhere in the region of £100 for a new ticket. On the other hand those that are trying it on very quickly realise the games up :lol:
 

XAM2175

Established Member
Joined
8 Jun 2016
Messages
3,469
Location
Glasgow
Moving on from this, of course, if the railway ever got to true e-ticketing (i.e. a single database of ticketing "truth"), it would be feasible to show your ID and have them reprint your ticket on the spot - the ultimate convenience. They could even do it based on name, origin and destination with no ID shown; if you check into a UK hotel you are never* asked for ID, you just give your name in, and you don't get random people walking into hotels guessing names.
Seriously, just get everything set up to support a single database solution and allow e-tickets to be printed (and re-printed, etc etc) on paper roll at TVMs. People who trust their ability to keep their phone or table or watch running throughout the day don't care and aren't troubled, while people who for whatever reason want or need their ticket on paper still have options.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Seriously, just get everything set up to support a single database solution and allow e-tickets to be printed (and re-printed, etc etc) on paper roll at TVMs. People who trust their ability to keep their phone or table or watch running throughout the day don't care and aren't troubled, while people who for whatever reason want or need their ticket on paper still have options.

Yep, this.

The lack of such a single central database of tickets (rather than just scans) is the only key difference between my e-ticket proposal made on here and uk.railway a long while back and what was actually implemented, and the lack of it means a number of customer-friendly options like this can't be implemented (plus stuff like being able to change or refund a ticket bought from any sales channel at any other sales channel). It's time it was moved that way.
 

stuu

Established Member
Joined
2 Sep 2011
Messages
2,728
Has this ever come to court? It's not completely unknown for devices to decide to switch themselves off even though they are charged, or have some app drain the battery much quicker than expected. It seems to me incredibly un-customer friendly to have an instant fine rather than giving people the option to just charge their phone, or better to check on a central database. AFAIK you need to have an account to buy an e-ticket, so it's all held centrally anyway
 

NoRoute

Member
Joined
25 Nov 2020
Messages
491
Location
Midlands
With yet another thread having come up in D&P about a battery having run out and a hefty out of court settlement being demanded, is there a simple fix to all this staring the railway in the face?

It is difficult to understand how any half-way competent railway company and its staff could launch a product like e-tickets without first considering a range of unusual and exceptional situations which could conceivable occur, like this one, and putting in place some basic processes to handle these and ensure passengers are treated fairly.

One obvious process is that where an e-ticket cannot be produced at the time of travel, to allow the passenger to submit some form of evidence demonstrating their purchase of an e-ticket for the journey within a specified time window, before any fines or court threats are issued.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,433
Location
Yorkshire
With yet another thread having come up in D&P about a battery having run out and a hefty out of court settlement being demanded, is there a simple fix to all this staring the railway in the face?

Most train tickets are bought by the person who will use them with no intention of transfer, and of the ones that aren't, they are bought for a known individual such as husband, wife, friend or children. So why not offer the option of tickets being named, in return for which if a phone battery had run out, you could later produce the ticket in the same manner as you can a forgotten Railcard or season ticket to have any penalty cancelled, as with a name on it it wouldn't likely have been used by someone else?
I am not a fan of having to name the person using the ticket and having to produce ID to use the ticket.

There is nothing wrong with e-tickets; if people are concerned their device may run out of battery they should print the ticket. Simple.

Other alternatives include bringing another device (if you have one) or giving a copy to anyone travelling with you (if applicable) as a backup.

I do not see any need to overcomplicate things by requiring staff to check ID; this will not be welcomed by staff whose ticket inspections would take even longer as a result and introduce even more potential for conflict if customers do not have ID on them.

AFAIK you need to have an account to buy an e-ticket, so it's all held centrally anyway
No you don't.

.... allow e-tickets to be printed (and re-printed, etc etc) on paper roll at TVMs. ...
Is the obvious solution and one that I (and others) have suggested before in previous threads, probably numerous times now!
 

BasildonBob

Member
Joined
12 Jun 2019
Messages
36
Location
Reading
Looking at NRCoT and Bylaws 17 and 18, I notice that although it is clear that the passenger must hand over their ticket for inspection when requested, there is no requirement for this to happen immediately. It might be argued that a passenger who says something to the effect of "I will certainly allow you to inspect my ticket, but I need access to a power connection or an alternative device in order to do so" is not in breach of either NRCoT or the bylaws provided they are able to produce a valid ticket before leaving the train/station/railway property.
 

NoRoute

Member
Joined
25 Nov 2020
Messages
491
Location
Midlands
There is nothing wrong with e-tickets; if people are concerned their device may run out of battery they should print the ticket. Simple.

Other alternatives include bringing another device (if you have one) or giving a copy to anyone travelling with you (if applicable) as a backup.

Surely that rather misses the point. While an individual may not be concerned about their phone failing on a given day, a rail system handling hundreds of thousands of passengers every day with a proportion using e-tickets, even with highly reliable phones and people ensuring they are charged up, will inevitably have tens to hundreds of people each day who encounter some form of failure of their phone.

Any competently run railway with some modicum of concern for customer service needs a way to deal with those customers, with some mechanism to confirm whether or not an e-ticket was purchased before resorting to threats of fines or prosecution. It's a natural consequence of the railways moving from a paper ticket system, if the railways want the benefit of the cost savings and efficiencies from e-tickets, they need to make some changes to their processes to handle the additional complexities and issues e-tickets create.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,433
Location
Yorkshire
Surely that rather misses the point. While an individual may not be concerned about their phone failing on a given day, a rail system handling hundreds of thousands of passengers every day with a proportion using e-tickets, even with highly reliable phones and people ensuring they are charged up, will inevitably have tens to hundreds of people each day who encounter some form of failure of their phone.

Any competently run railway with some modicum of concern for customer service needs a way to deal with those customers, with some mechanism to confirm whether or not an e-ticket was purchased before resorting to threats of fines or prosecution. It's a natural consequence of the railways moving from a paper ticket system, if the railways want the benefit of the cost savings and efficiencies from e-tickets, they need to make some changes to their processes to handle the additional complexities and issues e-tickets create.
Does the same logic apply to paper tickets in your opinion?

Paper tickets offer passengers the ability to have a backup; paper tickets do not. So things are getting better in this area, not worse.

That's not to say more can't be done, but the solution is NOT to require ID as suggested in the opening post!
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Does the same logic apply to paper tickets in your opinion?

Personally, if I was given the option to have my name on a paper ticket in return for it being reissuable against ID if lost, I would certainly take that. I'd prefer it to be optional than mandatory, because occasionally you do want to buy a ticket without knowing who it's for specifically at the time of buying it, but for me it's a tiny proportion of the time, so the protection would be more valuable.
 

NoRoute

Member
Joined
25 Nov 2020
Messages
491
Location
Midlands
Does the same logic apply to paper tickets in your opinion?
A printed paper ticket is inherently more reliable than an e-ticket, with no dependency on a battery being charged, the phone working at that instant in time, or reliance on a network connection for tickets saved on a remote server or email account.
Paper tickets offer passengers the ability to have a backup; paper tickets do not. So things are getting better in this area, not worse.
Expecting passengers to all print off their e-tickets largely removes the benefit of e-tickets, going from a small card ticket to an A4 print out increases resources and waste. In practice it isn't reasonable and many won't carry a back-up or paper copy.

But ultimately it isn't a difficult problem to solve, it just needs some sensible process introducing to handle the situation where a passenger isn't able to display their e-ticket the instant they pass through the barrier, introducing some reasonable mechanism for the passenger to demonstrate that an e-ticket had been purchased.

There has to be a reasonable balance between the rights of the railway and the rights of the passenger, if the passenger is a law-abiding citizen who has purchased an e-ticket but had the mis-fortune to have their phone fail on their way to work one morning, it cannot be right or just for them to face fines or prosecution because their phone broke, the railways must make some reasonable adjustments to their processes to accommodate the issues they themselves created when they introduced intangible e-tickets. Expecting 100% reliability of passenger's phones, on every one of hundreds of millions of journeys each year is simply unrealistic and unreasonable.
That's not to say more can't be done, but the solution is NOT to require ID as suggested in the opening post!
Probably unnecessary because in the vast majority of cases the e-ticket could be linked to the passenger via the purchasing account - either the same individual, spouse, or child. I don't know the detail behind the IT systems used to check e-tickets, but I assume there must be a mechanism to identify whether the e-ticket has been used for travel, in order to prevent the same ticket being copied and used twice. So it must be possible to confirm that an e-ticket had been purchased but not used, demonstrating the passenger's claim to have a valid ticket to be true.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,433
Location
Yorkshire
A printed paper ticket is inherently more reliable than an e-ticket, with no dependency on a battery being charged, the phone working at that instant in time, or reliance on a network connection for tickets saved on a remote server or email account.
I find it the opposite; if I have a paper ticket I need to make sure it's in my wallet before I set off on the trip, and I need to make sure I don't lose it, as it cannot be replaced.

In contrast, I can not only show an e-ticket on my phone, I can also download a copy to any other device I use, send a copy to anyone I am travelling with as a backup and I can print a copy (or more than one if I want!).

I therefore always choose e-tickets when possible, due to the additional redundancy.

Expecting passengers to all print off their e-tickets largely removes the benefit of e-tickets....
No-one is expected to do this, but it is an option.

It's easier for me to print an e-ticket than it is to faff around with a ticket machine at a station, and the benefits of e-tickets are not negated by printing a backup.
going from a small card ticket to an A4 print out increases resources and waste. In practice it isn't reasonable and many won't carry a back-up or paper copy.
There is no need to print it on A4, but even if you printed a ticket on A4, would a standard A4 piece of paper really be more wasteful than a credit card sized ticket (CCST) with magstripe? I don't know the relevant calculations, but if you have information to suggest that it would be, I'd be interested to hear it.

But ultimately it isn't a difficult problem to solve, it just needs some sensible process introducing to handle the situation where a passenger isn't able to display their e-ticket the instant they pass through the barrier, introducing some reasonable mechanism for the passenger to demonstrate that an e-ticket had been purchased.
Does the same logic apply to paper tickets?
There has to be a reasonable balance between the rights of the railway and the rights of the passenger, if the passenger is a law-abiding citizen who has purchased an e-ticket but had the mis-fortune to have their phone fail on their way to work one morning, it cannot be right or just for them to face fines or prosecution because their phone broke...
Should a passenger face fines or prosecution because a paper ticket got lost, stolen or damaged? I don't see how the argument is fundamentally any different (for what it's worth I do not think passengers should be prosecuted or fined in either circumstance)
the railways must make some reasonable adjustments to their processes to accommodate the issues they themselves created when they introduced intangible e-tickets. Expecting 100% reliability of passenger's phones, on every one of hundreds of millions of journeys each year is simply unrealistic and unreasonable.
Is 100% reliability on people remembering to bring their pre-booked tickets with them and avoid having them lost, stolen or damaged achievable?

Anyone who either has access to a printer and/or another device and/or is travelling with another passenger can easily have a backup of their e-ticket, which is a bonus not available to paper ticket holders who have no possibility of a backup.

As I said above, I do think the rail industry should make it easier for e-tickets to be printed from TVMs, but in the absence of that, I still find e-tickets a safer option for me.

Probably unnecessary because in the vast majority of cases the e-ticket could be linked to the passenger via the purchasing account - either the same individual, spouse, or child.
I agree that the proposal in the opening post is not in any way necessary. It is not mandatory (nor should it be), but it is optional, for e-tickets to be linked to the purchasing account, and it is sensible to do this.

I don't know the detail behind the IT systems used to check e-tickets, but I assume there must be a mechanism to identify whether the e-ticket has been used for travel, in order to prevent the same ticket being copied and used twice. So it must be possible to confirm that an e-ticket had been purchased but not used, demonstrating the passenger's claim to have a valid ticket to be true.
The ticket needs to be scanned to verify what scans (if any) have already been made.
 

Mintona

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2006
Messages
3,592
Location
South West
The best fix is to buy a ticket from a friendly TOC employee at the ticket office and board your train with a small piece of card that you can show on request.
 

Ashley Hill

Established Member
Joined
8 Dec 2019
Messages
3,199
Location
The West Country
If you cannot show an e-ticket when asked because your battery is flat then it is no different to losing a physical ticket.

It’s the holders responsibility to maintain their phone to be able show the e-ticket.

If you know your battery or phone is iffy then you buy a physical ticket from either a booking office or a print of your e-ticket just in case. Many print a copy as back up which is a good idea.

The problem is some don’t agree. When challenged and the phone is flat some passengers accept this and pay up.

Some will also argue the toss waving their blank phone at you. At least if they accept a UFN they can at least provide evidence to perhaps nullify it later. Unfortunately scrotes also wave blank phones at you claiming they’re flat without having bought a ticket in the first place.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

stuu

Established Member
Joined
2 Sep 2011
Messages
2,728
If you cannot show an e-ticket when asked because your battery is flat then it is no different to losing a physical ticket.

It’s the holders responsibility to maintain their phone to be able show the e-ticket.

If you know your battery or phone is iffy then you buy a physical ticket from either a booking office or a print of your e-ticket just in case. Many print a copy as back up which is a good idea.

The problem is some don’t agree. When challenged and the phone is flat some passengers accept this and pay up.

Some will also argue the toss waving their blank phone at you. At least if they accept a UFN they can at least provide evidence to perhaps nullify it later. Unfortunately scrotes also wave blank phones at you claiming they’re flat without having bought a ticket in the first place.
I have had an issue with the GWR app where I bought an eticket, which worked fine to open the barriers. When the ticket needed to be checked on the train, the app refused to open, despite the phone having plenty of battery and there being a network signal. Thankfully the train manager said he knows the app is rubbish and gave me the benefit of the doubt... I would have been furious had I got a penalty charge, which seems, by the letter of the bylaws, to be a possible outcome. That can't be right
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,433
Location
Yorkshire
I have had an issue with the GWR app where I bought an eticket, which worked fine to open the barriers. When the ticket needed to be checked on the train, the app refused to open, despite the phone having plenty of battery and there being a network signal. Thankfully the train manager said he knows the app is rubbish and gave me the benefit of the doubt... I would have been furious had I got a penalty charge, which seems, by the letter of the bylaws, to be a possible outcome. That can't be right
If you had been issued an e-ticket, you should also have been sent the PDF; no need to use an app.

You may show an e-ticket as a PDF using any device, or use an app (where applicable) or print it onto paper

Tickets that are restricted to apps are *not* e-tickets.
 

skyhigh

Established Member
Joined
14 Sep 2014
Messages
5,219
An electronic ticket accessible via an app is not an eticket? What are they then?
An electronic ticket that has to be activated and shown via an app is an m-ticket, not an e-ticket.
 

87 027

Member
Joined
1 Sep 2010
Messages
699
Location
London
An electronic ticket accessible via an app is not an eticket? What are they then?
An electronic ticket only accessible via an app is the older m-ticket style. They typically require activation and once this is done have a moving coloured bar across the top and a real time clock display; presumably this is a security feature to prevent them being screenshotted and shared
 

stuu

Established Member
Joined
2 Sep 2011
Messages
2,728
An electronic ticket that has to be activated and shown via an app is an m-ticket, not an e-ticket.
If I book an advance ticket to London via the GWR website, the option for e-ticket delivers a QR code to the app. This doesn't then need to be activated in any way, not like a bus ticket which do have to be activated
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
An electronic ticket only accessible via an app is the older m-ticket style. They typically require activation and once this is done have a moving coloured bar across the top and a real time clock display; presumably this is a security feature to prevent them being screenshotted and shared

Yes, it was an interim thing so a member of staff could verify it by looking at it. The barcode, which leads to a record of usage, now solves that problem. It was innovative for its time (though it was done on buses* first) but it's not needed now.

The mind boggles as to why ScotRail are still pushing this outmoded system.

* Amazingly it was Arriva - it was so far back that the original app ran on featurephones, which took rudimentary Java apps.
 

typefish

Member
Joined
12 Sep 2019
Messages
94
Location
Heaton
How about (and hear me out with this absolutely absurd idea) - launching a prosecution for defamation?

Within the thread that had spurred on this thread, a letter was attached from SWR's prosecutions team which contained the following:

By paying South Western Railway £145.50, made up of £45.50 fare avoided and £100.00 operational and administrative costs

How can a fare that's already been paid be a fare avoided? That specific wording would suggest that the person given the invoice is someone that may be an unsavoury character, and I would be livid if someone attempted to describe me as a fare avoider.

Or, there's another tack - requesting a chargeback of the fare that has supposedly been avoided?
 

Flying Snail

Established Member
Joined
12 Dec 2006
Messages
1,625
How about (and hear me out with this absolutely absurd idea) - launching a prosecution for defamation?

Within the thread that had spurred on this thread, a letter was attached from SWR's prosecutions team which contained the following:



How can a fare that's already been paid be a fare avoided? That specific wording would suggest that the person given the invoice is someone that may be an unsavoury character, and I would be livid if someone attempted to describe me as a fare avoider.

Or, there's another tack - requesting a chargeback of the fare that has supposedly been avoided?

You are correct, it is an absolutely absurd idea. Unless your goal is to transfer a LOT of your money into the pockets of the legal profession in which case a defamation case is an excellent plan.

By definition sending a letter to an individual cannot be a defamation against that individual. To be even considered grounds for defamation a statement must be conveyed to other people. If a person choses to share a private communication themselves then they will essentially have defamed themself.

As was already pointed out in that thread, there is a requirement to not only have bought a valid ticket but also to present it upon request at any point during the journey.
 
Last edited:

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
We looked into having an ability for customers to be able to log into their account at a TVM and very few people were in favour so it was not progressed. I think that opposition would still persist. That's not to say that I entirely disagree with what you suggest.

I think you're drawing wrong conclusions here. There is no reason to oppose such a feature (if you don't want a given feature, you simply don't use it), and so I doubt there was opposition. It's more likely people didn't think it that important.

It's a bit like me saying I oppose the sale of 16-25 Railcard tickets on TVMs. I do not have, and am not entitled to, such a Railcard, and so such a feature is just irrelevant to me. I wouldn't push to have it, but there's no reason I should oppose it either, it's simply irrelevant and so I don't select it.

If you asked this question, on the other hand, I think the clear justification would come up:

"If you had misplaced or forgotten your ticket, or if your phone battery had run out, and you noticed at the station, would you prefer...

a. To have to purchase a new ticket at your own cost
b. To be able to log into your LNER account at a ticket machine and reprint your ticket for free"


I suspect you're not going to get a single answer of (a).

Or try this one:

"If you had misplaced or forgotten your ticket, or if your phone battery had run out, and you discovered this when your ticket was being inspected, would you prefer...

a. To be prosecuted under the Regulation of Railways Act, including a criminal record and a three figure fine
b. To be able to log into your LNER account at a ticket machine and reprint your ticket for free"


Anyone answering (a) is lying.

Clearly most people don't think they will need such a feature, but when they need it they will REALLY need it. Thus, it is a beneficial feature.

What you do need to avoid is anyone being REQUIRED to log in to use a TVM. Some may fear that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top