Fare Dodgers!

[All Line Rover]

Firstly, my post above explains that I have walked past ticket offices a few times in the past, however, I do now see it as 'evasion'. You are deliberately ignoring a final chance to pay for your services rendered i.e. your journey.

If a hotel gave you the chance pre-pay your room bill, and you turned it down they would expect you to pay later. If you didn't pay your room bill at check-out, and just left, you would be stealing. It's a completely stupid analogy, but it may just highlight a moral and perhaps legal point.

But if the ticket inspector doesn't come round, you haven't "turned down" paying. You just weren't given the opportunity to do so! I'm not suggesting that travelling and hoping that you won't pay is acceptable, as you now have a clear intent to avoid paying. I'm coming at it from a theoretical point of view, even though it does happen in many cases!

 

[allticketspls]

To try and give an idea of the mentality of most "fare evaders/honest mistake makers".

I used to work at a station that provided both through and terminating trains from London. The station involved was a PF station and as such had a full barrier line.

The most common excuse I used to hear was "Sorry mate, I left my ticket on the train". This was all well and good for the through trains, but the majority of people who used this excuse were from Terminating Services.

My approach was to send the passenger back to the train and tell them to find their ticket. Surprise surprise, only ever had 2 people who found their tickets.

The biggest problem is that on certain lines there are NO revenue checks/blocks except at the ends of the line or at major stations. An example of this I can relate is that of NXEA services from Liverpool Street to Hertford East.

I have travelled on these services hundreds of times via both Tottenham Hale and Seven Sisters and have been checked at manual barriers at Tottenham several times. Seven Sisters however is a different story, I can honestly say that I have NEVER been checked either on the train or at the station.

Regular travellers on the Southbury Loop have become accustomed to not being checked and there are a LOT of people who travel to all stations up to Bethnal Green knowing that they will not be checked. I hate to think how much revenue is lost on these services and hopefully the new Franchisee will finally do something about it.

 

[WestCoast]

But if the ticket inspector doesn't come round, you haven't "turned down" paying. You just weren't given the opportunity to do so! I'm not suggesting that travelling and hoping that you won't pay is acceptable, as you now have a clear intent to avoid paying. I'm coming at it from a theoretical point of view, even though it does happen in many cases!

Well, certain TOCs in the past have actually said that you must seek the guard if he/she does not approach you. There was a debate about that topic on RailUK.

At the origin station you HAVE turned down paying ("pre-paying") - so you've broken a rule than SOME TOCs have. When, you arrive at your destination station, you've not left railway property, you are still under the bylaw that you should have a valid ticket for the journey you have made. Remember that the onus is still on you, not the TOC, to have a ticket. Your journey and therefore ticketing responsibilities don't end when you step off the train, they end when you leave the premises of the destination station. If an RPI watched you get off that train and walk past an open office, tough luck! Whether that is 'fair' or not is completely irrelevant - that is the rules!

I think that fact that prosecutions have been made does say something.

 

[yorkie]

Well, certain TOCs in the past have actually said that you must seek the guard if he/she does not approach you. There was a debate about that topic on RailUK.

Yes, and we concluded no such obligation exists to seek the guard.

However there are times when it can be beneficial to do so, also there are times when it could be seen as queue jumping on certain lines with many unstaffed stations.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Sorry, I should of made it clearer - I mean when it is explicit that you should buy before boarding. With services such as Grand Central and Gatwick and Heathrow Express that welcome onboard purchasing - absolutely fine! I traveled York - Thirsk ticketless with Grand Central but this is permitted, incidentally the guard did not come around and when I got to Thirsk the ticket office was closed, so there's some lost revenue.....

Yes; that's fine. GC do not operate a PF scheme, York is not a PF station, those trains are not PF trains, they permit purchasing on board (in fact they go beyond that and want you to purchase on board so will even sell discounted fares on board).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But if the ticket inspector doesn't come round, you haven't "turned down" paying.....

You missed off the crucial word "....yet"

What matters is what then happens when you exit the station. If you do so while passing an open ticket office, and you encounter an RPI, you could be prosecuted. We have had people report that has happened to them on here.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I have travelled on these services hundreds of times via both Tottenham Hale and Seven Sisters and have been checked at manual barriers at Tottenham several times. Seven Sisters however is a different story, I can honestly say that I have NEVER been checked either on the train or at the station.

Regular travellers on the Southbury Loop have become accustomed to not being checked and there are a LOT of people who travel to all stations up to Bethnal Green knowing that they will not be checked. I hate to think how much revenue is lost on these services and hopefully the new Franchisee will finally do something about it.

That just does not happen up here. We don't have DOO, we have guards constantly going up and down trains.

Travelling on the likes of NXEA and comparing that to Northern, is like entering a different world!

Although technically DOO itself doesn't necessarily mean no-one selling tickets, in reality it tends to be used as that, and that's wrong. An exception to that is in the Glasgow area (whatever it's called these days, apparently not Strathclyde any more, but I tend to call it that anyway!) where they are driver only operated but a ticket examiner constantly roams the trains checking and selling tickets. They could do with more people checking on some busy services I admit, but generally it works well.

 

[junglejames]

I start this thread mainly because the one I wanted to reply to has been closed, probably because the issue had been settled and any further replies would have been useless (Although still frustrating to see, when you try replying only to find it closed for posting!). I was intrigued to see that the last post made comment that fare evaders were the people that jamp barriers and "leg it" past RPIs, and not those who have money and are willing to buy a ticket when challenged. Now the person that said this is clearly not rom a Revenue Protection background, and is indeed a tad naive. I have seen all manner of people deliberately evade their fares, some of whom are middle aged men and women with very good jobs etc. Some will pay a Penalty Fare once every couple of months because it's cheaper than buying a ticket when you establish how often they are caught! (although it's nice to take details from them even if they pay on the spot, it's not always feasable making them invisible to the system).

My point is, that it's not always the stereotypes that evade their fares, and often requires a little bit of thinking outside the box. At the end of the day, if somebody hasn't got a ticket and walks past the last point at which they could have bought one, it's not going to take Sherlock Holmes to be able to establish their intentions, is it? It's a bit different if somebody has lost their ticket and doesn't actually know it until stopped by staff on exiting, but with people that haven't purchased a ticket in the first place it's a lot different. Unfortunately you have to have a suspicious and somewhat inquisitive mind to work in this sort of role, and assuming someone has a ticket because of their appearance can be the wrong way to think about it, and assuming fare evaders are all the types to leg if from staff when quizzed, hurdle ticket barriers or tailgate is wrong in my opinion.

Any opinions?

What i was attempting to get at, is that these people who are challenged by RPIs could have missed the ticket operative, or may have briefly forgotten. If this is the case, it is unfair to try and prosecute. I realise some people may be trying it on, but you cannot be sure this is the case, so you cannot prosecute in the hope that it is.
Of course, you could wait until they are on the verge of walking outside, then the RPIs have an excuse. But not when they have only just walked past the ticket desk.

Yes i also said the RPIs main job should be to ensure fares are paid, and not to try and get prosecutions. I stand by that, and wont change my mind on it. Prosecutions should be a last resort, like what i described. No money, jumping gates etc etc. If however you constantly catch one person always trying to leave the station without a ticket, and can positively identify them, then fine, prosecution is probably a good idea. But apart from these instances, I do believe the RPI should just be there to ensure the person goes to buy a ticket.
But hey, thats my belief. You wont change it either.

Yes, ive had rules and old cases thrown at me. But I stand by my belief that RPIs can be sensible, and dont need to throw the book at someone for walking 2 feet past a ticket desk.
Sorry if you dont agree with me. But hey, wouldnt life be boring if we all shared the same views.

Oh, and i realise the OP in the original post may have been exagerating the truth a bit, but im just going by if it were true. I was giving how i believe it should be.

Oh, and i will add. If you travel with a company, where you are meant to buy before you board, and you have walked past an open ticket office at your departure station, then all that i have said doesnt count. Its your own fault. Im only getting at situations where you are allowed to buy onboard, or where the ticket office was closed at the departure station.

 

[12CSVT]

What matters is what then happens when you exit the station. If you do so while passing an open ticket office, and you encounter an RPI, you could be prosecuted. We have had people report that has happened to them on here.

What is the situation, for example, at York or Sheffield both of which have public exits which don't have ticket offices, and furthermore anybody using those exits may not even be aware that a ticket office actually exists.

 

[bb21]

Now without much intention to complicate matters even further, what happens if the destination ticket office has a massive queue and you have a short connection into some other forms of transport? If you need to catch a bus in, say, 10 minutes from the bus stop just outside the station and if you miss that one, the next one is not due for another two hours, are you obliged to wait and pay your fare, thereby risk a two-hour delay to your journey? If that's the case, would the TOC refund your fares as you would then be 120 minutes late?

 

[jon0844]

I really find this "holier than thou" attitude impossible to believe - does everyone here (except first_class, whom I surmise does live in the real world, unlike others) really go to the destination ticket office (bible and common prayer book in hand, no doubt) when this happens? I think not.

I'm not religious, but when I can't get a ticket extension from my origin station and the staff let me through the gateline at the destination because they don't think it's worth the fuss for £1.60, or the gates are simply open, I buy a ticket to the station I needed the extension from (it's the same cost) from the TVM upstairs and then just keep it, or even tear it up and throw it away.

I do it because it's the right thing to do, even though people might think I'm mad.

 

[WestCoast]

What is the situation, for example, at York or Sheffield both of which have public exits which don't have ticket offices, and furthermore anybody using those exits may not even be aware that a ticket office actually exists.

There are signs leading to the ticket office though, so with common sense the passenger should follow those and purchase a ticket. What happens in reality is likely to be different, whether deliberate or not.

If that's the case, would the TOC refund your fares as you would then be 120 minutes late?

The UK has no integration on that level, a bus is onward transport and is nothing to do with the TOC, even if it's a PlusBus ticket. If you were supposed to "buy before you board" on that particular service, I can't imagine a TOC being sympathetic in the slightest.

 

[networkrail1]

I'm not religious, but when I can't get a ticket extension from my origin station and the staff let me through the gateline at the destination because they don't think it's worth the fuss for £1.60, or the gates are simply open, I buy a ticket to the station I needed the extension from (it's the same cost) from the TVM upstairs and then just keep it, or even tear it up and throw it away.

I do it because it's the right thing to do, even though people might think I'm mad.

Your not mad at all mate.

I always buy a ticket to travel (normally always a off peak return) to where I'm going, but because most of the time I'm in my Network Rail gear many guards just say "yeah its OK mate don't worry" (i don't have to show my ticket).

So i have just spent £50 odd on a ticket to get me from A to B then back to A only not to have my ticket checked once, but once i get home i am happy in the knowledge that.

A) I paid for my fare to travel.
B) If i was asked i could show a valid ticket.

As a colleague once said to me "i may be rail staff but i pay my way just like any one else" and i have stood by that statement ever since.

All the best.

Simon

P.S. Network rail employees don't get free travel anyway but even if we did i would still pay.

 

[34D]

I'm not religious, but when I can't get a ticket extension from my origin station and the staff let me through the gateline at the destination because they don't think it's worth the fuss for £1.60, or the gates are simply open, I buy a ticket to the station I needed the extension from (it's the same cost) from the TVM upstairs and then just keep it, or even tear it up and throw it away.

I do it because it's the right thing to do, even though people might think I'm mad.

Yes you are mad. You and network rail obviously have money to burn. Now, everytime you log onto this forum you need to pay me £20.


--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But if the ticket inspector doesn't come round, you haven't "turned down" paying. You just weren't given the opportunity to do so! I'm not suggesting that travelling and hoping that you won't pay is acceptable, as you now have a clear intent to avoid paying. I'm coming at it from a theoretical point of view, even though it does happen in many cases!

Quite. However, you can travel hoping that the inspector doesn't come round, this doesn't mean that you want to _avoid_ paying, as you will willingly pay when asked. Seems a sensible strategy to me.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Yes you are mad. You and network rail obviously have money to burn. Now, everytime you log onto this forum you need to pay me £20.

Why? He's following the rules, and doing the moral thing. Unlike some passengers evidently.

Quite. However, you can travel hoping that the inspector doesn't come round, this doesn't mean that you want to _avoid_ paying, as you will willingly pay when asked. Seems a sensible strategy to me.

Byelaw 18(1) (IIRC) springs to mind. It depends whether the operator allows to to pay on the train. If they do fine, if they don't then you're in trouble (usual exceptions apply).

 

[Smudger105e]

A few years ago I was travelling on an early-ish (pre 09:00 departure) service from St Pancras to Nottingham. The Guard/RPI (a turban wearing Seikh) was checking tickets and he got to a man two bays after me, and he told him that his ticket was not valid for travel on this service as it is an off-peak ticket. The man went mad (verbally) swearing at the RPI, racially abusing him, and telling him he had paid £29 for his ticket. The RPI replied that he agreed he had paid £29, but others on the train had paid £65. After probably a couple of minutes of this abuse, the RPI left the coach. First stop Luton where the BTP boarded and took the offending passenger away.

When the train restarted, the RPI resumed his duties, and further along the same coach, came to another passenger travelling on an off-peak ticket. When the RPI told the passenger, he replied, "oh, sorry, they told me at Brighton that this ticket was valid. Sorry about that, how much extra have I got to pay?", and he reached into his pocket for his wallt. The RPI said, thank you Sir, don't worry about it, but remeber next time, have a nice day".

This was some time ago (as you can tell by the fares) so I don't assume the RPI would deal with it the same today.

 

[gedj2]

Morning All,

at the risk of asking a silly question, what is a PF station?

 

[1V53]

Morning All,

at the risk of asking a silly question, what is a PF station?

Penalty Fare

 

[gedj2]

Thanks for that 1V53,

another silly question if I may, is a penalty fare were you have not got a valid ticket for travel and at the barriers the RPI would charge a certain set fare regardless of how far you have travelled and whether of not you made effort to pay for you're journey?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

If the ticket inspector doesn't come round to sell you a ticket, that problem lies with the TOC, not the individual. Although it isn't right in principal, I don't see how these people are doing anything illegal.

Maybe you don't, but there are RPIs gathering evidence in exactly this way day in and day out, which leads to successful prosecutions.
(So please take care to distinguish your opinions that you WISH were true from those that have their basis in what IS true).

. . . . . it is unfair to try and prosecute. I realise some people may be trying it on, but you cannot be sure this is the case, so you cannot prosecute in the hope that it is.

"Cannot"? But they do. Regularly. Passengers are prosecuted. And the TOCs succeed.

But hey, thats my belief. You wont change it either.

Yes, ive had rules and old cases thrown at me. But I stand by my belief that RPIs can be sensible, and dont need to throw the book at someone for walking 2 feet past a ticket desk.

Fine. as long as we distinguish your beliefs from the law (these 'old cases' ARE the law), then no one on here will be misled in to risking prosecution having followed your advice.

Sorry if you dont agree with me. But hey, wouldnt life be boring if we all shared the same views.

No need to apologise -different views are excellent. But incorrect advice is unwise - even dangerous when it leaves someone with a Criminal Record, which is exactly what happens with a S.5 offence.

 

[WestCoast]

Quite. However, you can travel hoping that the inspector doesn't come round, this doesn't mean that you want to _avoid_ paying, as you will willingly pay when asked. Seems a sensible strategy to me.

"If you travel hoping that the inspector (guard) doesn't come round" means you do deliberately want to avoid paying for your journey. However, if you actively want to pay on the train, and the TOC allows it then is not evasion in my eyes. No-one can tell the difference between the two - but there is still a crucial difference from a moral point-of-view.

As someone who always tries to pay the correct fare, I cannot be supporting in any way of those who don't pay, as those who don't indirectly push the fares up for the rest of us.

Another silly analogy: you walk into a small corner shop, you pick up some items, but there is no one at the till and no one around. You wait for a couple of minutes but no one comes! Do you just walk out the shop without paying taking your items with you?

 

[Mojo]

Thanks for that 1V53,

another silly question if I may, is a penalty fare were you have not got a valid ticket for travel and at the barriers the RPI would charge a certain set fare regardless of how far you have travelled and whether of not you made effort to pay for you're journey?

Except for LOROL and London Underground, the penalty fare is £20 or twice the full single fare, which ever is the higher. In order to be liable for a penalty fare your origin and destination must be within the same penalty fares zone, and you must have travelled on a penalty fares train. You are only liable to a penalty fare if there was an opportunity to pay at your origin station (ie. a ticket office, ticket machine or PERTIS), so if you boarded at an unstaffed station with no ticket machine or PERTIS, and there was no time to buy a ticket at an earlier opportunity (ie. when changing trains, if appropriate), then you will only have to pay the appropriate fare for your journey.

You can be made to pay a penalty fare by an authorised collector, who must produce, on request, ID which shows that they are an authorised collector. You can be charged a penalty fare on trains, or at stations.

Within a penalty fares area, the Toc may designate a number of stations as a compulsory ticket area, although these are not as common as you may think. A person passing the point at which the compulsory ticket area starts is liable for a £20 penalty fare even if they do not board a train.

 

[radamfi]

Aside from all the moral arguments, it should be borne in mind that by far the overriding reason for trains is to cut car traffic. Do the current fares system and current method of revenue protection aid or hinder that goal?

 

[gedj2]

Thanks for that Mojo,

get it know (just about ) One more question if I may, what is PERTIS

 

[radamfi]

PERTIS is the Permit to Travel Issuing System.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permit_to_travel

Not too many of those machines left these days, in the South East anyway.

 

[Ticket Man]

Aside from all the moral arguments, it should be borne in mind that by far the overriding reason for trains is to cut car traffic. Do the current fares system and current method of revenue protection aid or hinder that goal?

Well its been long discussed before that the "simplification" of the ticket system was more a reshuffle and even though I speak from the dark side of the fence, revenue protection is patchy at best. Whilst I would not go as far as to say it hinders the industry, I can think you far better ways to protect the railways income.

Sadly most good idea's fall to the wayside due to funding issue's but then again we do live in the real world here.

 

[yorkie]

"If you travel hoping that the inspector (guard) doesn't come round" means you do deliberately want to avoid paying for your journey. However, if you actively want to pay on the train, and the TOC allows it then is not evasion in my eyes. No-one can tell the difference between the two - but there is still a crucial difference from a moral point-of-view.

But it's getting silly now. You can't mind-read, and I don't ever want us to go down the road of trying to mind-read! If someone is, say, on a GC train NTR-THI (approx 8 mins) hoping the guard won't come round, they may be having thoughts that the thought police do not like but they are no more a 'fare evader' than someone who hopes it does not rain is a 'rain evader'. Providing they are willing to pay when asked, they do no wrong if the guard does not get to them by just having a thought that they hope the guard doesn't get to them. As I said before, they would only become an [alleged!] 'fare evader' if they attempt to exit the station passing an opportunity to pay and decline to do so.

Another example is that we got a free bus ride from Kyle to Armadale, I didn't 'hope' the machine was not working as it did not occur to me. But I would be pretty shocked if the driver said 'I think I can read your mind and you hoped the machine would be broken, therefore you are a fare evader'

I think you just have to accept that there is nothing wrong with buying on board - PROVIDING the TOC allows it, of course - and that the alleged crime will be committed if and when the passenger then fails to pay at the exit.

As someone who always tries to pay the correct fare, I cannot be supporting in any way of those who don't pay, as those who don't indirectly push the fares up for the rest of us.

Another silly analogy: you walk into a small corner shop, you pick up some items, but there is no one at the till and no one around. You wait for a couple of minutes but no one comes! Do you just walk out the shop without paying taking your items with you?

You have the option to take them back. There would be better analogies but I don't see the point...

Aside from all the moral arguments, it should be borne in mind that by far the overriding reason for trains is to cut car traffic. Do the current fares system and current method of revenue protection aid or hinder that goal?

GIve me a particlar flow, or route or perhaps even a TOC and I'll give you an answer. How specific the question is will determine how specific my answer can be. But the question is too broad: there are some amazing deals out there that really encourage rail travel. But there are some appauling prices that really put people off. So perhaps a simple answer could be 'it depends'!

 

[WestCoast]

I think you just have to accept that there is nothing wrong with buying on board - PROVIDING the TOC allows it, of course - and that the alleged crime will be committed if and when the passenger then fails to pay at the exit.
Quote:

If the TOC allows it, fine. But I'm willing to say that a fair majority of people would not pay at their destination and revenue is then lost, and that is where the 'crimes' are committed.

And the definition of "allow" in this context is debatable. Northern Rail have posters at Salford Crescent saying "STOP! TICKET INSPECTIONS! It is a legal requirement to purchase your ticket before boarding the train" and yet they are supposed to allow the full anytime single/return to be purchased onboard.

Providing they are willing to pay when asked, they do no wrong if the guard does not get to them by just having a thought that they hope the guard doesn't get to them

Legally, they haven't done anything wrong at all. But hoping that the guard doesn't come sounds like a fare evader's mentality - are these people likely to pay at the destination if they can get away with it? I'd say no

 

[yorkie]

Quite. However, you can travel hoping that the inspector doesn't come round, this doesn't mean that you want to _avoid_ paying, as you will willingly pay when asked. Seems a sensible strategy to me.

I think you have to be *very* careful how you word this, especially calling it a 'strategy', as it could indicate that you intend to avoid paying at your destination. I would also suggest, although IANAL, that if someone was suspected of carrying out such a 'strategy' (interesting use of that term; it could set alarm bells ringing!) and was found to openly admit to it on an internet forum, then there is no need to prove what the person was *thinking* as they would admit to it in writing. Whether it would be acceptable as evidence in court, I do not know, and it would depend on what the person said. But if soneone said what you have just said and applied that to a specific journey they did regularly, and called it a 'strategy' I would expect alarm bells to ring and would not be at all surprised if undercover RPIs were observing the customer at their destination.

The problem is that you have someone suggesting people who buy on board are doing something wrong (when they are not - providing the TOC allows it, of course) so of course people reply disagreeing, but you have to be careful in doing so not to suggest that it is acceptable to not pay at the destination, and if people think we are making it up that people can be prosecuted for not paying at their destination they only have to look at one or two old threads on this very forum to see that people have been prosecuted for this.

A few years ago I was travelling on an early-ish (pre 09:00 departure) service from St Pancras to Nottingham. The Guard/RPI (a turban wearing Seikh) was checking tickets and he got to a man two bays after me, and he told him that his ticket was not valid for travel on this service as it is an off-peak ticket. The man went mad (verbally) swearing at the RPI, racially abusing him, and telling him he had paid £29 for his ticket. The RPI replied that he agreed he had paid £29, but others on the train had paid £65. After probably a couple of minutes of this abuse, the RPI left the coach. First stop Luton where the BTP boarded and took the offending passenger away.

When the train restarted, the RPI resumed his duties, and further along the same coach, came to another passenger travelling on an off-peak ticket. When the RPI told the passenger, he replied, "oh, sorry, they told me at Brighton that this ticket was valid. Sorry about that, how much extra have I got to pay?", and he reached into his pocket for his wallt. The RPI said, thank you Sir, don't worry about it, but remeber next time, have a nice day".

This was some time ago (as you can tell by the fares) so I don't assume the RPI would deal with it the same today.

I hope the abusive passengers were charged with making racist & abusive language (sorry not sure what the exact charge is called), that is unacceptable. It is nice that when passengers are apologetic and seem genuine they are shown discretion, I have no problem with that and would fully support the guard. If someone starts being abusive when asked for an excess fare (which would have probably been 36 pounds in this example) then they deserve the book thrown at them.

However I am concerned that, on some occasions, passengers are travelling on tickets that are valid and a false allegation is mnade that their ticket is invalid (the guard should check!) and in some cases passengers are declined an excess (when entitled to) and charged a new ticket. In such cases I would say the guard is inciting people into reacting. While I will of course absolutely not condone people being abusive in response, I have been made aware of incidents where a barrier person refused travel when the ticket was valid and the exchange slowly got more heated until the barrier staff member swore at the customer. Foolishly the customer swore back so could then not complain (as the barrier person would have said 'he swore' and denied swearing and, lets face it, BTP will believe them!)

Of course the vast majority of customers, and the vast majority of guards, are reasonable people.

I type this on a rather full (but enough seats - just!) TPE train where everyone has had their ticket checked, there are no staff making false accusations, there are no passengers up to no good, and the guard is regularly going up and down the train. A nice, relaxing journey. And that's how it always should be. Take on-board staff away and you invite trouble (I do not condone it, but TOCs that do that do invite it)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Legally, they haven't done anything wrong at all. But hoping that the guard doesn't come sounds like a fare evader's mentality - are these people likely to pay at the destination if they can get away with it? I'd say no

Yes, I know what you are saying, but you can't accuse people of having bad thoughts, and while you can if you like predict that someone will commit a crime, that is a thought you really should keep to yourself (In the same way that if they are having the thought that they hope the guards machine is broken and that they hope the ticket office is shut should be kept to themselves!!)

 

[jon0844]

I do hear people at work moaning about the very things discussed on here, including those who have been hit with penalties/new tickets for travelling on the wrong train (advance ticket), someone who had let their YPRC expire but still bought a discounted ticket and people who have been told off or penalised for sitting/standing in first class.

The fact is that a lot of people do get caught out simply because they make assumptions that they'd never make if they were flying somewhere or turning up to a venue (e.g. theater) for the wrong performance, the wrong seats etc.. but is that the fault of the railway?

For most of the time, the railway is pretty open and flexible - so people don't perceive it in the same way as they would when you have a boarding card for a set flight, and are subject to many checks, or going to a venue for an event (or indeed going on Eurostar). I am not sure they ever will, unless we have every single station gated and every single train with guards/revenue officers onboard.

You can then imagine the outrage at how tickets are checked so often, but it would stop people being able to commit many offences in the first place.

 

[WestCoast]

I type this on a rather full (but enough seats - just!) TPE train where everyone has had their ticket checked, there are no staff making false accusations, there are no passengers up to no good, and the guard is regularly going up and down the train. A nice, relaxing journey. And that's how it always should be. Take on-board staff away and you invite trouble (I do not condone it, but TOCs that do that do invite it)

And that's the theory and it's great when it works. I was sat on a packed Northern Pacer yesterday out of Preston in the front carriage and a group behind me were looking over their shoulders for the guard to avoid paying the one stop to Kirkham - they hadn't paid their outbound fare either. He was too busy selling dozens of tickets for the same journey in the rear carriage! Preston has a large ticket offices with a number of TVMs.

It's something I see quite regularly on the route. So, the system is somewhat to blame as well as the passengers. Certain routes will attract considerably more "chancers" than others, of course.

But of course, penalty fare zones are a different world entirely!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The problem is that you have someone suggesting people who buy on board are doing something wrong (when they are not - providing the TOC allows it, of course) so of course people reply disagreeing,

I am guessing that someone is me. They aren't doing something wrong per se. However, I don't understand how some TOCs (see above) can put up posters and then warmly welcome onboard payments. I always saw it that the anytime fare was something of a "large surcharge" (or even a "punishment"), not in a strict legal sense though, for not using the facilities at the station if available and fully functional. Why go to the trouble of providing a ticket office / machine at all? Operate like the Nottingham tram on shorter distances and just have conductors taking payments without penalty...

 

[cuccir]

I am guessing that someone is me. Well, I don't understand how some TOCs (see above) can put up posters and then warmly welcome onboard payments. I always saw it that the anytime fare was something of a "large surcharge" (or even a "punishment"), not in a strict legal sense though, for not using the facilities at the station (if available). Why go to the trouble of providing a ticket office / machine at all? Operate like the Nottingham tram on shorter distances and just have conductors taking payments without penalty...

I think the case you cite, it's the poster that is misleading. Certainly in my experience Northern tend to be more comfortable to sell on board than others. I often see them selling tickets on board from Newcastle along the Tyne valley line towards Carlisle. Have never seen a guard ask how exactly the pax got through the barriers at Newcastle...

As for the surcharge - on a lot of local journeys, there is not so much difference. Outside if penalty fare areas, there is nothing wrong with getting on the train to pay on board. This is clear and should remain so. The issue, as this thread shows, us that its impossible to tell the difference between those who just want to pay on board or at destinations if not otherwise stopped, or those who are hoping to be overlooked whilst travelling.

On a related note - before using these forums, it would never had occurred to me that if I had boarded at an unmanned station and not been seen by a guard, that I would have to pay at the destination. I think a few more posters at stations (particularly those surrounded by unstaffed stations) advising that this is expected might get more people paying.

 

[Jonny]

It continually almost amazes me how many people equate fare evasion with theft. At worst it is fraud, which is legally equivalent to theft but completely different. Theft in English law basically means taking something tangible that isn't yours (including physical goods etc. and under some circumstances money in the bank). Basically, theft is the wrongful seizure of an asset. For shoplifting, if some item is stolen then there is both an opportunity loss (a physical good) and an actual loss (an asset) to the shop.

Fare-dodging, OTOH, is a little different. Firstly, the vast majority of a TOC's costs are fixed once they commit to running a train and the on-the-day effect of a single passenger on costs is minimal. Also, historic sales play a large part anyway and therefore services are generally run for the benefit of paying passengers. The role of sales statistics in planning is one good reason to pay your fare - otherwise your train might get cancelled as in removed from the timetable! However, the same opportunity loss occurs either if someone dodges the fare or never travels (therefore never incurring the liability). So, fare-dodging isn't quite as bad as theft (but it still isn't entirely justified by any means).

In fact, the only comparable offences to fare-dodging are, well, "dodging" things (taxes, TV licence, motor vehicle things and (thankfully not at present) the draft). This is, of course assuming that the dodger isn't up to anything else...