Future of Ticket Office Consultations launched

[43066]

Now let's replace 'non online travel agents' with 'non online rail ticket sellers'.......

But you’re the one claiming that travel agents at different locations selling tickets is somehow a benefit, yet ticket offices at stations aren’t…

 

[A0wen]

How do travel agents who have existing offices on certain stations (e.g. Chester-le-Street and Ledbury) get on with rail ticket sales? It must be worth their while, otherwise they wouldn't be selling them.

Chester Le Track (the one at Chester Le Street) closed back in 2018..... https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/chester-le-track-to-cease-trading.160928/

In fact to quote from Post #1 on that thread

Falling revenue and the increased use of internet sales on portable devices and mobile phones has made the business unprofitable because we only survive from the sale of tickets at the stations and on our phone lines. When we opened in 1999, 90% of customers making journeys originating from Chester le Street bought their tickets at the station. Although passenger numbers have risen greatly, the proportion purchasing at the station has fallen to 20-30%.

 

[yorkie]

But those are the exception.

There are a lot of 'exceptions'!

The majority of DOO services operating have no onboard staff whatsoever.

Yes it likely is the majority but there a lot that do; similarly there are a lot of trains with Guards where you won't see a ticket check for a variety of reasons, as mentioned earlier.

My point remains that the operation of the train is not what is relevant here; I trust you are not disagreeing with that.

The Southeastern staff (excluding high speed) will all be guards.

Southeastern does have OBMs: https://jobs.southeasternrailway.co.uk/jobs/job/On-Board-Manager-Ramsgate/43 and the train is operated by the driver; they are safety critical trained https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/guards-or-conductors.126687/page-2 however none of this minutiae is relevant; my point stands as above (feel free to create a new thread if there is a separate issue you wish to discuss further).

As I said earlier, if there are no issuing facilities at the origin, or if the facilities will not issue the required fare, the passenger is entitled to board the train. The passenger may or may not see on board staff, who may or may not be able to issue tickets; if they can issue tickets the passenger cannot be penalised for buying on board, while if there are no staff on board who are able to issue tickets, or if they do not reach the passenger, then the passenger is entitled to pay at the next opportunity, if there is one.

If no opportunity exists at the origin, on board, or at the destination (and also at interchanges where relevant and only if time permits) then yes it is a free journey but that is not the customers' fault or liability.

Determining whether or not there will, may or won't be staff on board - or in the relevant portion of - the train is not something that can be determined by any simplstic factor, such as the method of operation of the train.

 

[A0wen]

But you’re the one claiming that travel agents at different locations selling tickets is somehow a benefit, yet ticket offices at stations aren’t…

I'm making the point that *IF* a face to face channel has to be retained, then it makes sense to look at synergies. If you take bank branch closures as an example, most basic banking services such as paying in, withdrawals or balance checking can be done at a Post Office - it's not the only service the Post Office offers, but the number requiring the service face to face is sufficiently small that the Post Office can offer it for all the major banks in a single location.

So on that basis - ticket offices which only sell train tickets are not a particularly efficient way to service the demand for face to face ticket sales, whereas a Travel Agents on the high street who are also selling holidays, coach tours and various other travel related service can absorb this demand.

 

[yorkie]

How do travel agents who have existing offices on certain stations (e.g. Chester-le-Street and Ledbury) get on with rail ticket sales? It must be worth their while, otherwise they wouldn't be selling them.

That's the thing, it's no longer worth their while, hence the closure of Chester-le-Track. But could they really beat what the forum's site does?

Signed the petition at Sheffield this morning, and quite a few people after me signed it.

Given my experiences at Sheffield ticket office (admittely not recently) and the experiences of many other people I know, I would be surprised if a high proportion of customers sign it.

I know many people who have been refused the sale of valid tickets from that ticket office; most people I know who used that ticket office no longer need to visit it, due to the vast majority of fares being available online these days. Over the years several of the staff at that ticket office seemed to act in a manner that was designed to deter the use of ticket offices, so it can hardly be surprising that passengerts have obliged and ceased inconveniencing the staff by attempting to buy a ticket from them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No benefit whatsoever. Who the hell uses non online travel agents these days!? If I want to buy a train ticket I’ll do it either online or at a station (which I have to visit anyway to make a train journey).

We're talking about making low or zero cost provision (to the railway) for people who want personal service. I have never used an in person travel agent, but people clearly do or they'd not exist. Platforms like Evolvi (which we use ourselves at work, but is clearly designed for professional use as it's quite complex) already exist for it, and hardware wise you just need a computer and a printer.

That's the thing, it's no longer worth their while, hence the closure of Chester-le-Track. But could they really beat what the forum's site does?

Chester le Squat (given their domain squatting business) weren't a general travel agent, though, and thus had few other income streams? Of course the forum site or Trainsplit would do it better, but this is aimed at people who don't want to use that.

Given my experiences at Sheffield ticket office (admittely not recently) and the experiences of many other people I know, I would be surprised if a high proportion of customers sign it.

I am a bit torn. I want to see modernisation, but what is proposed is an absolute mess. Aughton Park with a booking office but London Euston not? It is absolute nuts.

 

[D6130]

Chester Le Track (the one at Chester Le Street) closed back in 2018.

That's a pity....purely from a passenger point of view and disregarding any alleged dodgy dealings with domains. However it looks as though the privately-run ticket office at Ledbury is still trading. Wouldn't it be ironic if Ledbury still had a ticket office after the likes of Birmingham New Street, Manchester Piccadilly and Glasgow Central had lost theirs? In the case of Glasgow Central, presumably the much smaller ScotRail ticket office will remain open and is able to sell the full range of National Rail tickets.

 

[cuccir]

The LNER app would also give you this option. Whole transaction shouldn't take more than 30 seconds on the app.

You're right; it's there now but I could have sworn at the time that when I checked this, it wasn't showing Anytime options for the later Off-Peak service.

Of course, really it should be able to sell me a ticket for the train that I wanted to use without me having to 'trick' the system by selecting a later one.

 

[A0wen]

I am a bit torn. I want to see modernisation, but what is proposed is an absolute mess. Aughton Park with a booking office but London Euston not? It is absolute nuts.

Nice bit of false equivalence there though - the way you're framing it is there will be nobody to help you buy a ticket at Euston, whereas there will at Aughton Park - which isn't the case.

Avanti's own consultation document states there will be support available 0600 - 2200 6 days a week and 0700 - 2200 on Sunday, plus the station will be staffed 20+ hours a day - the only 'unstaffed' times are pretty limited.

Consultation on the future of ticket retailing

www.avantiwestcoast.co.uk

The issue with Merseyrail is a local issue - they're grandstanding by saying 'oh we won't close any ticket offices' - and no doubt Burnham will be trying something similar in Greater Manchester - the problem with both their positions is TFL have already closed all the ticket offices on the Underground - and the Merseyrail network serves much the same purpose that the Underground does. As ever, Merseyside is simply being a few decades behind the rest of the country.

 

[12LDA28C]

Sorry, no, it shouldn't, if those customers are preferring something which generates a substantial loss by its presence.

You wouldn't run a business that way, and we don't live in a high-taxation society where you can justify that sort of flagrancy.

Yes, the very big stations should keep their ticket offices (and expand what they can do!) but most ticket offices are not worth the expense with the value they give.

Please point me towards evidence that operating ticket offices 'generates a substantial loss'. There are (currently) no proposals for redundancies so the cost saving by closing offices is minimal.

The railway should provide the opportunity for people to buy tickets online if they want to. They've done that. That does not mean that they shouldn't retain the option for people to buy tickets at a ticket office, if they prefer. The two methods of purchase are not mutually exclusive.

 

[A0wen]

That's a pity....purely from a passenger point of view and disregarding any alleged dodgy dealings with domains. However it looks as though the privately-run ticket office at Ledbury is still trading. Wouldn't it be ironic if Ledbury still had a ticket office after the likes of Birmingham New Street, Manchester Piccadilly and Glasgow Central had lost theirs? In the case of Glasgow Central, presumably the much smaller ScotRail ticket office will remain open and is able to sell the full range of National Rail tickets.

I'm going to make the same point to you that I just did to Bletchleyite about false equivalence.

Ledbury will still have shorter opening hours than places like Euston or Glasgow Central will have for having staff available on site to help the purchase of tickets. The difference is at Ledbury and on Murkeyside it's about having somebody sat in an office with a 'Ticket Office' sign above the door.

 

[SteveM70]

the problem with both their positions is TFL have already closed all the ticket offices on the Underground

Nice bit of false equivalence there though

And apropos false equivalence, don't compare the closure of ticket offices on the underground with its straightforward ticketing (no advances, no through ticketing to national rail) with the closure of national rail ticket offices with its overwhelming plethora of ticket types

 

[12LDA28C]

As with air travel, people overwhelmingly book online these days.

Yes a small proportion of people do as you say, but this not only costs everyone involved unnecessary time, it also typically ends up costing potentially a lot more than what the forum's website would charge.

Train travel is not air travel. Can you generally rock up on a whim at the airport ten minutes before a flight departs and buy a ticket for that flight? Not really.

 

[KGX]

I am a bit torn. I want to see modernisation, but what is proposed is an absolute mess. Aughton Park with a booking office but London Euston not? It is absolute nuts.

Re London Euston - not nuts if it's like what Eurostar have done i.e. closed the desks and manned the TVMs/info points.

 

[A0wen]

Please point me towards evidence that operating ticket offices 'generates a substantial loss'. There are (currently) no proposals for redundancies so the cost saving by closing offices is minimal.

The railway should provide the opportunity for people to buy tickets online if they want to. They've done that. That does not mean that they shouldn't retain the option for people to buy tickets at a ticket office, if they prefer. The two methods of purchase are not mutually exclusive.

The fact the railway network needs a huge subsidy is evidence enough that ticket offices aren't profitable.

There are no *compulsory* redundancies as part of these changes. But people may not elect to change role and therefore resign. Current ticket office vacancies may not be filled. So whilst there are no compulsory redundancies, that's not the same as reducing the number of staff needed to provide the service.

Customer preference should only be a factor where the organisation is profitable - sorry, that's the way business works. People will still be able to buy tickets at the station - except they'll have to use the ticket machine. So there's another channel where you don't need internet access or a mobile phone to make a purchase. You don't need somebody sat in an office, behind glass with a sign saying 'Ticket Office' above it.

 

[railfan99]

It’s very popular on here, but is fairly nauseating.

Passenger is more useful/accurate as it includes everyone travelling aboard a train, not just those who have paid for tickets, so staff members travelling pass, those who have had tickets bought for them etc.

Agree: the rule in English is if there's a more specific term, it's used. Hence good usage is not just to call a surgeon who specialises in matters myocardial not just a 'surgeon' but a 'cardiologist'.

You're a 'customer' of Tesco, Sainsburys and so on, although 'shopper' is more accurate.

Calling us 'customers' of a rail operator is not as descriptive as the word 'passenger', so the latter is preferable, and as a bonus, sounds far more pleasant, not (as you state) 'fairly nauseating'.

 

[D6130]

And apropos false equivalence, don't compare the closure of ticket offices on the underground with its straightforward ticketing (no advances, no through ticketing to national rail) with the closure of national rail ticket offices with its overwhelming plethora of ticket types

Good point!

 

[A0wen]

And apropos false equivalence, don't compare the closure of ticket offices on the underground with its straightforward ticketing (no advances, no through ticketing to national rail) with the closure of national rail ticket offices with its overwhelming plethora of ticket types

No - because I was *directly* referring to Merseyrail - and that serves the same purpose that the Underground does in London. It's a suburban, commuter rail service.

It would be interesting to see how many non "straightforward" tickets Merseyrail's stations actually sell - apart from at a couple - Liverpool Central / Lime Street, Southport and Liverpool South Parkway, I'll bet it's insignificant.

 

[KGX]

You're right; it's there now but I could have sworn at the time that when I checked this, it wasn't showing Anytime options for the later Off-Peak service.

Of course, really it should be able to sell me a ticket for the train that I wanted to use without me having to 'trick' the system by selecting a later one.

Disagree. Sounds open to delay repay abuse.

 

[43066]

Yes it likely is the majority but there a lot that do; similarly there are a lot of trains with Guards where you won't see a ticket check for a variety of reasons, as mentioned earlier.

My point remains that the operation of the train is not what is relevant here; I trust you are not disagreeing with that.

(The Ramsgate job advert is actually for high speed on board staff based there who work the Javelins. Away from those, any onboard staff you encounter on an “classic” SE train will be a traditional guard, although agreed the minutiae isn’t important).

I’m not disagreeing with your overall point, and I do appreciate you are coming at this from the point of wanting more visible onboard staff. But, given the current approach of the DfT, you can see how DOO is likely to be used primarily for cost cutting (as BR used it) ie no or far fewer on board staff of any sort. That’s the only way real savings can be made. Hence I’d argue that, for those who value on a train presence, opposing further DOO is the best way of ensuring that into the future!

Back on topic, exactly the same applies to this consultation. I do agree with you that ticket offices need reform but, given the DfT’s current approach, the intention behind these changes very obviously isn’t about making the same number of staff more visible, in just the same way the removal of return fares isn’t really about simplification. Both measures are being described as improvements, but they begin and end with cost cutting.

I’m sure you can see why I (and others) have the concerns expressed above - so what are your thoughts?

I'm making the point that *IF* a face to face channel has to be retained, then it makes sense to look at synergies. If you take bank branch closures as an example, most basic banking services such as paying in, withdrawals or balance checking can be done at a Post Office - it's not the only service the Post Office offers, but the number requiring the service face to face is sufficiently small that the Post Office can offer it for all the major banks in a single location.

So on that basis - ticket offices which only sell train tickets are not a particularly efficient way to service the demand for face to face ticket sales, whereas a Travel Agents on the high street who are also selling holidays, coach tours and various other travel related service can absorb this demand.

It makes sense from the point of view of a government trying to cut costs with no interest in making inprovements. It will obviously appeal to someone like you as someone who apparently doesn’t believe the railway should receive more than the absolute barest minimum subsidy (or none at all), and should be closed/replaced with buses etc. as you regularly argue.

But please don’t insult my intelligence by trying to argue that these changes are going to be beneficial to railway passengers. They aren’t. Most will either notice no change whatsoever, or a worsening of provision (depending on whether they use office or not, or value a visible staff presence). This will include many disabled/vulnerable travellers - but I fully realised you aren’t bothered about them either…

Customer preference should only be a factor where the organisation is profitable - sorry, that's the way business works.

Again viewing the railway as if it’s an entirely profit making business as opposed to a partially privatised industry providing a public service…

 

[12LDA28C]

The fact the railway network needs a huge subsidy is evidence enough that ticket offices aren't profitable.

Again, utter nonsense. The railway network needs huge subsidy due to changes in travel patterns brought about entirely by the Government's draconian response to Covid. The end.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Please point me towards evidence that operating ticket offices 'generates a substantial loss'. There are (currently) no proposals for redundancies so the cost saving by closing offices is minimal.

The railway should provide the opportunity for people to buy tickets online if they want to. They've done that. That does not mean that they shouldn't retain the option for people to buy tickets at a ticket office, if they prefer. The two methods of purchase are not mutually exclusive.

The booking office concept as a whole is substantially loss making, much in the same way as the Post Office, another 'institute' every town and village seems to feel they require, but yet don't use regularly enough to make it sustainable.

It isn't just the staff costs for the bloke you see at the window.
Proportion of time/cost attributed for for roster/scheduling clerks
Proportion of time/cost attributed for station accountancy/auditors in a head office somewhere
Proportion of time/cost attributed for for line management of these staff
Cash collection company and processing charges, risk of counterfeit cash, robberies etc
Cost of staffed ticket machine (hardware, licenses and ongoing maintenance) - 5 figures per year, per terminal.
Higher % processing costs/fees on card payments versus online etc
Additional energy costs, maintenance and refurbishment of the staff areas etc

OK, so some of that is a relatively minimal cost in the scheme of things, but on a national level, it certainly adds up. Some of those costs won't be immediately reduced either, e.g. because staff are redeployed. I fully accept some views on staffing certain locations for non-ticketing purposes - but the ticket office concept is not sustainable. I suspect even if you'd charged a £5 booking fee per transaction at a window, most stations would still be in the red overall.

 

[Whistler40145]

What provision will be provided for the blind who can't use TVMs or online purchase?

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Again, utter nonsense. The railway network needs huge subsidy due to changes in travel patterns brought about entirely by the Government's draconian response to Covid. The end.

But the booking offices have seen year on year significant decline in transactions well before COVID.

Overall, the industry experiences revenue difficulties following COVID, but it only accelerated a trend that was present for years.

 

[43066]

But the booking offices have seen year on year significant decline in transactions well before COVID.

Overall, the industry experiences revenue difficulties following COVID, but it only accelerated a trend that was present for years.

In which case, if the current proposal is merely to move existing staff out from behind glass, increase staff visibility and presence on the network, then great. It fairly clearly isn’t about that, though.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

What provision will be provided for the blind who can't use TVMs or online purchase

Why would you assume that someone blind can't buy online? That would be an incredibly small number - who could use alternatives like telesales, buying from a conductor etc. Blind people do manage to get by day to day you know! They'd be allowed to board a train without penalty in any event.

 

[A0wen]

Again, utter nonsense. The railway network needs huge subsidy due to changes in travel patterns brought about entirely by the Government's draconian response to Covid. The end.

No, it's needed a huge subsidy for the last 20 years, if not more. Covid has made matters worse, but alone hasn't made the railways unprofitable.

 

[12LDA28C]

The booking office concept as a whole is substantially loss making, much in the same way as the Post Office, another 'institute' every town and village seems to feel they require, but yet don't use regularly enough to make it sustainable.

It isn't just the staff costs for the bloke you see at the window.
Proportion of time/cost attributed for for roster/scheduling clerks
Proportion of time/cost attributed for station accountancy/auditors in a head office somewhere
Proportion of time/cost attributed for for line management of these staff
Cash collection company and processing charges, risk of counterfeit cash, robberies etc
Cost of staffed ticket machine (hardware, licenses and ongoing maintenance) - 5 figures per year, per terminal.
Higher % processing costs/fees on card payments versus online etc
Additional energy costs, maintenance and refurbishment of the staff areas etc

OK, so some of that is a relatively minimal cost in the scheme of things, but on a national level, it certainly adds up. Some of those costs won't be immediately reduced either, e.g. because staff are redeployed. I fully accept some views on staffing certain locations for non-ticketing purposes - but the ticket office concept is not sustainable. I suspect even if you'd charged a £5 booking fee per transaction at a window, most stations would still be in the red overall.

The lines I've bolded are costs that would still exist though. As mentioned many times, the staff will still be employed, rostered and managed. Or are you advocating widespread redundancies?

 

[A0wen]

What provision will be provided for the blind who can't use TVMs or online purchase?

You do realise that online technology, such as websites and mobile phones have a *huge* amount of assistive technology be it screen readers, magnificatio, high contrast etc ? It's made the lives of sight impaired people much easier.

The lines I've highlighted are costs that would still exist though. As mentioned many times, the staff will still be employed, rostered and managed. Or are you advocating widespread redundancies?

See above. There aren't planned redundancies as part of this change - but staffing levels can and will be reduced through natural wasteage i.e. not replacing people who leave or retire, not filling current vacancies etc.

 

[12LDA28C]

Overall, the industry experiences revenue difficulties following COVID, but it only accelerated a trend that was present for years.

Yes, working from home was a 'trend' before Covid. And yet passenger numbers rose year-on-year consistently right up until the first lockdown, a fact of which I'm sure you're aware but seem to be ignoring as it doesn't fit your narrative.

No, it's needed a huge subsidy for the last 20 years, if not more. Covid has made matters worse, but alone hasn't made the railways unprofitable.

So we seem to be getting down to your real concern here - subsidy of the railway. It seems you think that the railway should pay for itself and receive no Government (taxpayer) support?