Future of Ticket Office Consultations launched

[miami]

I tried to board a train a month or so ago at Exhibition Centre in Glasgow.

The ticket machine had crashed. The ticket office had someone in but he was "on a break". The barriers were closed. The person on the barrier refused to allow me through without a ticket, refused to sell me a ticket, and refused to fix the ticket machine

The one time I've tried to use a ticket office or indeed member of staff in many many years, and despite having 2 people visible, I missed my train.

I for one won't be shedding a tear.

 

[A0wen]

Nope

She wouldn’t - not by herself.

She’d be totally lost - and when her sight was okay she’d do it without hesitation

She regularly travelled from here to Carlisle with all that entailed

Tbh - not too sure where you are going with this

The point I'm making is many blind people *do* use those services and seem to manage them.

So whilst your partner is an example of somebody who does have challenges due to sight loss - there isn't a "typical" person with sight loss - and some will adapt and continue to use things or learn how to do new things.

I don't know if you watched the most recent series of the TV programme 'Race Across the World' - but the winning team on that were two ladies, by their own admission 'middle aged', one of whom was suffering from degenerative sight loss - but was determined that wasn't going to stop her partaking in such a venture.

 

[Philip]

I tried to board a train a month or so ago at Exhibition Centre in Glasgow.

The ticket machine had crashed. The ticket office had someone in but he was "on a break". The barriers were closed. The person on the barrier refused to allow me through without a ticket, refused to sell me a ticket, and refused to fix the ticket machine

The one time I've tried to use a ticket office or indeed member of staff in many many years, and despite having 2 people visible, I missed my train.

I for one won't be shedding a tear.

Whilst this is unfortunate, you can't really blame the ticket office staff member for this - they are entitled to a break just like everyone else in other jobs. It sounds like the staff member at the barrier was being unreasonable.

 

[duffman82]

If and when the proposals to close most of the ticket offices are passed through, the next thing i'd expect for the voluntary redundancy schemes to kick in.

Take two of the bigger LNR stations Milton Keynes and Northampton. They have around 8-10 booking office staff based at each, however both stations already have customer information points, manned ticket barriers, platform staff, train dispatchers and the like. Where are these extra 16-20 people going to go when the actual ticket offices are closed?

All station grades are involved in the consultation so you'd probably loose Platform Staff & Dispatchers as well as Ticket office staff.

 

[NeilCr]

The point I'm making is many blind people *do* use those services and seem to manage them.

So whilst your partner is an example of somebody who does have challenges due to sight loss - there isn't a "typical" person with sight loss - and some will adapt and continue to use things or learn how to do new things.

I don't know if you watched the most recent series of the TV programme 'Race Across the World' - but the winning team on that were two ladies, by their own admission 'middle aged', one of whom was suffering from degenerative sight loss - but was determined that wasn't going to stop her partaking in such a venture.

And I quite agree - different people will handle sight loss in different ways. Don't think I've said anything different to that. But what seems to be happening on here is that those who don't appear to have much experience of working with sight loss are lumping them all into one entity

No. I haven't seen that programme but I greatly admire Tricia. A quick search tells me that she is over 20 years younger than my partner - she was also travelling with someone (it is still amazing, though) where I have been discussing my partner journeying alone

I've had a think about this and perhaps it may help if I go into it in more depth

My partner has macular degeneration. In effect that means that the entire vision from the centre of her eye is blurred/cloudy. She has clear sight from around the edges - so that helps to an extent. She cannot see faces and can use a phone/internet but anything complicated like forms to fill in takes time and patience. Assistive technology or not

As it stands now she can roll up to the ticket office buy a paper ticket (which she can put in her purse for easy retrieval), confirm the time of the train and the platform all in one place with a human being. The other end of the journey is easy with a paper ticket

If there is no ticket office

TVMs are out

E tickets. Much more difficult for her to purchase. And then she has to find the ticket on her phone both for inspection and at the gate line. Harder again

Call centres. Probably the next best alternative - assuming that they would send her a paper ticket (which would cut out shorter notice trips) and she can get through easily. She then would have to locate help on the station. Not as easy

None of which are insurmountable but more difficult than before. I struggle to see how these new arrangements will keep things the same as appears to being claimed. There's a whole process not just ticket purchase involved. It will deter her from using the railway by herself

I do get the overall picture. Tbh (although it would be death for them) I'd rather there was some honesty from the rail operators and they put their hands up and said that they recognise some groups will be adversely impacted

I'll go with the RNIB spokesperson upthread. These are the people with the real, wider experience. Not me with my partner although I am hoping my real world story will assist this thread.

They will understand the impact on the wider group of blind and partially sighted folks

 

[43066]

Well quite, this is exactly the nub of the issue.

This thread has many contributors who have entrenched and longstanding opinions on ticket offices which span a wide spectrum - from "every ticket office should remain open and there actually should be more" to "we have far too many, reform the whole thing including fare structures"

...and just about none of them think the proposals are a good idea.

Personally I think the best and most productive use of staff is for them to be mobile and multi-disciplinary, and that there is no good reason that tickets have to be sold in an office. Staff should be on hand and visible, to deter crime, assist the disabled and vulnerable, and provide a good public face for the railway. The fact is the government want to significantly destaff stations and that cannot stand.

Agreed.

What’s odd is that it’s clear that destaffing stations (which some of us can see is the real objective here) will lead to various scenarios people on here generally claim to vigorously oppose: ticketing irregularities will likely increase, vulnerable/disabled travellers are likely to be disadvantaged, and there will be a less visible staff presence.

Bit in bold - on this we agree.

A bit like passengers didn't / don't notice when their train is Driver Only Operation or whether it's the driver or the guard who closes the doors.

Rest assured, you and I agree on absolutely nothing.

The point being made is that, from an “ordinary” passengers’ perspective, there’s really no upside to this, hence it’s an odd thing to wish for. On the other hand for some there will be a significant downside for some.

Passengers who want a visible staff presence on trains wishing for DOO also doesn’t really make sense, when it can be used to justify de-staffing, for reasons I’ve explained.

No - but another poster did and that was where the comment about ranting and also redundancies was directed to.

Always a good idea to read other posters comments in full with the correct context - especially if they're responding to a different post upthread.

The poster concerned quoted my post hence I assumed they were replying to me. I don’t need patronising advice on how to read and respond to other posters’ comments, thanks very much.

The point I'm making is many blind people *do* use those services and seem to manage them.

So whilst your partner is an example of somebody who does have challenges due to sight loss - there isn't a "typical" person with sight loss - and some will adapt and continue to use things or learn how to do new things.

I don't know if you watched the most recent series of the TV programme 'Race Across the World' - but the winning team on that were two ladies, by their own admission 'middle aged', one of whom was suffering from degenerative sight loss - but was determined that wasn't going to stop her partaking in such a venture.

So now you’re presuming to speak for blind people, and claiming to know better than the RNIB who have announced they are opposed to these proposals?!

Just when I thought I couldn’t find your posts any more contemptible!

 

[vic-rijrode]

Won't be long before we have Johnny Ticketman on the screens of the AI powered ticket machines!

"For your journey from Newcastle to London Kings Cross, may I recommend the Anytime Single ticket at £2,524?

 

[A0wen]

I do get the overall picture. Tbh (although it would be death for them) I'd rather there was some honesty from the rail operators and they put their hands up and said that they recognise some groups will be adversely impacted

I'll go with the RNIB spokesperson upthread. These are the people with the real, wider experience. Not me with my partner although I am hoping my real world story will assist this thread.

They will really understand the impact on the wider group of blind and partially sighted folks

Bit in bold - I think that's unfair - there will have been discussions already with bodies who represent the disabled, the impact assessments for each station will also have to consider this. I don't think it's right to say "they should put their hands up and admit" x, y or z. It's a change - just because somebody is "disadvantaged" by a change doesn't mean the change shouldn't happen. There are many proponents on these boards who quite openly back changes which, for example, disadvantage motorists by increasing cost or journey time, but consider that it's OK because it supports their world view.

The reality is the rail industry can draw on the examples of London Underground - who went through this about 7 years ago, Sweden's rail system - which from the information we have from another poster has closed all of its ticket offices and has moved virtually all ticketing to online, to understand what measures or mitigations can be put in place. As you know, I've offered the view that given there are 340,000 who are registered blind - and those are the people with the real challenge (not the 2m figure the RNIB cited of 0.5 Snellen as that can be corrected with prescribed glasses or contact lenses) - a national railcard may be the answer there depending on cost.

 

[yorkie]

The point is that if there was a single, staffed ticket office, the passenger could enquire how to get from LHR to, let's say, Tottenham Court Road. They'd be advised to pay about £15 for a single via Elizabeth Line not a £25 single to Paddington via Heathrow Express and then have to fork out another £x for onward travel by train or tube. I know rail companies compete for business but the Hx staff are there from the moment you start walking towards security, flogging tickets, so some folks won't be aware there are cheaper and dare I say better alternatives to Hx.

This is a completely separate matter; having staff hidden away in ticket offices isn't the solution. The issue you describe relates to impartiality.

Disagree. Sounds open to delay repay abuse.

Denying purchase of a valid ticket for a delayed train isn't acceptable on that basis, and it's a false premise as the time of purchase is stated on the ticket.

... It will deter her from using the railway by herself...

She wouldn't make a journey from a station such as York on an evening at present then?

And would never make a journey from Cambridge North?

Whilst this is unfortunate, you can't really blame the ticket office staff member for this - they are entitled to a break just like everyone else in other jobs. It sounds like the staff member at the barrier was being unreasonable.

The staff member was indeed being unreasonable; had the passenger been travelling from an unstaffed station they would have not had anyone preventing them boarding the train, and the TTI would have happilly sold them a ticket on board without quibble.

Personally I think the best and most productive use of staff is for them to be mobile and multi-disciplinary, and that there is no good reason that tickets have to be sold in an office. Staff should be on hand and visible, to deter crime, assist the disabled and vulnerable, and provide a good public face for the railway. The fact is the government want to significantly destaff stations and that cannot stand.

Absolutely this.

Not a bad idea. You sit down and work it all out with someone who is knowledgeable and enthusiastic, taking the time needed. Totally different from many booking offices.

Could it be viable for a travel agent to set up in places like Manc Picc? The idea isn't new, Wasteels branches used to be common in eastern Europe. They'd probably need to charge a fee, but people happily pay that to Trainline for basically doing nothing.

There is no "probably" about it! It would be very labour intensive for very little in the way of commission. It's difficult to retail tickets and not make a loss. Don't forget all the other associated costs, such as refund requests if the train is cancelled and the passenger chooses not to travel; you have to give a full refund for that, even if you spent 20 minutes of your time putting the itinerary together!

I believe you also don't get back various fees which the rail industry charges retailers either!

 

[A0wen]

Rest assured, you and I agree on absolutely nothing.

The point being made is that, from an “ordinary” passengers’ perspective, there’s really no upside to this, hence it’s an odd thing to wish for. On the other hand for some there will be a significant downside for some.

Your comment made it clear that for many it would mean no difference - and we agree on that.

The poster concerned quoted my post hence I assumed they were replying to me. I don’t need patronising advice on how to read and respond to other posters’ comments, thanks very much.

Touché

 

[NeilCr]

Bit in bold - I think that's unfair - there will have been discussions already with bodies who represent the disabled, the impact assessments for each station will also have to consider this. I don't think it's right to say "they should put their hands up and admit" x, y or z. It's a change - just because somebody is "disadvantaged" by a change doesn't mean the change shouldn't happen. There are many proponents on these boards who quite openly back changes which, for example, disadvantage motorists by increasing cost or journey time, but consider that it's OK because it supports their world view.

The reality is the rail industry can draw on the examples of London Underground - who went through this about 7 years ago, Sweden's rail system - which from the information we have from another poster has closed all of its ticket offices and has moved virtually all ticketing to online, to understand what measures or mitigations can be put in place. As you know, I've offered the view that given there are 340,000 who are registered blind - and those are the people with the real challenge (not the 2m figure the RNIB cited of 0.5 Snellen as that can be corrected with prescribed glasses or contact lenses) - a national railcard may be the answer there depending on cost.

We'll just have to agree to disagree then - although I'd be interested in how you think my partner (as a real world example) isn't disadvantaged

I, actually, don't disagree with your assertion that change shouldn't happen just because it disadvantages someone - but that seems to be tacitly admitting that this change will disadvantage some people. Back to honesty

As above I'll go with the RNIB.

They know far more about the issues and practical difficulties than you and I - and I expect the vast majority of posters on this forum

 

[A0wen]

So now you’re presuming to speak for blind people, and claiming to know better than the RNIB who have announced they are opposed to these proposals?!

Just when I thought I couldn’t find your posts any more contemptible!

No I didn't do that at all - you're being disingenuous now.

What I am doing, is what should be done - not treat all old, blind, disabled or whichever other group you care to choose as an amorphous lump to be patronised. Being registered blind doesn't mean incapable - my long deceased great grandmother was a case in point - a bout of shingles and glaucoma in her 70s left her blind (and by that I mean meeting the current criteria to be registered blind) - that did not stop her living independently. She adapted, she learned to use a telephone when in her 80s. She learned to use talking books and newspapers as provided by the RNIB - all technology that for most of her adult life would not have been present let alone available for her to use.

And pointing out examples of somebody who *is* dealing with such challenges that did so quite publicly is not wrong - it is pointing out that you can't just patronise them and say "oh, your blind, never mind, we'll make sure that there's always a nice man, sitting behind a screen who you can talk to".

Perhaps the RNIB should be a little more nuanced in their response ? Rather than presuming to speak for all blind people ?

 

[NeilCr]

She wouldn't make a journey from a station such as York on an evening at present then

I don't know either of those stations (sorry I deleted Cambridge North) - but I am assuming they have no ticket offices open at the times you are referring to

The general answer is no. Obviously in some sort of emergency there might be an exception

Especially an evening when her sight can become more iffy and she feels more vulnerable

 

[AlterEgo]

No I didn't do that at all - you're being disingenuous now.

What I am doing, is what should be done - not treat all old, blind, disabled or whichever other group you care to choose as an amorphous lump to be patronised. Being registered blind doesn't mean incapable - my long deceased great grandmother was a case in point - a bout of shingles and glaucoma in her 70s left her blind (and by that I mean meeting the current criteria to be registered blind) - that did not stop her living independently. She adapted, she learned to use a telephone when in her 80s. She learned to use talking books and newspapers as provided by the RNIB - all technology that for most of her adult life would not have been present let alone available for her to use.

And pointing out examples of somebody who *is* dealing with such challenges that did so quite publicly is not wrong - it is pointing out that you can't just patronise them and say "oh, your blind, never mind, we'll make sure that there's always a nice man, sitting behind a screen who you can talk to".

Perhaps the RNIB should be a little more nuanced in their response ? Rather than presuming to speak for all blind people ?

Perhaps the middle way is to stop lumping people together, but also to be honest that de-staffed stations makes them inherently less accessible to a portion of the customer base.

 

[A0wen]

Perhaps the middle way is to stop lumping people together, but also to be honest that de-staffed stations makes them inherently less accessible to a portion of the customer base.

That's why a consultation is happening ?

To quote from GWR's website (but others will be the same).

Our Passenger Assist programme – which helps disabled and mobility-impaired customers navigate stations and board trains – will not be affected by the changes.

Train operators will carry out a full Equality Impact Assessment for each individual station, which will be shared with the Department for Transport as part of the Public Consultation process.

But until the consultation is complete and mitigations are agreed you can't say it will disadvantage a group. If all registered blind were given a national railcard for example - how would that be a "disadvantage" ? They wouldn't need to interact to buy a ticket, simply turn up and go. A member of staff on a platform or gateline can tell them which platform they need, whether the train is late etc etc.

 

[NeilCr]

No I didn't do that at all - you're being disingenuous now.

What I am doing, is what should be done - not treat all old, blind, disabled or whichever other group you care to choose as an amorphous lump to be patronised. Being registered blind doesn't mean incapable - my long deceased great grandmother was a case in point - a bout of shingles and glaucoma in her 70s left her blind (and by that I mean meeting the current criteria to be registered blind) - that did not stop her living independently. She adapted, she learned to use a telephone when in her 80s. She learned to use talking books and newspapers as provided by the RNIB - all technology that for most of her adult life would not have been present let alone available for her to use.

And pointing out examples of somebody who *is* dealing with such challenges that did so quite publicly is not wrong - it is pointing out that you can't just patronise them and say "oh, your blind, never mind, we'll make sure that there's always a nice man, sitting behind a screen who you can talk to".

Perhaps the RNIB should be a little more nuanced in their response ? Rather than presuming to speak for all blind people ?

But we now seem to be at the stage where you appear to presume you know as much as the RNIB

Many moons ago when I was young my gran was treasurer of the local blind club. I got involved a bit so had much the same experience as you had with your great gran

And, yes, people do adapt as you say. Many of those did. They still needed to be ferried to and from the venue, though. While using telephones, etc etc at home or at the club

My partner goes out and about by herself. She can cross the road (although that is pretty scary). But, all of this, is within known territory (bit like your great gran - using technology in her own home I am assuming)

If she has to go away from that then it becomes much more difficult. The recent journey was two stops and someone met her the other end. Adding extra steps to that is gong to deter her, whether people think it should or should not

 

[Rail Ranger]

I don't quite understand why all the TOCs are not following Avanti's lead and closing all their ticket offices. If they aren't needed at London Euston and Manchester Piccadilly, they aren't needed anywhere. @A0wen and @Tazi Hupefi have clearly explained repeatedly that ticket offices are obsolescent, along with TVMs in due course. The Luddites on this site and elsewhere will just have to adapt. The decision has clearly been made in principle by the DfT, and the arguments are surely just about the transition, which I accept is abrupt, but unfortunately since Covid the railways have become a financial disaster and rapidly implemented cuts are essential. It isn't a party political issue; evidence from London suggests that Labour will support these proposals, albeit with a few minor caveats for nit-picking purposes.

I write as someone who has never previously purchased railway e-tickets, mainly because of the fear of unreliability of mobile phone reception and the potential adverse consequences of not being able to show an e-ticket immediately on demand to a guard/RPI, but who accepts that this position is no longer tenable going forward. The other reason is that I purchase train tickets (as distinct from tram tickets) much less frequently since I moved to my current residence in 2015, because the local rail service is poor and of limited use. @jfollows - I did use the Wilmslow ticket office recently (the only occasion that I have used a rail ticket office in the last year) and did find the lady who served me very helpful.

Incidentally, please could someone clarify when/if the ticket office at Altrincham will be closing, or has it already closed (it was open earlier this year). I could not find it on the list of Northern stations with current ticket offices, but the only rail TOC to serve it is Northern Rail. The office has never sold Metrolink tickets, which have to be purchased using the ticket machines on the platforms or by other means.

Altrincham ticket office (along with Horwich Parkway) are run by TfGM, which has said that they will remain open. Altrincham did sell Metrolink tickets for many years but stopped doing so a few years ago.

 

[Edsmith]

I tried to board a train a month or so ago at Exhibition Centre in Glasgow.

The ticket machine had crashed. The ticket office had someone in but he was "on a break". The barriers were closed. The person on the barrier refused to allow me through without a ticket, refused to sell me a ticket, and refused to fix the ticket machine

The one time I've tried to use a ticket office or indeed member of staff in many many years, and despite having 2 people visible, I missed my train.

I for one won't be shedding a tear.

Clearly the person on the barrier should have allowed you through and I think many people would have just forced their way through or tailgated somebody else. But I understand why you won't be shedding a tear, me neither.

 

[MikeWM]

I don't know either of those stations (sorry I deleted Cambridge North) - but I am assuming they have no ticket offices open at the times you are referring to

Cambridge North doesn't have a ticket office, but *in theory* it has staff available to help you with the machines. In practice, however, often the barriers are left open and there isn't a member of staff around in the main hall, even at quite an early time in the evening (usually I'm passing through around 6.30 or 7).

The station is always staffed (I think), but to find such staff may well involve crossing the bridge and then finding the room they stay in on the platform.

I can see how that would be off-putting. I can also see that this is the likely model at most stations once the ticket offices close - *in theory* there will be someone to help you use the TVMs, but in practice they may be very tough to find.

 

[43066]

She wouldn't make a journey from a station such as York on an evening at present then?

Do you believe the RNIB are wrong to oppose these proposals, then?

Do you think the proposals as they currently stand (which will lead to de-staffing at many locations) will make railway access for disabled/vulnerable users better or worse in general?

Absolutely this.

The poster you quoted here was saying he opposes the current proposals, due to the reality that the government is clearly intending to significantly destaff stations. So agreeing with that statement (as I certainly do) seems somewhat at odds with your other responses.

I, actually, don't disagree with your assertion that change shouldn't happen just because it disadvantages someone - but that seems to be tacitly admitting that this change will disadvantage some people. Back to honesty

Well quite!

No I didn't do that at all - you're being disingenuous now.

What I am doing, is what should be done - not treat all old, blind, disabled or whichever other group you care to choose as an amorphous lump to be patronised. Being registered blind doesn't mean incapable - my long deceased great grandmother was a case in point - a bout of shingles and glaucoma in her 70s left her blind (and by that I mean meeting the current criteria to be registered blind) - that did not stop her living independently. She adapted, she learned to use a telephone when in her 80s. She learned to use talking books and newspapers as provided by the RNIB - all technology that for most of her adult life would not have been present let alone available for her to use.

And pointing out examples of somebody who *is* dealing with such challenges that did so quite publicly is not wrong - it is pointing out that you can't just patronise them and say "oh, your blind, never mind, we'll make sure that there's always a nice man, sitting behind a screen who you can talk to".

Completely misrepresenting where the RNIB are coming from and still refusing to accept the obvious downsides here. Yet, as noted above, you’ve also tacitly acknowledged that there are disadvantages, so it isn’t me being disingenuous!

But until the consultation is complete and mitigations are agreed you can't say it will disadvantage a group. If all registered blind were given a national railcard for example - how would that be a "disadvantage" ? They wouldn't need to interact to buy a ticket, simply turn up and go. A member of staff on a platform or gateline can tell them which platform they need, whether the train is late etc etc.

As a result of these proposals there’s less likely to be a member of staff there at all than at present…

 

[NeilCr]

But until the consultation is complete and mitigations are agreed you can't say it will disadvantage a group. If all registered blind were given a national railcard for example - how would that be a "disadvantage" ? They wouldn't need to interact to buy a ticket, simply turn up and go. A member of staff on a platform or gateline can tell them which platform they need, whether the train is late etc etc.

And so we come full circle

Neither can you say it won't disadvantage a group.

I am with the cynical on this. I very very much doubt that there will be a national railcard for the blind and/or partially sighted. The SouthEastern consultation certainly doesn't fill me with optimism.

ETA

No gate line at Ramsgate and the four platforms via stairs and underpass. My partner would have to locate that person/ (see comment about faces)

Again not unachievable but certainly not an improvement

I'd add that I have a great regard for the staff at Ramsgate both in and out of the ticket office.

 

[AlterEgo]

That's why a consultation is happening ?

I have the sad benefit of having worked both on the railway and for a government body which did lots of consultations and they are mostly a way of rubber-stamping agendas I'm afraid.

Contribute all you like but it's like lifting up the wastepaper basket to shout into it.

But until the consultation is complete and mitigations are agreed you can't say it will disadvantage a group. If all registered blind were given a national railcard for example - how would that be a "disadvantage" ? They wouldn't need to interact to buy a ticket, simply turn up and go. A member of staff on a platform or gateline can tell them which platform they need, whether the train is late etc etc.

But the point is, in the future there will be fewer staff and more stations which are simply inaccessible. That is the entire point of these changes; an eventual reduction in headcount.

I'm sure we will be back talking about this in six months and again in three years and we will see how little of what you think will happen actually transpires.

 

[Ostrich]

The question to ask for the honest answer is:

If the ticket office closes and there are no longer visible staff at your local station - would you continue to use it anyway?

Nope. As an occassional leisure traveller, and one of the so-called "12%", the current proposals (along with all the SWR strikes in recent years and the unreliable service on the West of England line) merely confirm the decision I've already taken - with regret - to abandon rail travel entirely. At the end of the day, it's simply so much easier to use the car, and I doubt anything would change my mind now. Not even the offer of a Persil ticket!

I think it will be interesting to see, in a few years time, the extent of the further reduction in footfall these measures bring about ....

 

[WesternBiker]

The point I'm making is that if there is no-one around to advise incoming passengers then they may end up feeling ripped off because they've been sold a ticket that only takes them to a single point, not a whole zone of Central London.

...Oslo S and Stockholm S are just about the only central rail stations in those cities folks want to get to, whereas in London there are a dozen main stations....

But surely that argues to do one's research beforehand?

Neither of my journeys to Oslo or Stockholm finished at the Central Stations, and I could have been ripped off had I not planned ahead, since at both the dedicated airport expresses are pretty heavily marketed. (My other half would simply have walked onto the Airport Expresses...!)

 

[AlterEgo]

I think it will be interesting to see, in a few years time, the extent of the further reduction in footfall these measures bring about ....

I very much doubt there will be a reduction; rail travel patronage is set to increase as capacity and journey opportunities lost during Covid slowly come back..

 

[warwickshire]

However in time will other Tocs Tvms at stations become like Greater Anglias are of what I noticed earlier on in the year, on the Manningtree to Harwich branch.
Which can also sell from any other station to any any other station in the whole of Great Britain as well. Hence another get out clause for any booking office closures.

 

[A0wen]

I have the sad benefit of having worked both on the railway and for a government body which did lots of consultations and they are mostly a way of rubber-stamping agendas I'm afraid.

Contribute all you like but it's like lifting up the wastepaper basket to shout into it.

People misunderstand the concept of "consultation" - it is not a "consultation" in the sense of "what would you like us to do", it's a consultation of "here are our proposals - if there is a problem (1) with these then feed that back so we can reassess them".

[1] - by "there is a problem" it does not mean, "I don't like it", "I don't agree with it" or anything like that. It absolutely *is* to ensure that proper assessment has been made of the impact and, where appropriate, further mitigations or changes are made.

This change is going to happen - doesn't matter who shouts or bawls about it, be it posters on here, outrage merchants on Twitter, the rail unions, pressure groups etc etc - it's happening. So the important thing for groups like the RNIB are to ensure suitable provisions are in place for the people they claim to represent. They can't argue "it makes it impossible to travel" because were that the case blind people wouldn't be able to travel on the London Underground, or the Docklands Light Railway, or Manchester Metrolink or even Sweden's national rail network. So being dogmatic and arguing that ticket offices "must be saved" is a pointless response. Ensuring suitable provisions are in place to support blind people is the correct response.

But the point is, in the future there will be fewer staff and more stations which are simply inaccessible. That is the entire point of these changes; an eventual reduction in headcount.

I'm sure we will be back talking about this in six months and again in three years and we will see how little of what you think will happen actually transpires.

Maybe there will be a further headcount reduction - but ask yourself this - if the reduction in headcount at a local station is that during 'daytime' there are 2 people on the gateline, 1 on each of the 3 platforms, where currently there is that plus 2 in the ticket office - is that going to materially change the experience for somebody seeking help ?

I am with the cynical on this. I very very much doubt that there will be a national railcard for the blind and/or partially sighted. The SouthEastern consultation certainly doesn't fill me with optimism.

If your response to the consultation is, in a nutshell, "I don't want anything to change" then sorry, you're going to be disappointed. I've explained above the purpose of a consultation and what the approach needs to be - you can ignore me or tell me I'm wrong as much as you like, but having sat through half a dozen "consultations" be it on changes to my job or other things, I'm familiar with the consultation process. People who get nothing out of them are the people who say 'it's wrong and I don't want it to change' - those who *DO* get changes out of them are those who identify a specific issue and offer a possible solution.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

The ticket office at Manchester Piccadilly was queued out the door this afternoon, and a very busy concourse with a lot of people travelling. Absolutely no need for a ticket office apparently. None whatsoever. I suspect the decision on major stations will be reversed - lots of Tory MPs kicking off.

 

[LowLevel]

The ticket office at Manchester Piccadilly was queued out the door this afternoon, and a very busy concourse with a lot of people travelling. Absolutely no need for a ticket office apparently. None whatsoever. I suspect the decision on major stations will be reversed - lots of Tory MPs kicking off.

As others have said, knowing the Government it's probably a bit of a smokescreen, allowing them to backtrack and "save" some of these locations so they can continue sweeping the rest into history and legitimise the consultation.

 

[NeilCr]

If your response to the consultation is, in a nutshell, "I don't want anything to change" then sorry, you're going to be disappointed. I've explained above the purpose of a consultation and what the approach needs to be - you can ignore me or tell me I'm wrong as much as you like, but having sat through half a dozen "consultations" be it on changes to my job or other things, I'm familiar with the consultation process. People who get nothing out of them are the people who say 'it's wrong and I don't want it to change' - those who *DO* get changes out of them are those who identify a specific issue and offer a possible solution.

Just because I am cynical about the consultation doesn't mean I won't engage with it - at the appropriate time

I fully understand that you have to be "in it to win it"

And I've been through consultations too...

I happen to think what you are saying is wrong but - as I say - we can agree to disagree.