Great British Railways: how can money be saved?

[Bletchleyite]

Another new speculative thread on GBR.

It is suggested the Government wants considerable cost savings. How might these be achieved, ideally without significant* line and station closures?

There are the obvious options like (ssh) DOO (please don't turn this into a DOO debate, this has been done to death already, and it'll just end up with the thread getting locked), removal of dispatchers and ticket office closures.

But are there other perhaps less controversial and more positive savings to be had?

• Do the platform/ASDO work to allow longer trains? For example, I would drop to 4tph on the TPE core, but start looking at how to operate 10 car trains at busy times. The further upsides of this concept are that they make the railway more punctual and reliable. I would not however take anything below hourly that isn't already?
• All new stock orders to be low-floor and stations to have better accessibility features, reducing the need for staffed assistance? (And where high floor stock has just been ordered and is the only stock used on a given platform, Harrington humps to achieve the same as per Thameslink - reducing frequencies might also allow for more consistent platforming to enable this).
• Only one national booking and ticketing platform and associated equipment and a single TVM UI. Obviously this could have some sort of API so like with airlines commercial operations like Trainline and Trainsplit could still continue if they wished.
• Look at conversions to light rail and devolution of responsibility on various local lines.
• More centralisation of back-office functions.
• Any more?

* I say significant, because there really does need to be a decision made on "silly" Parliamentary stations/routes - serve it properly or close it. I'm thinking of the likes of Polesworth and Denton.

Indeed. I'm talking specifically about the service frequency and day length that needs to be maintained.

Within boundaries. I think excessive frequencies could be pared back a bit - 6tph on the TPE core is not needed, 4 would be fine. I also don't think it would be entirely out of order to drop Southport to 1tph with a couple of peak extras as it was for years, for example, if you compensated by it being to Castlefield and being 5 or 6-car 195 formations, nor particularly so to close New Lane, Bescar Lane and Hoscar to enable that as they really are utterly useless (though you could just serve each every 3 hours plus with the peak extras and keep them open, I suppose). Add to that that there will be routes where a bit of thought about the utility of an infrequent service might actually allow a round trip to be lopped out while making the service more useful, but I wouldn't take anything that is presently hourly or better below hourly.

I have elsewhere on the Forum (so won't do it again) come up with a suggested Conwy Valley timetable that would have 4 return trips rather than 5 but actually be more useful than the pre-COVID 5 round trip timetable (or the present temporary 4 round trip one that just lops the early round trip without looking at the others) because it would time each journey for a specific demand (e.g. schools, after work etc)*. Though that one looks like it will be fixed another way by introducing a combined train-and-electric-bus hourly frequency, hopefully with ticket interavailability. That might save in another way - lunchtime is a natural gap so your traincrew diagramming can be simpler.

* The present Marston Vale single-diagram service on a weekday appears to be timed in that way - there are fewer services than a "simple" two hourly timetable, but they are timed to work for schools etc, and my observation is that people are (to the extent they ever do) using those trains and largely the buses making up the rest of the hourly service are running empty or near to it.

Ticket offices is an interesting one. Some of the smaller stations, I'd rather go down the road of combining with a shop or something, as Merseyrail do if possible, than closing.

That hasn't really worked well for Merseyrail, having essentially been a combination of a not-very-good convenience store and a not-very-good ticket office. But using Merseyrail as an example, I really don't see the need for all those booking offices churning out returns to Liverpool. I think most users would happily trade them for e-tickets and contactless, and possibly a toppable-up child smartcard as children travelling unsupervised are a considerable number of the passengers. They don't even really provide a personal safety benefit as quite a lot of them are a long way from the platforms - security staff on patrol (doing what security staff should do, i.e. providing security only and not getting involved in ticketing and the likes) would provide that better.

Actually, talking of security, here's an idea - a national railway security provision like the German BSG* and the Swiss whatever-it's-called? Could improve quality as well as save money.

* Bahn-Sicherheits-something-or-other - Railway Security something.

 

[gordonthemoron]

I have a feeling that BRB didn't actually bother with insurance, over and above third party for road vehicles, was that the case?

 

[Irascible]

Is there an easily accessible report which gives us a cost breakdown for the network?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I have a feeling that BRB didn't actually bother with insurance, over and above third party for road vehicles, was that the case?

Wouldn't be surprised if it made a deposit with the Government instead of road vehicle insurance, which is allowed. At least one of the large bus groups used to do it, though I don't know if they do now.

Even were it not allowed to do it in that way, there are other ways. The Scout Association, for example, owns an insurance company, underwritten by a large bank deposit in Guernsey, plus it reinsures for very large claims.

 

[The Planner]

Centralisation of things would close a very small railway time circle considering devolution is getting going.

 

[yorksrob]

Another new speculative thread on GBR.

It is suggested the Government wants considerable cost savings. How might these be achieved, ideally without significant* line and station closures?

There are the obvious options like (ssh) DOO (please don't turn this into a DOO debate, this has been done to death already, and it'll just end up with the thread getting locked), removal of dispatchers and ticket office closures.

But are there other perhaps less controversial and more positive savings to be had?

• Do the platform/ASDO work to allow longer trains? For example, I would drop to 4tph on the TPE core, but start looking at how to operate 10 car trains at busy times. The further upsides of this concept are that they make the railway more punctual and reliable. I would not however take anything below hourly that isn't already?
• All new stock orders to be low-floor and stations to have better accessibility features, reducing the need for staffed assistance? (And where high floor stock has just been ordered and is the only stock used on a given platform, Harrington humps to achieve the same as per Thameslink - reducing frequencies might also allow for more consistent platforming to enable this).
• Only one national booking and ticketing platform and associated equipment and a single TVM UI. Obviously this could have some sort of API so like with airlines commercial operations like Trainline and Trainsplit could still continue if they wished.
• Look at conversions to light rail and devolution of responsibility on various local lines.
• More centralisation of back-office functions.
• Any more?

* I say significant, because there really does need to be a decision made on "silly" Parliamentary stations/routes - serve it properly or close it. I'm thinking of the likes of Polesworth and Denton.



Within boundaries. I think excessive frequencies could be pared back a bit - 6tph on the TPE core is not needed, 4 would be fine. I also don't think it would be entirely out of order to drop Southport to 1tph with a couple of peak extras as it was for years, for example, if you compensated by it being to Castlefield and being 5 or 6-car 195 formations, nor particularly so to close New Lane, Bescar Lane and Hoscar to enable that as they really are utterly useless (though you could just serve each every 3 hours plus with the peak extras and keep them open, I suppose). Add to that that there will be routes where a bit of thought about the utility of an infrequent service might actually allow a round trip to be lopped out while making the service more useful, but I wouldn't take anything that is presently hourly or better below hourly.

I have elsewhere on the Forum (so won't do it again) come up with a suggested Conwy Valley timetable that would have 4 return trips rather than 5 but actually be more useful than the pre-COVID 5 round trip timetable (or the present temporary 4 round trip one that just lops the early round trip without looking at the others) because it would time each journey for a specific demand (e.g. schools, after work etc)*. Though that one looks like it will be fixed another way by introducing a combined train-and-electric-bus hourly frequency, hopefully with ticket interavailability. That might save in another way - lunchtime is a natural gap so your traincrew diagramming can be simpler.

* The present Marston Vale single-diagram service on a weekday appears to be timed in that way - there are fewer services than a "simple" two hourly timetable, but they are timed to work for schools etc, and my observation is that people are (to the extent they ever do) using those trains and largely the buses making up the rest of the hourly service are running empty or near to it.



That hasn't really worked well for Merseyrail, having essentially been a combination of a not-very-good convenience store and a not-very-good ticket office. But using Merseyrail as an example, I really don't see the need for all those booking offices churning out returns to Liverpool. I think most users would happily trade them for e-tickets and contactless, and possibly a toppable-up child smartcard as children travelling unsupervised are a considerable number of the passengers. They don't even really provide a personal safety benefit as quite a lot of them are a long way from the platforms - security staff on patrol (doing what security staff should do, i.e. providing security only and not getting involved in ticketing and the likes) would provide that better.

Actually, talking of security, here's an idea - a national railway security provision like the German BSG* and the Swiss whatever-it's-called? Could improve quality as well as save money.

* Bahn-Sicherheits-something-or-other - Railway Security something.

Looking at your bullet list, I think that there's a bit of a contradiction between the second to last and third to last points. It's as though it's acknowledged that centralised back office functions will represent an efficiency, but if this is the case, why would we be hiving off local lines which will surely just lead to a different fragmentation and duplication. It sounds like an attempt to hide costs "off the books".

My suggestion was that a minimum service in terms of frequency would need to be set in stone. This would only be the same as the pre covid timetable where services were less than hourly.

I have a feeling that BRB didn't actually bother with insurance, over and above third party for road vehicles, was that the case?

A lot of large public institutions (such as councils for example) self insure. It wouldn't surprise me if BR was the same.

 

[CdBrux]

Agreeing more prolonged line closures for upgrades / large maintenance in order to maximise use of the time vs many overnight possessions

 

[HSTEd]

Ultimately, there are four basic approaches available to us:

1. We can attempt to cut operating costs, through reduction in service, reduction in staff, DOO etc etc
2. We can attempt to grow the farebox through ticket price rises
3. We can attempt to grow the farebox through encouraging more passengers and going for economy of scale
4. We can attempt to increase the number of passengers, making the subsidies currently required more politically justifiable

I prefer aiming more at 1, 3 and 4.
Volume is our friend.

I will formulate some thoughts and get back when I have them crystallised into something coherent, but this will take a wide variety of measures targeting all aspects of the railway.

 

[Annetts key]

I have a feeling that BRB didn't actually bother with insurance, over and above third party for road vehicles, was that the case?

Wouldn't be surprised if it made a deposit with the Government instead of road vehicle insurance, which is allowed.

I don’t know if the legislation has changed, but a large company does not have to have road vehicle insurance, as long as they can document and demonstrate that they have enough money on deposit to cover any likely third party claims. Hence BRB did exactly this for its large road fleet (which it directly owned). Although later on, it started leasing far more vehicles.

Back to cost cutting.
I have no problem with genuine efficiency efforts. Unfortunately the vast majority of top down attempts at saving money are either misguided, cause far bigger problems (immediately or time delayed) or are just plan old cuts to the service.

Whatever is done, if you make it harder for passengers to buy a valid ticket, or to get on a train, or you reduce the ability to detect ticket evasion, then whatever savings you make could be less than the resulting reduction of income.

Similarly, I’m not in favour of reducing on train staff, especially removal of the guard. The disruption to services alone if there is a door incident or someone falls or otherwise injures themselves, or some idiot puts themselves in danger between the train and the platform edge, can be costly.

And in order to attract more passengers, the railway needs to be a friendly place where the passengers feel that they are being looked after, and where they are safe. We need to have excellent customer service so that passengers spread the word about how helpful the railways are to their friends and relatives.

On train staff regularly get asked questions by passengers. Who would those passengers ask for help if there are no guards and TEs? And who would they ask if there are no station staff?

Removing front line staff and replacing with automation and self service machines only will not achieve those aims. I have no problem however with having self service machines to complement the staffed services.

Some of the passengers that use the railway can’t use or don’t want to learn how to use the ‘new fangled’ technology just to make their leisure trip.

The above reasons are also why ticket pricing reform is needed, but that’s in a separate topic.

In terms of what trains to run, and at what times of day. Well, I see no point at all, at running empty trains unless the train would be making an ECS move anyway (in which case, you may as well run it as a passenger service).

But in order to make sensible decisions on this, you need the data on actual passenger numbers on each service. At the moment, we are not in normal times, so if a survey was done, the current usage is not likely to be representative of the situation a couple of years after the COVID19 pandemic is long gone. Until then, if the aim is to attract passengers back, we need to be very careful we don’t put them off by cutting the services that they used to use before the COVID19 pandemic messed up their life.

The best way to make financial savings, is to carefully look the the internal planning systems. Poor planning definitely does consume money. Similarly getting the resources correct saves money. Too much and there is waste. Too little, and something has to give, costing money.

Management structures and organisations should also be looked at. Bad management costs money.
Duplication is also obviously costly.

And poorly designed or bit-part, stop - go projects are not very efficient financially.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Some of the passengers that use the railway can’t use or don’t want to learn how to use the ‘new fangled’ technology just to make their leisure trip.

That is true, but there are a few possible ways to counter that:

1. Those people are quite literally dying off. I'm the youngest generation to have grown up with tech of some form throughout my life, and I'm 41. My parents (early 70s) both have smartphones and use them extensively, and pay for everything by credit/debit card. There do remain "refuseniks", but I don't agree with pandering to them unless it is economically disadvantageous to the railway. If you add to that that many urban areas (where most people live) include rail in their free passes for older people that reduces the number yet further, and if Old Granny Smith is going down from rural Yorkshire to visit their grandkids in London once a year then their grandkids will just buy it for them and post them a printout of the e-ticket.
2. E-tickets are a good format because you can issue them on anything, so you can still have the TVMs spit them out on till roll for people who really don't want to buy online, or even have them sold at Paypoint/Payzone shops for those who really do want a person to do it? There's some thread crossover here, but if you genuinely simplify the fares system then there's no great skill involved in selling them.

 

[The Planner]

Agreeing more prolonged line closures for upgrades / large maintenance in order to maximise use of the time vs many overnight possessions

Already the case.

 

[Annetts key]

That is true, but there are a few possible ways to counter that:

1. Those people are quite literally dying off. I'm the youngest generation to have grown up with tech of some form throughout my life, and I'm 41. My parents (early 70s) both have smartphones and use them extensively, and pay for everything by credit/debit card. There do remain "refuseniks", but I don't agree with pandering to them unless it is economically disadvantageous to the railway. If you add to that that many urban areas (where most people live) include rail in their free passes for older people that reduces the number yet further, and if Old Granny Smith is going down from rural Yorkshire to visit their grandkids in London once a year then their grandkids will just buy it for them and post them a printout of the e-ticket.
2. E-tickets are a good format because you can issue them on anything, so you can still have the TVMs spit them out on till roll for people who really don't want to buy online, or even have them sold at Paypoint/Payzone shops for those who really do want a person to do it? There's some thread crossover here, but if you genuinely simplify the fares system then there's no great skill involved in selling them.

The older generation may be dying off, but they are constantly being replaced with ‘new’ older people. The march of technology often very quickly means that what is current when you are at a working age, is gone and replaced by the time you are more than a few years into retirement. Not all, but many older people find it hard to adapt. Sometimes due to their eyesight, or mental abilities or other medical limitations. Heck, I’ve been working with computer and digital technology since the mid 1980s, but sometimes have difficulty with some of the latest gear that the young of today aren’t even fazed by. That’s when you know you’re getting old!

And I actually like having a ‘plastic’ ticket. Makes it so much easier getting through the station ticket gate.

I suspect most regular passengers (including commuters) could put up with a railway like how you describe, but I’m not convinced that if they were asked, that is what they would want.

You don’t have to spend much time at a station before you see a passenger struggle with a station ticket gate. And at the station in the city where I’m based, if everyone loves the self service ticket machines so much, why (pre-COVID19) why do so many people queue at the ticket windows?

The last thing that we want to do is drive customers away.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The older generation may be dying off, but they are constantly being replaced with ‘new’ older people. The march of technology often very quickly means that what is current when you are at a working age, is gone and replaced by the time you are more than a few years into retirement. Not all, but many older people find it hard to adapt. Sometimes due to their eyesight, or mental abilities or other medical limitations. Heck, I’ve been working with computer and digital technology since the mid 1980s, but sometimes have difficulty with some of the latest gear that the young of today aren’t even fazed by. That’s when you know you’re getting old!

But we aren't talking about anything super-complex. We're talking about buying e-tickets on a mobile phone app. It's no harder than using this Forum.

And "new older people" are going to be the ones familiar with that sort of tech.

Yes, you have to provide for disabilities. Mobile phones do in some ways, e.g. you can zoom in (though see another thread for that making the Trainline app maybe not as clear as it could be). But we will probably reach a point where national free travel for people who physically can't use a phone is going to be cheaper than providing ticket offices and TVMs just for them.

And I actually like having a ‘plastic’ ticket. Makes it so much easier getting through the station ticket gate.

I do think the barcode scanners could be improved a bit and can be a little slow. But there are also other technologies that can be looked at, such as NFC, which can just be "bolted on" to the e-ticket standard as another method of communicating what's in the barcode to the machine.

I suspect most regular passengers (including commuters) could put up with a railway like how you describe, but I’m not convinced that if they were asked, that is what they would want.

I think their views might shift if it meant cheaper fares or lower taxes.

You don’t have to spend much time at a station before you see a passenger struggle with a station ticket gate. And at the station in the city where I’m based, if everyone loves the self service ticket machines so much, why (pre-COVID19) why do so many people queue at the ticket windows?

Because the UI on TVMs is universally rubbish? But that can be fixed - the UI used in Switzerland (same for the whole country, including the private railways) is much simpler. And the phone app UIs are much easier, so many will actually find the apps easier still, particularly Trainline, which give or take the fees it charges has a really very good UI.

The last thing that we want to do is drive customers away.

That's a balance. If you're spending 20 grand times the number of stations to fit TVMs so Old Granny Smith can buy a ticket once a year, then that's a customer you can let go, and in reality she won't be lost as if she has trouble with the tech then someone will sort a ticket for her.

The railway is much more likely to scare passengers off with its attitude to things like minor ticketing errors than by limiting the channels where you can purchase one.

 

[HSTEd]

There are lots of things that could save huge amounts of money over the long term, but will take 20 years to really kick in.
Do these count?

 

[HST43257]

Is it right for me to talk about service pattern sacrifices here, or is there a good thread for this already?

 

[Annetts key]

I think their views might shift if it meant cheaper fares or lower taxes.

Do you really think that any savings made by the railways will result in lower fares? All that would happen is less financial support from the government.

And if there is less financial support from the government, it’s not likely to make any significant reductions to how much tax you have to pay. Firstly because the amount of the saving will be split across all the different taxes that exist, and across the whole population. And secondly, governments spend far more money on other areas, and all that would happen is these other areas, or the governments latest pet project would get slightly more money.

So I think it unlikely that passengers would see any meaningful reduction in fares and taxes. And those who are critical of the railways will shout out that passengers are getting worse service due to no staff being available to help those passengers who have difficulties.

If we extrapolate this removal of customer service by removing humans from everywhere where automation can be used across the whole of society, would the population really like that?

So right now, it’s now technically possible for road vehicles to be driverless. Aircraft, once the automated systems have been set up, don’t need any help from the pilots. On the railways, no driver, no on train crew, very few signallers (once loaded, a computer can run a timetabled service without the help of a human), no station staff, no ticket office staff. Shops have self service checkouts, you don’t need banks as you have ‘holes in the wall’.

You can order you beer, or your food via a mobile app, no need for a waiter. Modern cinemas don’t need hardly any staff. Soon most other entertainment venues could use technology to enable a substantial reduction in staff.

Would most people like living in a world where we are minimising the face to face contact people have in their lives?

Where does society stop?

Money and technology are supposed to be tools to make the life’s of people easier, not to create a situation where they make people’s lives more difficult. Or worse...

 

[Tobbes]

My sense is that the cost savings will ultimately be heavily staff-focussed; people are expensive and pension schemes add a good whack on top (potentially up to +30%). Like most of the private sector, it would be reasonable to move from defined benefits (DB) to either defined contributions (DC) or civil-service style average earnings pensions FOR NEW JOINERS*. DC offers more savings that the average earnings, but either would reduce the costs significantly over the long-term, and bring the railways into line with the private/public sectors.

DOO also makes sense. As @Bletchleyite notes, it's been done to death but if it were unsafe it wouldn't be allowed.

I'd also make the case for spend-to-save, in particular for a rolling programme of electrification. We need to work on decarbonisation anyway, electric traction is cheaper and less polluting than diesel through life, and by having a strategy to keep electrification teams busy on a steady diet of work, prices should fall. You could even bring the capability in house.

I'd also be keen to allow GBR or whatever it's called to procure its own rolling stock, forcing the lease companies to compete on price against a public sector comparator (which should be cheaper given lower interest costs) now and in future.

Would I close any lines? Probably not, largely because the lines that would be top of the list for the chop would also be the lines that would save least and have at least some social case (see: Heart of Wales). That having been said, I'm wholly on board with @Bletchleyite in wanting to make these as effective as possible (see: Conwy Valley, above).

What would I open? Other than HS2 to the Central Belt as an HSR, and, if the politics played ball, to Dublin via Holyhead, I'd want to look carefully at the ATOC Connecting Communities, with an overlay for maximising decarbonisation. Where this works in conjuction with preserved lines, so much the better (e.g., King's Lynn- Swaffham-East Dereham-Norwich or Deeside).

Just my £0.02.

*Unions please note....

 

[NoRoute]

That is true, but there are a few possible ways to counter that:

1. Those people are quite literally dying off. I'm the youngest generation to have grown up with tech of some form throughout my life, and I'm 41. My parents (early 70s) both have smartphones and use them extensively, and pay for everything by credit/debit card. There do remain "refuseniks", but I don't agree with pandering to them unless it is economically disadvantageous to the railway. If you add to that that many urban areas (where most people live) include rail in their free passes for older people that reduces the number yet further, and if Old Granny Smith is going down from rural Yorkshire to visit their grandkids in London once a year then their grandkids will just buy it for them and post them a printout of the e-ticket.
2. E-tickets are a good format because you can issue them on anything, so you can still have the TVMs spit them out on till roll for people who really don't want to buy online, or even have them sold at Paypoint/Payzone shops for those who really do want a person to do it? There's some thread crossover here, but if you genuinely simplify the fares system then there's no great skill involved in selling them.

E-tickets can be a pain even if you're happy with technology.

A physical ticket and the receipt can be useful for business travellers who need to claim it back, where you may be photographing receipts into an expenses app, or scanning them in for electronic submission.

You may need a physical ticket to use connected offers or schemes, I'm thinking Plusbus which won't accept e-tickets. I was going to use a Plusbus ticket to get the bus to the station on the outward journey, only to realise I either needed to order tickets a week in advance to get tickets posted or, and I thought this was farcical, first make my own way to the railway station to collect the tickets, to let me catch the bus to the station.

There's also the phone risk, I'm sure all ticket inspectors are very trusting but what happens if your phone battery dies, or your email access goes down and with it, access to your e-ticket? Huge hassle. In practice you're going to print ig out, so why not just get a code and collect it from the machine at the station.

 

[Annetts key]

My sense is that the cost savings will ultimately be heavily staff-focussed

Because often, this is the easiest way of quickly cutting costs, but not always the best long term option, and because...

people are expensive

Yes. But only because the cost of technology has fallen in real terms very drastically since the 1950s.

and pension schemes add a good whack on top (potentially up to +30%). Like most of the private sector, it would be reasonable to move from defined benefits (DB) to either defined contributions (DC) or civil-service style average earnings pensions FOR NEW JOINERS*. DC offers more savings that the average earnings, but either would reduce the costs significantly over the long-term, and bring the railways into line with the private/public sectors.

As the population ages, and people typically live longer, we NEED better company and private pension schemes so that in future, the current tax payers are not having to pay increasing amounts of tax to pay the current state pension to those who have retired.
The only realistic way to do this is to kick the private sector to offer much better pensions. Not to phase out good pension systems, like defined benefit pensions.
Otherwise the pension black hole will just keep getting bigger.

DOO also makes sense. As @Bletchleyite notes, it's been done to death but if it were unsafe it wouldn't be allowed.

You do know that you don’t actually need drivers or any on train crew whatsoever? Or hardly any signallers. With no drivers and very few signallers, you can do away with nearly all of the control centre staff. Oh and with hardly any staff, you don’t need hardly any management.

But I don’t think the majority of passengers would be very keen on this fully automated system. See also my comments earlier on this in the posts a little earlier. There would also be a massive fight with the unions.

I'd also make the case for spend-to-save, in particular for a rolling programme of electrification. We need to work on decarbonisation anyway, electric traction is cheaper and less polluting than diesel through life, and by having a strategy to keep electrification teams busy on a steady diet of work, prices should fall. You could even bring the capability in house.

Agreed

I'd also be keen to allow GBR or whatever it's called to procure its own rolling stock, forcing the lease companies to compete on price against a public sector comparator (which should be cheaper given lower interest costs) now and in future.

Agreed again!

 

[Bletchleyite]

E-tickets can be a pain even if you're happy with technology.

A physical ticket and the receipt can be useful for business travellers who need to claim it back, where you may be photographing receipts into an expenses app, or scanning them in for electronic submission.

All of the expenses apps take a PDF, or worst case display it on your PC screen and take a photograph of it there on your phone.

You may need a physical ticket to use connected offers or schemes, I'm thinking Plusbus which won't accept e-tickets. I was going to use a Plusbus ticket to get the bus to the station on the outward journey, only to realise I either needed to order tickets a week in advance to get tickets posted or, and I thought this was farcical, first make my own way to the railway station to collect the tickets, to let me catch the bus to the station.

As basically all bus companies use Ticketer ticket machines with barcode scanners, now is the time to sort that problem out.

There's also the phone risk, I'm sure all ticket inspectors are very trusting but what happens if your phone battery dies

Carry a battery pack or a USB cable (many trains have sockets these days).

Smartphone batteries are better than they were, anyway. Mine's a year old now and still easily lasts a full day of use.

or your email access goes down and with it, access to your e-ticket?

Save it locally on your phone, for example any PDF viewed in the Adobe Reader app stays as a local file.

Huge hassle.

No, it's not.

In practice you're going to print ig out

Most people don't.

so why not just get a code and collect it from the machine at the station.

Because TVMs cost £20K each and require maintenance - I refer you to the subject line of the thread!

 

[NoRoute]

All of the expenses apps take a PDF, or worst case display it on your PC screen and take a photograph of it there on your phone.

But they won't all accept multiple files, so if you have several receipts across multiple files it can be an issue, whereas its easy to take a photo or scan of several tickets and receipts all together.

As basically all bus companies use Ticketer ticket machines with barcode scanners, now is the time to sort that problem out.

Well yes, but it hasn't been sorted yet.

Carry a battery pack or a USB cable (many trains have sockets these days). Smartphone batteries are better than they were, anyway. Mine's a year old now and still easily lasts a full day of use.

Well I could, but a ticket is easier, lighter and less hassle.

Save it locally on your phone, for example any PDF viewed in the Adobe Reader app stays as a local file.

Fine, but no help if the battery dies.

No, it's not.

So if I have an e-ticket which I can't show because of an issue with my phone, it's not a huge hassle? Is the ticket inspector really just going to say oh, ok, carry on? I'm not going to find myself having to buy a standard fare or worse face a penalty fare, then trying to justify myself through some labyrinthine rail company appeals system?

Because TVMs cost £20K each and require maintenance - I refer you to the subject line of the thread!

And they dispense tens or hundreds of thousands of tickets, so the cost per ticket at a main station is going yo be pretty negligible in the great scheme of things. If I'm paying several pounds for a railway ticket then the company can easily afford to issue me with some form of physical receipt.

 

[Irascible]

Carry a battery pack or a USB cable (many trains have sockets these days).

Smartphone batteries are better than they were, anyway. Mine's a year old now and still easily lasts a full day of use.

If you tip your drink over your ticket, or stand on it, or sit on it, or trip over & fall on the bag you've put it in, or rip it in half ( these are all things I've managed to do! ), you still have a fairly legible ticket. An easily writeable smartcard would do it all ( destroying plastic cards takes quite some effort ), but I don't know if they're cheap enough to give away yet.

 

[Northern153]

Whilst direct cost savings are good, there's a lot to be said for reducing the propotion of fixed costs that each passenger pays. I see this as simply collecting the revenues to which they are entitled. You only have to watch the fare evasion type programs to see that there can be a huge loss of money from people not being checked or having the wrong ticket type. I'm sure if this was done properly, consistently, everywhere and everytime revenues would increase without having to raise fares or cut costs.

 

[HSTEd]

MiFARE cards cost pence now, you could quite easily provide a NFC readable ticket, with the details printed on the surface, like is often used for ski-lift passes.

You could charge 20p deposit for it and offer a return service in shops.

It requires no additional reading equipment at the ticket gate.

 

[Mintona]

I wouldn’t have a clue how to buy a ticket except from a ticket office. No idea how you get it on your phone. Wouldn’t want to have to rely on that in any case.

 

[6Gman]

But we aren't talking about anything super-complex. We're talking about buying e-tickets on a mobile phone app. It's no harder than using this Forum.

I use this Forum (obviously). But I am very wary of Apps, especially ones that handle my money. To the point where neither of the Apps I use (is WhatsApp even an App? I suppose it must be) handle money.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I use this Forum (obviously). But I am very wary of Apps, especially ones that handle my money. To the point where neither of the Apps I use (is WhatsApp even an App? I suppose it must be) handle money.

Yes, Whatsapp is (unsurprisingly) an app.

Apps are generally just "skins" on top of websites, which perform some local processing to reduce the network bandwidth required* and provide offline features (like using an e-ticket when you've got no signal). Are you happy to order stuff off Amazon or whatever? If so an app is very similar in terms of what it does with your debit card details.

* A website transfers the user interface and the data over the network when you use it, though it can cache some of it. An app downloads that once and just transfers the data, and so makes better use of a potentially weak mobile signal.

 

[6Gman]

All of the expenses apps take a PDF, or worst case display it on your PC screen and take a photograph of it there on your phone.

Carry a battery pack or a USB cable (many trains have sockets these days).

Smartphone batteries are better than they were, anyway. Mine's a year old now and still easily lasts a full day of use.

Save it locally on your phone, for example any PDF viewed in the Adobe Reader app stays as a local file.

I recognise most of the words above, but only "most". Struggling with "take a PDF", "display it on your PC screen and take a photograph", "battery pack or a USB cable", "save it locally on your phone", "PDF viewed in the Adobe reader" and "local file".

I have no trouble with "Hello, booking office clerk. May I have a PT Day Return to Stafford please" and a paper ticket for my wallet!

Yes, Whatsapp is (unsurprisingly) an app.

Apps are generally just "skins" on top of websites, which perform some local processing to reduce the network bandwidth required* and provide offline features (like using an e-ticket when you've got no signal). Are you happy to order stuff off Amazon or whatever? If so an app is very similar in terms of what it does with your debit card details.

* A website transfers the user interface and the data over the network when you use it, though it can cache some of it. An app downloads that once and just transfers the data, and so makes better use of a potentially weak mobile signal.

Ditto.

I'm happy that you value this techy stuff, but it's just not for some of us.

 

[Annetts key]

BBCT - Bring Back Cardboard Tickets. You know, the proper thick cardboard, like BR and the earlier railway companies used to have

Whoops, that’s drifting a bit off topic.

 

[Philip]

Pushing electronic tickets as the primary ticket buying method is only going to lead to potentially unemployment from within the railway, whilst doing nothing to help the passenger and in fact making the procedure of buying tickets a lot more complicated for many. As said above, I can't see how an electronic method is an easier way to buy tickets than from an office; it is just cost cutting and nothing more.

It is idealistic, but doesn't account for the times when either the ticket system or the railway come into problems/disruption. There would be chaos in these circumstances if we were relying on an electronic system both for tickets and for customer assistance.