Northern getting tough... (on board ticket sales)

[johntea]

Caught a train from an unstaffed station this morning, sardine tin as usual so no opportunity there then a tight connection at Leeds (<5 minutes). Not an issue in the past at all to purchase a ticket on board the connecting service. (with cash rather than card)

However today I was sold the ticket in the end (Anytime Day Return) but advised by the guard that Northern would soon be introducing some sort of penalty scheme and on board inspectors for passengers who had passed through a station with ticket buying facilities but failed to purchase a ticket - with no exceptions.

It feels as if they're just going to try and target everyone rather than bother trying to tackle specific fare dodging! (Also seems as if they're already gearing up for a DOO operation...)

I have no particular issues with trying to protect their revenue but they must realize that it has been the case for years and years that most Northern staff will happily do on board ticket sales - in some cases I've actually seen them sell tickets with origin of Leeds!

To be fair to this guard they were actually making the effort to go down the train after every single stop and do a ticket inspection which you don't often see!

 

[sheff1]

However today I was sold the ticket in the end (Anytime Day Return) but advised by the guard that Northern would soon be introducing some sort of penalty scheme and on board inspectors for passengers who had passed through a station with ticket buying facilities but failed to purchase a ticket - with no exceptions.

So, someone boards at Swinton (S Yorks) after 1330 Mon-Sat but before 1900 and then travels to Doncaster. Are Northern really saying they will charge a 'penalty' because they passed through Mexborough ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

An abolition of on-board sales doesn't mean DOO - Merseyrail, while it will be moving to DOO with the new stock, has had no on-board sales for most of its existence with non-commercial guards.

 

[30907]

So, someone boards at Swinton (S Yorks) after 1330 Mon-Sat but before 1900 and then travels to Doncaster. Are Northern really saying they will charge a 'penalty' because they passed through Mexborough ?

I doubt the staff member meant quite that. "Joined or changed trains at" would be a mouthful but more correct - please, let's not start the one about "what constitutes an opportunity to purchase" until we have it officially

 

[185]

An abolition of on-board sales doesn't mean DOO - Merseyrail, while it will be moving to DOO with the new stock, has had no on-board sales for most of its existence with non-commercial guards.

About twice a week, I've had my ticket checked 80-90% of the time by on Merseyrail in the last 12 months. Whilst their ticket selling facilities may be questionable, they certainly do go into the train and check revenue... far more than ten years ago.

 

[SickyNicky]

However today I was sold the ticket in the end (Anytime Day Return) but advised by the guard that Northern would soon be introducing some sort of penalty scheme and on board inspectors for passengers who had passed through a station with ticket buying facilities but failed to purchase a ticket - with no exceptions.

Presumably "with no exceptions" makes an exception for the "information" panel in the NRCoT (National Rail Conditions of Travel):

INFORMATION: This means that you should buy a ticket from the
conductor on the train if there is one available; at an interchange
station provided there is sufficient time before your connecting
service; or, if neither of these is possible, at your destination.

Any penalty scheme that failed to take this into account would surely be doomed to failure?

 

[pemma]

An abolition of on-board sales doesn't mean DOO - Merseyrail, while it will be moving to DOO with the new stock, has had no on-board sales for most of its existence with non-commercial guards.

You could equally say enforcing buy before you board more suggests guards are remaining, as revenue inspectors would have more time to sell and check tickets than guards.

 

[Starmill]

I wouldn't advise a planned 5 minute connection at Leeds under these circumstances as that isn't enough time for you to be following a valid travel itinerary.

 

[pemma]

I wouldn't advise a planned 5 minute connection at Leeds under these circumstances as that isn't enough time for you to be following a valid travel itinerary.

Indeed. 10 minutes is the minimum at Leeds but from reading the original post it isn't clear whether they planned to make an under 5 minute connection or whether the inbound train was late.

 

[Romilly]

I wouldn't advise a planned 5 minute connection at Leeds under these circumstances as that isn't enough time for you to be following a valid travel itinerary.

This is a bit misleading. What is said here may well be relevant if the passenger has a Leeds to final destination Advance ticket for a specified train, is delayed on the inward journey to Leeds, and wants to be allowed to travel onwards from Leeds on a train later than the specified one (and maybe claim Delay Repay on top of that).

But if a passenger is travelling from A to Leeds to B on a flexible ticket (or will be once the ticket is purchased), that ticket (assuming offpeak restrictions are complied with if it is an offpeak ticket) is valid for an itinerary that involves a very short interchange at Leeds: it is also valid for the itinerary that involves taking the following onwards train out of Leeds if the <5 minutes connection doesn't work out.

 

[Starmill]

How is it misleading? It's far more difficult to make an argument that you cannot afford to wait in a queue to buy a ticket because you'll miss your connecting train when it's not a valid travel itinerary than when it is. The 'exception' written in the information box is there to allow people to continue their journey without delay against their itinerary - it's not a to allow people to join connecting trains when there was enough time to purchase a ticket at the Interchange station.

I agree that in some cases discretion should be shown, especially for infrequent services. But if you make an invalid connection without a ticket you undoubtedly meet with the argument that you did have time to buy a ticket and catch the valid connection. I don't agree with that argument in all cases but it's still likely to be presented to you.

In cases where trains have arrived late, putting valid connections in danger, then there should be no question of risking delaying the customer further by asking them to stand in a queue.

 

[Romilly]

It is misleading because the issue of valid itineraries, which in this context appears to be being used to refer to itineraries allowing minimum connection times, arises only in regard to Advance tickets, which are not the sort of tickets which this thread is about.

If travelling on flexible tickets, an itinerary with even a zero minutes (or negative) connection time is valid in the sense that the ticket is good for the situation where the first train is early and/or the second train is late, and you can get from the first to the second before the doors on the second start closing.

 

[MichaelAMW]

How is it misleading? It's far more difficult to make an argument that you cannot afford to wait in a queue to buy a ticket because you'll miss your connecting train when it's not a valid travel itinerary than when it is. The 'exception' written in the information box is there to allow people to continue their journey without delay against their itinerary - it's not a to allow people to join connecting trains when there was enough time to purchase a ticket at the Interchange station.

I agree that in some cases discretion should be shown, especially for infrequent services. But if you make an invalid connection without a ticket you undoubtedly meet with the argument that you did have time to buy a ticket and catch the valid connection. I don't agree with that argument in all cases but it's still likely to be presented to you.

In cases where trains have arrived late, putting valid connections in danger, then there should be no question of risking delaying the customer further by asking them to stand in a queue.

You make it sound as if catching a connection below the minimum connection time is some kind of offence. A connection that is not "valid" is not forbidden; it just means that you can't complain if you fail to make the second train. If your argument is sound then a passenger should be required to let a non-valid connection leave without them even if they do have a ticket.

The NRCoT makes no mention of connections having to be part of a valid itinerary, even assuming we could be clear about what that actually is. (I presume you simply mean one that keeps to the minimum connection times.)

 

[Bletchleyite]

A reasonable solution to this might be to put a TVM capable of remote issue on each platform of major interchanges. The Swiss do this (though more for initial sale, as the entire of SBB is a Penalty Fares system with an absolute requirement to buy before boarding and even the tiniest stations have a TVM).

 

[johntea]

Without diverting off too much into 'connection times' it is just human nature that I would try and make the earliest available train rather than thinking 'oh bugger better buy a ticket!' and then potentially delay my journey by up to an hour.

Northern have an issue in that they can't install TVMs that accept the full range of payment methods at unstaffed stations! I'm not actually sure on the rules around if there just so happens to be the revenue contractors at an unstaffed station however as these would accept all methods of payment presumably.

I was in Manchester on Monday and used the Metrolink, the rules are nice and clear there, plentiful access to TVMs at all(?) stations on the network accepting a full range of payments, so buy your ticket before you board and no opportunity to buy on board - although I may be slightly confused as a tourist if I then fancied a tram trip in Sheffield where it is the opposite

You're coming down the train with a TVM, and have the means to sell me a ticket which I'm prepared to pay for, surely you can't prosecute me for that...

I should just make it clear again that as far as I'm aware this is all just in the pipeline at the moment and is more 'guard gossip' than anything official I've heard.

 

[xotGD]

It is a ridiculous notion that you should have to miss a doable connection in order to queue up at Leeds to buy a ticket, rather than buy one on the second train.

Plenty of people make +3 or +4 connections at Leeds every day. I managed a +2 the other week from P8 to P5.

 

[sheff1]

I'm not actually sure on the rules around if there just so happens to be the revenue contractors at an unstaffed station however as these would accept all methods of payment presumably.

When I encountered such contractors at Baildon they were unable to accept any method of payment from people boarding or alighting.

 

[pemma]

When I encountered such contractors at Baildon they were unable to accept any method of payment from people boarding or alighting.

There seems to be two types of RPIs - some who just inspect tickets and send those without tickets to the ticket office/TVM or take their details (sometimes working alone) and teams of RPIs with at least some having portable machines.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I was in Manchester on Monday and used the Metrolink, the rules are nice and clear there, plentiful access to TVMs at all(?) stations on the network accepting a full range of payments, so buy your ticket before you board and no opportunity to buy on board - although I may be slightly confused as a tourist if I then fancied a tram trip in Sheffield where it is the opposite

To be fair, I do think Northern need to adopt the Metrolink approach on urban services, leaving only the rural services as pay on board. In the latter case, guards could be issued with books of pre-printed permit to travel vouchers for the event of problems with their machine or big crowds (as they'd take seconds to issue), and publicity making it clear you do need to seek to obtain one.

 

[pemma]

To be fair, I do think Northern need to adopt the Metrolink approach on urban services, leaving only the rural services as pay on board. In the latter case, guards could be issued with books of pre-printed permit to travel vouchers for the event of problems with their machine or big crowds (as they'd take seconds to issue), and publicity making it clear you do need to seek to obtain one.

How will that work on a pair of 150/1s or when the train is too crowded for people to move through the train?

Also will guards be issued with a ridiculously high number of pre-dated vouchers in case Northern forget about a special event or underestimate demand for a special event?

 

[Bletchleyite]

How will that work on a pair of 150/1s or when the train is too crowded for people to move through the train?

Routes where that occurs are not suitable for buy-on-board and should be fitted with TVMs throughout and operated on a PF model.

There aren't many routes I would class as suitable for buy-on-board. For Northern I'd probably say Cumbrian Coast past Barrow only, Leeds-Lancaster, Ormskirk-Preston, Kirkby-Wigan, Blackburn-Clitheroe and the Hope Valley locals. Not a lot else.

Also will guards be issued with a ridiculously high number of pre-dated vouchers in case Northern forget about a special event or underestimate demand for a special event?

It would be sensible to issue something like 10 books of 50, I reckon.

 

[pemma]

Routes where that occurs are not suitable for buy-on-board and should be fitted with TVMs throughout and operated on a PF model.

What about routes which normally don't have doubling up but might occasionally require it e.g. a route which all services which are booked as 2 car 150s but Northern decide to strengthen one diagram on Saturdays in December due to a high number of Christmas shoppers using the service?

 

[Bletchleyite]

What about routes which normally don't have doubling up but might occasionally require it e.g. a route which all services which are booked as 2 car 150s but Northern decide to strengthen one diagram on Saturdays in December due to a high number of Christmas shoppers using the service?

Rejig to use 150/2s on those services, and /1s on PF area services.

 

[pemma]

Rejig to use 150/2s on those services, and /1s on PF area services.

While it should be possible to diagram /1s and /2s separately it might be easier said than done to keep to those diagrams especially if a unit has a fault or there's disruption.

While there seems to be some uncertainty over how many 150s Northern will have long term, one thing we do know is some of the ex-LM 150/2s will be broken up to become centre cars, while other routes will continue to get 150s in both 2 and 4 car formations.

 

[crehld]

Though I can see how the issues are related, let's try to avoid this discussion becoming a class 150 formations thread.

Anyway, any scheme as described by the OP would fall foul of the National Rail Conditions of Travel as highlighted by SickyNicky. Unless Northern wish to pursue a formal penalty fares scheme, which would necessarily involved a significant investment in ticket issuing facilities across their network, which I can't see happening either.

Until we get any corroborating information from Norther staff or some sort of official statement from Northern, this seems to just be an overzealous guard wanting to discourage the sale of tickets on board.

 

[johntea]

In fairness to Northern, on certain routes they seem happy enough to have an extra guard (during peak services anyway) doing revenue duties on a formation where it would not be possible for one guard to do so

 

[Bletchleyite]

In fairness to Northern, on certain routes they seem happy enough to have an extra guard (during peak services anyway) doing revenue duties on a formation where it would not be possible for one guard to do so

It's only not possible because Northern, unlike LM or any of the DOO South East TOCs, at least those operating 8-car formations DOO or 12-car guarded, have a rule that there has to be a member of staff in each unit rather than both in one unit. Otherwise the guard could move back and forth at stations.

 

[sheff1]

Routes where that occurs are not suitable for buy-on-board and should be fitted with TVMs throughout and operated on a PF model.

There aren't many routes I would class as suitable for buy-on-board. For Northern I'd probably say Cumbrian Coast past Barrow only, Leeds-Lancaster, Ormskirk-Preston, Kirkby-Wigan, Blackburn-Clitheroe and the Hope Valley locals.

I have commented many a time on the difficulties which can be encountered trying to buy tickets on the Hope Valley line - this is people who board with money/card in hand. Northern seem to have no interest in introducing TVMs which would be welcomed by these passengers.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I have commented many a time on the difficulties which can be encountered trying to buy tickets on the Hope Valley line - this is people who board with money/card in hand. Northern seem to have no interest in introducing TVMs which would be welcomed by these passengers.

I'm led to believe Northern are putting TVMs on every station they manage, though they may be the 'Card Only' variety.

 

[185143]

I'm led to believe Northern are putting TVMs on every station they manage, though they may be the 'Card Only' variety.

Which is good, until they start being difficult towards people using another method of payment...