Onboard staff adding a comment to a digital ticket

[ichabod05]

I wasn't sure if this was best posted here or in the Fares Advice subforum so please do feel free to move it.

A few weeks ago I travelled on an EMR service which was not my booked time, as the booked train was cancelled. I was lucky to be allowed to travel on a service of my choice, rather than the next available, and the ticket inspector onboard added a comment to my ticket to this effect, although I have no idea what it said or how anyone would be able to see it.

I have a couple of questions about these digital tickets which hadn't occurred to me before now. Firstly, are the comments that he added visible to me anywhere? And secondly, how does a barcode even work? I didn't scan it at my origin station, as I was let through the barriers instead, but I did at my destination, and it allowed me through with no issue. Can someone scan the barcode and see that I only exited a station, but didn't enter, and if so, could that cause a problem onboard? I'm thinking of my specific situation, where I entered at a gated station, and the gates are in operation at all times, to my knowledge.

Would be very interested to learn a little more about this if anyone has some insight.

 

[SuspectUsual]

Can someone scan the barcode and see that I only exited a station, but didn't enter, and if so, could that cause a problem onboard? I'm thinking of my specific situation, where I entered at a gated station, and the gates are in operation at all times, to my knowledge

You could have arrived by train from a different station, using split tickets, so the absence of a gateline scan at the origin shouldn't be a major issue

 

[MP393]

Can someone scan the barcode and see that I only exited a station, but didn't enter, and if so, could that cause a problem onboard? I'm thinking of my specific situation, where I entered at a gated station, and the gates are in operation at all times, to my knowledge.

Would be very interested to learn a little more about this if anyone has some insight.

On our machines, we can see where it was scanned, if it was onboard (and if so, which train) or at a barrier, and the time it was scanned. I have never seen messages attached to a certain ticket, though we may have different machines to EMR at my TOC, so I can’t comment for those!

 

[virgintrain1]

I imagine it could only be viewed with same software it was added. Well that's the case at our TOC. (As the ticket machine scanner won't pick it up only the phone) We can select about 40 pre written comments

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Standard component of TTK - The Ticket Keeper mobile app for staff. It's not a comment, it's an "endorsement". Can be viewed by anyone else (regardless of TOC) with the same app.

Not possible for you to view it.

It can also be read by customer service teams, delay reply administrators etc.

 

[Sheffcaster202]

We have a whole host of pre written comments that can be added through the Reject/Accept/Warn functions when scanning a ticket

Usually in this situation where cancellations/delays have occurred I’ll use “Accepted for service disruption” which I believe then shows up in the scan history, although I’ve never rechecked my own scans but will have a go next time I come across this

 

[Bletchleyite]

One concern I have is of badly informed staff marking tickets as invalid.

I suspect this just about gets away with not being subject to a Subject Access Request due to not being directly associated to a person, but there is a big problem with changes to the power dynamic here. Really it should be possible for passengers to see what has been recorded so they can challenge it if it is wrong or unfair.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

One concern I have is of badly informed staff marking tickets as invalid.

I suspect this just about gets away with not being subject to a Subject Access Request due to not being directly associated to a person, but there is a big problem with changes to the power dynamic here. Really it should be possible for passengers to see what has been recorded so they can challenge it if it is wrong or unfair.

In your hypothetical scenario, it's not really any difference to writing 'not valid" in pen on a paper ticket - just electronically. No change at all except the means.

 

[skyhigh]

In your hypothetical scenario, it's not really any difference to writing 'not valid" in pen on a paper ticket - just electronically. No change at all except the means.

To be fair, at least if it's written on the ticket in pen you know what's been written. I think it's a fair concern.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In your hypothetical scenario, it's not really any difference to writing 'not valid" in pen on a paper ticket - just electronically. No change at all except the means.

That you know it's happened, and thus are pre-informed of what action needs to be taken to have the matter resolved. Rather than just getting to a gateline after an altercation with a clueless security contractor at another and being written up for an MG11.

I'd also like to see a mandatory qualification for staff putting a "negative" note on, so these clueless security contractors can't cause this problem.

 

[Adam Williams]

Standard component of TTK - The Ticket Keeper mobile app for staff. Can be viewed by anyone else (regardless of TOC) with the same app.

It's in the eTVD spec, so whilst TTK might be the de facto standard revenue protection app, it's not the case that it can only be seen by staff with the same app. Retailers can view comments in the same way as TOC staff.

One concern I have is of badly informed staff marking tickets as invalid.

I'm not sure I'd worry too much about this, the scan history / comments are buried beneath about 3 menu items. I suspect 99% of staff have no idea this functionality even exists.

 

[RHolmes]

A few weeks ago I travelled on an EMR service which was not my booked time, as the booked train was cancelled. I was lucky to be allowed to travel on a service of my choice, rather than the next available, and the ticket inspector onboard added a comment to my ticket to this effect, although I have no idea what it said or how anyone would be able to see it.

So the comment will appear on the device anyone who scans the ticket using the same (or similar) software but as far as I know is only a feature of TTK. Eg. The clipper app used by First group TOC’s never used to be able to do this.

I have a couple of questions about these digital tickets which hadn't occurred to me before now. Firstly, are the comments that he added visible to me anywhere?

No, purely for staff use only

And secondly, how does a barcode even work? I didn't scan it at my origin station, as I was let through the barriers instead, but I did at my destination, and it allowed me through with no issue. Can someone scan the barcode and see that I only exited a station, but didn't enter, and if so, could that cause a problem onboard?

Yes. So staff can see every individual scan of your ticket onboard. If I really wanted to I could completely map out your entire journey. I could see that you changed trains three times, you broke your journey at Hypothetical station for 40 minutes and then boarded my train. I can also see the guard before me scanned your ticket etc. Essentially it’s like the railway equivalent of a Tesco Clubcard, everytime your ticket is scanned you’re giving the railway a tiny bit of information about you, except we know how you travel as apposed to how often you shop for tinned goods.

You don’t need to worry about ‘entry’ scans. There are more stations in the UK that haven’t got barriers compared to those that have and it’s something revenue/on-board and gateline staff are all aware of. It wouldn’t be a problem in any situation.

One concern I have is of badly informed staff marking tickets as invalid.

It doesn’t matter. The second member of staff who could see the ‘this ticket is invalid’ comment, can override it or make their own judgement independently to or irrespective of the initial comment.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It doesn’t matter. The second member of staff who could see the ‘this ticket is invalid’ comment, can override it or make their own judgement independently to or irrespective of the initial comment.

It does matter, because many staff won't.

Fundamentally, if people have things written about them or their conduct by anyone other than the Police, they should be able to see them, either immediately or via a Subject Access Request. I suspect the railway gets away with the latter because the connection to a person is a bit tenuous, but it can be tracked back to an individual so arguably that should apply.

It'd not be hard to have a facility whereby you logged onto the sales site you bought from and it showed a history of scans etc with basic details, i.e. where/when/comment if any.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

It's in the eTVD spec, so whilst TTK might be the de facto standard revenue protection app, it's not the case that it can only be seen by staff with the same app. Retailers can view comments in the same way as TOC staff.


I'm not sure I'd worry too much about this, the scan history / comments are buried beneath about 3 menu items. I suspect 99% of staff have no idea this functionality even exists.

The eTVD spec is not for a synced up national system - it's on a per eTVD basis.

There isn't one national eTVD (unfortunately). If you don't have access to the supplier for one particular one, you're a bit stuck. It is just fortunate that TTK covers most (but not all) of this market.

 

[RHolmes]

It does matter, because many staff won't.

Fundamentally, if people have things written about them or their conduct by anyone other than the Police, they should be able to see them.

It doesn’t because it doesn’t happen in the way you describe.

Comments are rare and they’re largely used by onboard staff as notes. Usually formed on the basis of “passenger put to first class due to soiled reserved seat” or “ticket accepted for X train due to missed connection” rather than comments about the conduct of a passenger.

I’ve only used the feature once myself to put the comment on the lines of “Adult w/out 16/17 Saver - Details taken for TIR”.

They’re not about the passenger themselves, and can be viewed by anyone within the business with access to the software such as line managers if requested.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Standard component of TTK - The Ticket Keeper mobile app for staff. It's not a comment, it's an "endorsement". Can be viewed by anyone else (regardless of TOC) with the same app.

Not possible for you to view it.

It can also be read by customer service teams, delay reply administrators etc.

I'm intrigued at a technology level how this is possible? If my understanding is correct, the ticket machine is simply scanning a bar code on the phone, right? That would appear to be a one-way communication mechanism: The ticket machine reads the information contained in the bar code, but the act of scanning doesn't communicate any information back to the phone.

So if you want to add endorsements to the ticket, the only possibility that leaves is for the information be stored online in some central database rather than on the passenger's phone. But that seems unlikely because the ticket scanners need to recognise tickets instantly, so I can't imagine they'll be using a potentially dodgy on-train internet connection to get information back from a national database while the ticket is being scanned.

Am I missing something? That seems to leave no practical means by which an endorsement could be added to a digital ticket and subsequently read back by a ticket machine.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I’ve only used the feature once myself to put the comment on the lines of “Adult w/out 16/17 Saver - Details taken for TIR”.

They’re not about the passenger themselves, and can be viewed by anyone within the business with access to the software such as line managers if requested.

That example is quite literally about the passenger's conduct and is exactly what I mean.

Yes, the passenger is in the wrong, but they should still have a right to see it.

It's also reassuring to be able to see the exact wording of a note on "please pass on later train" or whatever to know exactly what you're entitled to do.

Staff probably don't like it because it makes it easier for passengers to challenge them when they get things wrong, but nothing should be immune to scrutiny, anywhere, ever.

So if you want to add endorsements to the ticket, the only possibility that leaves is for the information be stored online in some central database rather than on the passenger's phone. But that seems unlikely because the ticket scanners need to recognise tickets instantly, so I can't imagine they'll be using a potentially dodgy on-train internet connection to get information back from a national database while the ticket is being scanned.

Am I missing something?

Yes. The note can be recorded when the device gets an Internet connection, it doesn't have to be at that precise second. Similarly, scan the ticket and it'll come up as OK on the basis of just the scan, but then when the device has been able to interrogate the eTVD it'll flag up anything on there.

These days most of the network has a good mobile signal anyway, so that'll be close to immediate.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

That example is quite literally about the passenger's conduct and is exactly what I mean.

Yes, the passenger is in the wrong, but they should still have a right to see it.

It's also reassuring to be able to see the exact wording of a note on "please pass on later train" or whatever to know exactly what you're entitled to do.

Staff probably don't like it because it makes it easier for passengers to challenge them when they get things wrong, but nothing should be immune to scrutiny, anywhere, ever.



Yes. The note can be recorded when the device gets an Internet connection, it doesn't have to be at that precise second. Similarly, scan the ticket and it'll come up as OK on the basis of just the scan, but then when the device has been able to interrogate the eTVD it'll flag up anything on there.

These days most of the network has a good mobile signal anyway, so that'll be close to immediate.

Not necessarily in that example. Law enforcement purposes, fraud/crime prevention exemptions etc. It's not as black and white as you seem to wish it to be.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not necessarily in that example. Law enforcement purposes, fraud/crime prevention exemptions etc. It's not as black and white as you seem to wish it to be.

I do wish it to be, yes. The staff often inspecting railway tickets are not competent or professional enough for customers to be kept in the dark. If they were, I might not mind. The huge power the railway has due to its ability to privately prosecute offences and extort settlements as bribery to withdraw such prosecutions must come with strong checks and balances.

Or we remove their right to do that, which would suit me too. I'd be happy with them having the option to specifically suppress any note added because there is an intention to pursue a prosecution under the Fraud Act via the Police and CPS, and with strong auditing to catch staff misusing that.

It's a bit like banks at the moment. I totally understand why they can't disclose why someone has been debanked when it's due to a potential criminal prosecution (via Police and CPS) for serious financial crime. However, when it's because the bank doesn't like the customer for some reason, I'm (unusually) fully on the side of old Nigel. I don't like him or his politics either, but he deserves the right to be told the real reason honestly and up-front, even if he doesn't like it - and I see the railway the same.

 

[Adam Williams]

The eTVD spec is not for a synced up national system - it's on a per eTVD basis.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here, but every eTVD complies with RSPS5043 and that spec has a COMMENTS field in the scanning record definition. The entire point of the way it works is so that eTVD instances can talk to each other.

If you don't have access to the supplier for one particular one, you're a bit stuck

You just write your own and submit it to the repository..? The other eTVDs also follow the same technical spec, so that events can be synchronised. There's no reason your own eTVD instance shouldn't be able to participate. Every retailer and TOC could run their own if they wanted to.

 

[Krokodil]

Usually in this situation where cancellations/delays have occurred I’ll use “Accepted for service disruption” which I believe then shows up in the scan history, although I’ve never rechecked my own scans but will have a go next time I come across this

It does appear. That particular flag has gone from our machines now for some reason, it was quite useful.

You don’t need to worry about ‘entry’ scans. There are more stations in the UK that haven’t got barriers compared to those that have and it’s something revenue/on-board and gateline staff are all aware of. It wouldn’t be a problem in any situation.

The only time that I've ever known lack of an entry scan be questioned was when someone had already been caught using a fraudulent railcard and gave false details.

He was asked how he joined the train at a barriered station with no evidence of passage through the barriers, and he dropped a CCST on the floor: Moorfields - Lime St. A journey that no one (bar someone doing "all the stations") would bother doing - it's quicker on foot by the time that you factor in the time on the escalators. That explained where he came from, leaving a gap in his journey that he was unable to provide evidence of a ticket for.

 

[ichabod05]

Thanks to everyone who replied! In the event, I had no issue getting through the gateline (my journey was Nottingham to St. Pancras) but I was braced for some kind of problem when I got there purely because I was travelling outside of the standard rules; I was booked on the 1912 which was cancelled, but was allowed to travel on the 1750 instead despite it not being one of the "approved" services (i.e. before or after) - I happened to be in the area anyway and didn't see any point in hanging around for an hour if I could make it to London sooner if I could get on an earlier service, which the train manager was more than happy for me to do.

My concern was that I had no idea what had actually been added to the ticket so it could have been anything; not that I didn't trust the inspector, I just wondered if I would have been able to see the exact wording in case I did get into any difficulty.

Thanks again - looks like I might have started an interesting conversation!

 

[Paul Kelly]

I suspect this just about gets away with not being subject to a Subject Access Request due to not being directly associated to a person

Doesn't that depend on what the note says?

 

[RHolmes]

That example is quite literally about the passenger's conduct and is exactly what I mean.

Yes, the passenger is in the wrong, but they should still have a right to see it.

No it’s not about the passenger conduct (conduct would relate to how the passenger behaved/acted which doesn’t apply here) but simply that I’ve dealt with the ticket irregularity personally.

Attatched to the comment is my ID number, my train ID and the time I scanned and dealt with the situation. All it simply meant was when the passenger got to their destination, they didn’t have to spent the 10 or so minutes they spent with me explaining the irregularity to the RPO’s, they simply could pass through the barriers without two TIR’s being issued for the same problem wasting both their time, and time of railway staff.

You’re also under the assumption that I didn’t tell or show the passenger I added a comment to my ticket scan which is incorrect.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No it’s not about the passenger conduct (conduct would relate to how the passenger behaved/acted which doesn’t apply here) but simply that I’ve dealt with the ticket irregularity personally.

I'd call that conduct. But that's moot; you now know what I'm referring to.

Attatched to the comment is my ID number, my train ID and the time I scanned and dealt with the situation. All it simply meant was when the passenger got to their destination, they didn’t have to spent the 10 or so minutes they spent with me explaining the irregularity to the RPO’s, they simply could pass through the barriers without two TIR’s being issued for the same problem wasting both their time, and time of railway staff.

I don't see why the person shouldn't know your ID number nor the train ID nor the time of scanning. It's not like it has your name on it. After all bus drivers' PCV number had once upon a time to be on a clearly displayed badge. All staff actions with regard to serious matters like this should be identifiable and traceable.

You’re also under the assumption that I didn’t tell or show the passenger I added a comment to my ticket scan which is incorrect.

I didn't say you didn't. I'm simply saying passengers should be able to access these scans, just like they could if you had endorsed a paper ticket with the same information.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Passengers absolutely should be able to see what comments have been added, if nothing else to make sure they aren't incorrect! How many examples on this forum have we seen of staff marking paper tickets as "used" or similar despite the tickets having further validity.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Passengers absolutely should be able to see what comments have been added, if nothing else to make sure they aren't incorrect! How many examples on this forum have we seen of staff marking paper tickets as "used" or similar despite the tickets having further validity.

So you're saying if staff suspect fraud and flag it with a suitable comment/endorsement for managers/other staff to review, customers should be able to see that staff believe an investigation into this customer may be required?

That's ludicrous for several reasons.

This forum has a serious problem with rose tinted spectacles. At best you get a handful of customers per week writing about their one-sided dispute experience, most of which are pretty obviously guilty and want to settle. There is an absolute miniscule number of genuinely innocent people who somehow find themselves in serious trouble. However even innocent people can and should be investigated if there is a suspicion, it's the whole point of an investigation, to determine who is and who is not up to no good.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So you're saying if staff suspect fraud and flag it with a suitable comment/endorsement for managers/other staff to review, customers should be able to see that staff believe an investigation into this customer may be required?

I could see sense in an exception for cases where a Fraud Act prosecution brought via the Police and CPS was under consideration (while TOCs can prosecute this or anything else privately I've not heard of them doing so). However most of this is just stuff that would be written on a paper ticket, so why should our rights reduce?

This forum has a serious problem with rose tinted spectacles. At best you get a handful of customers per week writing about their one-sided dispute experience, most of which are pretty obviously guilty and want to settle. There is an absolute miniscule number of genuinely innocent people who somehow find themselves in serious trouble. However even innocent people can and should be investigated if there is a suspicion, it's the whole point of an investigation, to determine who is and who is not up to no good.

This is very 2023, but I strongly dislike this to the highest extent possible. "Fishing expeditions" are a massive concern of mine with e-tickets. I"m waiting for "you changed unnecessarily* on a ticket with BoJ banned, £100 please". Customers MUST be protected against this sort of "easy money" approach. And one way to protect them is to give them strong, powerful rights over data held with regard to their affairs - this being the root of GDPR.

* BoJ isn't defined any more so TOCs can interpret it how they like when it comes to these settlements which are tantamount to extortion. Has that happened yet? I don't think so. Will it? I'm confident it will, yes.

 

[Wallsendmag]

The eTVD spec is not for a synced up national system - it's on a per eTVD basis.

There isn't one national eTVD (unfortunately). If you don't have access to the supplier for one particular one, you're a bit stuck. It is just fortunate that TTK covers most (but not all) of this market.

Who told you this ? eTVDs can be linked regardles of who supplies them.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

I could see sense in an exception for cases where a Fraud Act prosecution was under consideration. However most of this is just stuff that would be written on a paper ticket, so why should our rights reduce?



This is very 2023, but I strongly dislike this to the highest extent possible. "Fishing expeditions" are a massive concern of mine with e-tickets. I"m waiting for "you changed unnecessarily* on a ticket with BoJ banned, £100 please". Customers MUST be protected against this sort of "easy money" approach.

* BoJ isn't defined any more so TOCs can interpret it how they like when it comes to these settlements which are tantamount to extortion. Has that happened yet? I don't think so. Will it? I'm confident it will, yes.

Getting way of topic now, but your fishing expedition to most professional investigators would be a lawful, balanced investigation into potentially suspicious activity.

The fact that the railway now has much better access to 'big data" alongsidethe industry becoming better at sharing data between TOCs, RDG and other law enforcement agencies means an increase in fraud related investigations was inevitable. As soon as they've caught up with all of the historic offending which is now only coming to light, things will inevitably calm down and become more business as usual.

If you comply with your ticket restrictions, concessions, discounts etc - nothing will flag up will it? Nobody is interested in retrospectively poking around one off break of journey issues etc unless there's something else going on with that customer. Despite all this new data, there's still only a finite number of investigators - so naturally the more serious end of the scale is prioritised, it has to be.

Who told you this ? eTVDs can be linked regardles of who supplies them.

Can be linked - doesn't necessarily mean they are automatically. I'm not quite sure even RDG/GBR appreciate how much data is actually "missing" (but available looking elsewhere) through fragmentation.