And yet you keep suggesting methods that are ONLY available when there is full internet and mobile phone facilities.
Make your mind up.
I am not suggesting that at all. Please go back and read post #108 (this is the second time I’ve suggested you read this post, btw).
So keeping it as it is, is not a solution?
Who says it is wholly unsatisfactory? I have plenty of train using friends who are quite happy with the way it works at the moment.
5 years handling consumer contact and complaints is pretty broad experience - my specialist area was ticketing and fulfilment. You would not believe how often people asked *not* to have a paper ticket (this was a few years ago when e-ticketing wasn’t quite as widespread as now). There’s very broad consumer demand for paperless ticketing nationwide. There will always be exceptions and people who don’t like paperless, and want to keep paper. That’s fair enough, but they’ll find it hard to convince most people that the paper system is the best, most efficient, most intuitive and most desirable method across the market.
Incidentally, nearly everyone who posts in this area of the board agrees the system needs changing - though the direction of that change is usually the source of intense disagreement. This is the first time I’ve found someone questioning whether any change is needed and implies that it’s all fine, serving the rail consumer in the best way.
Does it? Several recent postings in this thread, and numerous postings in other sections says otherwise, as the system is not perfect and does not work for everyone.
The system is definitely not perfect. No system is. But it’s a lot better than the losable, open to fraud and resale, expensive to fulfil paper method.
No, you are suggesting making the system more complicated and more expensive to some users, and that is NOT the way to encourage use.
No, the point (yet again) is this: if you simplify and streamline, and indeed normalise the use of smart or paperless ticketing, then the whole system becomes more intuitive as a result. Many of the complications inherent in the current system, designed around people carrying bits of paper, technically cannot and will not be supported and they will HAVE to go. It will lead by default to a simpler, fairer and more transparent fares system.
Putting a small surcharge on certain fulfilment methods is proven *not* to discourage rail use at all - and only modifies customer choice and behaviour. This is a fact I’ve seen borne out at two TOCs who did this.
I don’t like to claim superior knowledge or any moral high ground etc, but I would invite you to consider how you’d respond to someone posting about signalling, when they have no specialist experience and rely on anecdotes to support their point of view, as opposed to a former professional in that area.
At the end of the day, what you or I, or people on this forum think isn’t going to count for much. If you care very strongly about it, I’d really recommend watching out for any DfT consultation on the issue and submitting a response. This is the best way to effect (or prevent!) any change.