Penalty Fares being charged for being on the wrong train on an Advance ticket

[Bluejays]

So where is the problem with guards issuing PFs? If in the majority of cases passengers aren't going to get physical and those that are are easy to predict and prepare for.

Why the desire to see everyone slammed with the max punishment?

 

[Starmill]

So where is the problem with guards issuing PFs? If in the majority of cases passengers aren't going to get physical and those that are are easy to predict and prepare for.

As I've already pointed out they can simply leave the train? It's a reasonably straightforward concept that RPIs can work from a station the train happens to stop at and let the train depart, while the guard can't leave the train.

Conductors can just abandon their ticket check/ticket sale to go and release the doors. Not as easy if you're in the middle of issuing a PF, quite apart from any issues around people walking off.

Indeed. If it were obligatory or strongly encouraged for the conductor to issue a Penalty Fare in every case they came across where one were within the rules, they would simply not check tickets in most cases where stations were closely spaced. Indeed that's already what happens anyway on some routes.

The conductors could issue penalty warnings as SWR commercial guards ones do with ticket sales, but again that's become a box-ticking exercise because SWR wanted them issued with all onboard sales, even ones where the customer joined at a station with no ticket machine (e.g. Bruton didn't used to have one, Dilton Marsh and Dorking West still don't), where there's only a Permit to Travel machine (e.g. Holton Heath) or where there's only one and it wasn't working that day. As a result their commercial guards issue them with every sale, detach them from the ticket and put them into the bin. Issuing warnings also requires a certain amount of training in communication which currently lots of guard training actually teaches against, in the name of conflict avoidance.

 

[tomuk]

From my experience watching RPIs on my local line (Saltburn - Darlington) having the conductors issue PFs would lead to significant delays quite quickly. It is not unusual for an RPI to be dealing with a PF at the same time as the train is calling at a station. Conductors can just abandon their ticket check/ticket sale to go and release the doors. Not as easy if you're in the middle of issuing a PF, quite apart from any issues around people walking off.

But a guard has more than enough time to take someone's details to write them up or explain to a passenger why their ticket is invalid and are being charged an additional full fare.

I'd rather the conductor got on with their operational role and sold tickets in the spare time between station calls and left the PF issuing to RPIs personally speaking.

Well that might ask the question of what their operational role is.

 

[Krokodil]

But that changed, for the worse, despite the Government and RDG issuing press releases claiming that customer rights in this area were being improved.

Does this surprise you? If the government told me that anything was being "improved" or "modernised", I'd automatically expect a worse service.

So where is the problem with guards issuing PFs? If in the majority of cases passengers aren't going to get physical and those that are are easy to predict and prepare for.

In the right circumstances, I can sell tickets as fast as the card reader can access the web and the printer can print them. Even quicker if the customer is paying with a sensible amount of cash. I know the price for some common fares, and there's a "repeat fare" button that allows you to check through your history to issue the same ticket again. Easy enough to do multiple tickets per minute.

For penalty fares on the other hand, even if the passenger is compliant and their details are already in the system, it's going to take a couple of minutes to issue. Not practical with frequent stops, and of course the passenger is likely to be far less compliant if they're being threatened with £103.20 instead of £3.20.

Well that might ask the question of what their operational role is.

Even if you take doors out of the equation and just consider Southern's OBS role or the new MoW for Merseyrail 777s, the member of staff does have to check the platform at every station in case passengers require assistance before they tell the driver that station duties are complete.

 

[tomuk]

Why the desire to see everyone slammed with the max punishment?

So being written up by a guard and then receiving threats of court action unless you pay the TOCs costs in a out of court settlement is less punishment then a PF?

 

[Krokodil]

So being written up by a guard and then receiving threats of court action unless you pay the TOCs costs in a out of court settlement is less punishment then a PF?

I don't know about where you live but where I am the guard would have to be in a bad mood (or the passenger would have to be really taking the piss) to charge an undiscounted Anytime Single, let alone anything worse. Only time that name and address is ever taken on trains is a UFN.

 

[Starmill]

But a guard has more than enough time to take someone's details to write them up or explain to a passenger why their ticket is invalid and are being charged an additional full fare.

Maybe on occasions, but in general, if a person doesn't want to cooperate with a guard doing the above two things, the only thing that can be done is call for assistance by revenue or BTP (likely unavailable) and make a report of their physical description and where they are suspected to be travelling between.

Well that might ask the question of what their operational role is.

Loads of guards and onboard supervisors have operational roles that make it basically impossible for them to issue Penalty Fares whether authorised collectors or no. If you're proposing to change that...

 

[RPI]

Guards doing PF's is never going to be practical, its a hard enough job getting a lot of them to even leave the cab to check and sell tickets, let alone arguing over a PF.

 

[Starmill]

I don't know about where you live but where I am the guard would have to be in a bad mood (or the passenger would have to be really taking the piss) to charge an undiscounted Anytime Single, let alone anything worse. Only time that name and address is ever taken on trains is a UFN.

I believe this is by far the most common approach across the country. In general, approaches that keep train crews out of conflict are endorsed by management and that's always going to be a bigger priority than revenue protection. Proper revenue protection has to be carried out by dedicated staff working in teams, not one person alone who has other priorities.

 

[Bluejays]

So being written up by a guard and then receiving threats of court action unless you pay the TOCs costs in a out of court settlement is less punishment then a PF?

Krokodil has answered very well already. But the amount of people written up for prosecution by guards must be tiny.

What you're arguing for represents in most cases a massive increase in the amount charged to passengers. It would be operationally difficult, time consuming and increase conflict massively. Quite frankly it's an absolutely loony idea

 

[tomuk]

I don't know about where you live but where I am the guard would have to be in a bad mood (or the passenger would have to be really taking the piss) to charge an undiscounted Anytime Single, let alone anything worse. Only time that name and address is ever taken on trains is a UFN.

Well my experience of regional and intercity operators tends to suggest the regional ones are more relaxed at least in the past. More than once on the west coast I've seen an extortionate the Anytime Single 'fine' rolled out where a PF with a proper three stage appeal process would have been more appropriate.

If penalty fares are in force guards issuing tickets defeats the object. Is it a paytrain line or a compulsory ticket one? How is a passenger to know. As I said before you mention of a bad mood and passenger attitude emphasises my point about consistency. Reading the disputes thread, accepting it isn't a very good sample and there are a number of chancers too, would suggest that some operators\staff take a more liberal attitude to taking details and raising an incident report as a PF substitute.

Krokodil has answered very well already. But the amount of people written up for prosecution by guards must be tiny.

What you're arguing for represents in most cases a massive increase in the amount charged to passengers. It would be operationally difficult, time consuming and increase conflict massively. Quite frankly it's an absolutely loony idea

What is so much more time consuming to do when issuing a penalty fare as opposed to a normal fare? Ticket machines can issue all the relevant written notices required.

 

[Starmill]

Krokodil has answered very well already. But the amount of people written up for prosecution by guards must be tiny.

Lots of guards wouldn't even have a process for doing so, the only thing they could do is report the person's description and where and when they were encountered to their internal revenue teams, and to BTP. Guards should be able to issue an unpaid fares notice but that by itself doesn't suggest any offence, it's simply a bill due for payment.

 

[Bluejays]

Well my experience of regional and intercity operators tends to suggest the regional ones are more relaxed at least in the past. More than once on the west coast I've seen an extortionate the Anytime Single 'fine' rolled out where a PF with a proper three stage appeal process would have been more appropriate.

If penalty fares are in force guards issuing tickets defeats the object. Is it a paytrain line or a compulsory ticket one? How is a passenger to know. As I said before you mention of a bad mood and passenger attitude emphasises my point about consistency. Reading the disputes thread, accepting it isn't a very good sample and there are a number of chancers too, would suggest that some operators\staff take a more liberal attitude to taking details and raising an incident report as a PF substitute.


What is so much more time consuming to do when issuing a penalty fare as opposed to a normal fare? Ticket machines can issue all the relevant written notices required.

You'd need to get their name, address and details. Aswell as verifying those details to make sure they are correct. It's massively more time consuming. I can sell a ticket in about 30 seconds at a push. Must be at least 5 minutes to do a penalty fare. I'd argue that it would just be introducing a different kind of inconsistency on many trains. Instead of 10 passengers buying a ticket, you'd have 2 being penalty fared and 8 getting off because I'd never got round to them.

On a purely personal level, I also find it quite annoying that someone sees fit to propose adding even more confrontational situations to a job that already contains enough of them as it is.

 

[Buzby]

I must have been lucky - my mobile’s alarm didn’t update when the clocks changed in October 2018 and I rushed into Kings X in a funk trying to find my Edinburgh departure. The main destination board showed Platform 0 (Which I took to mean they weren’t ready to board) . On arrival at Platform 1 I saw the train for Edinburgh, boarded and tried to find my reserved seat. Whilst doing this (a) my train pulled out and (b) when I found my seat, someone was sitting in it and the slip showed a different journey.

When the time came for a ticket inspection, (passing Tring, first stop Darlington) I ‘fessed up and the guard said hardly anyone notices Platform 0, and the only difference was 2 intermediate stops and a 15 minute earlier departure. I was told to sit anywhere and my ticket was ‘stamped’. By rights, from what is being said here I could/should have been made to pay for a fresh ticket and possibly a penalty. Yet it was a genuine error. The fact they think it worthy of punitive sanctions annoys me greatly.

 

[Krokodil]

What is so much more time consuming to do when issuing a penalty fare as opposed to a normal fare? Ticket machines can issue all the relevant written notices required.

Issuing most tickets:

"Return to Anytown"
"£9.70 please"
"Cash or card?"
Cash taken (or contactless card touched), change given, ticket printed, done. Time taken: 30 seconds.

Issuing a penalty fare on the other hand involves looking up the fare (as above, so you're already using the same amount of time to begin with), taking down details, verifying those details, and giving the passenger any information about the process that they need to know.

 

[tomuk]

You'd need to get their name, address and details. Aswell as verifying those details to make sure they are correct. It's massively more time consuming. I can sell a ticket in about 30 seconds at a push. Must be at least 5 minutes to do a penalty fare. I'd argue that it would just be introducing a different kind of inconsistency on many trains. Instead of 10 passengers buying a ticket, you'd have 2 being penalty fared and 8 getting off because I'd never got round to them.

On a purely personal level, I also find it quite annoying that someone sees fit to propose adding even more confrontational situations to a job that already contains enough of them as it is.

Maybe guards should stop doing any retail duties at all if confrontational situations are becoming so much of a problem.

Issuing most tickets:

"Return to Anytown"
"£9.70 please"
"Cash or card?"
Cash taken (or contactless card touched), change given, ticket printed, done. Time taken: 30 seconds.

Issuing a penalty fare on the other hand involves looking up the fare (as above, so you're already using the same amount of time to begin with), taking down details, verifying those details, and giving the passenger any information about the process that they need to know.

So you never check details of peoples railcards or lookup later train times for them?

 

[yorkie]

Maybe guards should stop doing any retail duties at all if confrontational situations are becoming so much of a problem.


So you never check details of peoples railcards or lookup later train times for them?

This is a logical fallacy argument.

People who work with and understand rail fares and related issues and/or have experience of relevant public-facing positions and potential positions of conflict have dismissed your claims upthread, and rightfully so; you'd do well to heed their words of wisdom.

The current PF arrangements in place by unscrupulous TOCs such as Northern, in cahoots with the incompetent DfT, are almost completely at odds with the SRA's Guidelines; the current people in charge at the DfT are clearly woefully lacking when it comes to intelligence, honour and integrity when compared to the people who were in charge at the SRA.

Sadly in recent years we've gone backwards; the move away from SRA was the thin edge of the wedge.

Some key extracts from:
https://www.penaltyservices.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Penalty-Fares-Policy-2002.pdf :

A penalty fares scheme is most suited to urban or suburban train services where most stations have ticket facilities, and where busy trains and short intervalsbbetween stations make it impossible to check every passenger’s ticket between every stop. We may question the need for a penalty fares scheme to cover long-distance services, where a conductor is able to check every passenger, or rural services operated as ‘paytrains’, where
most stations are unstaffed and it is normal practice to buy tickets on board the train.

In deciding which trains should be penalty fares trains, an operator should take account of the geography of the train service, the ticket facilities available at the stations which will be served and whether the area covered can be easily explained to passengers.

Authorised collectors must be properly trained in the Penalty Fares Rules and the relevant penalty fares scheme or schemes, ticket types and restrictions, excess fare instructions, the National Routeing Guide and the National Rail Conditions of Carriage.

Many types of ticket cannot be used at certain times of day, on certain days of the week or on certain trains. These ticket restrictions can be complicated, and even familiar tickets such as cheap day returns can have different restrictions on different routes.
If a passenger travels on a train on which their ticket is not valid, it is more likely that the restrictions were not properly explained to them than that they are deliberately trying to avoid paying the right fare. We believe that it is up to the train operators to make sure that
each passenger understands the restrictions which apply to the ticket which they are sold.
Under rule 7, a passenger may not be charged a penalty fare if he or she has a ticket for the journey which they are making that is not valid on that train only because of a ticket restriction.

If penalty fares are in force guards issuing tickets defeats the object.....

It is absolutely the case that a PF scheme is not appropriate for the Carlisle-Newcastle-Middlesbrough route, but you seemed to be in favour of it earlier.

I'm very puzzled by your posts, which appear to be inconsistent; are you for or against the actions of Northern in the example I provided?

 

[johntea]

On a slightly unrelated note my mum mentioned she caught a train to Leeds today (from a unstaffed station but a 'penalty fare' one) where someone had tried to buy a ticket on board as they've 'always done it that way' but resulted in being met by the BTP at Leeds! (I don't have the full details so can only assume attitude test may have played a part)

I travel the same route daily and hardly go a day without seeing the conductor happily selling tickets to many passengers presenting their card for payment, Northern really need to stamp out this company wide rather than the lottery of buy your tickets on board as long as you like from a friendly conductor...oh sorry here are the RPI!

 

[yorkie]

On a slightly unrelated note my mum mentioned she caught a train to Leeds today (from a unstaffed station but a 'penalty fare' one) where someone had tried to buy a ticket on board as they've 'always done it that way' but resulted in being met by the BTP at Leeds! (I don't have the full details so can only assume attitude test may have played a part)

I travel the same route daily and hardly go a day without seeing the conductor happily selling tickets to many passengers presenting their card for payment, Northern really need to stamp out this company wide rather than the lottery of buy your tickets on board as long as you like from a friendly conductor...oh sorry here are the RPI!

Quite; it's abundantly clear (from the extracts I quoted above) that these routes would not have been approved by the SRA.

The DfT couldn't be more different in their approach; they are acting in a manner that is consistent with attempting to bring the rail industry into disrepute and deter passengers from travelling.

 

[Krokodil]

Issuing most tickets:

So you never check details of peoples railcards or lookup later train times for them?

Did you miss the word "most"? Most tickets aren't discounted and most people don't ask for information about the train back - though I'll give the information unprompted if I feel that the passenger may benefit from it.

 

[londonbridge]

And if you were travelling on an earlier train than booked, with the right operator, that was the correct charge as the Advance ticket was still valid for the correct train. If you were travelling on a later train than booked, you got lucky, as the ticket had no validity or value after the departure of the booked train and a new ticket should have been sold.

I was on a later train, the advance was for an early morning service which I missed because I overslept.

 

[Bluejays]

Maybe guards should stop doing any retail duties at all if confrontational situations are becoming so much of a problem.

What a silly response.

 

[tomuk]

This is a logical fallacy argument.

No it wasn't it. It was a Reductio ad absurdum.

People who work with and understand rail fares and related issues and/or have experience of relevant public-facing positions and potential positions of conflict have dismissed your claims upthread, and rightfully so; you'd do well to heed their words of wisdom.

You might think that they have dismissed my claims but I remain unconvinced. I do find it interesting that you put such stock in their views on this occasion because you regularly bemoan the actions of staff in similar or adjacent roles on ticketing matters. "Amicus meus, inimicus inimici mei"

The current PF arrangements in place by unscrupulous TOCs such as Northern, in cahoots with the incompetent DfT, are almost completely at odds with the SRA's Guidelines; the current people in charge at the DfT are clearly woefully lacking when it comes to intelligence, honour and integrity when compared to the people who were in charge at the SRA.
Sadly in recent years we've gone backwards; the move away from SRA was the thin edge of the wedge.

Some key extracts from:
https://www.penaltyservices.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Penalty-Fares-Policy-2002.pdf :

What is so wrong with the PF arrangements that words such as unscrupulous, and woefully lacking in intelligence, honour and integrity should be aimed at the staff in DfT? That they won't charge an excess for using a Advance on the wrong train? I think some more rationality is required.
In the lead up to the Northern Franchise it was clear that revenue protection was a concern of DfT and the other authorities in rail north. It was a franchise requirement to reduce ticketless travel and to introduce penalty fare zones. Northern are are only doing what is required of them.

use best endeavours to implement Penalty Fare Zones on 60% of all Routes by
31 December 2019 and on all remaining Routes by 31 December 2022. The
Franchisee shall be responsible for obtaining any approval required under
Section 130 of the Act prior to the implementation of the Penalty Fare Zone;

The Dft are the ones setting the policy and they can set it to whatever they like. What the SRA, which was abolished 17 years ago, set out in guidance 20 years ago is bordering on irrelevant. And if you believe that the SRA was good for the industry just because they took a slightly more considered approach to the implementation of penalty fares you can't see the wood for the trees.

It is absolutely the case that a PF scheme is not appropriate for the Carlisle-Newcastle-Middlesbrough route, but you seemed to be in favour of it earlier.

Is a PF scheme is inappropriate on the route? The eastern half of the route serving Newcastle and connecting it two if not more of the regions major centres could qualify as Urban or Suburban. The more rural section from Hexham less so. Are there not appropriate ticket facilities on the eastern half of the line? Most of the stops are quite substantial. The specific case was a trip from Seaton to MetroCentre not really a ramble between two rural halts. Hexham to Middlesbrough I can't see the issue.

I'm very puzzled by your posts, which appear to be inconsistent; are you for or against the actions of Northern in the example I provided?

How are my posts inconsistent? I would like a more consistent, simpler and fairer approach to revenue protection. It shouldn't be dependent on who catches you without a ticket, what mood they are in or how busy they are. To me an appropriate course would be an expanded PF scheme with appropriate protections in place ie appeals process and tighter control of the use of byelaws\threats of prosecution. The trawling of travel histories is also a concern.

In the meantime there is nothing inconsistent in saying that if PFs are currently in force then continuing to issue tickets on board is just confusing defeats the purpose of having the PFs. The inconsistency and apparent unfairness could discourage people from using the train.

In the specific case I don't particularly see the problem with PFs being issued for the incorrect use of the Advances. Advances being tied to specific trains is not a wild concept. Now the two bits where it does feel a bit unjust is issuing of the PFs to the users of the tickets, particularly the son, rather than the purchaser and the potential 'miss selling' of the advances by the app due to a lack of prominence of the specific train nature of the fare. Would these not be considered as grounds for appeal under 16(3) (b) and (d) of the regs. Personally I don't think TOC specific tickets\Advances should be allowed on such local\regional services for short journeys but that is another discussion.

I do wonder why issuing PFs for misusing advances is such a contentious issue. I suppose it might be galling to be now associated with fare dodgers and also heavy on the wallet if caught gaming the system with a wrong advance when in the past a simple excess would suffice.

 

[yorkie]

You might think that they have dismissed my claims but I remain unconvinced. I do find it interesting that you put such stock in their views on this occasion because you regularly bemoan the actions of staff in similar or adjacent roles on ticketing matters. "Amicus meus, inimicus inimici mei"

As refer you to what I said above; when people with relevant knowledge and experience disagree, that's quite a different matter to multiple people who work in this area disagreeing with one person; ultimately people can read this thread and make their own decisions.

What is so wrong with the PF arrangements that words such as unscrupulous, and woefully lacking in intelligence, honour and integrity should be aimed at the staff in DfT?

I refer you to the post above, in particular the quotes from the SRA, which is very much at odds with the current position.

That they won't charge an excess for using a Advance on the wrong train? I think some more rationality is required.

You're the one who came up with that; why do you ask it in a way that suggests I came up with it? I refer you to post #11.

In the lead up to the Northern Franchise it was clear that revenue protection was a concern of DfT and the other authorities in rail north. It was a franchise requirement to reduce ticketless travel and to introduce penalty fare zones. Northern are are only doing what is required of them.

I refer you to what the SRA have said on this matter; if you wish to deem the customers in question to be "ticketless" then quite frankly there is no point in me continuing to discuss the debate with you. I've provided quotes and evidence and there is no need for me to repeat myself.

The Dft are the ones setting the policy and they can set it to whatever they like. What the SRA, which was abolished 17 years ago, set out in guidance 20 years ago is bordering on irrelevant.

In the opinion of someone who clearly has no relevant expertise or experience in this area.

And if you believe that the SRA was good for the industry just because they took a slightly more considered approach to the implementation of penalty fares you can't see the wood for the trees.

That's rich coming from you, of all people.

Is a PF scheme is inappropriate on the route? The eastern half of the route serving Newcastle and connecting it two if not more of the regions major centres could qualify as Urban or Suburban. The more rural section from Hexham less so. Are there not appropriate ticket facilities on the eastern half of the line? Most of the stops are quite substantial. The specific case was a trip from Seaton to MetroCentre not really a ramble between two rural halts. Hexham to Middlesbrough I can't see the issue.

Have you been to these places? Have you actually read the SRA document? There's something not quite right here and I'm not going to engage with you further.

How are my posts inconsistent?

For the reasons stated above; you are happy to support the issuing of the PF in question and yet you also appeared to admit that a PF scheme isn't compatible with a service in which it's custom and practice to buy on board; the SRA correctly warned against this scenario and yet here you are simultaneously agreeing with them but also dismissing them. It's very odd.

I would like a more consistent, simpler and fairer approach to revenue protection.

So many people seek simplicity but everyone has their own opinion on it.

It shouldn't be dependent on who catches you without a ticket, what mood they are in or how busy they are. To me an appropriate course would be an expanded PF scheme with appropriate protections in place ie appeals process and tighter control of the use of byelaws\threats of prosecution. The trawling of travel histories is also a concern.

In the meantime there is nothing inconsistent in saying that if PFs are currently in force then continuing to issue tickets on board is just confusing defeats the purpose of having the PFs. The inconsistency and apparent unfairness could discourage people from using the train.

Do you not think expanding PF schemes and issuing more PFs won't discourage people from using the train?

In the specific case I don't particularly see the problem with PFs being issued for the incorrect use of the Advances.

Yes, so you keep telling us.

Advances being tied to specific trains is not a wild concept. Now the two bits where it does feel a bit unjust is issuing of the PFs to the users of the tickets, particularly the son, rather than the purchaser and the potential 'miss selling' of the advances by the app due to a lack of prominence of the specific train nature of the fare. Would these not be considered as grounds for appeal under 16(3) (b) and (d) of the regs. Personally I don't think TOC specific tickets\Advances should be allowed on such local\regional services for short journeys but that is another discussion.

That's a silly argument to make; as you say it's not for discussion in this thread and in any case it hardly makes the problem go away.

I do wonder why issuing PFs for misusing advances is such a contentious issue.

I refer you to what the SRA said about restrictions; if you can't understand the points they make then that's your problem.

I suppose it might be galling to be now associated with fare dodgers and also heavy on the wallet if caught gaming the system with a wrong advance when in the past a simple excess would suffice.

Your choice of words leaves much to be desired, but yes it's not appropriate to treat people so harshly when the SRA - quite correctly and very wisely - advised against it.

 

[Starmill]

No it wasn't it. It was a Reductio ad absurdum.

No it wasn't, it was nonsense. Confrontational situations aren't a problem in the vast majority of cases because customers will either present already valid tickets which the conductor verifies, or they correctly tender their fare with the conductor who issues their ticket, as that's the first opportunity the customer had to do so. In the remainder of cases, which are the ones we're interested in, the customer may have broken railway byelaw 18 or have been trying to get away with travelling ticketlessly.

However, the conductor will almost always be working alone with most trains having nobody else but the train driver onboard. As has already been pointed out, they simply can't focus on revenue above customer care (e.g. carrying out booked assistance, responding to a delay to their service by taking a call from the train driver or their control, making a public address etc) and they can't focus on either above working the train safely.

It is practical for the conductor to do revenue duties for the first two groups I've mentioned above so there's no reason for them not to do those. The third, smaller group can also be dealt with and maybe there are better ways of their working with these in Penalty Fare areas, but crucially it's not going to be possible for them to do this in the way dedicated revenue staff could.

 

[RPI]

As someone who has to issue PF'S on routes that are mostly non DOO, I can see all sides to the argument, guards selling tickets does create inconsistencies, the answer, or the best practical answer, is that a warning is given each time a ticket is sold.
A lot of our targeted exercises are from Intel provided by guards who, in the TOC I work for, have a mechanism for reporting intel that goes to the local revenue protection manager.
And it does happen.

As for the advance ticket argument, thankfully I don't have to work in any areas where there are lots of TOC specific Advance tickets for very short journeys, personally, I don't think that a PF is appropriate for someone genuinely on the wrong train, but the rules allow it and in general people do need to take more personal responsibility for making the best effort to catch the right train.

As an aside, there are cases where a PF can actually be less than the anytime single, mainly at Off-Peak times when a PF+Off-Peak is cheaper, it can be a case of be careful what you wish for.

 

[tomuk]

As refer you to what I said above; when people with relevant knowledge and experience disagree, that's quite a different matter to multiple people who work in this area disagreeing with one person; ultimately people can read this thread and make their own decisions.

Three people of the tiny handful engaging in this thread his hardly a brilliant sample. People having experience of an area or working in it is useful and adds to the debate it doesn't make their viewpoint fundamentally correct. As you yourself seem to agree with when dismissing staff views on ticket offices or barrier staff in other threads.

I refer you to the post above, in particular the quotes from the SRA, which is very much at odds with the current position.

Again what weight does the 20 year old guidance of from an organisation abolished 17 years really hold? There has been various engagements with different stakeholders since then and the view of DFT is that a more robust approach should be taken.

You're the one who came up with that; why do you ask it in a way that suggests I came up with it? I refer you to post #11.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. I'm suggesting that a small change in policy on PFs doesn't require the level of intemperate language you are using to describe the change or about those who have made that decision. Not sure what the the relevance of a five year old internal industry information is other to confirm that the position has changed.

I refer you to what the SRA have said on this matter; if you wish to deem the customers in question to be "ticketless" then quite frankly there is no point in me continuing to discuss the debate with you. I've provided quotes and evidence and there is no need for me to repeat myself.

They are on the train without a valid ticket as advances are only valid on the specific train stated at purchase. That seems quite straightforward. Now the circumstances around how they ended up in that situation, the seriousness of the infraction and what the outcome should is open to discussion but they still didn't have a valid ticket.

But you seem to want to add some sort of moral element to the fact of not holding a valid ticket/being ticketless and it impugns ones character. And despite not wanting to repeat my self again what standing does the SRA have? Shall I try and contact Richard Bowker to ascertain his view on the matter?

In the opinion of someone who clearly has no relevant expertise or experience in this area.
That's rich coming from you, of all people.

Again you hold up the SRA as some beacon. They are defunct like the proverbial dead parrot. And I would suggest that the view amongst the wider rail 'community\industry' is that they made some very bad decisions which have had long term poor consequences for the industry but for you their sins can be forgiven because of their more lenient view on the tiny area of penalty fares policy.

Have you been to these places? Have you actually read the SRA document? There's something not quite right here and I'm not going to engage with you further.

Newcastle yes. Tyne Valley no but the similar in some ways Northumberland coast further north yes. The Tees area no but have been to other similar Northern ex industrial cities\towns. Either way it doesn't negate ones opinion as facts and figures about said areas and stations are freely available.

As I said I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with a penalty fares scheme being used at the stations on the Durham Coast line or stations on the Tess valley out to at least Prudhoe. Ticket machines are available at unstaffed stations as well as the apps and websites. These stations are not more than 20 miles from the major centres of Newcastle, Sunderland and Middlesbough\Teeside they are predominantly used for travelling into and would seem to to qualify as the urban and suburban routes your vaunted SRA suggests PF scheme are appropriate for despite a nice view of the sea. Again as I said the rural part of the route out to Hexham and Carlisle very much less so.

For the reasons stated above; you are happy to support the issuing of the PF in question and yet you also appeared to admit that a PF scheme isn't compatible with a service in which it's custom and practice to buy on board; the SRA correctly warned against this scenario and yet here you are simultaneously agreeing with them but also dismissing them. It's very odd.

No. It is completely reasonable to change the status of a station and implement penalty fares as long as suitable facilities are available and it is properly communicated. A short leniency period may be appropriate with special notices issued for example where no ticket has been purchased. What is not reasonable is to introduce penalty fares have RPIs enforcing them and then undermine the whole process by guards still selling fares on board to those who don't qualify for them. Does telling the RPI prior to them issuing a PF that the guards Bob and Shelia always sell to you on board stop them from issuing it?

Again you can't seem to distinguish between policy, implementation and resultant specific cases. You can hold different views in each of those areas without said views being fundamentally inconsistent or incorrect.

So many people seek simplicity but everyone has their own opinion on it.

You don't seem to place much value in it and would prefer to retain the arcane if a side effect of the simplification are some increased costs for some users despite the wider benfits of thhe simplification.

Do you not think expanding PF schemes and issuing more PFs won't discourage people from using the train?

If they are issued in a fair and reasonable manner with an appeals process where the cases of genuine mistakes can be dealt with I don't see it discouraging travel.

Yes, so you keep telling us.

And what is wrong with either holding that view or communicating it?

That's a silly argument to make; as you say it's not for discussion in this thread and in any case it hardly makes the problem go away.

What's a silly argument to make? That short distance toc specific advances overly complicate the ticketing\revenue process and just introduce more points of conflict and dispute and that their main benefit of diverting revenues to 'unscrupulous TOCs' doesn't in any way out way the aforementioned dis-benefits? As regards making the problem go away, if it even is one, less restricted tickets issued equals less points of contention.

I refer you to what the SRA said about restrictions; if you can't understand the points they make then that's your problem.

I completely understand the points they make thank you. Ticket restrictions shouldn't be as complicated as they are and it does lead to mistakes but if the operator has properly explained the restrictions and set them out clearly then is the blanket protection of a the old rule 7 required? Particularly with the three stage appeals process and with the background that the the industry has had an increased prevalence of these restricted tickets for 30 years.

Your choice of words leaves much to be desired, but yes it's not appropriate to treat people so harshly when the SRA - quite correctly and very wisely - advised against it.

Leaving the defunct SRA out of it. I agree that is not appropriate to treat people harshly in cases of genuine error but the question is how do you judge a genuine error? Is ignorance of the 'law' a defence? Is that best left to the appeals process where all the evidence can be weighed rather than in the moment on a train? Does the current varied responses to not not buying before boarding, of on board sales of discounted fares, on board sales of full fares, issuing of PFs, or the starting of Byelaw proceedings whether real or an excuse for a Parking style PFN, lead to a natural justice?

 

[RPI]

I'm failing to see what relevance the SRA has in all of this?

 

[yorkie]

I'm failing to see what relevance the SRA has in all of this?

Why wouldn't it be relevant?

 

[bcarmicle]

Because the world has changed in the 21 years since that document was written? For example, mobile ticketing didn't exist in any form then, and it predates the industry's change to the Anytime/(Super) Off-Peak/Advance ticketing structure. It's not at all clear that if the SRA existed that it would have the same view that it did then.