The way some passengers who have made mistakes are treated

[Bletchleyite]

Fair enough, zero tolerance it is;
1. Everybody who gets on from a station where they could have purchased a ticket before boarding to be penalty-fared or a bylaw 18 prosecution. At the least, sold an Anytime single.
2. Everybody who fails to show a valid railcard given a PF or otherwise treated as if they have no ticket (see above)

Drop the prosecution, but it doesn't seem an unreasonable use of PFs. It's certainly how the Swiss system works.

To counter it, every station would have to have sufficient ticket sales facilities (staff and/or TVM as appropriate) that any walk-up ticket from that origin can be purchased within a specified period of time, by cash or card, which is to be published, except in genuinely exceptional circumstances. I'd suggest 15 minutes as reasonable. If the railway is failing to deliver on this, free Permits to Travel are issued, either by a member of staff, the TVM if it knows it can't accept a method of payment it normally does, or as a reference number by the Help Point staff if completely unstaffed and the TVM is completely broken.

Tiny stations would be handled either by Paytrain schemes or PERTIS style machines.

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Although this could be efficient, would it be customer focused?

I think inconsistency is not customer-focused, to be honest. Personally I want to know what the rules are and how to comply with them in order that misunderstandings are avoided. They are just too complicated, and I say that as someone with a good understanding of the railway.

Neil

 

[CC 72100]

Fair enough, zero tolerance it is;
1. Everybody who gets on from a station where they could have purchased a ticket before boarding to be penalty-fared or a bylaw 18 prosecution. At the least, sold an Anytime single.
2. Everybody who fails to show a valid railcard given a PF or otherwise treated as if they have no ticket (see above)
3. All Advance ticket holders to be charged a new ticket if on the wrong train.

There are lots of other things, but that't the big three to be going on with...

No problem by me!

 

[Flamingo]

I often wonder if the wrong quesion is being asked with regard to what's referred to as 'revenue protection'.
When I hear the question, 'Did this person evade their fare ?' I think it raises another quite valid question, which is, 'Did the railway allow this person onto a train when they either didn't have a ticket, or the correct ticket ?' And if the answer to that question is yes it did, then I can understand why people object to being treated as if they have tried to get one over on the railway company, when this is quite clearly not always the case. Train operating companies have a responsibility to put themselves into a position where they are able to sell tickets. It is when they fail to do this, and then attempt to blame passengers, that they lose any sympathy they might otherwise have gained. The crazy thing is, the process could be so easy. Simply buy ticket, get on train, arrive at destination, no hassle for passenger or train company. But when the process becomes ridiculoulsy complicated, as highlighted in experiences described by Alex C, the whole thing becomes the farce we're now discussing.





Another problem is that when TOCs target the wrong people, ie those who are not 'fare dodgers' then they tie themselves or their legal departments up in knots dealing with defended prosecutions, civil claims, and complaints against them.

The argument that says people have to pay the correct fare to travel on a train is just as valid as the one saying train companies must put themselves in a position where they can sell tickets. To me, the sob story from TOCs about how they need to save money by having less ticket offices, or reducing the opening hours of those ticket offices is just a cop out, and a cheap excuse. If they really wanted to increase revenue and sell a ticket to every person who travelled on the train, I honestly believe they would get out there and do just that. If they have to spend money to achieve this, so be it. I think it's also fair to say if they can afford to employ staff to try to catch people who haven't got a ticket, they can afford to pay people to sell tickets. Until then, I'm sure we'll just keep seeing more threads like this, more people with less and less respect for the railway companies, and more stories of people not paying for tickets they would have willingly bought if a decent opportunity had existed.

The only problem I would have with your argument would be the number of people who I sell tickets to who have walked past an open booking office. A large number of them, when asked why they did not buy a ticket before boarding say "The barriers were open". (The rest say "I was late".)

In those cases, the only thing the Railway had not provided was a physical barrier stopping these people getting on the train. This is where all the arguements saying "People will buy tickets but they can't" fall down. What about the large number of people who won't unless they are made to, either by a physical barrier or the threat of punitive action if they don't?

For every ticket bought, the overall taxpayer subsidy can in theory be reduced by a similar amount...

 

[Deerfold]

I didn't realise isolated incidents which are a minuscule proportion of the overall journeys made each year are a reason to condemn the whole system as unfit for purpose...

I didn't condemn the system as unfit for purpose. I didn't even say it wasn't a good idea. I've no problem with barriers so long as they are set up to take the tickets people use through them (I have disagreements with specific barriers such as at Leeds as they don't take some local tickets and the staff are often not stood at the marked "help points" so can severely slow me down). I merely pointed out it wasn't the end of all ticketing woes as claimed.

Your response seems to assume that it is likely that the RP staff concerned report for prosecution every person that they speak to, whereas the reality is that they may actually collect revenue, which may be both fares & penalty fares, from many more people than are reported.

I was merely pointing out that the very low rate seems odd if they're trying to prevent recurrence of people not buying their tickets - though it also suggests a lot of people are not treated harshly - presumably if only 3 were reported for prosecution those 3 were doing something different, even if that was only refusing to pay a penalty fare.

522 * £20 = £10,440. I expect that compares very favourably to the cost of the staff.

About time the entire Cross City was barriered?

Neil

Oops! Certainly suggests it's well worth running these excercises frequently - or having much more regular checks at these stations.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Oops! Certainly suggests it's well worth running these excercises frequently - or having much more regular checks at these stations.

Might at least be worth looking at permanently barriering (either automatic or manual) on key destination stations such as University (a New St station block will of course catch the other key destination). Indeed, I bet University has a particularly high rate of fare-dodging.

Neil

 

[PauloDavesi]

I think University and Five Ways do have barriers.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

The only problem I would have with your argument would be the number of people who I sell tickets to who have walked past an open booking office. A large number of them, when asked why they did not buy a ticket before boarding say "The barriers were open". (The rest say "I was late".)

In those cases, the only thing the Railway had not provided was a physical barrier stopping these people getting on the train. This is where all the arguements saying "People will buy tickets but they can't" fall down. What about the large number of people who won't unless they are made to, either by a physical barrier or the threat of punitive action if they don't?

For every ticket bought, the overall taxpayer subsidy can in theory be reduced by a similar amount...

The routes I work on, by and large, have open ticket offices at nearly every station, which are open when people join the train.

Yet I still sell lots of tickets on trains to people who have no tickets at all, mostly from stations with open ticket offices. Only a handful of stations have barriers.

But when someone asks for a ticket from a barriered station I always ask how they got through the barriers "the gates were open" and "I was going to miss the train so the bloke just let me through" being the most common.

From other stations without barriers, if I ask why they didn't buy a ticket it is normally always "I was running late and didn't have a chance".

While at some locations and times I recognise that the chance to buy a ticket may be difficult due to large queues etc, this is most certainly not the case the majority of the time, yet still lots and lots people don't buy tickets, so it doesn't matter how many open windows or machines you have, people will still ignore them.

The rest of my revenue - which I have to say is an surprisingly large proportion - is from charging people extra who have no valid railcard / are on the wrong train with an Advance ticket.

I have to say though, reverting back to an earlier post, that one of my big annoyances now is the number of people who turn up **expecting** to be shown "discretion". There is so much talk of "discretion" - and so many people showing it for silly reasons - that lots of people now expect it and get very confrontational when not shown it immediately without question. And I really do wish station staff and ticket offices would grow a spine and just say "no" sometimes rather than "go and ask the conductor, it is up to them" - because when I tell somebody they can't just travel a few hours early with their advance, or whatever, then I am the one who gets the hassle.

 

[jj1314]

University definitely did about 5 weeks ago when I was on campus for a day's training.

Worth noting that the queue to the ticket office was about 100-long at about 5 pm on a weekday, with the barriers open.

Going by the crowds on the Birmingham-bound platform that would appear in the few minutes between New Street-bound trains, I'd imagine a lot of people evaded buying tickets or facing subsequent penalty fares/prosecution!

 

[Haywain]

I really do wish station staff and ticket offices would grow a spine and just say "no" sometimes rather than "go and ask the conductor, it is up to them" - because when I tell somebody they can't just travel a few hours early with their advance, or whatever, then I am the one who gets the hassle.

You will probably find that in most of those cases the ticket office has already given the same answer and had the same hassle.

 

[Agent_c]

There is a subtle but significant difference in legal procedure between England and Scotland which explains this - not the franchisee.

Just wondering what the legal difference is here... seems an odd quirk.

 

[transmanche]

And I really do wish station staff and ticket offices would grow a spine and just say "no" sometimes rather than "go and ask the conductor, it is up to them" - because when I tell somebody they can't just travel a few hours early with their advance, or whatever, then I am the one who gets the hassle.

This is a good point. I'm one of those people who believes in good customer service, but (despite what some people on here claim, this doesn't mean rolling over) sometimes that does mean saying no.

This is an example I have heard used on (non-railway) customer service courses and dates back to BR days:

Chummy turns up at Waterloo at 6.30pm and asks to board a train with a bike. Barrier staff says no initially but then (thinking this is good customer service) suggests that Chummy asks the guard - as it's the guard's train, he'll have the final say. Chummy now thinks he's jumped the main hurdle, as he trundles his bike along the platform he's feeling more confident about getting the bike on board. But when he asks the guard, the guard says no - the train is going to be packed, you have to wait until 7pm.

The problem is, having got so close to getting his bike on board, Chummy is far angrier than he would have been if firmly refused at the barrier.

Good customer service isn't about 'giving in'. It's about being polite, firm, fair and consistent.

 

[CharlieSpotted]

Speaking of New Street barriers, the last couple of times I passed the place, from the new concourse, only the one by the higher numbered platforms was staffed, with the one by the lower numbered platforms left completely empty.

"What is the point?" I hear you ask. I, too, was left wondering.

The half-finished bodge-job that currently stands as New Street Station is, of course, exactly that - half-finished. It barely functions as a major station and the revenue protection is just one of a myriad of issues with the station which frustrate and irritate the commuter with every journey.

The barriers are frequently completely unstaffed, or half-staffed, or staffed by disinterested LM staff from various parts of the company, or security guards... etc.

I believe that when the station is completed - they still claim it'll be done by October, I understand, which seems impossible - there will be automatic ticket barriers at New Street at long last.

(Can you tell I enjoy commuting to New Street every day? Love it.)

 

[Chris999999]

Maybe it's necessary to go over to national enforcement teams - similar to how London Buses revenue teams work. Would also kick the TOCs up the bum and get them to sort out their ticketing as they would be getting penalised for each incident...

I can see that this could work. Have teams of ticket inspectors, independent of the TOCs. Whenever they find passengers with the wrong ticket, they fine the TOC.

Now if this fine were say £1000 per passenger, how long would it be before the TOCs sorted out ticketing? We would see more TVM's, more open ticket offices, print at home tickets, etickets etc and much better enforcement by the TOCs.

 

[Flamingo]

I can see that this could work. Have teams of ticket inspectors, independent of the TOCs. Whenever they find passengers with the wrong ticket, they fine the TOC.

Now if this fine were say £1000 per passenger, how long would it be before the TOCs sorted out ticketing? We would see more TVM's, more open ticket offices, print at home tickets, etickets etc and much better enforcement by the TOCs.

I presume you are taking the p155? (Or p155ed yourself?)

 

[thelongestroad]

Was doing tickets yesterday... the train originated with myself as the guard from a gated station.

There are lots of stops on this route and not much time between them, so I walked out after the first stop and asked if "anyone needs to buy a ticket".... first people I get to say "No", so I ask to see their tickets and they don't actually have any. Back to the full check then....

 

[Chris999999]

I presume you are taking the p155? (Or p155ed yourself?)

Well to some extent. Why can't buying tickets be made easier? Why have I been able to buy print-at-home tickets from many countries for 20 years, but still can't do so in England (yes I know there a few)? Why even if I buy the tickets on the internet do I still have to queue up at the station to collect them?

What is the solution put in place at my local station - install internet ticket collection machines? more TVMs?, more ticket counters? - No! They install more longer zig-zag barriers to help control the crowds.

Something needs to be done to fix this. I know fining them £1000 will never happen, but the TOCs need kicking.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

There is a subtle but significant difference in legal procedure between England and Scotland which explains this - not the franchisee.

Just wondering what the legal difference is here... seems an odd quirk.

They are procedural differences, most of which are thoroughly discussed in the 2012 Carloway Report. Perhaps the most significant is the requirement for 'corroboration' of the Prosecution's Evidence by a second witness. Also, the Courts set a high level of 'public interest' which a one-off low-value rail fare would fail to satisfy.

 

[Fare-Cop]

I was merely pointing out that the very low rate seems odd if they're trying to prevent recurrence of people not buying their tickets - though it also suggests a lot of people are not treated harshly - presumably if only 3 were reported for prosecution those 3 were doing something different, even if that was only refusing to pay a penalty fare.

Ah, sorry, misunderstood.

Yes, I agree, the vast majority are not treated as harshly as some contributors to forums would have people believe, but as Dave and others regularly point out, the majority of those that do come here are frequently looking for loopholes to help them escape the consequences of their actions.

The 98% of the travelling public that hold valid tickets and don't go looking for reasons to complain have no need of such help so we don't hear from them.

 

[bravot]

I think you're going to have to provide a few more details of how your scheme would work for us to understand what you're proposing.

Because that's how the bus schemes work. Operators are responsible for the collection of revenue. If there's a persistent issue of fair evasion on a service then the operator will be "supportively" held to account.

 

[Deerfold]

Because that's how the bus schemes work. Operators are responsible for the collection of revenue. If there's a persistent issue of fair evasion on a service then the operator will be "supportively" held to account.

There don't seem to be any more details there.

I'll make it clearer - I have absolutely no idea what you are proposing.

 

[Flamingo]

Me neither.

 

[bravot]

Well I did provide a one line summary in my initial post.

Basically, enforcement is centralised into some sort of national unit run under DoT or something similar.

This unit becomes responsible for revenue blocks, random and intelligence led checks etc.

When a customer is found to have committed an offence, they are responsible for any further action.

If the TOC has in someway contributed to the matter such as a failure to provide ticketing facilities etc, they are also subject to some sort of action.

 

[Flamingo]

Well I did provide a one line summary in my initial post.

Basically, enforcement is centralised into some sort of national unit run under DoT or something similar.

This unit becomes responsible for revenue blocks, random and intelligence led checks etc.

When a customer is found to have committed an offence, they are responsible for any further action.

If the TOC has in someway contributed to the matter such as a failure to provide ticketing facilities etc, they are also subject to some sort of action.

Missing the basic point - if there were no ticket facilities,the PASSENGER has not committed an offence...

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Ah !
I get it now !

You're proposing another self-serving, obscure, regulatory quango, such as the existing Delay Attribution Board, just to make sure that as much revenue as possible rolls around inside the railway bureaucracy and that not a penny of it helps to carry passengers, move freight, develop the infrastructure or maintain trains.

Great.

 

[Flamingo]

Ah !
I get it now !

You're proposing another self-serving, obscure, regulatory quango, such as the existing Delay Attribution Board, just to make sure that as much revenue as possible rolls around inside the railway bureaucracy and that not a penny of it helps to carry passengers, move freight, develop the infrastructure or maintain trains.

Great.

Oh, now I get it! Just what we need all right!

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Ah !
I get it now !

You're proposing another self-serving, obscure, regulatory quango, such as the existing Delay Attribution Board, just to make sure that as much revenue as possible rolls around inside the railway bureaucracy and that not a penny of it helps to carry passengers, move freight, develop the infrastructure or maintain trains.

Great.

I don't think it's necessarily as bad an idea as you make out, as long as it was implemented carefully.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I don't think it's necessarily as bad an idea as you make out, as long as it was implemented carefully.

Then I apologise for my lack of confidence in the industry's track record in implementing change.

 

[island]

Might at least be worth looking at permanently barriering (either automatic or manual) on key destination stations such as University (a New St station block will of course catch the other key destination). Indeed, I bet University has a particularly high rate of fare-dodging.

Neil

The barriers at Birmingham N St are highly useless.

Just wondering what the legal difference is here... seems an odd quirk.

As I understand it, in Scotland anyone who isn't a procurator fiscal needs leave of the court to bring a prosecution.

 

[transmanche]

You're proposing another self-serving, obscure, regulatory quango, such as the existing Delay Attribution Board, just to make sure that as much revenue as possible rolls around inside the railway bureaucracy and that not a penny of it helps to carry passengers, move freight, develop the infrastructure or maintain trains.

I don't see what's so wrong with a scheme that's similar to the regime that the LOROL concession works under.

LOROL has a Fare Evasion Rate (FER) calculated based on periodic ticketless travel surveys undertaken by TfL. If ticketless travel is less than the FER, LOROL get a bonus - but if it's more than the FER, LOROL pay a penalty. What could happen on NR is that periodic ticket/travel surveys are undertaken and if TOCs have mis-sold a ticket, they pay a penalty.

Similarly, under the LOROL concession agreement, they pay a penalty for every hour that a ticket office or gateline is not staffed when it is supposed to be. I don't know if this happens on NR, but money seems to focus the operator on delivering what it has committed to.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I don't see what's so wrong with a scheme that's similar to . . . . .

I don't think we need to go any further.

My response focusses not on the technicalities that follow those words, but on your use of the meta word 'similar'.

The UK rail network is not 'similar'.

I don't think it's necessarily as bad an idea as you make out, as long as it was implemented carefully.

I want to agree with you, and the fundamental facts of the railway's business model suggests that the possibility of a successful implementation is frustrated only by the terms of the industry's existing agreements.

But, . . . .

I remain highly discouraged by my knowledge and experience of the industry's collective response to change. At times, it has been so resolute in retaining control and governance over itself, and has been permitted that self-governance by the Department, that the lack of scrutiny and accountability has become one of those 'elephants in the room' that is not discussed but which has now begun to run out of any regulatory control.

I wouldn't want us to encounter another elephant, no matter how well-conceived.