"Morally bankrupt" is a rather hyperbolic way of putting it. On the contrary I would argue that someone who has good moral standards is more likely to be frustrated because in the event of tickets not being checked in any way, they've essentially lost out on hundreds of pounds while a fare dodger making the same journey still has that money on their pocket. If the fare dodger gets away with it, then you could argue the paying passenger has basically been penalised for doing the right thing. Ticket checks in some form or another ensure only honest paying customers get the service they've paid for while fare dodgers are rightfully caught and dealt with.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Why do some people get frustrated when their ticket doesn't get checked when travelling by train?
- Thread starter startingaparty
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
How have they lost out, exactly?
Because in the specific scenario where there are no ticket checks on a journey made by both an honest paying passenger and a fare dodger, then the paying passenger is now a few quid down, money that could've otherwise been spent on things such as extra shopping, electric and gas bills or other life essentials. I don't quite know if game theory applies here because I don't understand it enough to definitively say so, but one passenger here is clearly better off than the other in this scenario.
I want to be clear that this isn't an argument in favour of fare evasion, and I would always encourage people to pay for their journeys (which I hope is made clear by my language calling it the right and honest thing throughout my posts on this subject). I am just explaining why someone might feel frustrated at not having their tickets checked and why it is simply human nature to feel this frustration and not something that stems from a sense of moral bankruptcy and selfishness. Money is valuable, and people like to feel like they've got their money's worth.
No. They've paid for a service and received that service. Fare dodging is a separate issue. To suggest otherwise is nonsense.
PaulJ
Member
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2011
- Messages
- 157
But how would you know if a ticket check hasn’t already taken place? I check tickets on 12 carriage services with up to 750 passengers whilst at the same time dispatching from 15 stations and therefore needing to be in the right place at the right time. The journey time is usually 2 to 2.5 hours and it isn’t possible to properly check every ticket in that period of time.
And sometimes fare dodgers have also received that service without actually paying for it. Would you dare to suggest that the honest fare paying passenger is wrong to feel in any way frustrated by that?
That wasn't the issue. You said the fare paying passenger has lost out. They haven't.
That doesn't answer my question. If a journey is made by two passengers, one an honest fare-paying passenger, and another a habitual fare-dodger taking their chances, and by the end there was no checks on the train nor any barriers at the station to ensure the journeys have been paid for, is it wrong for the honest passenger to feel frustrated by this?
dk1
Veteran Member
If they have used the service then they have got what they have paid for. Ticket checks or no ticket checks doesn't change that.
If someone walked out of the supermarket without paying for their shopping because there was no one at the door checking, would you feel hard done by because you paid for your shopping? People that fare evade or steal eventually get caught because it's never a one off, be happy that you don't have to deal with those consequences.
I'm not here to answer your questions. I addressed a point you had made which was nonsense, that's all.
Crithylum
Member
I certainly don't think Sorcerer's point is nonsense. I understand that paying for a ticket and using it is not "losing out" relative to not traveling, however it is most definitely losing out compared to getting away with doing that same journey without buying a ticket.
Topological
Established Member
It is about reference points.
Start from a position where Person A has £100 and Person B has £100.
Person A buys a train ticket for £50 and has £50 cash
In the event that a ticket check takes place person A is ok, but person B pays a fine of £100 (possibly unrealistic number wise, but the penalty fare could be that). In that situation person A has £50 cash (but has received their train journey at an enjoyment of £50) so we can say they still essentially have the £100. Person B has 0 and did not get the enjoyment of the train journey (if they valued the journey at £50 they would have bought a ticket).
In the event that a ticket check does not take place then A has their £50 plus £50 value from the fare. Person B has £100.
IF these numbers are correct then Person A would indeed have the same happiness irrespective of the outcome. Person B loses out because of the probability that there is a ticket check.
As soon as you change the numbers (e.g. say A pays begrudgingly and only actually values the journey at the equivalent of £30), the balance tips towards B doing better.
Likewise if you assume that the happiness of A depends on what happens to B, then being in the "non-check" state has a cost to A in terms of the disutility of seeing A escape punishment.
Although these numbers are made up, they hopefully illustrate why we may see A feeling annoyed when a check does not take place.
Start from a position where Person A has £100 and Person B has £100.
Person A buys a train ticket for £50 and has £50 cash
In the event that a ticket check takes place person A is ok, but person B pays a fine of £100 (possibly unrealistic number wise, but the penalty fare could be that). In that situation person A has £50 cash (but has received their train journey at an enjoyment of £50) so we can say they still essentially have the £100. Person B has 0 and did not get the enjoyment of the train journey (if they valued the journey at £50 they would have bought a ticket).
In the event that a ticket check does not take place then A has their £50 plus £50 value from the fare. Person B has £100.
IF these numbers are correct then Person A would indeed have the same happiness irrespective of the outcome. Person B loses out because of the probability that there is a ticket check.
As soon as you change the numbers (e.g. say A pays begrudgingly and only actually values the journey at the equivalent of £30), the balance tips towards B doing better.
Likewise if you assume that the happiness of A depends on what happens to B, then being in the "non-check" state has a cost to A in terms of the disutility of seeing A escape punishment.
Although these numbers are made up, they hopefully illustrate why we may see A feeling annoyed when a check does not take place.
But there are some here who have suggested that any sense of frustration for not having these tickets checked stems from moral bankruptcy and entitlement to using the railway as a free service, when in actuality it is simple human nature in most cases if someone else receives that very same service without paying for it.
It wouldn't be wrong for someone to feel frustrated by either situations even if the chancers eventually get caught. The question of the thread is why people get frustrated at not having their tickets checked, and chancers getting caught eventually does not disprove my points.
If you're going to ask others questions without being willing to answer ones put forward to yourself then I see no point in continuing to engage. I have already made my point anyway so there is no sense in going in circles.
Hardly. My bag is usually adjacent to me unless the train is busy in which case it goes up in the luggage rack (and my card would be taken out in that case). Its only one zip away from getting it.
I'd say someone trying to find the app on their phone (if they haven't got it open) and opening the ticket takes longer.
I agree, pointless continuing. However, I didn't ask any questions.
dingdinger
Member
As well as this you could have another thread for why do some people get frustrated when their ticket is checked?
Or the usual, my tickets been checked 3 times now this is far too much!
Like most things, there is no fine balance and plenty of people will still be aggrieved.
startingaparty
Member
- Joined
- 19 Apr 2018
- Messages
- 198
Ah, but I think this arrives at the crux of the issue. There's this 'thought', for want of a better phrase, that by buying a ticket before boarding you have somehow committed an altruistic act.. "oh, I have a ticket, please check it, aren't I a law-abiding citizen" and then the dichotomy of "i've bought a ticket I want it stamped to "prove" I've spent money travelling"...
I'm not quite sure where I'm going with this but it's something along the lines of (pun, intended), that people ultimately think the railways should be free and any cost suggestion they're paying less than the 'other man' is somehow unequal.
I'm not quite sure where I'm going with this but it's something along the lines of (pun, intended), that people ultimately think the railways should be free and any cost suggestion they're paying less than the 'other man' is somehow unequal.
Alternatively, split-screen view on a modern Android phone.
AlbertBeale
Established Member
Not a faff at all if you have a bit of white&orange card, and routinely stick it on the table in front of you when travelling....
I actually don't get frustrated in this instance. I will always buy a ticket because it is the right thing to do, but when I'm reading a book or just want to chill out, I feel a sense of relief when I'm not pestered to show my ticket. And my Railcard, sometimes.
If you've opened the (official) Railcard app in a location with internet in the past 72 hours, the Railcard will be cached and display just fine.
I can't comment on third party apps.
The majority of stations do not have gatelines and even at stations that do have gatelines, they are not always closed.
kentrailman
Member
It isn't tickets being checked that frustrates me, it is that almost every time I have witnessed people not having a ticket or not having the correct ticket, there have been no consequences.
Invariably the people concerned look "tougher" or "prettier" than the ticket inspector and they get let off. " I left it at home" " I didn't get one" " I didn't realise it was a peak train" . Nine out of ten times there are no consequences. If you are a tough looking bloke or a pretty looking woman ( in the case of male inspectors) the ticket inspector invariably walks away usually resulting in much laughter from the person or people "let off" after they have left the carriage.
Maybe the ticket inspectors on here will claim they take action more often than not, but I have only occasionally seen anyone actually charged a fare when found to not have a ticket ( other than legitimately e.g. no facility to buy one ), never seen any penalty fares given and more often than not see inspectors walk away. ( I mainly use south eastern, southern and south western)
Invariably the people concerned look "tougher" or "prettier" than the ticket inspector and they get let off. " I left it at home" " I didn't get one" " I didn't realise it was a peak train" . Nine out of ten times there are no consequences. If you are a tough looking bloke or a pretty looking woman ( in the case of male inspectors) the ticket inspector invariably walks away usually resulting in much laughter from the person or people "let off" after they have left the carriage.
Maybe the ticket inspectors on here will claim they take action more often than not, but I have only occasionally seen anyone actually charged a fare when found to not have a ticket ( other than legitimately e.g. no facility to buy one ), never seen any penalty fares given and more often than not see inspectors walk away. ( I mainly use south eastern, southern and south western)
Last edited:
At least on Southern, OBSes are not able to issue MG11s or Penalty Fares. This can only be done by RPIs, of which there are very few, if any. Instead, it's usually station blocks by Thameslink/GN RPI staff that catch Southern evaders, else they get sold a ticket on board, if there is an actual check.
BingMan
Member
- Joined
- 8 Feb 2019
- Messages
- 509
The lack of ticket checking is why we have penalty fares.
The revenue lost by not checking that every passenger has the appropriate ticket has to be reclaimed in penalty fares
Ticket checking and selling should be separated from the other duties of a guard and should be done bt a sepoerate person, Their salary would be met by the increased revenue from tickets
It's probably time for me to point out that onboard ticket checks are only a part of an overall revenue collection strategy. Train companies should also:
- Making it easy to buy tickets
- A decent fares structure - the old British Rail structure was excellent in this respect
- Ticket barriers
- Onboard checks
- High profile revenue blocks
- Penalty Fares policy
- Investigation in the 'back office'
- Prosecution of those who do not co-operate
Not all of the above are appropriate to every route but train companies need to create an environment where it is accepted that people pay. Equally, what is not needed is a hostile environment - that was seen not so long ago on Chiltern with a number of awfully written notices on trains and toilets which gave totally the wrong impression to travellers.
- Making it easy to buy tickets
- A decent fares structure - the old British Rail structure was excellent in this respect
- Ticket barriers
- Onboard checks
- High profile revenue blocks
- Penalty Fares policy
- Investigation in the 'back office'
- Prosecution of those who do not co-operate
Not all of the above are appropriate to every route but train companies need to create an environment where it is accepted that people pay. Equally, what is not needed is a hostile environment - that was seen not so long ago on Chiltern with a number of awfully written notices on trains and toilets which gave totally the wrong impression to travellers.
Lewisham2221
Established Member
Often, where a ticket is scanned and found to be invalid, whilst it may appear that the guard is taking no action (i.e they don't force the passenger to purchase a new ticket on the spot - they're, probably sensibly, avoiding conflict) they can actually highlight the ticket for investigation by internal teams. This often leads to prosecution (or out of court settlement) when such investigation reveals that said passenger is regularly using off-peak tickets to travel on peak trains, for example.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
Their fare may be slightly higher than it would've been if no-one was evading their fares (or the subsidy to the railways that they pay for out of their taxes may have been slightly higher)
Signal_Box
Member
Yes, and the union makes a fuss about how important guards are but then the same staff don’t do their job.
I recently travelled on a XC service (170) midday fully seated non standing not one walk through or check from service origin to the mid point (2hrs 30mins). Same in then return about 60 minutes later from the same mid point to service end point.
I know full well the reasons why there may not have been at least a walk through (former guard), hence why I feel so frustrated that I went out on strike to “save the guard” then they can’t be bothered to do the job.
- Status