Why would a ticket be required in a non-compulsory ticket area?

[paul barrett]

why is a ticket required in a non compulsory ticket area. ? If a ticket is required it should be in a compulsory ticket area

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Good question. What's the background context?

 

[The exile]

Presumably a "compulsory ticket area" is part of the Penalty Fares schemes / areas - in other words, under normal circumstances (ie assuming the technology is functioning) - it is an area (platform / train or similar) where you are not permitted to be unless you have a ticket and it is (in theory at least) your responsibility to make sure you have one. Contrast this with a line with unstaffed stations with no ticket machines (particularly pre-internet) - you are perfectly entitled to be on a platform / train with no ticket, because you have never been given the opportunity to purchase one. The logic breaks down somewhat where the ticket machine is inside the "penalty fares area" - meaning that you have to enter the "penalty fares area" without a ticket in order to purchase one!

 

[swt_passenger]

Presumably a "compulsory ticket area" is part of the Penalty Fares schemes / areas - in other words, under normal circumstances (ie assuming the technology is functioning) - it is an area (platform / train or similar) where you are not permitted to be unless you have a ticket and it is (in theory at least) your responsibility to make sure you have one. Contrast this with a line with unstaffed stations with no ticket machines (particularly pre-internet) - you are perfectly entitled to be on a platform / train with no ticket, because you have never been given the opportunity to purchase one. The logic breaks down somewhat where the ticket machine is inside the "penalty fares area" - meaning that you have to enter the "penalty fares area" without a ticket in order to purchase one!

Compulsory ticket areas (CTA) do not correlate 1:1 with Penalty Fare areas/stations. The former are not used much at all on National Rail stations, compared to the latter.

TfL stations, eg Overground, form a significant number of the extant CTAs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

why is a ticket required in a non compulsory ticket area. ? If a ticket is required it should be in a compulsory ticket area

A "Compulsory Ticket Area" (capitals) has a very specific meaning, in being an area where, in a Penalty Fares scheme, a Penalty Fare can be issued for simply being in that area without a ticket entitling you to be there, be that a platform ticket or a ticket to travel from or to that location etc.

There is nothing saying that the railway cannot have other areas where you are not admitted to those areas without showing a ticket, such as platforms in some cases e.g. Blackpool North. However, there cannot be any sanction if you do gain access to such an area, unlike a CTA.

Compulsory ticket areas (CTA) do not correlate 1:1 with Penalty Fare areas/stations. The former are not used much at all on National Rail stations, compared to the latter.

TfL stations, eg Overground, form a significant number of the extant CTAs.

Indeed, not many PF schemes have CTAs, so any PF issued on the station is on the basis of the belief that you have travelled or intended to do so.

However, a Compulsory Ticket Area (where you can be penalised for simply being there without a ticket) can't exist outside of a Penalty Fares station. Non-PF stations can have areas where you won't be allowed without a ticket, e.g. you simply won't be allowed to pass the barrier, however if you did pass the barrier you couldn't be penalised for being there unless they suspected you'd come from a train. A not unusual example might be someone passing the open barrier at New St from the concourse to use the toilets - in a CTA that would incur a PF if you didn't hold a ticket, as New St is not a CTA it can't*. However, if the barrier is closed they may well not let you pass it to use the toilets (they'd probably suggest you went upstairs and used the shopping centre ones instead), and a CTA isn't required for that to be the case.

If you see what I mean.

* I'd imagine in some cases a PF might be issued based on an assumption of travel, but an appeal judged by checking CCTV should be upheld.

 

[Western Sunset]

This is all sounding like something from "Yes, Minister"...

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is all sounding like something from "Yes, Minister"...

Well, not really.

A CTA is a specific legal construct that allows you to be penalised financially via a Penalty Fare for being in a defined area without a ticket.

Railway premises are legally private land, and therefore the railway can refuse you access to any part of that land as it sees fit, just like any other private land (e.g. a cinema isn't going to let you enter the auditorium without having paid). That doesn't require any specific legal construct, as you are stopped from entering before you do.

Either or both of those can apply independently to a given area on the railway, e.g. a platform. For example you can have an ungated CTA, or you can have a gated platform that isn't a CTA, or you can have a gated platform that *is* a CTA.

 

[Western Sunset]

I'm afraid I've still got Bernard Woolley in my head, who is trying to explain to Jim Hacker what Sir Humphrey was going on about.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

For example you can have an ungated CTA, or you can have a gated platform that isn't a CTA, or you can have a gated platform that *is* a CTA.

Sir Humphrey: May I say just one more thing?
Hacker: Only if it's in plain English!