"Duty" to seek out the guard (again!)

[Bletchleyite]

They don't need to be staffed by RPIs; in fact I think the only of LM's barriers that is is Euston?

They do need to be staffed by someone if they are to be closed, and I'm not aware of LM having any other suitable staff than RPIs. The barriers don't have the required CCTV, help points etc to be monitored from the ticket office (despite it being right next to them).

And with regard to the similar thing done by Northern for fares, we have a legal structure with passenger protection for performing "out of court settlements" for unpaid fares. It's called Penalty Fares, and as I've said before Northern should implement those, and should prosecute those who are deliberately evading fares under RoRA thus ensuring the appropriate criminal record. No need for the 80 quid nonsense whatsoever.

 

[PermitToTravel]

Don't LM have dedicated gateline staff? Pretty much every other TOC does, and I was certainly under the impression that LM do.

I definitely agree about the Penalty Fares, but the issue is that there is no requirement for the TOCs to subscribe to all of the regulation that such a scheme entails. Anecdotal evidence from this forum suggests that FCC, all of whose network was a Penalty Fares zone, made heavy use of such settlements.

 

[kieron]

It sounds like it's similar to Northern's pseudo-PF scheme, which I personally don't believe should be legal.

Sort of. Except that Northern advertised what they were doing with "Failure to Purchase" forms quite widely when they introduced them (for instance, making it known that a charge would not be made for a first offence with no aggravating factors).

All we've got from Arriva Trains Wales is this newspaper article (assuming it is in a newspaper somewhere), one which describes a scheme which bears little relation to the law as it stands. There isn't even a press release on their own web site.

 

[Deerfold]

Sort of. Except that Northern advertised what they were doing with "Failure to Purchase" forms quite widely when they introduced them (for instance, making it known that a charge would not be made for a first offence with no aggravating factors).

This keeps being quoted, but I'm not aware of a single instance of someone on these forums who's had an £80 fee having mentioned that they had a previous occasion with no fee.

Were they available in the Western part of Northern's territory? I travel in Yorkshire with them a lot and have never seen one of these forms.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Don't LM have dedicated gateline staff? Pretty much every other TOC does, and I was certainly under the impression that LM do.

Ah, I thought those were RPIs (give or take the security contractors you sometimes get to provide backup). Didn't realise they were a different grade. But anyway...Bletchley barrier has been unstaffed more often than not of late, whereas before often one or two of the MKC based staff would come down and do it in the peaks. At other times, the barriers were left closed but the manual gate unlocked, which seems to have ceased, perhaps because of complaints from people who thought they were stuck inside.

I definitely agree about the Penalty Fares, but the issue is that there is no requirement for the TOCs to subscribe to all of the regulation that such a scheme entails. Anecdotal evidence from this forum suggests that FCC, all of whose network was a Penalty Fares zone, made heavy use of such settlements.

A rather inconsistent situation that I think needs addressing.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This keeps being quoted, but I'm not aware of a single instance of someone on these forums who's had an £80 fee having mentioned that they had a previous occasion with no fee.

Possibly not, but it often feels like many such posters don't tell the entire story.

 

[NSEFAN]

All we've got from Arriva Trains Wales is this newspaper article (assuming it is in a newspaper somewhere), one which describes a scheme which bears little relation to the law as it stands. There isn't even a press release on their own web site.

So, perhaps the newspaper article is little more than FUD to make casual fare evaders aware that they do actually have to buy a ticket?

 

[Bletchleyite]

So, perhaps the newspaper article is little more than FUD to make casual fare evaders aware that they do actually have to buy a ticket?

It could be, but that's not exactly good customer service to those (particularly older people) who wish to board at an unstaffed station with a TVM and pay cash.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Sort of. Except that Northern advertised what they were doing with "Failure to Purchase" forms quite widely when they introduced them (for instance, making it known that a charge would not be made for a first offence with no aggravating factors).

Northern said to TfGM that they would be lenient with first-time offenders in exchange for TfGM's support, but there's precious little evidence to support the view that they actually were lenient with first-time offenders.

I'd hate to say Northern misled TfGM, but...

 

[Deerfold]

Possibly not, but it often feels like many such posters don't tell the entire story.

Perhaps, but there's no shortage of posters who admit it's not their first time of being caught so it seems odd that there are none in this category.

 

[NSEFAN]

It could be, but that's not exactly good customer service to those (particularly older people) who wish to board at an unstaffed station with a TVM and pay cash.

I suppose it seen as the greater good to get casual fare dodgers to pay up, at the risk of some people being inconvenienced if they take the advice literally. This kind of approach exists elsewhere too (see Southern's super off-peak return announcement thread).

In reality I would expect guards to use common sense and experience as to who's dodging the fare and who isn't. It would be silly to suggest that at an unstaffed station with no TVM and where many people might board, that everyone should crowd around the rear of the train in order to buy tickets. That would clearly not be a good use of the space on the train and would inhibit the guard from being able to actually reach people further down.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Guards probably will and generally do use discretion sensibly. The issue appears to occur with RPIs and barrier staff at times (though not always) when the guard has been unable to sell a ticket for whatever reason.

 

[krus_aragon]

It could be, but that's not exactly good customer service to those (particularly older people) who wish to board at an unstaffed station with a TVM and pay cash.

And, moreover, it's undermined by front-line staff who don't preach from the same strict hymn-book as management, and will sell you a ticket whenever you ask for one.

 

[najaB]

That would clearly not be a good use of the space on the train and would inhibit the guard from being able to actually reach people further down.

More importantly, it could be an impediment to the guard doing their actual job!

 

[matt_world2004]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunrobin_Castle_railway_station

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invershin_railway_station

Passenger numbers might be on the up, but do you think its viable to staff either of these stations for 2-3 trains a day?

So? Just because it would make a loss doesn't mean the station shouldn't be secure.

 

[damo44]

So? Just because it would make a loss doesn't mean the station shouldn't be secure.

But if the stations cost more to operate than they generated revenue (through passengers travelling from, or to) how secure would be their future?

I don't know these stations in particular, so whether there would be extensive and costly closure procedures, or some other reason (e.g. covenant, compelling social reason) - I'm just thinking of the general principle

 

[najaB]

So? Just because it would make a loss doesn't mean the station shouldn't be secure.

Even if every single passenger who used those stations was a fare dodger (meaning zero revenue), it would be cheaper than installing barriers and staffing the stations.

 

[bnm]

So lots of non-rail staff on here maintain. Has this ever been tested in court, or is it somebody's "interpretation" of the NRCoC? I've never seen it explicitly stated anywhere (except by posters on here) and would love to know the reference, either to the case, or the written condition, or the bylaw.

And where is it written that, in law, you must seek out a guard to make payment after boarding at a station with no facilities? I've never seen it explicitly stated anywhere that it is a legal requirement (except by rail staff on here) and would love to know the reference, either to the case, or the written condition, or the byelaw.

The legal requirement is merely to pay for your journey at the earliest opportunity.

Must I disembark with my luggage from the 150/1 and move to the 153 in rear where the guard is located? 150/1+153 is a regular combination in my part of the world, serving many stations with no facilities.

 

[reb0118]

And with regard to the similar thing done by Northern for fares, we have a legal structure with passenger protection for performing "out of court settlements" for unpaid fares. It's called Penalty Fares, and as I've said before Northern should implement those, and should prosecute those who are deliberately evading fares under RoRA thus ensuring the appropriate criminal record. No need for the 80 quid nonsense whatsoever.

This can not apply to the vast majority of Nothern's lines and services due to the added infrastructure that this would entail. Northern's options are 1) accept the revenue loss or 2) prosecute all passengers found sans billet who had a prior opportunity to pay. Neither of these options are really acceptable. The courts are choked already with cases and if a way to reduce the burden of them can be found then that is to the good. Northern's system offers offenders a chance to dispose of their obligations without the stress of a court appearance by paying an administrative penalty, and the scheme is fully supported by the DfT. As to why there is not a right to appeal, that is also glaringly obvious, as you do not have to accept the penalty but can have your day in court if so desired. There is also another way to avoid this hassle - buy a bloody ticket before getting on the train (usual caveats apply), and failing that if you are in a genuine hurry ask the guard (every Northern train has one ) if you can purchase on board.

Northern also have an obligation to ensure that booking offices are staffed as required and that where guards struggle to collect revenue on "pay trains" that they are fully supported with ATEs or the equivalent.

NB I do acknowledge that sometimes there are no doubt failings in the application of the system, that does not, however, mean that the system in itself is a failure. I genuinely believe that this system is more about re-educating the travelling public than a mere money making scheme.

Must I disembark with my luggage from the 150/1 and move to the 153 in rear where the guard is located? 150/1+153 is a regular combination in my part of the world, serving many stations with no facilities.

No, but why not (usual caveats apply), if you know you require a ticket, board in the part of the train with the guard. I'm sure that on the first "pay train" line (somewhere in East Angular?) there where instructions to that very effect i.e. passengers without tickets had to board the centre coach (I assume a three car DMU), where seats were set aside for them. After they had purchased tickets they were free to sit where they liked.

 

[beeza1]

And where is it written that, in law, you must seek out a guard to make payment after boarding at a station with no facilities? I've never seen it explicitly stated anywhere that it is a legal requirement (except by rail staff on here) and would love to know the reference, either to the case, or the written condition, or the byelaw.

I approached XC a while ago on this very subject, the reply I got stated,
"It is not strictly documented that you have to approach the guard, this is more of a recommendation........"
Judging by that response even the TOC's admit you don't have to go seeking out the guard.

 

[island]

There is also the case where the ticket you require isn't available from TVMs and the station is unmanned. An example is the Valleys Day Ranger. I emailed ATW about this a few weeks ago and they said it was fine to board without a ticket and pay the guard and indeed this proved to be the case and the guard happily sold me one. I don't know whether the recent announcement changes this.

Regarding the problem of theft or attempted theft of cash from TVMs, how about this. Passenger selects his ticket in the normal way and is asked how wishes to pay. If he selects cash a 'ticket' with date, time, origin, destination, fare and wording such as "I undertake to pay the fare shown in cash at the earliest opportunity"

On presenting the 'ticket' to the guard or RPI on the train or at the gate or excess fare at the destination he pays his fare. Failure to produce a 'ticket' would clearly be intent to avoid payment and would be dealt with by penalty fare or prosecution as appropriate.

Given that the reason for not accepting cash at TVMs is normally vandalism, one would expect the vandals will print off a load of these tickets until the machine runs out of stock.

My take on this is that if you need to find the guard, he should be in one particular place, not walking through the train - let's call it a train reception desk, even if it's actually the back cab. This should be indicated on posters on the station, and the door nearest it should be clearly marked, as well as the cab door being marked as "Tickets" or similar.

Finding someone in an arbitrary position in a possibly very busy train is a ludicrous idea.

On many lines the guard has no choice but to dispatch from a very specific place.

 

[bnm]

No, but why not (usual caveats apply), if you know you require a ticket, board in the part of the train with the guard.

In the case of FGWs regular 150/1+153 combination, I choose the 150/1 because I value my knees!

 

[reb0118]

In the case of FGWs regular 150/1+153 combination, I choose the 150/1 because I value my knees!

Very true, I got a severe shock when walking through a 153 to get a seat in the front coach to discover it wasn't there..............

 

[Elecman]

Saw this online, that ATW are now saying it's the passengers responsibility to seek out the guard to purchase tickets of face £70 Admin Fee (fine):

Passengers who board trains without tickets could face a £70 sting if they don’t actively seek a guard, Arriva Trains Wales managers have warned.

Customers will be treated as fare dodgers if they fail to find a member of staff themselves, according to new procedures.

The service provider has also advised customers to use new ticket vending machines at unstaffed platforms.

Traditionally, passengers using unstaffed stations across Wales took a seat in the train and waited for the guard to come through with a portable ticket machine.

Now ATW says the onus is on passengers to walk through the train to find the guard.

Failure to comply with the rules could land passengers with a £70 “administration fee”.

Vending machines have been installed at stations where previously there were no facilities to buy tickets.

Ignoring a vending machine because there was no time to buy a ticket before the train arrived may not be accepted as a valid reason for ticketless travel.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/you-could-now-fined-70-9686588

 

[najaB]

Previously discussed in this thread.

 

[TUC]

Intrigued by the quote in the article: '“Sometimes the guard is nowhere to be seen on the train. Many guards don’t want the responsibility of going through the train.'

What did they think the job would entail when they applied for it?

 

[Dai Corner]

Intrigued by the quote in the article: '“Sometimes the guard is nowhere to be seen on the train. Many guards don’t want the responsibility of going through the train.'

What did they think the job would entail when they applied for it?

And don't their managers ask them why they didn't take any money for fares?

 

[TUC]

All too often on Northern Rail trains I see the guard walking at high speed down the train saying 'anyone need a ticket' but moving at such a pace that they are three or four rows down the train before anyone could reasonably have a chance to respond-and this is not on stretches of line where stations are close together. Indeed I've seen other guards move conscientiously down the train on the same stretches of line, managing to both check and sell tickets, so just what is going on that others do not do this and, as Dai Corner asks above, why their managers apparently do not question the difference in fares take?

 

[Graeme]

Up here in (far) Northern-land, I will board at the rear door where the guard alights on most journeys (my local stations being either Acklington or Widdrington, neither of which have TVMs or ticket offices).

This is for three reasons:

1) If the guard notices no-one else getting on, then he/she only has to walk a few steps from their "office" to check on/sell me my ticket, and

2) I am more likely to be sold a ticket even if I am only traveling one or a couple of stops down the line - especially if I am getting off at another station without facilities.

3) Walking past the guard invariably involves a friendly "good morning" and he/she knows I'm there - and I have a chance to report anything untoward.

Our local guards are usually very good at making sure they check everyone, although having traveled on other Northern routes around Huddersfield, Sheffield and Manchester, I can see the possibility for fare-dodging if one was so inclined. Happily for me and the TOC, I'm not one of those people!

However, I'm not yet prepared to go knocking on the door of the guard's "office" - I would consider it rude and possibly interfering with the safety of the train and its passengers.

As an aside, I didn't notice any eye-catching signs regarding ATW's "policy" in this area on recent (i.e. within the last week) journeys from Aberdare to Cardiff Central and Aberystwyth to Machynlleth. Nothing noted at Fishguard & Goodwick, Haverfordwest or Carmarthen stations either.

 

[Paul Kelly]

I'm sure that on the first "pay train" line (somewhere in East Angular?) there where instructions to that very effect i.e. passengers without tickets had to board the centre coach (I assume a three car DMU), where seats were set aside for them. After they had purchased tickets they were free to sit where they liked.

I seem to remember this in Finland a few years ago, taking a train from an unstaffed station in the suburbs of Espoo into Helsinki. It was permitted to board without a ticket but there was a specific carriage marked that you had to board, where the guard would come and sell tickets to people with no penalty.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I seem to remember this in Finland a few years ago, taking a train from an unstaffed station in the suburbs of Espoo into Helsinki. It was permitted to board without a ticket but there was a specific carriage marked that you had to board, where the guard would come and sell tickets to people with no penalty.

And that's fine. I have no objection to any of these schemes, if it is totally clear, well signed and easy to understand how and what to do, every time, without exception.

With Metrolink it is strict, for instance - use the TVM, if it is broken get a reference number from customer services. It is clear you must do this. It is on the notices and signs. There are no exceptions.

If ATW wish to have such a strict scheme, there have to be no holes in it. No guards, for instance, not answering a knock to the cab door. And the guard always in the same cab, with perhaps a sign displayed if he is patrolling the train. Something like "always board at the rearmost set of doors if you require a ticket, doing otherwise will render you liable for prosecution", with a big sticker of a picture of a ticket next to those doors on every ATW train, say.

London buses with open boarding manage it - pictograms clearly showing which door(s) to use for what type of ticket.