Arriva Rail North DOO

[Carlisle]

All Voyagers are driver door *operated*, but guard dispatched. The guard effectively does a CD-RA type procedure by giving 1-2 on the buzzer to close the doors, then 2 to depart - there are no non-local door controls other than in the cabs. I do wonder who came up with this ever so slightly clunky idea, and if long-term DOO was the plan.

I strongly suspect it was in the original long term plan, considering Voyagers were ordered before it had became fully clear to the industry that the RMT had a determination to fight any attempts to remove control of the doors from guards

 

[XDM]

I strongly suspect it was in the original long term plan, considering Voyagers were ordered before it had became fully clear to the industry that the RMT had a determination to fight any attempts to remove control of the doors from guards

Spot on.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Using what equipment? Voyagers do not have cameras, and fitting platform equipment to all stations used by XC would have been hugely expensive. And the Pendolino doors are driver release, guard close.

 

[muz379]

Northern could, in the cities at least, quite viably switch to a system of TVMs and proper Penalty Fares (not £80 Penalty Fakes). It works perfectly fine elsewhere, particularly where key destination stations are barriered.

Ive got good reason to think that in some of the bigger PTE areas this is already coming anyway . And given the way Northern already get a lot of stick in here on the disputes and prosecutions section for its overzealous revenue protection policies I really wish that the RMT would draw more passengers attention to this

Providing an on board member of staff who doesn't have to do the doors means they will have longer to spend on revenue duties. You may say there isn't a guarantee that a service will run without that member of staff but there is currently no guarantee the guard will come through to sell tickets.

Out of my most recent Northern journeys.

Journey 1 - RPI checked ticket prior to boarding. Conductor came through to sell tickets to those boarding at unstaffed stations but didn't do any ticket inspection while I was on the train.

Journey 2 - People standing on train. Conductor decided to not attempt to get through to do tickets while I was on the train. No RPI checking tickets at either origin or destination station.

Journey 3 - Conductor remained in cab except to do doors while I was on the train. No RPI checking tickets at either origin or destination station.

Journey 4 - Again conductor remained in cab except to do doors while I was on the train. No RPI checking tickets at either origin or destination station.

None of the above were late night services or services where you'd expect the conductor to get any kind of abuse from doing a ticket inspection.

There is no guarantee that this second member of traincrew whatever northern envisage their title and role being are going to carry out their duties properly either .

 

[northwichcat]

There is no guarantee that this second member of traincrew whatever northern envisage their title and role being are going to carry out their duties properly either .

Agreed and there's also no guarantee they won't have a faulty ticket machine. However, journey 3 was Knutsford to Navigation Road and 4 was Navigation Road to Knutsford. One guard who posts on here admitted a while back he never attempts to do revenue on that section as there isn't time. Given there's 3 unstaffed stations without TVMs in the morning and 4 in the afternoon (as Hale only has a part time ticket office) not even attempting to come through to the people who board at unstaffed stations (as the guard did on the first journey I mentioned) is going to mean there's a lot of ticket-less travel.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why on earth don't Northern just install TVMs at those stations?

I doubt anyone would seriously suggest doing so on the S&C, or Hellifield-Lancaster, or the middle bit of the Cumbrian Coast, or even possibly one man and his dog and pushbike semi-rural lines like Kirkby-Wigan and Ormskirk-Preston - but most lines on Northern are not like this - they are not all that much different than the kinds of line that elsewhere in the country are "buy before you board".

 

[455driver]

Providing an on board member of staff who doesn't have to do the doors means they will have longer to spend on revenue duties.

No it doesnt, Southern have already proved that with the letter they sent every OBS telling them they had to be at a door (with door controls) as the train arrived at a station so they can see if anyone needs their assistance.

Of course at the time this OBS role was announced that was one of the main selling points wasnt it which has been proved to be a lie, or else it proves they didnt have a clue what they were proposing!
You chose.

Next please.

 

[455driver]

Why on earth don't Northern just install TVMs at those stations?

Vandalism for one.

 

[northwichcat]

Why on earth don't Northern just install TVMs at those stations?

At Hale and Navigation Road it would make sense.

Ashley is a station in a very small remote village so it may not take many fares especially if some of the regular travellers already buy longer term season tickets at nearby staffed stations.

Mobberley is a bigger village but still gets fairly low patronage.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To me, the only sensible way to do it is keep it simple, and do it by line. So if the Mid Cheshire generally needs to go to buy before you board, the whole line needs to go to buy before you board. That would mean adding TVMs at some stations that would seem not to need them.

Basically I'd propose a revival of the Paytrain concept. Strictly buy before you board on most lines with some means of buying always provided at every station on those lines, Paytrain lines where buying on board is allowed in all cases.

 

[muz379]

To me, the only sensible way to do it is keep it simple, and do it by line. So if the Mid Cheshire generally needs to go to buy before you board, the whole line needs to go to buy before you board. That would mean adding TVMs at some stations that would seem not to need them.

Basically I'd propose a revival of the Paytrain concept. Strictly buy before you board on most lines with some means of buying always provided at every station on those lines, Paytrain lines where buying on board is allowed in all cases.

I think this franchise with the obligation and will to introduce penalty fare zones on large areas of the network you might see that .

I think one of the previous issues in franchises of the past are that decisions on TVM's would be made on a soley footfall of the specific station basis . And on that basis it would not be justifiable to put proper card and cash TVM's at many stations because the cost of paying to have someone go round emptying them and maintaining them outweighs the fares collected .

However if you add into the equation the larger income from penalty fares in a given area and count the costs/benefit of TVM's on a line or area basis rather than station by station it might become justifiable . It might be that most of the penalty fares on that line are actually issued in relation to travel from other stations . But without the TVM at the smaller footfall stations you could not implement a penalty fare scheme properly .

 

[Solent&Wessex]

One very important thing to remember is that ticket barriers and penalty fares every so often are not goid collectors of revenue.

The BBC demonstrated the issue of Penalty Fares not being a real deterrent last year in the West Midlands where so many people didn't pay, and when caught they just paid their £20 and said to the reporters that they weren't bothered, paying £20 once every few months on the rare revenue checks is still cheaper than buying a ticket every day.

And all gates do is check you have a ticket of some sorts.

Between Friday and Sunday this weekend I took over £300 each day. A quick guestimate is that at least 50% of that is generated by charging excess or additional fares because of (in no particular order) :
Route specific tickets on the wrong route
Advance / TOC only tickets travelling at the wrong time or on the wrong TOC
No railcards
Over-riding

Ticket gates detect none of this.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But without the TVM at the smaller footfall stations you could not implement a penalty fare scheme properly .

Exactly - or at the very least a PERTIS. Even if people only stick 5p in, at least they know that when they get to the barrier at Picc they won't end up being prosecuted.

 

[ainsworth74]

One very important thing to remember is that ticket barriers and penalty fares every so often are not goid collectors of revenue.

Yup. Ticket gates are a part of revenue protection but they are not a be all and end all of revenue protection. Far more important is on train staff regularly checking and selling tickets. Even RPI stings aren't sufficient in my view unless they're operating so regularly that you might as well just have someone on every train!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yup. Ticket gates are a part of revenue protection but they are not a be all and end all of revenue protection. Far more important is on train staff regularly checking and selling tickets. Even RPI stings aren't sufficient in my view unless they're operating so regularly that you might as well just have someone on every train!

But if you're going to PF you need a team. A single guard would get assaulted.

So you're probably better, in practice, having the trains DOO (ignoring safety for the moment, just considering revenue) and having a three-person revenue squad on every third train. A one in three chance of getting caught is still a good deterrent.

 

[muz379]

One very important thing to remember is that ticket barriers and penalty fares every so often are not goid collectors of revenue.

The BBC demonstrated the issue of Penalty Fares not being a real deterrent last year in the West Midlands where so many people didn't pay, and when caught they just paid their £20 and said to the reporters that they weren't bothered, paying £20 once every few months on the rare revenue checks is still cheaper than buying a ticket every day.

But what if the penalty fare is higher and the enforcement teams are in greater numbers than in the west Midlands ?

I think with the number of staff that it sounds like Northern want to move away from traditional ticket selling settings like on train and booking office they could actually form a pretty decent sized revenue inspection team , collecting far more in penalty fares from people who either try and avoid paying , or make mistakes using TVM's or cant understand how to use TVM's etc .

Metrolink for example in Manchester has a £100pf or £50 if paid within i think its 14 days . Would a £100 penalty fare make it worthwhile risking being caught ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

But what if the penalty fare is higher and the enforcement teams are in greater numbers than in the west Midlands ?

I do think the statutory PF is too low, which is I think what leads to Penalty Fakes.

I think there should be a trial at one TOC, whereby that TOC agrees with the DfT that it won't prosecute any Byelaw cases (only serious stuff, e.g. forgeries, that justify the use of RoRA) and will instead use statutory PFs, and in return the PF is increased to £80, discounted to £40 if paid promptly or on the spot for a first offence in a 12 month period only, increased to £120 if paid late. The Anytime Single fare for the journey made would be payable in addition. This would be non-fault, i.e. it would apply whether the evasion was intentional or a mistake. RoRA would only be used for serious cases of fraud such as forgeries, never for simple ticketless travel, nor forgotten Railcards etc, and definitely not for slightly smudged Carnets.

That would probably make quite a difference.

As for LM, it near enough gave up on revenue protection so is not really a good example. There is still basically no revenue protection going on other than at the Euston and Watford barriers (and sometimes, but increasingly rarely, the MKC barriers) on the south WCML services, except a small number of guards who do do tickets, but if you don't have one you just get sold the same as you'd have got at the ticket office with all discounts.

 

[Bungle965]

I do think the statutory PF is too low, which is I think what leads to Penalty Fakes.

I think there should be a trial at one TOC, whereby that TOC agrees with the DfT that it won't prosecute any Byelaw cases (only serious stuff, e.g. forgeries, that justify the use of RoRA) and will instead use statutory PFs, and in return the PF is increased to £80, discounted to £40 if paid promptly or on the spot for a first offence in a 12 month period only, increased to £120 if paid late. The Anytime Single fare for the journey made would be payable in addition. This would be non-fault, i.e. it would apply whether the evasion was intentional or a mistake. RoRA would only be used for serious cases of fraud such as forgeries, never for simple ticketless travel, nor forgotten Railcards etc, and definitely not for slightly smudged Carnets.

That would probably make quite a difference.

As for LM, it near enough gave up on revenue protection so is not really a good example. There is still basically no revenue protection going on other than at the Euston and Watford barriers (and sometimes, but increasingly rarely, the MKC barriers) on the south WCML services, except a small number of guards who do do tickets, but if you don't have one you just get sold the same as you'd have got at the ticket office with all discounts.

I can only ever remember having my ticket checked once on the Walsall line, mind you I don't think the guards are totally to blame there. Station stops are only a couple of minutes away from each other so it becomes difficult for the guard to get around. Ticket examiners are needed on that line if you want to get any sort of proper revenue protection.
Sam

 

[muz379]

I think there should be a trial at one TOC, whereby that TOC agrees with the DfT that it won't prosecute any Byelaw cases (only serious stuff, e.g. forgeries, that justify the use of RoRA) and will instead use statutory PFs, and in return the PF is increased to £80, discounted to £40 if paid promptly or on the spot for a first offence in a 12 month period only, increased to £120 if paid late. The Anytime Single fare for the journey made would be payable in addition. This would be non-fault, i.e. it would apply whether the evasion was intentional or a mistake. RoRA would only be used for serious cases of fraud such as forgeries, never for simple ticketless travel, nor forgotten Railcards etc, and definitely not for slightly smudged Carnets.

That would probably make quite a difference.

Then you open a whole can of worms IMO . Especially with the "no fault" idea . Ive seen plenty of comment in the disputes and prosecutions section where people have questioned lack of discretion in dealing with passengers who on the face of it it appears have made genuine mistake , i really would question if that is the right way to behave towards passengers

Dont get me wrong I think it is going to happen , in fact I am under no doubt in my mind that we are going to see a massive culture change in the way revenue is collected and the way revenue policies are enforced at northern and I personally do not feel it is in passengers interests .

 

[Bletchleyite]

Dont get me wrong I think it is going to happen , in fact I am under no doubt in my mind that we are going to see a massive culture change in the way revenue is collected and the way revenue policies are enforced at northern and I personally do not feel it is in passengers interests .

Do you think the present use of what is effectively blackmail using £80 Penalty Fakes (but you might just get sold a ticket if the guard comes through) is in passenger interests? I don't.

 

[muz379]

Do you think the present use of what is effectively blackmail using £80 Penalty Fakes (but you might just get sold a ticket if the guard comes through) is in passenger interests? I don't.

I dont ,but surely removing that chance that the guard might come through and you will definitely get a penalty fare improves nothing

In all seriousness though we have all heard far too many cases of penalty fakes being handed out when booking office staff genuinely have been otherwise engaged so unable to sell tickets or have been having issues with their machines . But we all know that the bottom line when it comes down to it is that as long as a certain number of people pay then financially the scheme makes sense

I think it would be much of the same if we saw a true penalty fare scheme , there would be no sincere attempt to verify if machines where broken at the time of issue . Sure if people challenged it through the correct channels and asked to see logs showing that machines had been reported as faulty , or people obtained evidence of their own by taking photos etc then they would not have the penalty levied . But we know as with all these things for every person that challenges it there will be a number that dont and it is that number that doesn't that schemes like this aim for .

 

[HH]

Yup. Ticket gates are a part of revenue protection but they are not a be all and end all of revenue protection. Far more important is on train staff regularly checking and selling tickets. Even RPI stings aren't sufficient in my view unless they're operating so regularly that you might as well just have someone on every train!

The problem currently is that the Penalty Fare has again been devalued through gradual inflation and needs to be increased. It needs to be sufficiently large that getting caught without a ticket is a true deterrent. It was always the view that you would need to catch an offender 20% of the time, i.e. twice a week if they travelled every day without a ticket/with the wrong ticket in both directions.

That still means pretty active revenue protection, but you shouldn't need to catch them every journey.

 

[yorkie]

The problem currently is that the Penalty Fare has again been devalued through gradual inflation and needs to be increased. It needs to be sufficiently large that getting caught without a ticket is a true deterrent. It was always the view that you would need to catch an offender 20% of the time, i.e. twice a week if they travelled every day without a ticket/with the wrong ticket in both directions.

That still means pretty active revenue protection, but you shouldn't need to catch them every journey.

Penalty Fares are apparently not meant to be issued to "offenders", but people who make certain sorts of mistake (not all mistakes).

https://www.chilternrailways.co.uk/sites/default/files/files/timetables/Chiltern Penalty Fares.pdf

A Penalty Fare is a charge that Chiltern Railways is allowed to make under the Regulations and Rules. It is not a fine, and anyone who is charged one is not being accused of avoiding, or attempting to avoid, paying their fare.

‘Fare dodging’ is a completely different matter: it is a criminal offence and we treat it as such by prosecuting offenders.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I dont ,but surely removing that chance that the guard might come through and you will definitely get a penalty fare improves nothing

Yes it does. It means you *know* you have to buy a ticket before you board, and part of the deal would be that proper facilities to do so would be provided where they are presently lacking - just like it is elsewhere in the country. Crikey, even Metrolink manage it, and they're stricter than any TOC - you have to report a broken machine to travel if there isn't another one, not just board.

In all seriousness though we have all heard far too many cases of penalty fakes being handed out when booking office staff genuinely have been otherwise engaged so unable to sell tickets or have been having issues with their machines . But we all know that the bottom line when it comes down to it is that as long as a certain number of people pay then financially the scheme makes sense

Which is why I would like to see the option removed from TOCs by repealing the relevant Byelaw and tightening up RoRA so neither can be used for simple ticketless travel, forgotten Railcards etc, and the statutory PF scheme improved to substitute properly, ideally with a truly independent statutory appeals process.

I think it would be much of the same if we saw a true penalty fare scheme , there would be no sincere attempt to verify if machines where broken at the time of issue . Sure if people challenged it through the correct channels and asked to see logs showing that machines had been reported as faulty , or people obtained evidence of their own by taking photos etc then they would not have the penalty levied . But we know as with all these things for every person that challenges it there will be a number that dont and it is that number that doesn't that schemes like this aim for .

Penalty Fakes are like that because the only way to challenge them is to have your day in Court. Given how stressful that is to many people, it's effectively blackmail.

Penalty *Fares* are much better, because there is an appeals process. That process could be improved, but unlike a day in Court it is supposed to be smooth and fair even if in the end the appeal is not a valid one.

The disaster you predict isn't happening in other TOCs who have had them for years.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Penalty Fares are apparently not meant to be issued to "offenders", but people who make certain sorts of mistake (not all mistakes).

https://www.chilternrailways.co.uk/sites/default/files/files/timetables/Chiltern Penalty Fares.pdf

Originally they were intended to be a sort of decriminalisation of ticketless travel - a genuine mistake that the inspector really believed to be a genuine mistake would be let off completely. That attitude has, in some TOCs, shifted rather.

 

[muz379]

Yes it does. It means you *know* you have to buy a ticket before you board, and part of the deal would be that proper facilities to do so would be provided where they are presently lacking - just like it is elsewhere in the country. Crikey, even Metrolink manage it, and they're stricter than any TOC - you have to report a broken machine to travel if there isn't another one, not just board.



Which is why I would like to see the option removed from TOCs by repealing the relevant Byelaw and tightening up RoRA so neither can be used for simple ticketless travel, forgotten Railcards etc, and the statutory PF scheme improved to substitute properly, ideally with a truly independent statutory appeals process.



Penalty Fakes are like that because the only way to challenge them is to have your day in Court. Given how stressful that is to many people, it's effectively blackmail.

Penalty *Fares* are much better, because there is an appeals process. That process could be improved, but unlike a day in Court it is supposed to be smooth and fair even if in the end the appeal is not a valid one.

The disaster you predict isn't happening in other TOCs who have had them for years.

But then you could argue that getting rid of booking offices and just having a TVM at every station is an opportunity to pay . Would this really be appropriate especially with the complex ticketing system on the railway . Are you really offering an opportunity to purchase


Its okay on metrolink when the ticket system is fairly simple point to point single return adult or child options . But given the complexities of the rail ticketing system I really dont feel TVMs are an appropriate means of selling everything .

Point taken about the disaster not happening on other tocs . However I am sure when first implemented those tocs would have had teething troubles and maybe did use them heavy handedly leading to their regular passengers learning new behaviours .And it is inevitable that people who have just made genuine mistakes or cannot use TVM's do get caught out when they really shouldn't be

Also at the current financial penalty as well as the levels of enforcement as others have mentioned is it just that a penalty fare is tolerable vs buying a ticket everyday ?

Also are there other tocs who use penalty fakes to the level that northern do ? Genuine question because I am not too aware of the situation on other parts of the network .

 

[Bletchleyite]

But then you could argue that getting rid of booking offices and just having a TVM at every station is an opportunity to pay . Would this really be appropriate especially with the complex ticketing system on the railway . Are you really offering an opportunity to purchase

Yes, you are.

Northern's fare system is not complicated. It consists mainly of Anytime Day Returns and Off Peak Day Returns, with non-Day tickets over longer distances. Peak restrictions are fairly consistent, and there are few Advances.

Its okay on metrolink when the ticket system is fairly simple point to point single return adult or child options . But given the complexities of the rail ticketing system I really dont feel TVMs are an appropriate means of selling everything .

Northern's ticketing system is no more complicated than Metrolink's - don't get caught up in the complexities of InterCity travel.

Also at the current financial penalty as well as the levels of enforcement as others have mentioned is it just that a penalty fare is tolerable vs buying a ticket everyday ?

Does it matter, provided the same or more income is derived from people doing that?

Also are there other tocs who use penalty fakes to the level that northern do ? Genuine question because I am not too aware of the situation on other parts of the network .

I know there are other TOCs who use them (and ones that don't - the ones that don't, when they prosecute, will normally either always see it through or consider a settlement separately for each case - and then there's ScotRail who because of Scottish law can't really prosecute very many people and seem to cope), but I can't recall which ones at the moment.

 

[theblackwatch]

Northern's fare system is not complicated. It consists mainly of Anytime Day Returns and Off Peak Day Returns, with non-Day tickets over longer distances. Peak restrictions are fairly consistent, and there are few Advances.

It may be 'not complicated' in your view, but even staff seem to have trouble grasping it as on several occasions they have tried to sell me the wrong ticket during the evening peak. Twice I have had staff attempt to sell me an Anytime Day Return for a journey which is not priced by Northern (so off peak was valid), and more recently I was presented with an off-peak ticket when a peak one was required.

No doubt someone will reply saying that staff can't be expected to know every restriction, but if that's the case, can the poor passenger be expected to know them!

 

[muz379]

Yes, you are.

Northern's fare system is not complicated. It consists mainly of Anytime Day Returns and Off Peak Day Returns, with non-Day tickets over longer distances. Peak restrictions are fairly consistent, and there are few Advances.



Northern's ticketing system is no more complicated than Metrolink's - don't get caught up in the complexities of InterCity travel.

I agree majority of the fares I sell from stations without ticket buying facilities are simple singles , day returns or open/short returns . I dont know about peak restrictions being consistent when it comes to the evening peak though there are the discrepancies in people travelling across boundaries or into the evening peak areas . Unless they roll that out across the whole network which is another thing I can see and would simplify matters . But there are still times when you will be asked to sell more complicated intercity tickets and explain the relevant restrictions that go with them . There is also the inevitable conversations with leisure travellers every weekend about the fact that a duo(two returns) is cheaper than two singles

I suppose you could instruct people in those situations to just buy the relevant single to a major destination with a booking office/excess window and excess it later but then are we changing the connection times at stations to accommodate this ?

Does it matter, provided the same or more income is derived from people doing that?

That is a fair point .

My following comment is contingent on the penalty fare remains at its current level. Is it not possible that in allowing the prospect of ticket less travel to grow because you are meeting your own revenue targets by collecting PF's off some ticket less travellers that you create an environment of acceptable fare evasion which just invites the other kinds of anti social behaviour that is par for the course on metrolink ? I dont think anybody wants that , not the passengers , not the staff and not the business .

Also I feel more like the fact that a move to penalty fare is going to be done to raise revenue rather than just sustain it at its current level the franchise is clear in its aspirations for revenue growth .

Would you object to a true penalty fare being handed out as often as and in the same situations as penalty fakes are ?

I know there are other TOCs who use them (and ones that don't - the ones that don't, when they prosecute, will normally either always see it through or consider a settlement separately for each case - and then there's ScotRail who because of Scottish law can't really prosecute very many people and seem to cope), but I can't recall which ones at the moment.

Fair enough . Just from my perception browsing disputes and prosecutions it seems Northern are one of the franchises that have a reputation with regards to revenue protection . Which is why I questioned at first why you would want them to have a scheme that gives them what seems to be more power but you are right to point out that a proper penalty fare would have a more robust actual appeal process .

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I do think the statutory PF is too low, which is I think what leads to Penalty Fakes.

Penalty Fakes seem to suggest that Donald Trump has been active in that particular area...