What more could be done to crack down on fare evasion?

[yorkie]

Same thing on EMT yesterday between MAN and LPY and barely a glance at the ticket, although the guard was very appreciative when I told him his announcements on the PA were inaudible (and he did turn up the volume for subsequent announcements).

So the Guard was performing his core job role perfectly.

It's not really the role of a Guard to get into confrontations; quite the opposite in fact.

If you want someone checking every detail of a ticket, challenging people and issuing penalty fares or reporting people for prosecutions, then that is a very different role.

 

[tbtc]

I think local services should either be like London Overground, with staff at every station, ticket barriers and regular spot checks OR like the Strathclyde electrics, with friendly & proactive staff constantly patrolling the trains checking/issuing tickets.

I'd much prefer the latter of course, but I have to be realistic that the former is more suited to really busy routes with high footfalls in urban areas.

I agree - I didn't want to get into a DOO argument but I know how quick the Supertram staff are to check my ticket when I get on board (and the fact that they will walk up and down the tram several times during my journey) - I can only remember one example of fare evasion that I've seen in the past few years (and that was a scrote who seemed to be looking for a fight with anyone/everyone) - having a member of staff only focussed on revenue means that everyone seems to have a ticket.

Similar to the Strathclyde operations (though I've used them less in recent years) - it works.

It's a lot harder to solve the problem on heavy rail routes - staffed stations would be great but, given the way that some stations will only get one train per hour so that makes it pretty expensive to have a member of staff hanging around for most of the hour ready to check tickets (as well as anyone in a ticket office) - more staff sounds good though

 

[Aictos]

Or gates on a side entrance which are only manned by a help point from the main gateline.

Saw 3 people on Sunday jumping over the gates at Luton on the platform 5 side.

That doesn't surprise me at all, Luton and Leagrave are well known fare evader hotspots.

 

[Chriso]

That doesn't surprise me at all, Luton and Leagrave are well known fare evader hotspots.

Unfortunately many have cottoned on to the ease the wide gate can be pushed through. Remotely operated gatelines make it particularly easy as seen by the op at Leagrave and Luton. Also on Thameslink north the West Hampstead Thameslink gateline at the original entrance/exit is pretty much always remotely controlled and to be fair operational however there is a constant stream of fare evaders barging through the wide gate in my experience in the day and at night.

 

[Aictos]

Unfortunately many have cottoned on to the ease the wide gate can be pushed through. Remotely operated gatelines make it particularly easy as seen by the op at Leagrave and Luton. Also on Thameslink north the West Hampstead Thameslink gateline at the original entrance/exit is pretty much always remotely controlled and to be fair operational however there is a constant stream of fare evaders barging through the wide gate in my experience in the day and at night.

Which is why remotely operated gatelines are not a good idea at well known fare evasion hotspots, they should man them properly with visible staff at both gatelines for example I passed though Luton on Saturday and they had ONE person to work both the ticket concourse gateline and the one on Platform 5 which shouldn't be happening but then again until the DfT insists on the train companies doing more to protect revenue I can't see that changing.

 

[jon0844]

Why does it matter it they're manned or not when increasingly people just walk through as if the gate isn't even there? They're all perfectly aware of how little pressure is needed, and must know staff won't stop them.

 

[ALEMASTER]

There's two different threads to this - one is deliberate fare evasion, the other is passengers happy to pay but no staff collecting their fare.

My (currently only ocassional) commute is from Dore & Totley station. It is unstaffed - no ticket office - and only one self service machine that isn't particularly user friendly, doesn't accept cash and not always in working order. Many customers need to buy their ticket on the train yet often the conductor just remain in the back cab and doesn't bother collecting fares, with EMR seeming to be the worst for this.

 

[LowLevel]

There's two different threads to this - one is deliberate fare evasion, the other is passengers happy to pay but no staff collecting their fare.

My (currently only ocassional) commute is from Dore & Totley station. It is unstaffed - no ticket office - and only one self service machine that isn't particularly user friendly, doesn't accept cash and not always in working order. Many customers need to buy their ticket on the train yet often the conductor just remain in the back cab and doesn't bother collecting fares, with EMR seeming to be the worst for this.

Is your commute from Dore to Sheffield? If so the EMR crews will be prioritising getting ready for what can be a very quick end change and depart. Getting stuck at the wrong end of a 4 car train when people start getting ready to get off with all your stuff out is far from sensible and if you open the doors on the wrong side while rushing it is game over. I personally only go down between Dore and Sheffield if it's a 2 car train with just the odd one or two boarding, most won't at all.

Going the other way on board revenue duties have been suspended on EMR for much of the last year - pre COVID Dore was a money spinner for conductors towards Manchester with high fares, mostly nice and pleasant customers and lots of time to collect them so I'd be surprised if that was a regular occurrence then - the morning westbound EMR trains were some of the highest paying for the conductors.

 

[Hadders]

Ideally every gate line is manned but the balance has to be struck between the cost of the additional staffing costs and the additional fares collected. I'm not really a fan of remote manned gate lines but I understand why they exist, they are often lesser used exits and from a passenger point it's better for them to be remote manned rather than closed completely.

 

[Rail Blues]

Ideally every gate line is manned but the balance has to be struck between the cost of the additional staffing costs and the additional fares collected. I'm not really a fan of remote manned gate lines but I understand why they exist, they are often lesser used exits and from a passenger point it's better for them to be remote manned rather than closed completely.

Exactly, there are probably a combination of all the things listed above that could be applied, but to apply them in every setting would be nonsensical as they'd cost more than is saved in additional fares and annoying fare paying passengers with non stop ticket checks and making stations harder to access. Like most things in life it's about proportion and getting a balance.

 

[Cdd89]

Could fare evasion be reduced by having internal gatelines at major interchange stations, where the layout is potentially conducive? I've occasionally thought this of Farringdon, for example. I don't think I've seen any examples of splitting the paid area before; Waterloo East to Southwark is the only one I can think of and that is technically not splitting the paid area as there is an unpaid area (albeit otherwise inaccessible) between!

Obviously one practicality is that it would have an impact on minimum interchange times. The other impact is someone on a valid routing being delayed and missing a connecting train due to an argument overt ticket validity with gateline staff (so very well trained staff, or very lenient policies, would be necessary!).

 

[NoRoute]

There are no easy solutions as ticket barriers are expensive and

Why are ticket barriers so expensive, clearly they need to be ruggedly built but they're pretty mature technology?

Stations could trial other forms of ticket checking at station entrances and exits, I've seen low cost 'soft' barriers in other situations where tickets or passes are checked, and once checked light the walk-way green to let you proceed. There's no physical barrier, just a light-gate but if you proceed and walk through without having validated a ticket the barrier lets of flashing red lights and a beeping siren to alert anyone in the vicinity. Combine it with some form of camera to record the individual passing on red and you have evidence for future enforcement action.

 

[jon0844]

I wouldn't consider a Cubic gateline to be anywhere near rugged. Some gates in other countries are considerably more robust, as well as stopping people sliding under or jumping over.

 

[telstarbox]

It's properly particularly an issue in London metro world where it's either DOO / non-commerical guards and station coverage is patchy and no gatelines or short coverage. Add into that the revenue element is normally done with roaming Revenue teams who may or may not be on in the particular area and that's where you get issues. Now these are mainly short journeys granted as London terminals coverage is generally spot on. Many people in my youth used to "chance it" on SWR because of the short journey time and small chance of a check.

There is also an element of short-ticketing and again some TOCs are worse than this (looking at you Southeastern...) than others although you look at the disputes forum and a lot of people are stung for this on Southeastern and other commuter TOCs. Although on regional trains, this is also a problem.

I also don't want to dig up the DOO dispute, but either you need a) good gateline provision throughout the day until reasonably late at night (again where feasible to install - if they are installed, staff them!) / b) an "OBS type" role on trains dealing with tickets on metro routes. c) significant strengthening of roaming revenue teams. There's no easy fix - it's almost a cultural / social thing. Once people start to see standards being more visibly enforced, fare evasion will naturally decline. The irony is if that does happen, then the very people you've employed to stop it might be seen as redundant because fare evasion is so low.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Apr 2021 ==



Just out of interest, how do they stop people showing their tickets about 6 times?

If this had been posted 5 years ago I would have said that 90% of metro passengers were on a season ticket and/or travelling to a gated terminal, so the remaining 10% doing off peak suburban journeys would be pretty small fry in revenue terms whether it was collected or not. (Is it still £1.50 for a Zone 2 - 6 single on Oyster?)

Post Covid with potentially more flexible working, less season ticket travel and more leisure travel the equation has somewhat changed.

 

[Hadders]

Could fare evasion be reduced by having internal gatelines at major interchange stations, where the layout is potentially conducive? I've occasionally thought this of Farringdon, for example. I don't think I've seen any examples of splitting the paid area before; Waterloo East to Southwark is the only one I can think of and that is technically not splitting the paid area as there is an unpaid area (albeit otherwise inaccessible) between!

Obviously one practicality is that it would have an impact on minimum interchange times. The other impact is someone on a valid routing being delayed and missing a connecting train due to an argument overt ticket validity with gateline staff (so very well trained staff, or very lenient policies, would be necessary!).

Internal gatelines at a station like Farringdon would not be possible during a pre-covid peak. Do you know how busy these sort of stations can get?

 

[Cdd89]

Internal gatelines at a station like Farringdon would not be possible during a pre-covid peak. Do you know how busy these sort of stations can get?

Yep, that sounds like a pretty solid reason against! Especially considering how 'lumpy' the demand would be as trains arrive. I guess if it were practical it would have been done already. I guess they could leave the gates open during peaks, but that arguably defeats the purpose in the first place.

I've occasionally seen targeted revenue stings internally at interchanges, but indeed as you say, never in the peak.

 

[Hadders]

I’ve seen an occasional manual ticket check at Kings Cross St Pancras in the shoulder peak in the corridor between the tube ticket hall and the steps to the H&C/Met/Circle platforms.

 

[Horizon22]

If this had been posted 5 years ago I would have said that 90% of metro passengers were on a season ticket and/or travelling to a gated terminal, so the remaining 10% doing off peak suburban journeys would be pretty small fry in revenue terms whether it was collected or not. (Is it still £1.50 for a Zone 2 - 6 single on Oyster?)

Post Covid with potentially more flexible working, less season ticket travel and more leisure travel the equation has somewhat changed.

Of course in the peak, but lets not forget the significant number of off-peak journeys not necessarily to Zone 1.

 

[markymark2000]

My suggestions for cracking down on fare evasion are mainly staff related and adjusting the rule book where possible so that ticket checks/selling can be done more. I know that I and my family have done many journeys where we have questioned why do we buy tickets for some train journeys since most of the time, there are no checks at stations or onboard. Always bought a ticket still but it's easy to see how some people get the mentality that there are no checks so why does it matter.

I think firstly, there are issues where people know what times gates open and close. Why can't we have more remote monitoring of gates. I think while it is important to staff the gates 90% of the time to solve issues, at quieter times, why can't ticket offices and dispatchers keep an eye out over the ticket gates. Yes people will still chance it but it is a deterrent (in the same way which we put fences along the railway. It doesn't stop all trespassers but it's a big deterrent to most of the population). You know, even if the gates were set as shut and to accept all tickets irrespective of validity, having the barriers shut and you have to present a ticket, it's a deterrant as people then worry about putting an invalid ticket into the barriers and getting staff over. Not 100% foolproof but it's about making people think.

Secondly, I think that it would be good to stop ordering trains without gangways. While the big windscreen is good for drivers, it's not good for onboard security or ticket checks since when trains run in multiples, a guard can only be in one portion of the train. This often leads to people seeing a guard and using the other unit knowing that unless the guard moves between stations (which is unlikely and I will come onto my next point), they will have no ticket checks.

Thirdly is enabling guards to dispatch from more doors. I think it's probably a safety thing but it's strange how some companies guards can dispatch from any door but other TOCs, it's rear only. The 'rear only' guard means that guards can't get far far into a train to check tickets before returning to the rear cab to do the doors. When a guard does go into the train, they have to be very time concious. I've been on a few trains where the train stops and the guard is still taking payment for a ticket (in the front carriage) meaning they they to do that, then go to the back and sort the doors. Overall, the train becomes late. Late trains are no good and nor are ticketless travellers. By allowing guards to control the doors at more door sets, means guards will have more confidence going through the train, they can do as Merseyrail guards do about 1/2-2/3rds of a carriage between each station stop, moving slowly up the train and not having to walk the length of the train 300 times to do the doors and then return to where they left off for the ticket checks.



Adding to that, I think it would be good to start having more ticket barriers out there. The majority of the rail network has no barriers. Even stations with staff, have no barriers or ticket checks. I know barriers cost money but there surely has to be a way to get barriers cheaper.
I think that it's a bit of a reluctance to install them to be honest. Look at how Network Rail were at Liverpool and Manchester, they had the rotary barriers on the toilet entrances long before they put in revenue protection barriers. Too busy trying to get money off people needing to empty their bladder rather than protecting the revenue which gives them money to make improvements to the network.


On the subject of cost for ticket barriers, the Office of Rail and Road did a study into them and found that Cubic has a monopoly on them and no competition and they wanted to intervene. What has happened since, I don't know as I can't see anything but the documents can all be found here: https://www.orr.gov.uk/monitoring-r...atic-ticket-gates-and-ticket-vending-machines

 

[Horizon22]

My suggestions for cracking down on fare evasion are mainly staff related and adjusting the rule book where possible so that ticket checks/selling can be done more. I know that I and my family have done many journeys where we have questioned why do we buy tickets for some train journeys since most of the time, there are no checks at stations or onboard. Always bought a ticket still but it's easy to see how some people get the mentality that there are no checks so why does it matter.

I think firstly, there are issues where people know what times gates open and close. Why can't we have more remote monitoring of gates. I think while it is important to staff the gates 90% of the time to solve issues, at quieter times, why can't ticket offices and dispatchers keep an eye out over the ticket gates. Yes people will still chance it but it is a deterrent (in the same way which we put fences along the railway. It doesn't stop all trespassers but it's a big deterrent to most of the population). You know, even if the gates were set as shut and to accept all tickets irrespective of validity, having the barriers shut and you have to present a ticket, it's a deterrant as people then worry about putting an invalid ticket into the barriers and getting staff over. Not 100% foolproof but it's about making people think.

Secondly, I think that it would be good to stop ordering trains without gangways. While the big windscreen is good for drivers, it's not good for onboard security or ticket checks since when trains run in multiples, a guard can only be in one portion of the train. This often leads to people seeing a guard and using the other unit knowing that unless the guard moves between stations (which is unlikely and I will come onto my next point), they will have no ticket checks.

Thirdly is enabling guards to dispatch from more doors. I think it's probably a safety thing but it's strange how some companies guards can dispatch from any door but other TOCs, it's rear only. The 'rear only' guard means that guards can't get far far into a train to check tickets before returning to the rear cab to do the doors. When a guard does go into the train, they have to be very time concious. I've been on a few trains where the train stops and the guard is still taking payment for a ticket (in the front carriage) meaning they they to do that, then go to the back and sort the doors. Overall, the train becomes late. Late trains are no good and nor are ticketless travellers. By allowing guards to control the doors at more door sets, means guards will have more confidence going through the train, they can do as Merseyrail guards do about 1/2-2/3rds of a carriage between each station stop, moving slowly up the train and not having to walk the length of the train 300 times to do the doors and then return to where they left off for the ticket checks.



Adding to that, I think it would be good to start having more ticket barriers out there. The majority of the rail network has no barriers. Even stations with staff, have no barriers or ticket checks. I know barriers cost money but there surely has to be a way to get barriers cheaper.
I think that it's a bit of a reluctance to install them to be honest. Look at how Network Rail were at Liverpool and Manchester, they had the rotary barriers on the toilet entrances long before they put in revenue protection barriers. Too busy trying to get money off people needing to empty their bladder rather than protecting the revenue which gives them money to make improvements to the network.


On the subject of cost for ticket barriers, the Office of Rail and Road did a study into them and found that Cubic has a monopoly on them and no competition and they wanted to intervene. What has happened since, I don't know as I can't see anything but the documents can all be found here: https://www.orr.gov.uk/monitoring-r...atic-ticket-gates-and-ticket-vending-machines

There's quite a few issues here. More remote gate monitoring probably is a good idea where possible although some issues are the physical lack of gates which may not be able to be resolved. Also you are more than likely to find the ticket office closed before the gateline staff have gone home, so that doesn't solve the issue. Plus many locations that have gatelines are purely dispatched by train crew (for instance DOO services) and so again there's nobody around to "keep an eye out" without having dedicated staff there.

Your second point I can agree with however and more fixed unit formations and / or gangwayed stock would resolve some of this issue.

As for the 3rd point, there are a whole host of safety cases why guards dispatch from where they do down to signal sighting and platform length / curvature. What you would therefore be advocating is probably more of the "OBS" model whereby the 2nd on-board member is removed from the dispatch process but that is a highly controversial topic on these forums! One of the arguments in favour of 'changing the role of the guard' is that they wouldn't need to "go to the back and sort the doors" in the scenario you mention and some believe there are significant performance to be had (especially for metro services) but as I say there's a lot more to it than that.

 

[Aictos]

they are often lesser used exits.

I can think of one station in particular where more people use the remote gateline then the main gateline, the operation of the remote gateline at this station is also why it is a hotspot for fare evading.

The answer is more staff should be employed on revenue duties which has two gains, 1. fare evasion can be reduced and 2. provides a source of employment for people who otherwise would be on universal benefit or furloughed.

 

[markymark2000]

There's quite a few issues here. More remote gate monitoring probably is a good idea where possible although some issues are the physical lack of gates which may not be able to be resolved. Also you are more than likely to find the ticket office closed before the gateline staff have gone home, so that doesn't solve the issue. Plus many locations that have gatelines are purely dispatched by train crew (for instance DOO services) and so again there's nobody around to "keep an eye out" without having dedicated staff there.

If there is no staff at a station, that is one issue, granted.
For ticket office/gateline staff, Merseyrail is a good example where their stations are staffed from first to last train normally by a ticket office person. Ticket gates could be put in here and work all day. I'm sure that there will be instances as well where the ticket office is open but the gates are also open. Chester was such a station pre Covid (not sure on the gate operation times now with Covid but it used to be something like 7am-7pm despite having dispatchers and ticket office staff earlier and later. As I say, there must be more examples. It doesn't work in all instances, I will fully admit that. It's a start though in the right direction though where it can work.

As for the 3rd point, there are a whole host of safety cases why guards dispatch from where they do down to signal sighting and platform length / curvature. What you would therefore be advocating is probably more of the "OBS" model whereby the 2nd on-board member is removed from the dispatch process but that is a highly controversial topic on these forums! One of the arguments in favour of 'changing the role of the guard' is that they wouldn't need to "go to the back and sort the doors" in the scenario you mention and some believe there are significant performance to be had (especially for metro services) but as I say there's a lot more to it than that.

Each station is different and so it would need a more in depth review but surely not all stations need guards to return to the rear to control the doors? Some examples are Transport for Wales and Merseyrail where doors can be controlled from most doors. With each variable, I agree there will again be some stations where this doesn't work but the blanket rule of return to the rear does affect revenue inspection.

I am not advocating an OBS model, just removing the blanket 'return to rear' rule which it seems some operators have which would then give guards some more flexibility over doing ticket checks since they can then go to the closest set of doors with controls and dispatch from there if safe to do so.


As with 99% of the railways problems, there isn't a single solution which will always work as there are too many variabilities. You need to put in multiple solutions to try and cover as much of the network as possible taking into account all the variabilities.

 

[skyhigh]

Each station is different and so it would need a more in depth review but surely not all stations need guards to return to the rear to control the doors?

Which TOCs will only let the guard dispatch from the rearmost position?

 

[markymark2000]

Which TOCs will only let the guard dispatch from the rearmost position?

Northern is one which I have found seems to do it. TransPennine seems to be another. Whether I have just noticed it on my journeys though and it has just so happened that these guards prefer the rear but over a variety of routes, these two have stood out.

Merseyrail it depends on the guard. Some stick in the back, some do revenue protection.

TFW is normally quite good with revenue protection and I would notice guards using a variety of doors for dispatch.

 

[Horizon22]

Northern is one which I have found seems to do it. TransPennine seems to be another. Whether I have just noticed it on my journeys though and it has just so happened that these guards prefer the rear but over a variety of routes, these two have stood out.

Merseyrail it depends on the guard. Some stick in the back, some do revenue protection.

TFW is normally quite good with revenue protection and I would notice guards using a variety of doors for dispatch.

I think what you might be described is guard preference. As much as passengers would like it some guards never show their face on a journeys whilst others are proactive and happy to assist. This will vary across TOCs and even depots. It's an inconsistent on-board approach which leads to some of the issues people mention in this thread.

 

[skyhigh]

Northern is one which I have found seems to do it. TransPennine seems to be another. Whether I have just noticed it on my journeys though and it has just so happened that these guards prefer the rear but over a variety of routes, these two have stood out.

With Northern the guard can 100% use doors other than the rear. They cannot, however, dispatch from the front. They can release doors from the front, once they are certain that the train is fully accommodated. The only exceptions are certain stations where you must dispatch from the rear (due to sighting issues etc, and equally there's stations where you have to work from the middle) and 150s where there are only 2 door control positions, so guards don't have a choice where to dispatch from.

If I know we have a little standing time at a station (and the station is appropriate), I will check tickets in the front carriage, release the doors from the front, walk further back and dispatch from there on time. This ability is part of a guard's route knowledge. If you do the same journeys, you will probably see the guards work from the same positions. As @Horizon22 says, some guards will choose to stay in the back, for whatever reason. I'm not sure changing the rules so that guards can dispatch from the front would make much, if any, difference to the amount of revenue collected onboard.

 

[jon0844]

Yep, that sounds like a pretty solid reason against! Especially considering how 'lumpy' the demand would be as trains arrive. I guess if it were practical it would have been done already. I guess they could leave the gates open during peaks, but that arguably defeats the purpose in the first place.

I've occasionally seen targeted revenue stings internally at interchanges, but indeed as you say, never in the peak.

King's Cross and Farringdon regularly had stings during the peaks some years back. Standing outside of the gateline though, and looking for the obvious double shufflers and also any tickets they'd set to check (in my case, a Gold Card - whereby I was asked to show my card and photo ID.. something that the railway seemed to rarely check in comparison).

 

[Bald Rick]

King's Cross and Farringdon regularly had stings during the peaks some years back. Standing outside of the gateline though, and looking for the obvious double shufflers and also any tickets they'd set to check (in my case, a Gold Card - whereby I was asked to show my card and photo ID.. something that the railway seemed to rarely check in comparison).

Moorgate too.

That’s the best way to do it - getting someone ‘sans billet’ or with the wrong type of ticket who has just gone through the barrier offers pretty strong evidence of an intent not to pay.

 

[RPI]

With Northern the guard can 100% use doors other than the rear. They cannot, however, dispatch from the front. They can release doors from the front, once they are certain that the train is fully accommodated. The only exceptions are certain stations where you must dispatch from the rear (due to sighting issues etc, and equally there's stations where you have to work from the middle) and 150s where there are only 2 door control positions, so guards don't have a choice where to dispatch from.

If I know we have a little standing time at a station (and the station is appropriate), I will check tickets in the front carriage, release the doors from the front, walk further back and dispatch from there on time. This ability is part of a guard's route knowledge. If you do the same journeys, you will probably see the guards work from the same positions. As @Horizon22 says, some guards will choose to stay in the back, for whatever reason. I'm not sure changing the rules so that guards can dispatch from the front would make much, if any, difference to the amount of revenue collected onboard.

Out of interest, do the 150's that came up from GWR still have the intermediate door controls fitted? I know all the current GWR 150's have them and make it so much easier for guards to check tickets

 

[skyhigh]

Out of interest, do the 150's that came up from GWR still have the intermediate door controls fitted? I know all the current GWR 150's have them and make it so much easier for guards to check tickets

They don't, sadly. I wish they all did.