New automatic ticket gates at King’s Cross

[island]

I'm going through KGX tonight. I think I shall try putting through an EC catering voucher and see if it works.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Train ended up on platform 8 so didn't get to try it out.

 

[junglejames]

[/QUOTE]Given there are other ways to bypass the gates (like the single to Finsbury Park) there is no foolproof system, but when backed up by the checks on the trains the problem is reduced. If people are going to hide in the toilet, that's a separate problem again and not cause to get rid of gates or consider them useless.[/QUOTE]

I disagree. If, as you show, it is that easy to get through gates and still avoid paying the correct fare for your journey (including hiding in toilets), then it is all part of the same thing- fare evasion, and it shows how pointless gates can be in some places.
It may put some people off of chancing their luck, but thats what the guard is there for. To catch people chancing their luck and not paying before they get on the train.
So we are now down to the people determined not to pay no matter what. Well we have shown how easy it is to get around barriers, so what is the point in them? The only difference would be is if virtually every station on a route has barriers, and then that makes it slighlty more difficult for these people, but still not impossible.

So what do the barriers stop? Well nothing, but it does make life slightly more difficult for those determined not to pay.
Of course, it does give some operators an excuse to get rid of guards on some services, but that isnt a benefit (well unless your one of the bosses of the TOC).

Now what are the other drawbacks?
Barriers are not reliable enough (Charing Cross when they were first installed is a perfect example, not accepting tickets that went beyond Charing Cross). They dont accept Rover Tickets either.
You end up needing more staff, as they always need to be manned.
Quite often they dont have enough staff on the barriers. You usually need at least 2 at busy stations. One for entries, and one for exits.
They can cause big delays sometimes, leading to passengers running, and possibly more accidents on the station. These delays will probably also cause more frustration amongst passengers, and usually this is taken out on station staff.
They may also cause problems for the good TOCs like GC that say you can buy on the train. What if someone is running late for their GC train, say because of really bad traffic, and so need to buy on the train. They are still happy in the knowledge that because of this, they will make the train.
They are then suddenly delayed at the barriers by quite a while, and watch their train leave. This leaves them confused as they heard you could buy onboard, and yet they have been stopped at barriers. They may be first time travellers, and they may now think GC are lying on their website. This could be a lost passenger for GC.

Admittedly the passenger thinking GC is lying, and never travelling with them again is unlikely, but is plausible. Missing the train because of the barriers is very likely though. I have nearly missed 2 trains because of barriers, and that was with me arriving in time. One time this led to my brother and I legging it over the bridge at Newcastle. Could have caused an accident, as mentioned earlier. I also got very frustrated, but I dont take these things out on staff (anyway, never had time!!)

Yes barriers have some benefits, although I am very sceptical of how much benefit the TOCs claim, but they have far too many drawbacks.

 

[Greenback]

Barriers do have drawbacks, they are not the solution to fare dodging, but there benefits outweigh the drawbacks in my opinion.

 

[jon0844]

Not every fare evader can successfully hide in a toilet, and I have said all along that on an Intercity service you would still check onboard. But, some services are DOO and need gates.

I was on HS1 today and they have gates, yet always check on the train. Seems to work okay. I don't know if anyone hid in the toilet after having just bought a ticket to Stratford International - but there aren't that many toilets!

 

[junglejames]

In my opinion the number of drawbacks they have mean in a lot of cases they should be scrapped.
For example, virtually every London Terminal station. Kings Cross shouldnt have them, St Pancras on the MML platforms shouldnt have them as they cause too much of a build up of passengers at the top of the escalators. Charing Cross shouldnt have them because of the numbers of passengers. Marylebone definitely shouldnt have them as there are not enough gates. I can well imagine Victoria and Waterloo are too busy for gates in the morning peak. Liverpool Street is a pain. Morning peak being hellish because of the barriers.

Outside London, Newcastle should get rid of them. They are absolutely awful. Nowhere near enough Barriers, and the station has pretty much been killed now. The amount of places to stand and wait has been cut, and movement around that area has been severely restricted. Probably the worst i have seen.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Barriers do have drawbacks, they are not the solution to fare dodging, but there benefits outweigh the drawbacks in my opinion.

Curious question then. If they are not the solution, what are the benefits of them? For mei unless they can be sure of virtually putting a stop to fare evasion, which i severely doubt they have done, then they should be scrapped at a lot of places.

 

[Greenback]

In my opinion the number of drawbacks they have mean in a lot of cases they should be scrapped.
For example, virtually every London Terminal station. Kings Cross shouldnt have them, St Pancras on the MML platforms shouldnt have them as they cause too much of a build up of passengers at the top of the escalators. Charing Cross shouldnt have them because of the numbers of passengers. Marylebone definitely shouldnt have them as there are not enough gates. I can well imagine Victoria and Waterloo are too busy for gates in the morning peak. Liverpool Street is a pain. Morning peak being hellish because of the barriers.

Outside London, Newcastle should get rid of them. They are absolutely awful. Nowhere near enough Barriers, and the station has pretty much been killed now. The amount of places to stand and wait has been cut, and movement around that area has been severely restricted. Probably the worst i have seen.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Curious question then. If they are not the solution, what are the benefits of them? For mei unless they can be sure of virtually putting a stop to fare evasion, which i severely doubt they have done, then they should be scrapped at a lot of places.

I agree that barriers are not suitable for all locations, but that does not eman that they are not suitable in every location! A pragmatic approach is needed!

They can do a good job of keeping beggars, drug addicts and other udnesirables away from platforms, alloowing abetter experience for bona fide passengers.

They can also ensure that people arriving at a station have some sort of ticket.

 

[Jonny]

Agency staff can join union but as for other staff benefits you persume correctly, know staff who have been on job for over a year still on agency T&C which equals Sweet FA. IMO is it right & fair NO Waiting to see what impact 2011 Agency Worker Act will have in October
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I know that & you know that sadly Top Table management as I differing view on this matter as company costs are reduced by either employing agency staff or subcontracting revenue protection, but have little control over quality of staff doing these duties.

As a former agency bod (not rail industry) I know that conditions are poor and protection is minimal - basically to being paid for what is worked. With the current legal position, there is no protection against unfair dismissal and what rights there are are very hard to enforce (even the right to the minimum wage). It will be very interesting to see how the intended change pans out.

My main view, though, is of how this affects how staff do their jobs - they might be inclined to cut a few corners etc. and in the case of ticket checks they might either "over-check" some and let others through without bothering too much, or even decide that the risk of confronting people who are trying to "run" the barriers without a ticket is too great a risk. I mean, with the sort of pay involved, who is going to risk their life to enforce it?

 

[WestCoast]

Charing Cross shouldnt have them because of the numbers of passengers. Marylebone definitely shouldnt have them as there are not enough gates. I can well imagine Victoria and Waterloo are too busy for gates in the morning peak. Liverpool Street is a pain. Morning peak being hellish because of the barriers.

I can understand frustrations at barriers being used at InterCity stations with ticket checks very likely indeed. But how do you propose tickets are checked on busy commuter services - if guard/RPI/whoever can't get down the train in the morning peak (almost always the case)? Waterloo's gateline is the largest in Europe - it manages!

By your logic London Underground shouldn't have barriers, and it's far too busy (in my opinion) to operate on a continental honour payment system.

Curious question then. If they are not the solution, what are the benefits of them? For mei unless they can be sure of virtually putting a stop to fare evasion, which i severely doubt they have done, then they should be scrapped at a lot of places.

Along with the drawbacks, there are benefits (not all of these apply to all stations):
1. They stop basic fare evasion (i.e. no ticket at all) - which if used in co-operation with onboard checks can be very effective at protecting revenue, at least over short distances or 'metro' style routes
2. They work well with systems like Oyster - it does make it easier to use and enforce smartcard technology!
3. They do improve security to a certain degree - people are monitored entering platform areas
4. In non-PF zones they enforce payment - Manchester Oxford Road or Leeds are examples, people who haven't had the chance to buy a ticket are forced to do so
5. More visible staff available to help people - passengers can ask gateline questions
6. They can regulate passenger movement - less people flooding into one area at a time (LU is an example)

 

[junglejames]

I agree that barriers are not suitable for all locations, but that does not eman that they are not suitable in every location! A pragmatic approach is needed!

They can do a good job of keeping beggars, drug addicts and other udnesirables away from platforms, alloowing abetter experience for bona fide passengers.

They can also ensure that people arriving at a station have some sort of ticket.

Oh I havent said scrap them all. Id scrap a lot of them though.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I can understand frustrations at barriers being used at InterCity stations with ticket checks very likely indeed. But how do you propose tickets are checked on busy commuter services - if guard/RPI/whoever can't get down the train in the morning peak (almost always the case)? Waterloo's gateline is the largest in Europe - it manages!

By your logic London Underground shouldn't have barriers, and it's far too busy (in my opinion) to operate on a continental honour payment system.



Along with the drawbacks, there are benefits (not all of these apply to all stations):
1. They stop basic fare evasion (i.e. no ticket at all) - which if used in co-operation with onboard checks can be very effective at protecting revenue, at least over short distances or 'metro' style routes
2. They work well with systems like Oyster - it does make it easier to use and enforce smartcard technology!
3. They do improve security to a certain degree - people are monitored entering platform areas
4. In non-PF zones they enforce payment - Manchester Oxford Road or Leeds are examples, people who haven't had the chance to buy a ticket are forced to do so
5. More visible staff available to help people - passengers can ask gateline questions
6. They can regulate passenger movement - less people flooding into one area at a time (LU is an example)

Waterloo I havent enough knowledge of. I was just taking a guess because of the numbers of passengers at once, and the small number of gates opposite each platform.
I stand corrected if its all fine though. To be honest, at Charing X, platforms 1-4 are ok. Its 5-6 that can be a problem. A main problem with Charing Cross though is how unreliable the barriers are. I am nearly always not let through even with a good ticket.

LU is very different. Fare evasion will nearly always happen without them. Much more than NR. Also they nearly always have enough barriers and staff to help (often NR stations dont). Also, because of the numbers of passengers getting off NR trains at termini in rush hour, and all arriving at the gates at once, the longest delays due to barriers are always at NR stations, not LU.

I admit on metro style lines its difficult to keep checking tickets on trains, but this doesnt mean you can cause delays in the terminal stations.
Take Marylebone. Trying to get through onto the platforms with a rover ticket. Train just arrived. Very few barriers meant queues backed down the platform quite badly. Only one member of staff, and he was on the other side, helping those that had arrived. I could not get through at all. I only just made my train. This is not good enough. Again it caused me to get frustrated. Somebody else could have taken this out on a member of staff. So indirectly barriers could cause an increase in violence towards staff. Unlikely, but it certainly causes frustrations to run high.
To me Marylebone and Newcastle are the first that need to be scrapped, and until they can guarentee 100% reliability, and accepting all tickets, then all London Termini should have their gates open during morning rushhour.

 

[WestCoast]

Oh I havent said scrap them all. Id scrap a lot of them though.

At main commuting terminals in London? Arguably where they are needed the most as there is no other way of protecting revenue due to the volume of people.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Waterloo I havent enough knowledge of. I was just taking a guess because of the numbers of passengers at once, and the small number of gates opposite each platform.
I stand corrected if its all fine though. To be honest, at Charing X, platforms 1-4 are ok. Its 5-6 that can be a problem. A main problem with Charing Cross though is how unreliable the barriers are. I am nearly always not let through even with a good ticket.

I'm not pro or anti barrier but overall I do prefer manual barrier checks in some sort of control booth (Liverpool Lime Street is an example) although there is only one booth so it's far too busy in the peak!

I admit on metro style lines its difficult to keep checking tickets on trains, but this doesnt mean you can cause delays in the terminal stations.

The worst fare evasion I've encountered (whether deliberate or not) is in non-PF zones where there are a no harsh fines for not buying a ticket and a considerable number of unstaffed stations. As an example the Northern 333s that run Skipton/Ilkley - Leeds are terrible, a busy four car train where a guard has to check and sell tickets and keep back running to do the doors. All the fare evaders head for the front. The automated barriers at Leeds have helped considerably.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I use Waterloo quite regularly, including in the peaks, and there seem to be no problems - but bear in mind it's a totally different situation in that at Waterloo you have a huge number of barriers facing an enormous concourse and there is full circulation behind them ( albeit in one part of the station you have to turn 50 ft or so away to get round a building in order to pass from one half of the station to another while behind the barriers ).

 

[jon0844]

6. They can regulate passenger movement - less people flooding into one area at a time (LU is an example)

Very effectively too. They do this at Old Street sometimes (obviously elsewhere too!) and sometimes it means just one gate open - which obviously p**ses passengers off who don't understand, but does regulate the number of people trying to get the Northern Line.

I get annoyed because I want FCC and that's usually not busy - which can mean missing my train! However, if they let me through then everyone else would claim they were taking the train and then double back to the tube.

 

[junglejames]

At main commuting terminals in London? Arguably where they are needed the most as there is no other way of protecting revenue due to the volume of people.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I'm not pro or anti barrier but overall I do prefer manual barrier checks in some sort of control booth (Liverpool Lime Street is an example) although there is only one booth so it's far too busy in the peak!

Yep, because they also cause bad queues here.
Marylebone needs to be scrapped. Charing X at platforms 5/6 during peak times should be scrapped. Liverpool St at peak tmes should also be. These are my main ones. Waterloo and Victoria I cant say for definite.
Intercity termini have none or little use for them, so none needed on main platforms at Kings X. St Pancras MML platforms- scrap. Paddington, Im pretty sure that causes horrible queues, so should be open at peak time.
All Intercity stations outside London- Scrap. For Example Peterborough and Newcastle.
If somebody had to struggle against the flow of passengers pushing through, because his/ her ticket hasnt been accepted, and then needs to join the queue for the single member of staff on the gateline, then the barriers have caused a delay to this person. This should not happen. Esp as it doesnt just happen to one person.
It also should be mandatory at busy stations that barriers should have 2 members of staff on them. One either side. If there is only one person, then the barriers should be left open. It can cause people wanting to catch a train, to miss it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

At main commuting terminals in London? Arguably where they are needed the most as there is no other way of protecting revenue due to the volume of people.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I'm not pro or anti barrier but overall I do prefer manual barrier checks in some sort of control booth (Liverpool Lime Street is an example) although there is only one booth so it's far too busy in the peak!


The worst fare evasion I've encountered (whether deliberate or not) is in non-PF zones where there are a no harsh fines for not buying a ticket and a considerable number of unstaffed stations. As an example the Northern 333s that run Skipton/Ilkley - Leeds are terrible, a busy four car train where a guard has to check and sell tickets and keep back running to do the doors. All the fare evaders head for the front. The automated barriers at Leeds have helped considerably.

Leeds, thats a very small entrance/ exit isnt it? Compared to the size of the station. Never been there at peaks with barriers, but could be a candidate for scrapping. Manual checks though are fine. Never had a problem with them at Leeds. Everything is so much quicker than with barriers.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I use Waterloo quite regularly, including in the peaks, and there seem to be no problems - but bear in mind it's a totally different situation in that at Waterloo you have a huge number of barriers facing an enormous concourse and there is full circulation behind them ( albeit in one part of the station you have to turn 50 ft or so away to get round a building in order to pass from one half of the station to another while behind the barriers ).

Waterloo can keep them then!!

 

[Deerfold]

The worst fare evasion I've encountered (whether deliberate or not) is in non-PF zones where there are a no harsh fines for not buying a ticket and a considerable number of unstaffed stations. As an example the Northern 333s that run Skipton/Ilkley - Leeds are terrible, a busy four car train where a guard has to check and sell tickets and keep back running to do the doors. All the fare evaders head for the front. The automated barriers at Leeds have helped considerably.

I don't think they have. They almost always had ticket checks at Leeds anyway and the barriers don't allow so many tickets that the staff will let you through with just about anything - and they cause congestion as the mass of people waiting to get through the gates is now where people are trying to pass through to get from one side of the station to the other (or 1-6 to 8).

 

[WestCoast]

I don't think they have. They almost always had ticket checks at Leeds anyway and the barriers don't allow so many tickets that the staff will let you through with just about anything - and they cause congestion as the mass of people waiting to get through the gates is now where people are trying to pass through to get from one side of the station to the other (or 1-6 to 8).

I take your point, perhaps I should have said barriers in general (whether that be automatic or manual).

If somebody had to struggle against the flow of passengers pushing through, because his/ her ticket hasnt been accepted, and then needs to join the queue for the single member of staff on the gateline, then the barriers have caused a delay to this person. This should not happen. Esp as it doesnt just happen to one person.
It also should be mandatory at busy stations that barriers should have 2 members of staff on them.

Yes, but that is more a complaint against the level of staffing and I agree with you one member of staff is not sufficient at all.

It totally depends on who is operating the barriers, the London commuter TOCs seem to rely on less and less staff to man their barriers.

While up on Northern, the 'new fangled' technology () has put 3 members of staff for 6 barriers at a certain station!! They are incredibly bored at times..

 

[jon0844]

I would have thought that more staff would make the job easier, and give more opportunities for some social banter with each other - that makes the job more enjoyable.

It also means more hands on deck when things go pear shaped. A win in the long term for the TOC, reputation wise.

Sadly accountants would think it's easier to have just one person and make them sweat, then wonder why the staff keep leaving.

 

[WestCoast]

I would have thought that more staff would make the job easier, and give more opportunities for some social banter with each other - that makes the job more enjoyable.
.

Yes but at Blackpool North station where at times each gateline assistant looks after two gates (six gates in total) they don't do much at times. They stand there scrutinizing advance tickets and rovers which constantly fail to work because of a lack of programming. It's a polar opposite to the example we had before of one person looking after 30+ gates.

A balance has to be struck

 

[jon0844]

Just make sure someone with common sense and an understanding of the railway, and the jobs required, makes that decision and not an accountant!

 

[WestCoast]

Just make sure someone with common sense and an understanding of the railway, and the jobs required, makes that decision and not an accountant!

Accountants are far too short sighted, they see short term cost savings but not long term revenue losses.

 

[junglejames]

I take your point, perhaps I should have said barriers in general (whether that be automatic or manual).


Yes, but that is more a complaint against the level of staffing and I agree with you one member of staff is not sufficient at all.

It totally depends on who is operating the barriers, the London commuter TOCs seem to rely on less and less staff to man their barriers.

While up on Northern, the 'new fangled' technology () has put 3 members of staff for 6 barriers at a certain station!! They are incredibly bored at times..

Its a complaint about barriers and the staffing levels.
The numbers of times barriers have said 'seek assistance' for good tickets. This is why i say during peak times London Termini should have their barriers open.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Accountants are far too short sighted, they see short term cost savings but not long term revenue losses.

Very true, and its accountants, along with DaFT that are running our railway now.

 

[jon0844]

Accountants are far too short sighted, they see short term cost savings but not long term revenue losses.

Well, they DO see the long term losses which makes them need to cut more - and then get angry with the remaining staff (that are probably hating their job and their life) for not doing their job properly.

It's very easy to shift the blame, without realising that the staff aren't the problem and you get to a point where you can't cut any more.

That's when your amazing accountant that saved the company a fortune has now, almost singlehandedly, put it out of business.

 

[jopsuk]

Reckon it'll be real fun this morning- passengers at Cambridge are being told to buy on the train/at the gates at Kings Cross, as vandalism has left the station without power. Normally on a Monday all seven ticket windows, four TVMs and often one or two people with mobile machines can't stop the queues going out the door.

Oh yeah, and the ticketless people won't have had their morning coffee either.

(traction and signalling power unaffected)

 

[jon0844]

If I was FCC, I'd simply let people through. Those without season tickets would presumably buy a ticket back.

There's no way the facilities at King's Cross would be able to cope (staff at gates, or indeed the honest ones queuing up at the FCC ticket hut by platform 11).

Depending on the cause of the power failure, there's always a chance FCC (and the other TOCs) could make a claim against someone else.

 

[jopsuk]

Thankfully I wasn't going down all the way. The 0715 and 0745 have to go into the main station, not 9-11.

Man with loudhailer making annoucements at Cambridge was saying power failure was due to vandalism, so chances of NXEA and FCC making a useful claim against anyone are slim, whilst I'm guessing it'll be hectic but profitable for XC guards (if they get commision?). NXEA guards on the rural services too.

 

[jon0844]

I'm sure we'll find out that they let people out without forming a manual barrier (god help them if they arrive at platforms 0-5!) and FCC, NXEA etc will just take it on the chin.

They won't lose that much as most people will be going back later. Okay, so that might then be an off-peak ticket, but it is still revenue. And, surely most people really early in the day will have a season ticket?

 

[jopsuk]

The queues for tickets on a Monday at Cambridge are huge! Think a lot of people use weeklies and a fiar few of the monthly ones use Monday to renew.

 

[jon0844]

Ah yes, that's a good point. There's me with my annual ticket assuming everyone would have an annual one (slap on wrist!).

I hope they can renew at King's Cross without too much trouble, in which case there's no revenue lost as they'll have paid for the journey they made earlier.

 

[networkrail1]

I'm sure we'll find out that they let people out without forming a manual barrier (god help them if they arrive at platforms 0-5!) and FCC, NXEA etc will just take it on the chin.

NXEA don't run out of kings cross do they or am I missing something.

 

[jopsuk]

You're missing something! The station without power (and therefore unable to sell tickets) was Cambridge, run by NXEA but with large numbers of busy FCC trains to Kings Cross.

 

[jon0844]

NXEA don't run out of kings cross do they or am I missing something.

Liverpool Street, but the OP talked about King's Cross so I wondered if NXEA were giving other advice for their line (maybe selling tickets via handheld terminals before boarding)?