Where are the ticket inspectors?

[Krokodil]

which means gatelines aren’t effective in preventing anything beyond opportunistic fare evasion.

To be fair, they prevent plenty of opportunists.

 

[bramling]

It's probably marginal already, especially when some of those caught will give false details, not have any details to give, can't be traced, refuse to answer any questions and/or have no money.

From what I see, there seems to be a big increase in the “don’t have any details”, “don’t speak English”, or just sit there in total silence and don’t engage at all types. The difficulty with this is that it can then take a considerable amount of time and resource just dealing with one person.

I’ve seen it on GTR where just one of these types can occupy a revenue inspector for the whole way from somewhere like Stevenage to Finsbury Park on a stopping service, and I’d say on about 50% of occasions they end up walking away or give blatantly false details. As an aside, it’s also irritating for those sitting nearby who have to endure this for their journey. This is where you really just want a “big man” to appear and just manhandle the person off.

I recall a recent journey where the carriage filled up at Stevenage and not one person had a valid ticket, and every single one of them played these games. The two revenue people just gave up in the end.

 

[yorkie]

It's very rare to make a journey on Northern or Trans Pennine Express services without at least one inspection...

...but I realise that the situation is rather different on DOO services.

Northern Guards check with far greater regularity than TPE.

Much more likely to have a ticket check on DOO services in Scotland, Southeastern High Speed, Lumo etc than on TransPennine in my experience. The method of operation of the train can't be used to determine if a ticket check is going to take place, and indeed some Guards are non-commercial.

I've done journeys from Yorkshire or the Midlands to suburban stations in the Glasgow area, and the only check has been on the DOO Scotrail service (even when travelling up in 1st class).

 

[Vexed]

Short journeys are where gatelines work. It avoids the pay when challenged chancers who will risk no one checking them for a couple of stops, and even if people buy a short fare or use a discount they're not entitled to, you've got most of the revenue.

But it requires staff that are able to stop people pushing though barriers. These are probably the same people who wouldn't give details on a train either though.

With GTR's number of barriers it's probably not an issue to the extent as it is in other areas.

I’ve seen it on GTR where just one of these types can occupy a revenue inspector for the whole way from somewhere like Stevenage to Finsbury Park on a stopping service, and I’d say on about 50% of occasions they end up walking away or give blatantly false details. As an aside, it’s also irritating for those sitting nearby who have to endure this for their journey. This is where you really just want a “big man” to appear and just manhandle the person off.

Controversial, but I think we need universal ID and legislation to support staff requiring to be shown combined with company policies that allow for reasonably force (which is already legal). But only if the train companies/GBR can show they act within the law which it seems they can't...

 

[Sonic1234]

From what I see, there seems to be a big increase in the “don’t have any details”, “don’t speak English”, or just sit there in total silence and don’t engage at all types. The difficulty with this is that it can then take a considerable amount of time and resource just dealing with one person.

Unfortunately (and it's a hard one to tackle, it's a societal issue much deeper than fare evasion) being sneaky or aggressive is rewarded. The whole system is based around the vast majority doing the right thing, and those that don't respecting authority enough when caught to engage with them. See also shoplifting.

The majority of people on the disputes forum would have been better off from a personal point of view a) not buying from Trainline, handing the railway their details b) not engaging with inspectors, or telling them to "foxtrot oscar" and c) running away.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Jul 2025 ==

But it requires staff that are able to stop people pushing though barriers

And lots of them. The people I see pushing through barriers do not lack physical fitness.

 

[SCDR_WMR]

Alternatively the length of time many have gotten away with it shows how woeful the revenue protection resource is

Alternatively, TOCs don't overly care about catching evaders every time. More happy for them to become regulars and catch with occasional stings and can threaten far bigger consequences/penalties. IMO has a greater mental impact when catching someone who has gained confidence in evasion and then gets hit hard.

Each TOC varies, WMT have hired a rather large number of Revenue Protection Managers over the past 12 months so will certainly be seen roaming more, rather than mostly targeted services/stations.

 

[Hadders]

Controversial, but I think we need universal ID and legislation to support staff requiring to be shown

That's simply not going to happen in the UK.

combined with company policies that allow for reasonably force (which is already legal).

What happens if the person threatens violence, becomes violent, says they have a weapon, is seen with a weapon and uses it?

Are you comfortable asking staff to put themselves at risk of physical danger?

 

[Essexman]

Romford - Upminster
since TFL took it over there has been a member of staff (not sure what job title) either on board. They used to check tickets. Not they just sit and look at their phones, often playing music at an annoyingly loud volume.
its good to have a member of staff on board but surely they should check tickets, particularly as Romford seems to be a hotspot for evasion.

 

[Vexed]

That's simply not going to happen in the UK.

Sadly I agree, at least in the medium term.

Are you comfortable asking staff to put themselves at risk of physical danger?

Yes, if they agree and are paid extra for it. If this means dedicated roaming security teams (similar to Travel Safe Officers?) working in different station blocks with regular RPIs then so be it. I just don't see a way to stop these blatant offenders otherwise, which is a problem for the railway as much as general society if they are also shoplifting and engaging in anti-social behaviour. I'm obviously generalising, but they'll be some correlation between those people.

I'm not asking or expecting someone working alone to physically intervene. I said to allow for reasonable force, not require staff to use it.


If, as a society, we agree to have fare evasion down as criminal law then people who blatantly break it should be treated as criminals. We do, so they should be treated as criminals. If fare evasion becomes a civil matter (which I'm not against in principle) then reasonable force would probably need to go.

It's the disparity in outcomes I'm annoyed about here. It just makes a mockery of the legal system. People who give their details are treated like criminals, have their purchase history gone through with a fine toothed comb, then threatened with prosecution and the resultant criminal record. People who don't give their details get away with it - they aren't treated like criminals. Making fare evasion a civil matter would reduce the disparity of outcomes, so I wouldn't be so annoyed about the blatant minority evading and be less inclined to suggest using reasonable force against them.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Jul 2025 ==

I might be Gen Z, but sometimes we need to get a grip and stop walking on eggshells. There's a balance to be struck and I think we've gone too far towards being sensitive.

 

[Hadders]

Yes, if they agree and are paid extra for it. If this means dedicated roaming security teams (similar to Travel Safe Officers?) working in different station blocks with regular RPIs then so be it. I just don't see a way to stop these blatant offenders otherwise, which is a problem for the railway as much as general society if they are also shoplifting and engaging in anti-social behaviour. I'm obviously generalising, but they'll be some correlation between those people.

I'm not asking or expecting someone working alone to physically intervene. I said to allow for reasonable force, not require staff to use it.

Your earlier post suggested to me that you were expecting existing staff to use reasonable force. If I understand correctly, what you're now saying is that you would employ additional security teams.

I don't think it's been mentioned in this thread, but what is required is a properly respurced police and criminal justice system. Employing additional 'high visibility' security teams is fine but it falls down if there aren't the police officers to arrest these people promptly (i.e. the people who are violent, won't give details etc.). Then there needs to be the capacity at police stations for them to be processed, interviewed etc. Then there needs to be the capacity in the courts to deal with them.

It's the disparity in outcomes I'm annoyed about here. It just makes a mockery of the legal system. People who give their details are treated like criminals, have their purchase history gone through with a fine toothed comb, then threatened with prosecution and the resultant criminal record. People who don't give their details get away with it - they aren't treated like criminals.

Someone barging through a barrier is very visible and understandably people get upset about it and think something should be done.

But the well dressed professional person doughnutting every day on their way to and from work is probably costing the railway as much if not more. Much easier, safer and more productive to trawl data and catch them that way. But then that isn't as visible.

Making fare evasion a civil matter would reduce the disparity of outcomes

Decriminilising fare evasion is often mentioned as a solution, but I do have reservations as I believe there could be unintended consequences.

Currently, someone convicted of a Byelaw offence gets a criminal record spent after a year. Ordinarily the offence won't show on a basic or enhanced DBS check and is likely to not be disclosed at all (although a criminal conviction is a matter of public record)

Civil proceedings could mean a County Court Judgement. Then try and get a mortgage, loan, credit card, even a mobile phone contract for the next six years and it's going to be difficult.

I do believe that the whole legal framework around rail fare evasion needs urgent reform but I'm not convinced that decriminalisation is nexessarily the best way to do this.

 

[modernrail]

I would massively support strikes 1,2 and maybe even 3 resulting in flower bed duty at a train station. After that, you are a serial defrauder and it’s time to get serious.

Having said that, I would never waste resources taking certain things forward. For instance Network Railcard errors or infringements. Every living human is entitled to one.

 

[Vexed]

Your earlier post suggested to me that you were expecting existing staff to use reasonable force. If I understand correctly, what you're now saying is that you would employ additional security teams.

I don't think it's been mentioned in this thread, but what is required is a properly respurced police and criminal justice system. Employing additional 'high visibility' security teams is fine but it falls down if there aren't the police officers to arrest these people promptly (i.e. the people who are violent, won't give details etc.). Then there needs to be the capacity at police stations for them to be processed, interviewed etc. Then there needs to be the capacity in the courts to deal with them.

Assuming you're referring back to #64 a company policy that "allows" for reasonable force isn't one that expects it.

It depends how many existing staff are happy taking on extra danger. If they aren't, then new dedicated teams will be needed.

Being realistic, we probably can't find the money for any significant increases in staff or the will to ask existing ones to take on more danger, so it's unlikely to happen and neither will increases in BTP or Home Office police presence.

Like with universal ID I can continue to dream...

But the well dressed professional person doughnutting every day on their way to and from work is probably costing the railway as much if not more. Much easier, safer and more productive to trawl data and catch them that way. But then that isn't as visible.

Fishing trips with no (current) legal basis that the forum actively tells people in Disputes & Prosecutions to not engage with? I think this is the correct advice, but it shows data trawling has limited use if it doesn't result in an intelligence led in person stop.

I think TfL is the / one of the only companies that does intelligence led stops.

Decriminilising fare evasion is often mentioned as a solution, but I do have reservations as I believe there could be unintended consequences.

Currently, someone convicted of a Byelaw offence gets a criminal record spent after a year. Ordinarily the offence won't show on a basic or enhanced DBS check and is likely to not be disclosed at all (although a criminal conviction is a matter of public record)

Civil proceedings could mean a County Court Judgement. Then try and get a mortgage, loan, credit card, even a mobile phone contract for the next six years and it's going to be difficult.

I do believe that the whole legal framework around rail fare evasion needs urgent reform but I'm not convinced that decriminalisation is nexessarily the best way to do this.

Good points. I knew criminal records usually aren't as bad as people fear, but I'd forgotten about the impacts of CCJs.

I would massively support strikes 1,2 and maybe even 3 resulting in flower bed duty at a train station. After that, you are a serial defrauder and it’s time to get serious.

Having said that, I would never waste resources taking certain things forward. For instance Network Railcard errors or infringements. Every living human is entitled to one.

I think a strike system with different penalty amounts for Penalty Fares would be a good way to tell apart one-off genuine mistakes from frequent "mistakes".

 

[Hadders]

Assuming you're referring back to #64 a company policy that "allows" for reasonable force isn't one that expects it.

It depends how many existing staff are happy taking on extra danger. If they aren't, then new dedicated teams will be needed.

Companies have got to be very careful if they're saying staff can use force.

Firstly, they need to be specially trained. Secondly, you don't want any 'have a go heroes' - that could end up with fatal outcomes. The first objective has to be that everyone (passengers and staff) gets home safely every day.

Being realistic, we probably can't find the money for any significant increases in staff or the will to ask existing ones to take on more danger, so it's unlikely to happen and neither will increases in BTP or Home Office police presence.

Agreed.

Like with universal ID I can continue to dream...

We're gping to have to disagree on that but further discussion is best done in another thread! But the people who barge barriers, carry weapons, threaten staff etc are likely to be the ones not carrying ID anyway.

Fishing trips with no (current) legal basis that the forum actively tells people in Disputes & Prosecutions to not engage with? I think this is the correct advice, but it shows data trawling has limited use if it doesn't result in an intelligence led in person stop.

I've nothing against a data trawl if it's done correctly. I do believe the law around rail fare evasion needs urgent reform to better enable this sort of thing to be effective.

I think TfL is the / one of the only companies that does intelligence led stops.

They're not.

Good points. I knew criminal records usually aren't as bad as people fear, but I'd forgotten about the impacts of CCJs.

People often forget this!

I think a strike system with different penalty amounts for Penalty Fares would be a good way to tell apart one-off genuine mistakes from frequent "mistakes".

It does have attractions but the problem is how the person issuing the Penalty Fare would know what level of penalty to charge. I assume there would have to be a rather large (reliable, up to date) database of previous misdeneanors that an RPI could access instantly whilst on the move. I wonder what could possibly go wrong?

 

[johntea]

Northern Guards check with far greater regularity than TPE.

Much more likely to have a ticket check on DOO services in Scotland, Southeastern High Speed, Lumo etc than on TransPennine in my experience. The method of operation of the train can't be used to determine if a ticket check is going to take place, and indeed some Guards are non-commercial.

I've done journeys from Yorkshire or the Midlands to suburban stations in the Glasgow area, and the only check has been on the DOO Scotrail service (even when travelling up in 1st class).

Could this perhaps be to do with the (extremely long lasting) battle between Transpenine conductor RMT union members and electronic scanning, some seem to have taken this as 'don't bother checking tickets full stop'! (On the flip side the revenue protection staff do seem rather keen to board)

Which does raise another point perhaps the reason Northern are slightly more keen is their conductors can get 2p a scan from memory so much more lucrative for them to be up and down the service scanning away!

 

[yorkie]

For any discussion regarding universal ID or any other non-transport matter, please use General Discussion; a thread to discuss universal ID can be found here:

Should we have a universal ID card?

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/where-are-the-ticket-inspectors.288883/ Like with universal ID I can continue to dream...

www.railforums.co.uk

Also, anything of a speculative nature belongs in Speculative Discussion, please.

Thanks

 

[Haywain]

I think TfL is the / one of the only companies that does intelligence led stops.

They are not.

 

[Sonic1234]

Decriminilising fare evasion is often mentioned as a solution, but I do have reservations as I believe there could be unintended consequences.

The advantage of this is civil court is lower stakes, so if you feel you have a case defending it becomes a possibility. Worse case you have to pay the amount demanded - only if you don't pay do you get a CCJ. Civil court is a threat because most are scared of the idea of court - this is the basis for the private parking industry. People who stand up to them have a good success rate, sometimes winning cases simply by choosing a court a long way from their head office.

Society, particularly among the middle classes, looks down on a criminal record. I wouldn't be surprised that ticking you have a conviction on a lot of job applications means auto rejection - then you start getting into people concealing it (where no DBS check is done).

 

[Richardr]

I have seen ticket inspectors (well nowadays it's all Oyster) on many TfL services across London, but I have never seen one on a "full-sized" train when making journeys inside the city, or on the Tube for that matter.

Maybe it's because the DLR, buses and trams don't have barriers for hopping on? (then again most "full-sized" stations outside of Zone 3 don't have barriers)

Not quite all oyster [or contactless] for TfL. I did have a paper ticket inspected on a Mildmay line train and given the way the inspector looked at it for some time I suspect he wasn't expecting to see one of those.

 

[Haywain]

The advantage of this is civil court is lower stakes, so if you feel you have a case defending it becomes a possibility.

Civil courts also have a lower burden of proof so a defence is not necessarily easier.

I wouldn't be surprised that ticking you have a conviction on a lot of job applications means auto rejection

There are laws in place to prevent that sort of behaviour.

 

[Essexman]

Romford - Upminster
since TFL took it over there has been a member of staff (not sure what job title) either on board. They used to check tickets. Not they just sit and look at their phones, often playing music at an annoyingly loud volume.
its good to have a member of staff on board but surely they should check tickets, particularly as Romford seems to be a hotspot for evasion.

Well the day after I posted this Revenue Protection were on the Romford – Upminster train. The first time I’ve ever seen them in many journeys.

One does however wonder what is the point?

Two teenage girls sitting near me had no tickets, said they had been let through the barrier at Romford and were clearly evading the fare (they admitted this to me when I told them how lucky they’d been after we got off).

The inspector asked to see bank cards or phone, checked they had these and that was it. She said they wouldn’t have money taken from their accounts. I assume she was checking that they had means to pay but they still got away with not paying the fare.

 

[Wallsendmag]

Well the day after I posted this Revenue Protection were on the Romford – Upminster train. The first time I’ve ever seen them in many journeys.

One does however wonder what is the point?

Two teenage girls sitting near me had no tickets, said they had been let through the barrier at Romford and were clearly evading the fare (they admitted this to me when I told them how lucky they’d been after we got off).

The inspector asked to see bank cards or phone, checked they had these and that was it. She said they wouldn’t have money taken from their accounts. I assume she was checking that they had means to pay but they still got away with not paying the fare.

Did they tap their cards?

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Did they tap their cards?

If so, would that potentially result in the cardholder (if they hadn't previously tapped in correctly that day) being liable to some end-of-day revenue inspection charge being applied? If so, how much?

 

[Essexman]

Did they tap their cards?

They didn't have cards.
They gave the inspector their phones but she said no money will be taken.

 

[Watershed]

They didn't have cards.
They gave the inspector their phones but she said no money will be taken.

I presume they would have had Apple/Google Pay versions of cards on their phones.

If the account does indeed have zero balance then the TfL revenue inspection charge obviously won't go through. But their card (or rather, the Apple/Google Pay version of it) would be blocked so they couldn't get away with it again.

 

[Essexman]

I presume they would have had Apple/Google Pay versions of cards on their phones.

If the account does indeed have zero balance then the TfL revenue inspection charge obviously won't go through. But their card (or rather, the Apple/Google Pay version of it) would be blocked so they couldn't get away with it again.

But they’ll get away without paying if they do the same again and next time there are no revenue inspectors.

It seemed a clear case of not having paid so why were penalty fares not issued?

 

[OscarH]

They didn't have cards.
They gave the inspector their phones but she said no money will be taken.

If they got tapped they might get charged anyway, it seems pretty common to lie to passengers (I appreciate escalation is the concern, but that doesn't make it sit right)

 

[Wallsendmag]

But they’ll get away without paying if they do the same again and next time there are no revenue inspectors.

It seemed a clear case of not having paid so why were penalty fares not issued?

Thats not the way contactless works.

 

[Watershed]

But they’ll get away without paying if they do the same again and next time there are no revenue inspectors.

That could be said whether they had been inspected this time or not. Except this way, they can no longer use their phone to tap in or out at the barriers for future journeys as the card will be blocked.

It seemed a clear case of not having paid so why were penalty fares not issued?

If their devices successfully validated on the inspector's reader then there would be no basis for a Penalty Fare.

 

[Essexman]

That could be said whether they had been inspected this time or not. Except this way, they can no longer use their phone to tap in or out at the barriers for future journeys as the card will be blocked.


If their devices successfully validated on the inspector's reader then there would be no basis for a Penalty Fare.

Sorry, I don't really understand this.
I thought if someone didn't have a valid ticket and couldn't give a good reason for this, then a penalty fare was issued.
The inspector didn't tell them that the phone / card would be blocked for future.
I'm not sure what 'validated' means, is it just that it showed they had means to pay?

 

[OscarH]

I'm not sure what 'validated' means, is it just that it showed they had means to pay?

Tapped the phone on the revenue inspection device