What constituents a valid ticket, these days?

[J663738]

This may seem a strange question to ask, but has the legislation caught up with the way electronic tickets now work?

With PAYG tap on and tap off technology you are just showing your credit card, which has been validated at a departure point, not exactly a ticket, more like an electronic promise to pay token.
I read over on the prosecutions forum that someone was given a penalty fare and charged for a new 'ticket', despite having an electronic booking for that same train, but forgot/couldn't print it out.
Is the primary legislation so vague, that each rail company can decide for themselves what is and what isn't a valid ticket and the law backs them up?

As an aside the whole ticketing system and railcard system in the UK is a mess, which each operator coming up with there own style, format and rules. When GB Railways has full control, will things be simplified, or are they still too many third parties involved now??

 

[jfollows]

I don’t think the legislation is vague, maybe it’s all over the place, but

1. you need to be able to show a valid ticket to an appropriate member of staff when required
2. a valid ticket is one that has to be purchased before boarding a train

PAYG finesses this a little, perhaps, but the rules are the same. If you paid for your ticket before boarding (tapped in, or whatever) then it’s a valid ticket.

Having a “booking” but being unable to show a ticket when required fails the first point, whether it’s an electronic ticket or not.

The problems caused by the operators might be from over-enthusiastic adoption of e-tickets to save them cost without realising the implications for fraud which they enable.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Jul 2025 ==

The one inconsistency I would like to see fixed is the way in which tickets are often sold on trains when they should have been bought before boarding. Then, on another day, the same person gets reported for prosecution for not having a valid ticket. Even if “discretion” is shown in the first place, it needs to be done with a warning that next time the same thing might not happen.

 

[J663738]

The one inconsistency I would like to see fixed is the way in which tickets are often sold on trains when they should have been bought before boarding. Then, on another day, the same person gets reported for prosecution for not having a valid ticket. Even if “discretion” is shown in the first place, it needs to be done with a warning that next time the same thing might not happen.

Yes, I find this very strange as well, posters up everywhere saying your are now in a penalty zone etc. And nearly every journey someone asks usually for a single ticket?? to the next station. Conductor, never say anything, even though it seems to take an age to accept the card and print it out and stops them checking other tickets on the train.
The ticket buyer will then wonder why they are on fined on another TOC when they ask to buy a ticket?

Is it due to some Union agreement, that certain TOC conductors are not there to enforce the rules, just for 'safety' and checking or selling tickets?

 

[jfollows]

Is it due to some Union agreement, that certain TOC conductors are not there to enforce the rules, just for 'safety' and checking or selling tickets?

I think it’s down to the regular guard/conductor being unable to issue penalty fares or reports for prosecution whereas “proper” ticket inspectors can.

 

[yorkie]

The ticket buyer will then wonder why they are on fined on another TOC when they ask to buy a ticket?

By "fined", I assume you mean issue a Penalty Fare; it's generally/traditionally seen as bad practice for a Guard to issue these. It usually requires a revenue protection officer to do this. It doesn't apply at all TOCs.

Given the nature of PFs is to charge a very high fare for a passenger making a mistake under certain circumstances, this doesn't always go down well, so it's unwise for this to be the job of someone who is responsible for certain aspects of train operation, hence it is the job of dedicated inspectors.

Is it due to some Union agreement, that certain TOC conductors are not there to enforce the rules, just for 'safety' and checking or selling tickets?

A Guard is a safety critical role which may or may not involve revenue duties and not all trains have Guards. Most trains do not have anyone employed in the role of 'Conductor' but many trains have someone who effectively performs that role.

The term Conductor is used by some TOCs for the role of a train Guard who also has ticket checking/issuing responsibilities, but would (generally) not be issuing Penalty Fares.

You could travel from (say) Surbiton to Haymarket and have very different experiences on each train. Your first SWR train may have a non-commercial Guard who won't be checking tickets, however an inspector may board the train who could issue a Penalty Fare if you lost your ticket or if you accidentally sat in 1st class, while on the Lumo train you wouldn't have a Guard but would have a dedicated customer host who would check your ticket and offer refreshments.

The final train may have a commercial Guard who probably wouldn't have time to check your ticket, or it may be driver only operated with a dedicated travelling ticket inspector, who may inspect your train before the doors have shut. You wouldn't be at risk of a Penalty Fare if you make a mistake between London and Haymarket. For the cross-London element, you may take London Underground or GTR Thameslink; in both cases the only member of staff rostered to be on the train would be the driver, however an inspector may board the train and could issue a Penalty Fare if you are found to have lost your ticket, made a mistake etc, or report you for prosecution if they felt you were avoiding payment of the fare.

Each operation is very different, and it would be difficult to have a "one size fits all" approach (but if anyone wants to propose one, feel free to do so in the Speculative Discussion section!)