Has revenue protection gone too far?

[amahy]

I’m pretty sure most of us on this forum agree that fare evasion is bad, and needs to be tackled, including myself. However, this should not be done in a way that is disruptive for regular fare paying passengers.

Firstly, there are many stations that have only been fitted with ticket barriers in the last 10-20 years. However, these stations were not designed with ticket barriers in mind, so have far too few as a result, which creates big problems with passenger flow. Shrewsbury is an example that immediately comes to mind, with only 3 or 4 barriers (can’t remember exactly how many), in the underpass. This creates major issues with crowding, as there are simply not enough barriers to cope with passenger numbers at peak times.

Another similar problem is where there are no ticket barriers, but RPIs are employed instead. Again, there are not enough to cope with passenger numbers. An example of this is at the higher numbered platforms at Manchester Piccadilly, which have no barriers, but just 2 Revenue Protection Inspectors per platform. This arrangement is fine for people getting on trains, but inadequate for busy peak time arrivals, where there are a large number of passengers exiting at once.

There are also some situations where revenue protection seems to come before common sense. On one occassion at Chester, when the ticket barriers were out of action due to building works happening on the station, someone thought 2 RPIs would be enough to check the tickets of all passengers exiting the station, which resulted in a very long queue.

Another situation like this I recently experienced was at the east side exit of Glasgow Queen Street Low Level. All ticket barriers apart from one were locked in the morning peak, with just 2 RPIs replacing the role of 4 barriers, and they were insisting on checking railcards as well as tickets, which only added to the queue and inconvenienced everyone.

Surely there are better ways of catching fare dodgers, that aren’t disruptive for everyone else? It also occurred to me, that the railways are the only form of public transport with repeated ticket checks here there and everywhere. On buses, coaches, planes, and ferries, there is one ticket check at the start of your journey, and none have a significant fare evasion problem. Could the railways learn from this?

 

[pokemonsuper9]

there is one ticket check at the start of your journey, and none have a significant fare evasion problem. Could the railways learn from this?

If we ignore that TfL believe their buses to have quite significant fare evasion issues (and do on board checks), doing checks exclusively at the start would be very difficult, either requiring miles more of ticket gates or staffing every entrance/exit of every station during operational hours.

Revenue protection hasn't gone far enough, more RPIs are needed (especially in the front half of non-gangway Northern services)

 

[Bletchleyite]

I personally quite like gatelines. The advantage of them for me is that they reduce the risk of me accidentally boarding a train without a valid ticket (given that I don't do it deliberately).

I'd agree Manchester Piccadilly 13-14 is nuts. They should install a gateline there instead of bored security guards standing around. The whole station should have one gateline managed by one contracted TOC, not three separate ones (though at least you can now get between the Avanti-staffed one and the TPE-staffed one, which you previously couldn't if I recall).

Shrewsbury I've never found to be that much of a problem, though it's constrained by the old building. Only way you could solve that would be by building a new concourse onto the front, which could be done (you could put it on the taxi/car area) but it would be costly.

As for buses etc, surely there's a check every time you board a vehicle? In the railway's case you often don't need to go through one to interchange. Surely that is better?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Feb 2026 ==

Revenue protection hasn't gone far enough, more RPIs are needed (especially in the front half of non-gangway Northern services)

What that needs is to allow guards to unit-hop again. Not every TOC bans this and there is no reason to ban it, the argument about a unit being unstaffed is spurious as that happens on DOO TOCs all the time.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

What that needs is to allow guards to unit-hop again. Not every TOC bans this and there is no reason to ban it, the argument about a unit being unstaffed is spurious as that happens on DOO TOCs all the time.

Agreed, that would work too (assuming the guard feels like checking tickets).

 

[amahy]

Revenue protection hasn't gone far enough, more RPIs are needed (especially in the front half of non-gangway Northern services)

I agree with this. We need more RPIs on trains, and less ticket checking at stations, which creates long, unnecessary queues.

 

[The exile]

I agree with this. We need more RPIs on trains, and less ticket checking at stations, which creates long, unnecessary queues.

We need gate lines which can read e-tickets as fast as they can a correctly inserted CCST (which can just about be done without stopping).

 

[Speed43125]

We need gate lines which can read e-tickets as fast as they can a correctly inserted CCST (which can just about be done without stopping).

This I think is half the problem. CCSTs just work, whereas the QR codes, especially when they are printed off, seem to be pretty difficult to make consistently work. Leading often to people needing to ask for help.

I have also known specific printers to be poor, and miss a whole line on a printed QR code (thinking of Scotrail, and buy on board here) and the scanners being simply unable to read it.

 

[dk1]

I am all for as much revenue protection as possible. Showing my ticket/pass two, three or more times in a single journey onboard and then again at stations gives me enormous satisfaction. Was only commenting last week on how pleasing it was to get so many ticket checks using Southern which was unexpected.

 

[JamesT]

This I think is half the problem. CCSTs just work, whereas the QR codes, especially when they are printed off, seem to be pretty difficult to make consistently work. Leading often to people needing to ask for help.

I have also known specific printers to be poor, and miss a whole line on a printed QR code (thinking of Scotrail, and buy on board here) and the scanners being simply unable to read it.

There are enough threads on issues with CCSTs where they get demagnetised or other damage that causes them to fail to be read by barriers that you can't make that blanket statement.

 

[amahy]

I am all for as much revenue protection as possible. Showing my ticket/pass two, three or more times in a single journey onboard and then again at stations gives me enormous satisfaction. Was only commenting last week on how pleasing it was to get so many ticket checks using Southern which was unexpected.

Same here. It just shouldn’t be done in a way which creates unnecessary long queues and inconvenience for passengers.

 

[johntea]

We need gate lines which can read e-tickets as fast as they can a correctly inserted CCST (which can just about be done without stopping).

There are the technical issues of course but the human factor of finding it a higher priority to update their Facebook status or finish their phone call or view the latest TokTik video before deciding to open their ticket on their phone is sadly another issue!

 

[dk1]

Same here. It just shouldn’t be done in a way which creates unnecessary long queues and inconvenience for passengers.

I find it extremely rare that that happens. Bit of congestion at times but that’s about it.

 

[jfollows]

There should be more ticket checks on trains, and inspecting the railcard supporting the ticket purchase should not be the exception.
Glancing at tickets on trains rather than scanning their Aztec codes should also be enforced.

Some of these failings may be results of disputes, I recognise.

Gate lines are OK, but unreliable. Why does my Cheshire Day Ranger work at Manchester Victoria (it should) but not at Manchester Piccadilly (it should)?

 

[dk1]

There should be more ticket checks on trains, and inspecting the railcard supporting the ticket purchase should not be the exception.
Glancing at tickets on trains rather than scanning their Aztec codes should also be enforced.

Some of these failings may be results of disputes, I recognise.

Railcard inspections are certainly not the exception on Greater Anglia services. Very pleasing to hear it often around me on EMR Regional and LNER services too.

 

[RailWonderer]

We need gate lines which can read e-tickets as fast as they can a correctly inserted CCST (which can just about be done without stopping).

Many ticket barriers don't have code readers at all, and my local ticket machine only prints QR code tickets meaning I'm always showing it to someone at the barriers (but many people tap in and out anyway so it doesn't cause a queue).

I agree with this. We need more RPIs on trains, and less ticket checking at stations, which creates long, unnecessary queues.

Agree, but when trains are full and standing this isn't possible and RPIs just stand at the ends or sit in the cabs, hence I think why they prefer to cause a queue at the station rather than let dozens of people on and off a train with no checks.

 

[jfollows]

Railcard inspections are certainly not the exception on Greater Anglia services. Very pleasing to hear it often around me on EMR Regional and LNER services too.

Avanti never ask me and act surprised when I show it to them.

Maybe I just look “honest”?

 

[dk1]

Avanti never ask me and act surprised when I show it to them.

That’s quite poor. I must admit to finding their onboard inspections very hit and miss in general.

 

[RailWonderer]

Gate lines are OK, but unreliable. Why does my Cheshire Day Ranger work at Manchester Victoria (it should) but not at Manchester Piccadilly (it should)?

Some ticket machines are programmed to accept one type of railcard and not another, or all, or none. A couple at Virginia Water couldn't exit and the man told them the barriers there are programmed not to accept over 60s railcards though I got through fine with my 26-30.

 

[amahy]

Some ticket machines are programmed to accept one type of railcard and not another, or all, or none. A couple at Virginia Water couldn't exit and the man told them the barriers there are programmed not to accept over 60s railcards though I got through fine with my 26-30.

This the kind of thing I’m annoyed about. What’s the point in programming ticket barriers to reject a certain type of railcard? Are there a high number of fare evaders that use Virginia Water adding senior railcards to get a cheaper ride? I wouldn’t have thought so!

I also occasionally get my ticket rejected by barriers, presumably due to the 16-25 railcard. When you take all passengers into account, this may result in many more tickets getting falsely rejected, only adding to the queue at peak time.

Agree, but when trains are full and standing this isn't possible and RPIs just stand at the ends or sit in the cabs, hence I think why they prefer to cause a queue at the station rather than let dozens of people on and off a train with no checks.

This is classic UK railway stuff for you. RPIs getting paid can’t do their job, fare paying passengers are already annoyed from being on a crush loaded train, then they are further disrupted by having to queue to exit the station because a tiny minority don’t want to pay. You can see why many don’t opt to use the trains any more!

 

[jfollows]

Yes, but if there are a reasonable number of revenue inspectors present, it’s not unreasonable to set the barriers to reject tickets bought with railcards, to force an inspection.
Usually it’s “all railcards” I think.

 

[ChilliSauce]

Is there enough revenue protection on trains? In my view no.. Is there a need for ticket gates on the "way in" if a validator is provided ?....possibly not ...provided that "way out" gates refuse to open for unvalidated tickets. But can you remove just the "Entry gates"? Well I don't think you can, as they act as a barrier to prevent exit, forcing the traveller to use the exit gates.

At the end of the day it seems you either go for a totally open system with validators and a robust on train RPI presence and a penalty fare upped to say £500. Or you just stick with what you have got and increase on train checking by RPIs.

Std class ticket holders riding around in 1st class can only be enforced by on train RPI ...

Perhaps the Penalty Fare system needs reform: £100 first offence, £200 second offence, £400 third offence. Just keep doubling it until those that serial fare evaid get the message.

Or adopt the TfL model and just prosecute

 

[HSTEd]

Manchester Piccadilly certainly needs a single integrated gateline, although I don't think there is enough room between the buffer stops and the doors to allow proper lateral movement between platforms. So you can't use the entire gatline efficiently.

I'd almost think you'd have to sacrifice Platforms 11 and 12 to get an efficient gate-line flow, using the mid-shed bridge to load balance an L-shaped gateline.
I know they aren't very heavily used but still a major sacrifice.

The cost of onboard ticket checks is probably much higher than checks performed by automated gates, so our efforts would probably be better focussed on trying to get the gates to work better than anything else.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd almost think you'd have to sacrifice Platforms 11 and 12 to get an efficient gate-line flow, using the mid-shed bridge to load balance an L-shaped gateline.
I know they aren't very heavily used but still a major sacrifice.

Given that they're used for short DMUs and EMUs, I see no reason to lose them, but you could shorten them. I'm not sure to what extent you actually need to, though, a gateline just taking up the same space as the manual checks would be more efficient than the manual checks.

 

[amahy]

Yes, but if there are a reasonable number of revenue inspectors present, it’s not unreasonable to set the barriers to reject tickets bought with railcards, to force an inspection.
Usually it’s “all railcards” I think.

This would be fine, if said RPIs were transparent about the arrangement, that ticket gates are rejecting tickets with railcards. Something to the effect of. “passengers with railcards, use these gates, passengers without railcards, use the other gates”. Instead of passengers going to a gate with no RPI, getting their perfectly valid ticket rejected, and having to go to an RPI.

 

[jfollows]

This would be fine, if said RPIs were transparent about the arrangement. Something to the effect of. “passengers with railcards, use these gates, passengers without railcards, use the other gates”. Instead of passengers going to a gate with no RPI, getting their perfectly valid ticket rejected, and having to go to an RPI.

So passengers with railcard-discounted tickets use the other gates, which let them through regardless?

 

[amahy]

So passengers with railcard-discounted tickets use the other gates, which let them through regardless?

Apologies, didn’t make it clear, I meant that if RPIs select the “reject all railcards” mode, post #24 applies.

 

[HSTEd]

Could you put aztec codes on railcards and then have the gates require the railcard be scanned after the ticket?

Obviously slower than usual, but avoids all the problems with people trying to move against the flow of people through the barriers.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Could you put aztec codes on railcards and then have the gates require the railcard be scanned after the ticket?

Obviously slower than usual, but avoids all the problems with people trying to move against the flow of people through the barriers.

I would much perfer a way to just link your ticket to the railcard so it doesn't even need to do that (ideally even if they are held in different apps).
The railcards do have scannable codes on but I've never had mine scanned.

 

[Peakrider]

I’m pretty sure most of us on this forum agree that fare evasion is bad, and needs to be tackled, including myself. However, this should not be done in a way that is disruptive for regular fare paying passengers.

Firstly, there are many stations that have only been fitted with ticket barriers in the last 10-20 years. However, these stations were not designed with ticket barriers in mind, so have far too few as a result, which creates big problems with passenger flow. Shrewsbury is an example that immediately comes to mind, with only 3 or 4 barriers (can’t remember exactly how many), in the underpass. This creates major issues with crowding, as there are simply not enough barriers to cope with passenger numbers at peak times.

Another similar problem is where there are no ticket barriers, but RPIs are employed instead. Again, there are not enough to cope with passenger numbers. An example of this is at the higher numbered platforms at Manchester Piccadilly, which have no barriers, but just 2 Revenue Protection Inspectors per platform. This arrangement is fine for people getting on trains, but inadequate for busy peak time arrivals, where there are a large number of passengers exiting at once.

There are also some situations where revenue protection seems to come before common sense. On one occassion at Chester, when the ticket barriers were out of action due to building works happening on the station, someone thought 2 RPIs would be enough to check the tickets of all passengers exiting the station, which resulted in a very long queue.

Another situation like this I recently experienced was at the east side exit of Glasgow Queen Street Low Level. All ticket barriers apart from one were locked in the morning peak, with just 2 RPIs replacing the role of 4 barriers, and they were insisting on checking railcards as well as tickets, which only added to the queue and inconvenienced everyone.

Surely there are better ways of catching fare dodgers, that aren’t disruptive for everyone else? It also occurred to me, that the railways are the only form of public transport with repeated ticket checks here there and everywhere. On buses, coaches, planes, and ferries, there is one ticket check at the start of your journey, and none have a significant fare evasion problem. Could the railways learn from this?

Quite honestly 2 x RPIs can’t do very much if someone has no ticket & just walks through anyway. So why bother holding everyone up in the first place?

 

[Russel]

Same here. It just shouldn’t be done in a way which creates unnecessary long queues and inconvenience for passengers.

I find it extremely rare that that happens. Bit of congestion at times but that’s about it.

Stockport during the Piccadilly closure last week was a good example of revenue protection creating a level of congestion I actually found concerning, the small gateline really wasn't suitable for the number of passengers Stockport was handling, the number of people in the subway queuing up to leave via the closed barriers felt somewhat unsafe.

Common sense should have prevailed with the barriers left open.