The basic issue is that Zones 7 to 9 (originally A to D) are a fudge and handled in the NR fares system by use of a route code. Only validity in Zones 1 to 6 can be directly encoded on the magstripe.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Unstaffed barriers not accepting valid tickets
- Thread starter redreni
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Thanks both @CyrusWuff and @crablab - you've corrected the myth I was led to believe by Chiltern management several years ago, but have also confirmed that there is a technical reason why zones 7-9 (A-D as originally) can only be fudged on a NR ticket mag stripe.
So the OP didn't have a defective ticket, it's just that its mag stripe would never be able to open the barriers in Chesham, as I suspected.
So the OP didn't have a defective ticket, it's just that its mag stripe would never be able to open the barriers in Chesham, as I suspected.
Mattplans
Member
On the topic - or thereabouts - I have noticed a practice at Woolwich Arsenal DLR. This is the only DLR station where DLR staff the gatelines.
There are two entrances nearby to each other. I have noticed that they will often put one person supervising both gatelines, they will rotate between both but not leave the WAG open while they do so. Is this allowed? It leads to a cirumstance where you can be stuck at the gateline on one side, and the PSA is at the other gateline or walking between
There are two entrances nearby to each other. I have noticed that they will often put one person supervising both gatelines, they will rotate between both but not leave the WAG open while they do so. Is this allowed? It leads to a cirumstance where you can be stuck at the gateline on one side, and the PSA is at the other gateline or walking between
No. But who is checking? That's the whole problem. TfL encourage this sort of thing.
At least there is someone there, not always the case.
Mattplans
Member
It is clear the pressure to have the station perform well in statistics overburdens the pressure to follow the rules. It must be a management culture thing
Exactly. And it's the widespread use of Oyster and Contactless which rarely goes wrong, so they get away with leaving the barriers often and become complacent. I believe contactless will always let you exit.
sigwinch28
Member
On the topic of barriers I had issues with c2c (admittedly NR, not LUL) leaving barriers closed and unattended.
I made an FOI request about their procedures for gate lines and staff training about gate lines. Their response was that their gate lines must not be left closed and unattended, and that I should contact them if I ever see a gate line left closed and unattended as it is likely a disciplinary issue. Never seen an unattended gate line at Barking since! Admittedly I sent this post DfT takeover. I have had extremely poor responses from TfL on literally any issue I have raised, so I don’t expect them to be responsive to similar FOI requests from forum members.
I quote from my FOI response FOI2025/1486:
TfL, on the other hand, seem relatively blasé about the barriers. I recall in summer last year at Canning Town station asking staff about whether the gate lines were attended when I couldn’t see any staff. They insisted that it was controlled from the control room, which seems contrary to other policy discussed in this thread… curious.
I made an FOI request about their procedures for gate lines and staff training about gate lines. Their response was that their gate lines must not be left closed and unattended, and that I should contact them if I ever see a gate line left closed and unattended as it is likely a disciplinary issue. Never seen an unattended gate line at Barking since! Admittedly I sent this post DfT takeover. I have had extremely poor responses from TfL on literally any issue I have raised, so I don’t expect them to be responsive to similar FOI requests from forum members.
I quote from my FOI response FOI2025/1486:
TfL, on the other hand, seem relatively blasé about the barriers. I recall in summer last year at Canning Town station asking staff about whether the gate lines were attended when I couldn’t see any staff. They insisted that it was controlled from the control room, which seems contrary to other policy discussed in this thread… curious.
Last edited:
TfL customer service are very good if you need an Oyster refund. On any other issue not so great. When I complained about having to argue with staff to break my journey on a paper ticket (perfectly allowed), they were very sorry that my "promotional special-offer break of journey ticket type" didn't work. Who knew break of journey was a promotion!
Mattplans
Member
c2c is one operator that seems to take a hard stance to fare evasion (at least in the London area!). I always find it funny when comments are made in regards to staff competence and potential disciplinary action on these matters as I don’t see why anyone should seek to leave a gateline unattended if they aren’t being pressured in some manner to maintain a high % in management reports.
Station staff certainly don’t (or should not) have a personal interest or stake in the levels of fare evasion; so unless they are mindlessly incompetent, why would they leave gatelines closed and unattended when it is now common knowledge this is not allowed.
At Limehouse once, on the ramp between the DLR Poplar-bound platform and c2c Fenchurch Street bound platform, I was ‘loitering’ in this area that offers an interchange between DLR and C2c. The gateline was unattended. After a few minutes of my presence, a c2c member of staff had now decided it was now appropriate to man the gateline.
I must say, I am surprised you found a moment where Barking was wholly unattended and their infamous Seranno “Safeguarding Officers” were not there. On the topic of controlling gatelines from the control room, it should be down to whether a member of public is able to initiate a conversation with the supposed gateline attendant inside the control room. They have a pretty neat arrangement at Homerton that is perfectly acceptable in my opinion. The gateline operative mans the ticket office, and is right there and visible should a passenger either joining or leaving the station need assistance. This is a model that could definitely be adopted at more stations. Most Underground stations’ control rooms (where they are even easily identifiable to the incurious public) have tinted one-way windows. It’s not sensible to expect passengers to be able to seek help through such a channel.
Station staff certainly don’t (or should not) have a personal interest or stake in the levels of fare evasion; so unless they are mindlessly incompetent, why would they leave gatelines closed and unattended when it is now common knowledge this is not allowed.
At Limehouse once, on the ramp between the DLR Poplar-bound platform and c2c Fenchurch Street bound platform, I was ‘loitering’ in this area that offers an interchange between DLR and C2c. The gateline was unattended. After a few minutes of my presence, a c2c member of staff had now decided it was now appropriate to man the gateline.
I must say, I am surprised you found a moment where Barking was wholly unattended and their infamous Seranno “Safeguarding Officers” were not there. On the topic of controlling gatelines from the control room, it should be down to whether a member of public is able to initiate a conversation with the supposed gateline attendant inside the control room. They have a pretty neat arrangement at Homerton that is perfectly acceptable in my opinion. The gateline operative mans the ticket office, and is right there and visible should a passenger either joining or leaving the station need assistance. This is a model that could definitely be adopted at more stations. Most Underground stations’ control rooms (where they are even easily identifiable to the incurious public) have tinted one-way windows. It’s not sensible to expect passengers to be able to seek help through such a channel.
The main reason will be pressure from station management not to get a low score. Another reason will be complacency, particularly in the London zones where "everyone" uses Oyster and Contactless - it can be a long time between someone needing assistance so what's the risk? As far as I know contactless will never fail to open the gates for exiting.
Some staff will feel passionately about the railway and not giving people a free ride, just like some retail staff don't want to see people stealing Tesco's or Sainsbury's goods. At the other end of the scale, some will wave through anyone without even checking for a glimpse of orange paper - it's not their revenue they are protecting and any request for assistance is time away from staring at their phone.
The gates aren't perfect, so the risk is someone getting injured, or their child getting trapped. Gateline staff aren't just there to check tickets, they're critical to the safe operation of the gates.
All it takes is one child getting badly injured while playing around the unsupervised gates and it'll cause a storm.
Surely remotely controlled gates where you contact staff through an intercom aren't safe? You could get trapped in these and not be able to reach the intercom.
I've always thought these sort of gates shouldn't be allowed, especially when GTR block Advance tickets (and a lot of other ticket types get rejected). At some stations they are bad at answering the intercoms.
They're supposed to be CCTV monitored AIUI. An alarm sounds when trapped as well.
I feel like the 'risks' of unattended gate lines are being grossly overstated. By far the biggest risk is being slightly delayed if your ticket doesn't work.
This TfL FOI request from 2023 states a total report of 1 injury in a gateline - and doesn't even state whether it was attended or unattended. I don't remember the number of entry and exits there are per year, but I'm thinking 2-3 billion?
This TfL FOI request from 2023 states a total report of 1 injury in a gateline - and doesn't even state whether it was attended or unattended. I don't remember the number of entry and exits there are per year, but I'm thinking 2-3 billion?
Obviously I think best practice is to provide a staffed gateline, but seems like TfL has decided that there is very, very little risk of injury.
My worry would be if there was some sort of incident and it causes a rush to the barriers - say a fire, or even a false alarm causing a crowd surge, such as the incident at Oxford Circus a few years back - I know the paddles are designed to open in the event of a crush load, but people could still be hurt in the process.
I accept that gatelines are going to end up unstaffed at times (staff dealing with incidents, taken sick, etc), that's fine - but I don't think it's too much to ask the staff to press one button to open all the gates before they leave, so people don't end up missing trains if there's a problem with their ticket being rejected, and so there isn't a safety risk of people getting stuck in gates or the gates not being opened quickly enough in the event of an emergency.
bluegoblin7
Established Member
LU gatelines are generally linked into the fire control panel - if a station goes into evacuation mode, they will open automatically.
Worth nothing that NS (in the Netherlands) has no qualms about unattended gatelines and indeed most (all?) are unstaffed.
The core issue is valid tickets being rejected. Not that gateline staff are any better (especially on TfL) at identifying the validity...
Maybe if we can solve the ticket acceptance problem (is this a Cubic issue?) we can resolve the customer friction and reduce the number of staff required to stand outside in the cold.
CCST/TfL issue...
I would disagree, there are plenty of E-Tickets that are incorrectly rejected, especially for break of journey.
Haywain
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 24,478
Cubic are not responsible for the gate logic that defines what tickets will be accepted.
Yes exactly, not a TfL or CCST issue. although obviously CCST demagnetisation is a big issue.
Haywain
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 24,478
The route code is encoded on the magnetic strip.
Maybe the solution is anything the right size put in the slot will open the gate, that covers break of journey, unusual ticket types and demagnetised tickets. Probably wouldn't increase fare evasion by any noticeable amount either, if it isn't common knowledge. Security through obscurity.
With all due respect, that's a terrible idea for day-to-day operations. At my gateline we sometimes set the barriers to accept all, but only for extremely high-traffic situations where getting people through is more important than ensuring people are inserting exactly the correct ticket, or during disruption so it returns their tickets.
Kind of illustrates my point; the issue is gateline configuration being incorrect or far too strict.
- Status