Why I avoid e-tickets

[CaptainHaddock]

Surely you don't mean physically switching the phone on? As in the phone was in your pocket switched off? I've never seen anyone do that for any type of transaction or to show something on there, ever.
.

Exactly, why do you think I'm only just replying to your post five hours after you made it?

We each have our own definition of "normal behaviour" but to me it's irrational to leave your phone on all the time in the same way that you wouldn't leave your oven on all day just in case you fancied a pizza. Switch phone on, contact a friend or find out some information, then once you've done that switch phone off and get on with your day without being pestered by it.

Anyway, back to e-tickets, rail retailers are no different to supermarkets and banks, they use every psychological trick in the book to ensure customers make the choice the retailer wants, at the same time making said customer think they've made that decision for themselves rather than being nudged towards it. And that essentially explains the trend away from paper tickets to e-tickets!

(And yes I'm fully aware that my own confirmation bias influences my arguments!)

 

[Bishops]

I have looked online in vain to find any independent survey showing that most passengers prefer e-tickets to paper ones but it seems no such evidence exists. Thus most people will use their own confirmation bias to assume most people think like them and everyone else is wrong!

Its a very nuanced thing though in which format people prefer to have them ( as this thread shows) though there is this study https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...r-ticket-purchasing-behaviour-and-preferences but hrere have been other studies by various groups https://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/news/uk’s-train-ticketing-full-digital-barriers which may give different answers but i guess its all how the question is asked.

 

[redreni]

It may be that the Lizzie skews the figures as almost everyone on that is using contactless, however. I think you can rationally exclude it from the figures, though, as it's really a "Tube line" that is National Rail for historical reasons of who operated the non-core parts before.

This is both true and extraordinary. It's even true on weekends when tickets that would ordinarily be issued on CCST, like off-peak day returns and day Travelcards, give significant savings over Contactless fares when discounted with a Railcard.

Everybody can get a Network Railcard, if nothing else.

Okay, there will be people using Oyster PAYG within the area it is accepted and getting certain Railcard discounts (not Network or Two Together, though, and not Groupsave, which is the discount most people qualify for). There will also be a few people (like me) using an ITSO Smartcard with a day Travelcard or return ticket loaded (or both), who will look and sound as if they're using Contactless when passing through gatelines but aren't.

I suspect it's true, though, that as many as 90% of people are just overpaying routinely. By as much as 50%, in many cases.

 

[FenMan]

There is no reason other than TOC inaction when it comes to managing the data in RCS.

All technical blockers for this were removed ages ago (back in early 2024) when I asked for these locations to be assigned CRS codes to enable them to be fulfilled to E-Ticket.

Thanks Adam. I wonder how many nudges will be needed before inaction turns into action?

 

[Hadders]

Add in those that are mislaid, this is principally why I am reluctant to put everything on a mobile phone. If the phone gets lost/stolen while I am out then I'd prefer to have my credit card and return rail ticket held separately.

When I had my wallet stolen on the Paris metro a couple of years ago it contained all my cash, bank cards and train tickets (e-tickets that I’d printed out).

Thankfully my phone wasn’t stolen so I was able to cancel the cards, log into my Eurostar account and download a new copy of the train tickets. Apple Pay still worked on my phone.

If I’d only got traditional paper tickets rather than e-tickets I’d have been completely stuck.

Moral of the story is to keep phone and wallet separate. Definitely do not keep your bank cards in a phone case (which I see loads of people doing).

 

[redreni]

When I had my wallet stolen on the Paris metro a couple of years ago it contained all my cash, bank cards and train tickets (e-tickets that I’d printed out).

Thankfully my phone wasn’t stolen so I was able to cancel the cards, log into my Eurostar account and download a new copy of the train tickets. Apple Pay still worked on my phone.

If I’d only got traditional paper tickets rather than e-tickets I’d have been completely stuck.

Moral of the story is to keep phone and wallet separate. Definitely do not keep your bank cards in a phone case (which I see loads of people doing).

Don't put all your eggs in one basket!

 

[Joe Paxton]

[...]
Increasingly, the generations behind you want everything on their phone. That's because it's convenient for them; the vast majority of people don't have problems with their phone, it's on all the time and recharged overnight.
[...]

I do have to say regarding that, that there's some evidence of an increasing love/hate relationship of younger generations with say social media and with technologies such as smartphones themselves.

From time to time I'll say it's great to free yourself from 'being connected' and having a connected device about your person all the time. Leave it at home and go out without it!

 

[35B]

We each have our own definition of "normal behaviour" but to me it's irrational to leave your phone on all the time in the same way that you wouldn't leave your oven on all day just in case you fancied a pizza. Switch phone on, contact a friend or find out some information, then once you've done that switch phone off and get on with your day without being pestered by it.

This smartphone user finds it equally inconceivable that I would turn it off other than when trying to use it. Some of that is about being contactable - from bitter experience with relatives who take that approach, yet wouldn't consider leaving their house phone off the hook. But more of it is about the hassle of doing so - there are plenty of ways of disabling alerts, which don't require me to wait for it to wake up before I can use it.

It's because your usage pattern is, with no value judgement intended, extremely unusual that it's hard to feel overmuch sympathy for you as a customer - rail is a mass transit medium and, while I disagree with @Bletchleyite's engineering led view on usability, I agree with his utilitarian greatest good position. Companies do work hard to make us think we're making choices but, on this one, the practical experience of managing ticket vs phone is such as to make it a non-choice

 

[TUC]

Exactly, why do you think I'm only just replying to your post five hours after you made it?

We each have our own definition of "normal behaviour" but to me it's irrational to leave your phone on all the time in the same way that you wouldn't leave your oven on all day just in case you fancied a pizza. Switch phone on, contact a friend or find out some information, then once you've done that switch phone off and get on with your day without being pestered by it.

i don't think I have seen anyone use their phone that way. The very point of them is instant availability. The oven analogy doesn't work as an oven uses far more power (and, indeed, you're likely to use more power switching your phone on and off several times than simply leaving it on).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 May 2026 ==

Exactly, as I posted earlier in the thread the move towards e-tickets is being driven by TOCs and online retailers rather than by public demand. If you remove the option of collecting paper tickets or make it impenetrable to find then of course the majority of your customers will select the e-ticket option!

I have looked online in vain to find any independent survey showing that most passengers prefer e-tickets to paper ones but it seems no such evidence exists. Thus most people will use their own confirmation bias to assume most people think like them and everyone else is wrong!

Given how many other products and services, such as energy, insurance etc., are now largely sold online and customers very willingly make use of online services such as price comparison sites to access them, it is hard to argue that e-tickets do not reflect public demand.

 

[xotGD]

Two points:

Berating people for "not using their smartphone properly" is a bit silly. Anyone can use their phone in whichever manner they choose.

Lugging around a 3-pin plug and cable, or a power bank, just in case, is not more convenient than having a couple of bits of orange card in your pocket. But if that is what some people wish to do, fair enough. If my phone dies I can't phone home, but I can still get home. If I forget to charge it before I leave home, of leave it behind, no big deal.

 

[AlterEgo]

Its a very nuanced thing though in which format people prefer to have them ( as this thread shows) though there is this study https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...r-ticket-purchasing-behaviour-and-preferences but hrere have been other studies by various groups https://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/news/uk’s-train-ticketing-full-digital-barriers which may give different answers but i guess its all how the question is asked.

The nub of the issue is in revealed preferences.

Surveys are not really that effective; even the top one, which has been quoted before, has a flawed methodology in that the people with the most time on their hands and thre greatest motivation to fill it out are over represented in the results with a large level of non-response from people ages 39-65 (those respondents disfavoured orange tickets) - and even then, orange tickets are only preferred by a quarter of all respondents after all that.

The reality is that when ticket flows go digital there is a lot of uptake. And that tells you all you need to know.

 

[ChrisC]

i don't think I have seen anyone use their phone that way. The very point of them is instant availability. The oven analogy doesn't work as an oven uses far more power (and, indeed, you're likely to use more power switching your phone on and off several times than simply leaving it on).

It is probably getting less common these days, but I think that there are still quite a few elderly people who switch their phones off when they are not using them to make a call. I have an elderly relative who never uses her mobile phone when she’s at home and so it is almost always switched off. She puts it in her handbag when she’s goes out and just switches it on if she needs to ring for a taxi from town if she happens to miss the infrequent bus. Her phone can last days between charges!

I do have mine switched on at all times, but only really use it at home to send and receive text messages and using a few apps as I use my landline for all calls. I use the larger screen of my iPad or laptop for most other internet use when I am at home. Quite often I can put it on silent whilst I’m at somewhere like the theatre and I forget to switch it back and it’s still on silent a few days later. I do use my phone quite a bit when I’m out and about but I’m certainly not glued to it all day long, even when walking around town, like many young people are.

 

[Joe Paxton]

[...] I do use my phone quite a bit when I’m out and about but I’m certainly not glued to it all day long, even when walking around town, like many young people are.

Though not just young people, by any means!

 

[marshlinker]

They don't, though. Awkward minorities are expensive to deal with and typically are not worth companies' while. And a minority who want to use a smartphone but won't use it correctly are a VERY awkward minority - those people can simply buy a paper ticket from a TVM or booking office.

Try, for instance, placing an order with Amazon paying cash.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 May 2026 ==



I'm pretty sure they are, but our Trainsplit posters might be able to confirm that for certain?

There is suppressed demand for e-tickets by TfL not liking them, but it appears that's well on the way to being solved.

It may be that the Lizzie skews the figures as almost everyone on that is using contactless, however. I think you can rationally exclude it from the figures, though, as it's really a "Tube line" that is National Rail for historical reasons of who operated the non-core parts before.

It's not just the Elizabeth Line though, watch people going through the gates at Gatwick Airport (the busiest station in the SE region ex london) I'd say by far the majority are using contactless now. people especially foreign tourists want simplicity. In Greater London generally id say e tickets are only used by people arriving from well outside the centre who are very much a minority of flows.

 

[TUC]

It's not just the Elizabeth Line though, watch people going through the gates at Gatwick Airport (the busiest station in the SE region ex london) I'd say by far the majority are using contactless now. people especially foreign tourists want simplicity. In Greater London generally id say e tickets are only used by people arriving from well outside the centre who are very much a minority of flows.

Contactless and etickets both still amount to not using paper tickets.

 

[Adam Williams]

I had a go at using contactless recently between Beaconsfield and Marylebone. Got to the station pretty late due to traffic on the M40 so figured it'd be quicker than buying something on the TrainSplit app.

At Beaconsfield, whilst the train was on the platform and the time was ticking down until it was meant to lesvey, I had to tap the card FOUR times before the Cubic gate would actually open. The error code was "99" on each occasion which I believe meant it'd tried to do an online auth and timed out. All this whilst the train was on the platform, mind you - plus I was overcharged because I was entitled to a Railcard-discounted price. I eventually made it, with the doors shutting as I was leaving the gateline and the train leaving immediately afterwards.

When I got to Marylebone, again, it sat and did what must have been a synchronous online check and took multiple seconds to process the tap before deciding to open the barriers. Multiple people around me with CCST or E-Tickets got through the gateline whilst it was faffing around deciding whether or not to let me leave.

I honestly don't believe any of these studies that have supposedly shown NFC is superior from a throughput perspective. Maybe if Cubic weren't involved, but it's a complete sh*tshow in my experience and the implementation has clearly been half-arsed. Disappointing given how chronically late Oval has been in general.

I will be going back to barcodes wherever I can. Hopefully the TeamTech rollout at TfL's stations won't take too long.

 

[xotGD]

Contactless and etickets both still amount to not using paper tickets.

The difference being that contactless fits in your wallet.

 

[redreni]

I had a go at using contactless recently between Beaconsfield and Marylebone[...]

Contactless using NFC on people's phones has been a disaster for throughput at stations and for bus dwell times, has been my observation as a regular zone 1 commuter. It just takes far longer to begin with, even if everything works as designed, even before you factor in people not knowing how to use their phones or their phone's NFC being dodgy, or the gateline being slower than usual to respond. It's just flakey.

e-ticket acceptance by TfL can't come soon enough!

In the meantime, I find CCST is still fine for cross-London journeys despite TfL's and some TOCs' neglect of the equipment, for Travelcards ITSO is best, and for single journeys where it's cheaper to forego my Railcard discount on Contactless than to buy a paper ticket (e.g. if I am travelling in the peaks to zone 1 and reaching the daily cap, or for some orbital journeys in the outer zones), a physical Contactless payment card is best for me.

It's not just the Elizabeth Line though, watch people going through the gates at Gatwick Airport (the busiest station in the SE region ex london) I'd say by far the majority are using contactless now. people especially foreign tourists want simplicity. In Greater London generally id say e tickets are only used by people arriving from well outside the centre who are very much a minority of flows.

Tourists probably wouldn't mind that much if you told them there was a cheaper alternative to Contactless.

I don't believe regular travellers are knowingly and deliberately overpaying for contactless because they know the fares and consider it not worth their time to buy a ticket where this is cheaper. The reality is, people believe Contactless is, either always or at the very least in the vast majority of cases, as cheap as or cheaper than buying a ticket. And it isn't true, even as a rule of thumb.

 

[Joe Paxton]

I had a go at using contactless recently between Beaconsfield and Marylebone. Got to the station pretty late due to traffic on the M40 so figured it'd be quicker than buying something on the TrainSplit app.

At Beaconsfield, whilst the train was on the platform and the time was ticking down until it was meant to lesvey, I had to tap the card FOUR times before the Cubic gate would actually open. The error code was "99" on each occasion which I believe meant it'd tried to do an online auth and timed out. All this whilst the train was on the platform, mind you - plus I was overcharged because I was entitled to a Railcard-discounted price. I eventually made it, with the doors shutting as I was leaving the gateline and the train leaving immediately afterwards.

When I got to Marylebone, again, it sat and did what must have been a synchronous online check and took multiple seconds to process the tap before deciding to open the barriers. Multiple people around me with CCST or E-Tickets got through the gateline whilst it was faffing around deciding whether or not to let me leave.

I honestly don't believe any of these studies that have supposedly shown NFC is superior from a throughput perspective. Maybe if Cubic weren't involved, but it's a complete sh*tshow in my experience and the implementation has clearly been half-arsed. Disappointing given how chronically late Oval has been in general.

I will be going back to barcodes wherever I can. Hopefully the TeamTech rollout at TfL's stations won't take too long.

I'm very surprised to read this account. I've not seen, heard or come across people having such difficulties when using contactless. My experience has always been pretty seamless. I wonder if someone with more in-depth knowledge might be able to have a guess as to what happened here?

The significant slow downs I come across at gatelines is generally twofold...

* people making a meal of scanning their e-tickets (often you can 'see them coming'), though as experience is gained then hopefully that'll improve, and...
* people wanting to use contactless via NFC on their mobile (e.g. Apple Pay, Google Pay etc) but not having their phone ready for it, or else their phone's NFC functionality is shabby.


I will just add that, in contrast to your disbelief of studies showing NFC is superior from a throughput perspective, I'm rather sceptical of those that try and posit e-ticket throughput as being as fast as other methods.

(Not arguing against e-tickets I'll add - they're very much here to stay.)

 

[TUC]

The difference being that contactless fits in your wallet.

Via your phone for most people.

 

[Joe Paxton]

The difference being that contactless fits in your wallet.

Via your phone for most people.

I'm struggling to find stats on the breakdown of in person payment method at a card terminal of a physical card versus a mobile device, but usage of a physical card remains high - it'll vary by demographic and so by location of course.

 

[SargeNpton]

I'm struggling to find stats on the breakdown of in person payment method at a card terminal of a physical card versus a mobile device, but usage of a physical card remains high - it'll vary by demographic and so by location of course.

If my local supermarket is anything to go by, probably 80% card and 20% phone. With a high proportion of the phone users not having them ready (especially those that also need to open up the digital loyalty card).

 

[MikeWh]

If my local supermarket is anything to go by, probably 80% card and 20% phone. With a high proportion of the phone users not having them ready (especially those that also need to open up the digital loyalty card).

Can't say I've watched too many other people, but for me it's all on the phone. Smartshop app with Nectar card already linked, upload to till then pay with phone already in hand.

 

[Adam Williams]

I wonder if someone with more in-depth knowledge might be able to have a guess as to what happened here?

I would be very interested; I had thought they would have been capable of doing offline auths in the absence of a usable network connection.

I will just add that, in contrast to your disbelief of studies showing NFC is superior from a throughput perspective, I'm rather sceptical of those that try and posit e-ticket throughput as being as fast as other methods

Masabi did research on this 12 years ago, I have no reason to doubt it given their expertise in the area. In terms of accuracy as well, you don't have the risk of the data getting demagnetised, and the E-Ticket payload has far more data in it to enable you to evaluate e.g. restriction bands and ticket type restrictions (vs CCST).

* people wanting to use contactless via NFC on their mobile (e.g. Apple Pay, Google Pay etc) but not having their phone ready for it, or else their phone's NFC functionality is shabby.

Yes, I suspect this is some of the slowdown and it's not necessarily the fault of the technology. But my own experience at Beaconsfield involved a physical MasterCard which you'd think should be the simplest, "least likely to go wrong" case.

 

[xotGD]

People with e-tickets slow things down at the gateline by always waiting for the barrier to close after the previous person before presenting their phone to the reader. In contrast, with a piece of card, I just stick it in the slot as soon as the person in front is out of the way, and straight through I go.

This is without the usual faff of at least one person in front aimlessly waving their phone about then having to trot off to seek human assistance.

And if I am doing something on my phone when the gripper comes round, I am able to carry on uninterrupted.

 

[Joe Paxton]

I would be very interested; I had thought they would have been capable of doing offline auths in the absence of a usable network connection.

I'm pretty sure that there isn't an online authorisation process that happens in that moment when a card is presented to a reader (validator). It's not fast enough. Rather, it gets sent to the backoffice and an authorisation happens then (10p in my experience), which might not be long afterwards but it's not instantaneous. If the authorisation is declined then the card is hotlisted so it can't be used again (though I understand hotlisted cards can be used to exit the network so they don't trap their users inside the gateline) - said hotlist being circulated to all contactless readers regularly throughout the day.

Masabi did research on this 12 years ago, I have no reason to doubt it given their expertise in the area. In terms of accuracy as well, you don't have the risk of the data getting demagnetised, and the E-Ticket payload has far more data in it to enable you to evaluate e.g. restriction bands and ticket type restrictions (vs CCST).

I'm aware of this, but bear in mind the results they presented were distinctly in their interest as a developer of barcode-style ticket technology. That video only shows users of barcode tickets who are confident in their usage thereof, are completely ready to present the ticket on reaching the gate and don't fumble the process in any manner. 11/12 years ago not many were using barcode tickets, so I don't regard a short promotional video that shows a selection of people using the system successfully as an inviolable proof of concept! I know they did proper trials, though the fact the resulting study papers show everything off in their best light is not a huge surprise coming from a company promoting the idea!

Yes, I suspect this is some of the slowdown and it's not necessarily the fault of the technology. But my own experience at Beaconsfield involved a physical MasterCard which you'd think should be the simplest, "least likely to go wrong" case.

Was there anything out of the ordinary about this Mastercard? For example, a pre-paid card, or a Curve card, or one linked to a multi-currency account? Were there any blocks in place preventing certain types of card use? Was it some sort of niche fintech card? Had it been previously activated for (normal) contactless use, i.e. with an initial chip-and-PIN transaction or use at an ATM? Just trying to think through some other scenarios.

As I stated above I'm pretty sure there isn't an in the moment authorisation process that happens when the card hits the reader.

I don't know what happened with you, but I would suggest it best you don't dismiss contactless use and the whole Oval project on the basis of this one experience. A vast number of people use contactless to travel on TfL and NR services in London and now the wider Oval area everyday without a hitch. It's not "a complete sh*tshow" in their experience.

 

[Russel]

From this webpage: https://www.uswitch.com/media-centr...cess-as-11-6-million-neglect-mobile-security/



Add in those that are mislaid, this is principally why I am reluctant to put everything on a mobile phone. If the phone gets lost/stolen while I am out then I'd prefer to have my credit card and return rail ticket held separately.

Because loss and theft of wallets is unheard of...

 

[Sonic1234]

CCST is instantly recognisable by everyone as a train ticket, even those who don't use the railway. It is the railway's version of the Coca-Cola bottle.

 

[Russel]

CCST is instantly recognisable by everyone as a train ticket, even those who don't use the railway. It is the railway's version of the Coca-Cola bottle.

Agreed.

But how is it relevant to the use of e-tickets?

 

[MikeWh]

The error code was "99" on each occasion which I believe meant it'd tried to do an online auth and timed out.

99 = Ticket checking took too long to complete. I've no idea what sort of ticket checking was happening though.

I'm pretty sure that there isn't an online authorisation process that happens in that moment when a card is presented to a reader (validator). It's not fast enough. Rather, it gets sent to the backoffice and an authorisation happens then (10p in my experience), which might not be long afterwards but it's not instantaneous. If the authorisation is declined then the card is hotlisted so it can't be used again (though I understand hotlisted cards can be used to exit the network so they don't trap their users inside the gateline) - said hotlist being circulated to all contactless readers regularly throughout the day.

This is correct.

Chiltern may well be interested to know about your experience.