SWR cracking down on Vauxhall - Waterloo doughnuts/short fares - Also GTR

[Farnborough]

Paying when challenged isn't a new thing, nor is doughnutting or short-faring.

Yeahbut... if I walk up to a counter, and ask for a return to the next station, and also a return from the penultimate to the terminus (or any other similar combination) the clerk is likely to raise more than an eyebrow.

But doing that on an app is fine...

 

[Sonic1234]

But doing that on an app is fine...

It's the depersonalisation of the process that makes it feel OK. Few people would go up to a ticket office and ask for it, but tapping the phone a few times and sending off a request into the ether feels disconnected. Same with claiming a refund on an unscanned ticket, or even something cheeky but legitimate like seeing the train for an Advance you couldn't use was a few minutes late so claiming an abandoned journey refund.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Yeahbut... if I walk up to a counter, and ask for a return to the next station, and also a return from the penultimate to the terminus (or any other similar combination) the clerk is likely to raise more than an eyebrow.

But doing that on an app is fine...

It's the depersonalisation of the process that makes it feel OK. Few people would go up to a ticket office and ask for it, but tapping the phone a few times and sending off a request into the ether feels disconnected. Same with claiming a refund on an unscanned ticket, or even something cheeky but legitimate like seeing the train for an Advance you couldn't use was a few minutes late so claiming an abandoned journey refund.

But there's always been 'bare-faced cheek'
When I worked at a booking office in the late 1960s sometimes people would ask at the booking office for a refund on the (un-clipped) return half of their ticket (back to where I was) because they had 'returned by car'. Seemed slightly odd that they were at the station, and my colleagues pondered how often you are in a strange town and a car pulls up and offers you a lift home (or, rather, to the station at your home town). We always immediately processed the claim and never questioned integrity.

The refund was on the difference between the return fare actually paid and that of an outward single plus an administration fee. I remember telling one hopeful that he owed BR a couple of bob - because he had a day return which cost less than a single plus admin fee.

 

[Sonic1234]

But there's always been 'bare-faced cheek'

Absolutely, but not on the scale now with the Internet. A few percent of those that will fire off a refund request into cyberspace would turn up at a ticket office and demand a refund. Most would be too embarrassed or shy to do it in person, or simply not want to expend the effort. Online and apps remove the human element and it all just becomes a faceless system.

Same with the short fare issue. Yes, you will still be able to buy the ticket at a TVM using the advanced options to change the origin and time of travel, but a lot won't know they can or be bothered to do that.

 

[iamraymond]

Clear fare evasion is tantamount to theft, prosecution should be the punishment, end of.

 

[TEW]

I have explained to SWR that this is not the case, and it's unfortunate that the myth continues to be perpetuated by the industry.

As much as the industry might like to pretend otherwise, there's this thing called "split ticketing" that exists. The RCS controls apply per ticket. Vauxhall->Waterloo can and will be sold in a split for longer distance journeys. As soon as one ticket is ToD-only, you've screwed over the whole booking - despite there being no evidence whatsoever that the customer is misusing the tickets they are paying for.

Although in theory a Vauxhall to Waterloo ticket could be sold as part of a split ticket in theory, I don't think it's very likely at all in practice. Any ticket from outside London Zones 1-6 to Vauxhall would be issued to London Terminals anyway, and the additional purchase of a Vauxhall to London Waterloo ticket would be superfluous. It's a small number of journeys where a split at Vauxhall is theoretically possible, but even then it's all journeys where most passengers will be using PAYG. And I don't know if there are any journeys where a split at Vauxhall actually saves money.

 

[Kilopylae]

Any ticket from outside London Zones 1-6 to Vauxhall would be issued to London Terminals anyway, and the additional purchase of a Vauxhall to London Waterloo ticket would be superfluous.

Whilst I am sympathetic to the underlying argument that disabling e-ticket fulfilment for tickets often used for short faring is problematic for split ticketing, I think that this particular observation may be true.

Playing around with Trainsplit, I haven't been able to get it to offer me Vauxhall to Waterloo as part of a split - for every journey involving a train stopping at Vauxhall where it splits on that portion, it just offers X to London Terminals.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

Playing around with Trainsplit, I haven't been able to get it to offer me Vauxhall to Waterloo as part of a split - for every journey involving a train stopping at Vauxhall where it splits on that portion, it just offers X to London Terminals.

How would a Season Ticket from somewhere to Vauxhall be issued? If it was only valid to Vauxhall, someone extending to Waterloo would need another ticket.

 

[Kite159]

Although in theory a Vauxhall to Waterloo ticket could be sold as part of a split ticket in theory, I don't think it's very likely at all in practice. Any ticket from outside London Zones 1-6 to Vauxhall would be issued to London Terminals anyway, and the additional purchase of a Vauxhall to London Waterloo ticket would be superfluous. It's a small number of journeys where a split at Vauxhall is theoretically possible, but even then it's all journeys where most passengers will be using PAYG. And I don't know if there are any journeys where a split at Vauxhall actually saves money.

Maybe an edge case where advance tickets are available from Waterloo to somewhere in Dorset but are not available if you start at Vauxhall to circulate via Waterloo with the online system selling a single from Vauxhall to Waterloo to go with the advance from Waterloo to Dorset

 

[Skimpot flyer]

If as has been suggested, GTR are going to withdraw e-tickets from Finsbury Park to King’s Cross, it seems odd.

Someone travelling from much further out would know you can tap in on Oyster/Contactless in the subway leading to the Piccadilly & Victoria lines without passing through any gateline. They would surely not be dumb enough to buy an e-ticket for a train that is not booked to call there?

 

[JonathanH]

How would a Season Ticket from somewhere to Vauxhall be issued? If it was only valid to Vauxhall, someone extending to Waterloo would need another ticket.

Vauxhall is London Terminals for any journey from outside Zone 6, so few, if any, people have season tickets to Vauxhall.

 

[35B]

Vauxhall is London Terminals for any journey from outside Zone 6, so few, if any, people have season tickets to Vauxhall.

Many years ago, I did (worked there, office now a hole in the ground), travelling from Orpington. After a while, someone told me that Vauxhall was classified as a London Terminal, so I changed my season and saved money as a result.

But, as you say, very much an edge case

 

[Adam Williams]

Although in theory a Vauxhall to Waterloo ticket could be sold as part of a split ticket in theory, I don't think it's very likely at all in practice. Any ticket from outside London Zones 1-6 to Vauxhall would be issued to London Terminals anyway, and the additional purchase of a Vauxhall to London Waterloo ticket would be superfluous. It's a small number of journeys where a split at Vauxhall is theoretically possible, but even then it's all journeys where most passengers will be using PAYG. And I don't know if there are any journeys where a split at Vauxhall actually saves money.

Whilst I am sympathetic to the underlying argument that disabling e-ticket fulfilment for tickets often used for short faring is problematic for split ticketing, I think that this particular observation may be true.

I checked the database table of issued tickets before posting

It is issued in split ticket bookings and it does save customers money. It is also used for journeys where there is no permitted through-fare route. I am not going to start posting origins and destinations (I'm sure RDG would love that), but please trust it's not a theoretical concern which I imagined up for the purpose of this thread.

 

[Tetchytyke]

please trust it's not a theoretical concern which I imagined up for the purpose of this thread.

I'm sure it isn't and, even if it is for this specific example, I'm sure there are countless others where it is an actual issue.

I'm conflicted on this one. The fundamental issue is the lack of enforcement by the railways, not the method of ticket delivery. Changing the method of ticket delivery doesn't change the underlying issue.

That said, I don't have an issue with adding a bit of friction to certain flows which are routinely misused. It is regrettable that there is collateral damage against customers genuinely buying and using e-tickets on these flows, but changing ticket delivery from e-ticket to TOD isn't really a huge burden on the customer. TVM queues aren't what they were. Perhaps it's just the quid pro quo for the savings you get from split ticketing.

I can see why you as a retailer would be against this, as the cost to the retailer for fulfilling by TOD is higher than fulfilling by e-ticket.

 

[Adam Williams]

That said, I don't have an issue with adding a bit of friction to certain flows which are routinely misused. It is regrettable that there is collateral damage against customers genuinely buying and using e-tickets on these flows, but changing ticket delivery from e-ticket to TOD isn't really a huge burden on the customer. TVM queues aren't what they were. Perhaps it's just the quid pro quo for the savings you get from split ticketing.

I can see why you as a retailer would be against this, as the cost to the retailer for fulfilling by TOD is higher than fulfilling by e-ticket.

I have a few concerns, not just focussed on cost:

1. E-Ticket penetration is now so high that some passengers genuinely have never needed to use Ticket on Departure. We are constantly having to think about how we can make it more obvious that something is different when ToD is the only option to avoid passengers accidentally travelling on a collection reference because they assumed they would get E-Tickets. This is particularly problematic when a flow changes overnight from E-Ticketable to ToD-only.
2. The reliability of TVMs is poor; many don't recover from print errors properly, many of them don't get fares data updates regularly enough (leading to e.g. misprinting of sale tickets on occasion). There's not enough interest in holding manufacturers to account to get these problems resolved. This, in turn, leads to an increased burden on retailer customer services staff.
3. Fundamentally, I see the collateral damage as entirely unnecessary, and indicative of not considering the bigger picture before rushing ahead with changes. This is just one way in which the Retail Control Service has not adapted to the reality of modern retailing.

Fundamentally I'm not against friction for customers purchasing just tickets on these flows. No retailer wants short-faring customers, they don't spend any money and incur disproportionate costs.

 

[Tetchytyke]

E-Ticket penetration is now so high that some passengers genuinely have never needed to use Ticket on Departure. We are constantly having to think about how we can make it more obvious that something is different when ToD is the only option to avoid passengers accidentally travelling on a collection reference because they assumed they would get E-Tickets. This is particularly problematic when a flow changes overnight from E-Ticketable to ToD-only.

This is definitely a massive issue and one that almost caught me out not so very long ago. Cue a sprint across the station to print the ticket out...

It would be a real concern in the context of the heightened scrutiny around these sorts of flows. "I didn't realise it wasn't an e-ticket" won't get you far. In some ways making all the tickets on a journey default to TOD in this situation is preferable, at least you won't have a situation where all the tickets in an itinerary are e-tickets except one.

 

[gembercannelle]

Do ticket machines allow purchase of physical tickets that are both from another station and for a future date? I know that if you buy online for collection that's both possible and normal, but that leaves an electronic footprint in the retailer's system.

Yes, they do. I have done this a number of times when I had time to kill waiting for my train.

 

[81A]

What happens when the whole old style ToD system is switched off (which the railway seems so eager for)?

Any "E-ToD"/E-ticket reprint replacement would not serve the revenue protection purpose the old system is serving here...

Edit-to shorten and clarify

 

[gembercannelle]

Clear fare evasion is tantamount to theft, prosecution should be the punishment, end of.

Frankly, I believe that anyone advocating the hard approach should be happy to see their next-of-kin and/or a 19 years old son/daughter to be prosecuted for making a single short-distance journey costing under £10 without a valid ticket.

 

[Harratt4]

In my personal non-commuting experience, the response would be "what inspector?" They must exist as there are Thameslink cases on the forums. If you can get in/out of the stations, probably the cheapest way to travel on Thameslink is to pay GTR a settlement every 5-10 years when they check your ticket.

Anecdote doesn't equal experience but some back of the fag packet maths tells me that on my frequent journeys, If I had doughnutted, based on the number of time I have seen a revenue check on my south London to north London regular journey (either on train or on a station) all on TL over the past 3 years, I would be around £3,850 up. If I based my maths on the number of times my ticket has actually been shown to someone checking tickets I would be £3,850 less the cost of a single penalty fare up.

(putting to one side that if I had been checked at least once they would have done the account audit and pursued me for the rest - which the average fare evader probably doesn't consider)

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Frankly, I believe that anyone advocating the hard approach should be happy to see their next-of-kin and/or a 19 years old son/daughter to be prosecuted for making a single short-distance journey costing under £10 without a valid ticket.

<Waves hand in air>

Why should the rules be any different for members of my family than for anyone else?

 

[35B]

<Waves hand in air>

Why should the rules be any different for members of my family than for anyone else?

Quite.

The more interesting question is why depriving a train operator of £10 should be treated differently to depriving another business of the same amount. Parallels are unpopular here, but I see no moral difference between deliberately not paying a fare, and stealing goods of the same retail value from a shop. Yet, if caught, one is rather more likely to face consequences than the other.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Quite.

The more interesting question is why depriving a train operator of £10 should be treated differently to depriving another business of the same amount. Parallels are unpopular here, but I see no moral difference between deliberately not paying a fare, and stealing goods of the same retail value from a shop. Yet, if caught, one is rather more likely to face consequences than the other.

Just out of interest, which are you seeing as the harsher regime? For example, if caught stealing from a shop, might one routinely be offered the chance to settle the matter out of court?

 

[JGurney]

Frankly, I believe that anyone advocating the hard approach should be happy to see their next-of-kin and/or a 19 years old son/daughter to be prosecuted for making a single short-distance journey costing under £10 without a valid ticket.

Do you really mean "happy" or 'consider reasonable and no more than could be expected'?

I would certainly have been unhappy about it if my daughter or son were evading fares and were prosecuted when aged 13, 19 or their current ages. It would fall short of my aspirations for them. However I would not feel that they were being treated unreasonably if that were to happen. I knew perfectly well what fare evasion was and that it should not be done by the age of 10, and so did they.

 

[The exile]

Do you really mean "happy" or 'consider reasonable and no more than could be expected'?

I would certainly have been unhappy about it if my daughter or son were evading fares and were prosecuted when aged 13, 19 or their current ages. It would fall short of my aspirations for them. However I would not feel that they were being treated unreasonably if that were to happen. I knew perfectly well what fare evasion was and that it should not be done by the age of 10, and so did they.

Exactly - the only person I would be angry with would be my son/daughter or whatever (assuming, that is, that they were genuinely evading the fare - which is the issue with automatic prosecution and the whole reason for the penalty fare scheme)

 

[35B]

Just out of interest, which are you seeing as the harsher regime? For example, if caught stealing from a shop, might one routinely be offered the chance to settle the matter out of court?

In terms of the likely approach to enforcement, that of the railways. While there are many side exits to avoid appearing in court, the cost of settling and the likelihood of formal intervention is significantly greater than for the equivalent shoplifter.

 

[Swedenorer]

I checked the database table of issued tickets before posting

It is issued in split ticket bookings and it does save customers money. It is also used for journeys where there is no permitted through-fare route. I am not going to start posting origins and destinations (I'm sure RDG would love that), but please trust it's not a theoretical concern which I imagined up for the purpose of this thread.

Yes but in that case you would not be alighting and leaving the station and would have a handful of tickets showing a through journey. At no point would you not be in possession of a valid ticket.

 

[Adam Williams]

Yes but in that case you would not be alighting and leaving the station and would have a handful of tickets showing a through journey. At no point would you not be in possession of a valid ticket.

Agreed.

So why shouldn't you be allowed to be issued E-Tickets under those circumstances?

 

[JGurney]

The figures on fulfilment I think speak for themselves that when offered the choice the overwhelming majority choose eTicket

I was surprised recently to find that I could not get e-tickets for my last two advance bookings.

These were a Hastings to Saltburn via Ashford Int. and return (as two Advance singles) booked through LNER, and a Twickenham to Castle Cary via Waterloo and Paddington single booked via GWR. In each case I was offered only collect at station or tickets by post, when I had been expecting to be offered e-tickets. I suspect that the Twickenham - Castle Cary route might not be available as an e-ticket due to those not working on the Underground. However the Hastings - Saltburn via Ashford Int. route does not involve the Underground so I don't see why that an e-ticket was not available for that. Is this another anti-fraud measure?

 

[jfollows]

Hastings to Saltburn tickets all include a maltese cross for cross-London transfer; although of course one possible route would not require the Underground there are other routes which will. So the tickets need to be readable by the Underground gates.
See https://www.brfares.com/!expert?orig=HGS&dest=SLB&period=20260705, for example.
Valid routes for "any permitted" fares are via LONDON, so using any valid route Hastings-London followed by London-Saltburn.

This is off-topic for this thread, but I assume the booking engines can’t work out that an advance ticket using Saint Pancras/King’s Cross with a maltese cross doesn’t have to be read by Underground gates.