johncrossley
Established Member
I forgot SWR have Tap2Go so they may already be set up to deal with tapping in and out at the same station. Does anyone know what happens if you use Tap2Go in this way?
-
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!
SWR to withdraw public access to Guildford Station Footbridge
- Thread starter BenS123
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Doesn’t solve Tap in, Tap out, but don’t walk out!!!
That doesn't solve the problem you're quoting. Also, you can't penalty fare people in this way, do you mean a maximum fare?
Exactly and I note that's what one respondent said in response to the planning application.
Contactless is being rolled out to Guildford soon, probably later this year. The system already provides for no fare to be charged when exiting at the same station within 2 minutes. I've read elsewhere that this extends up to 30 minutes in some circumstances, I'm not sure whether that would apply at Guildford once PAYG goes live there.
gembercannelle
Member
As someone who has to cross the railway line almost on a daily basis, I stopped cycling on Guildford "interchange" (Farnham road, Bridge Street, Park Street, Onslow Street, Millbrook) because it is too dangerous for my liking, especially during the peak times. I just dismount and use a pedestrian path by the river.
The only safe pedestrian access to the other side is via the Yorkie bridge, but this involves extra 20 minutes walk.
A lot of people commute to the university by train, and they typically use the entrance on the other side. Also, many students live there and use the bridge to get to the city centre. Conveniently, it is summer vacation at the moment, so they are unlikely actually protest, because they are away!
This year Yorkie bridge was closed for repairs so all university-related people traffic was directed via the footbridge. It would have been a nightmare if the only alternative would be Farnham road, getting there from Millbrook involves way too many road crossings.
The only safe pedestrian access to the other side is via the Yorkie bridge, but this involves extra 20 minutes walk.
A lot of people commute to the university by train, and they typically use the entrance on the other side. Also, many students live there and use the bridge to get to the city centre. Conveniently, it is summer vacation at the moment, so they are unlikely actually protest, because they are away!
This year Yorkie bridge was closed for repairs so all university-related people traffic was directed via the footbridge. It would have been a nightmare if the only alternative would be Farnham road, getting there from Millbrook involves way too many road crossings.
Last edited:
You could charge a penalty if rules were changed. Or just close the bridge for people wanting to pass through and make them go around the station, exactly like SWR are proposing, that is the simple and easy answer. No ticket, no entry like it should be.
DelW
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Jan 2015
- Messages
- 5,949
There are five rail routes from Guildford.
On every one of them, the next station is only a short distance away (around 1 - 3 miles), and all five are open stations (Worplesdon, London Road, Shalford, Farncombe, Wanborough).
Until SWR addresses this, closing the back door at Guildford will have little effect beyond annoying passengers and those who have used the bridge legally for decades.
This is a much quicker/easier/cheaper solution to prevent some fare-dodging and prevent staff assaults at Guildford though, so it doesn't surprise me that SWR are doing this (and tbh I'm surprised they didn't do this years earlier).
Also for passengers to/from any of the open stations, if at least one end of their journey at Guildford now has ticket barriers that they can't simply waltz through by claiming to be crossing the bridge (or, when SWR leave the back barriers open at Guildford, simply waltz through entirely...), it will make some difference for no cost to SWR.
Fixing the other stations will require the capital installation cost of adding barriers, and increased staffing costs as the stations would need to be staffed start-to-finish else the barriers would be left open, making the money spent useless.
Last edited:
However very easy for revenue protection officers to observe and then challenge an individual.
Also very easy to identify a pattern of behaviour for a particular individual and (a) issue them with a fine not just for for the one instance but the 20 previous instances and (b) have targeted enforcement at particular times of the day where it's a known issue.
The system doesn't have to be foolproof, just good enough. I believe it unreasonable to have "foolproof unattended system" as the requirement here and if SWR really believe that necessary they are welcome to fund a parallel ungated bridge.
I suspect they'd quickly find that the former approach is cheaper and sufficient.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Planning guidance under LTN 1/20 is that pavements should be a minimum of 2 metres width, without obstructions such as communications boxes or lamp posts.
Farnham Road does not meet that standard.
Lots of pavements don‘t.
Does this only apply to new pavements?
Yes, in the same way that much of this country's Victorian housing stock doesn't meet modern Buildings Regulations.
Removing existing provision, and replacing it with inferior provision that doesn't meet modern standards is certainly... a choice.
It's not adding a new pavement though or replacing the bridge with it. The pavement already exists as a route.
Guidance I think is the key word here.
Yes but it is now being designated as the alternative to an existing route that much more closely meets the guidance. And in the original agreement with BR the substitution of an alternative route was only permitted if it was "equally commodious" or something along those lines, which a narrow pavement clearly isn't. They are trying to get around that requirement by getting rid of it.
For clarity, the pavement is not narrow. It may not be 2 metres wide, but narrow it is not.
I’m not actually sure why this thread is debating it, it doesn’t affect rail passengers, indeed it only affects a small number of people who live (or have reason to visit) a relatively dmsll number of properties in the vicinity of Guildford Park Avenue. As I said earlier, in the hundreds of times I have needed to get from that area to the town centre, I have never used the route through the station, the alternative is fine. I was cycling over the road bridge as an 11 year old (accepting that perception of safety standards has changed in the intervening few years).
Back in the noughties, they closed access to the footbridge after 10 pm and all day Sundays. At the time I didn't know about the planning right.
Whilst it may only be slightly slower to get into town. It took much longer to reach platform 8 and that was my main objection. I imagine there is no legal requirement to keep the back entrance open for passengers, just pedestrians.
During the trail, the gateline at the back was open at roughly the same times it is when yhe trail wasn't happening. So pedestrians could walk through the Guildford Park Road entrance at those times
The footbridge to the Odeon is nice. I appreicate the faster route to get there.
I know people who prefer the footbridge as there are no cars and pollution on it. The pollution levels are high. So high they triggered the legal need for the council to create an action plan to deal with them.
What I don't understand is how closing the footbridge will stop abuse as people coming with no ticket may kick off regardless.
Does anyone know why the footbridge was originally made open to pedestrians. Did they not appreicate how bad the ticketless travel would be back then?
Also does anyone know what the ticketless travel rates are from London Road (Guildford). The other stations aren't located in Guildford town centre. How much checking of tickets is carried out on services using that route?
I still need to read the planning application and reply. They may yet convince me it is a good idea.
In part because this is an example of the railway taking actions to the detriment of the communities it serves. A behaviour I think most of us would have hoped would have ebbed away following nationalisation.
And it's remarkable how many apologists there are for it.
Most parts of life involve compromises and change.
Don’t mistake a difference of opinion as an apology.
gembercannelle
Member
Apart from footbridge crossing there appears to be some humours on the closure the back entrance/reducing its hours. I cannot count the number of times when using the back entrance allowed me to catch a train from platform 8 that I would have missed otherwise. Which would mean a new ticket.
I will add my 10 pennyworth, Previous posters have covered most issues.
Fare dodging is rife & blatant.
I don't think anyone has mentioned that BTP have offices underneath the bridge, so potential enforcement is a few metres away?
An alternative walking route into town (for some people, depending on location) is via Wodeland Ave & the Mount (much less polluted than the Farnham rd bridge).
As already mentioned Students from the main campus can use Yorkies bridge/Walnut tree ave to walk into town.
I can't quote any stats but personal observation suggests that this entrance has become much busier in the last few years (expansion of University numbers, busier traffic to Royal Surrey both staff/outpatients/visitors, Sports Park & Student accommodation village behind).
Safeguards route 4/5 bus route is carrying a lot more Hospital bound passengers, the stop opposite the Guildford Park Rd entrance always has people waiting.
Most people walking across, if they are going into the town centre, save no real time using the rail walkway, the only benefit is avoiding the traffic/fumes on the Farnham Rd bridge.
I have been using the different walking routes for more than 40 years, I fully support closing the walkway to non railway passengers.
Fare dodging is rife & blatant.
I don't think anyone has mentioned that BTP have offices underneath the bridge, so potential enforcement is a few metres away?
An alternative walking route into town (for some people, depending on location) is via Wodeland Ave & the Mount (much less polluted than the Farnham rd bridge).
As already mentioned Students from the main campus can use Yorkies bridge/Walnut tree ave to walk into town.
I can't quote any stats but personal observation suggests that this entrance has become much busier in the last few years (expansion of University numbers, busier traffic to Royal Surrey both staff/outpatients/visitors, Sports Park & Student accommodation village behind).
Safeguards route 4/5 bus route is carrying a lot more Hospital bound passengers, the stop opposite the Guildford Park Rd entrance always has people waiting.
Most people walking across, if they are going into the town centre, save no real time using the rail walkway, the only benefit is avoiding the traffic/fumes on the Farnham Rd bridge.
I have been using the different walking routes for more than 40 years, I fully support closing the walkway to non railway passengers.
The planning application is very simple: we don't like this so can we change it, please? Why?
Some posters have been around Guildford a lot longer than I. Can anyone remember a time when there wasn't an exit from the station on Guildford Park Road? Then came the S52 agreement in 1988 by which pedestrians were guaranteed access through the station and British Railways got their planning permission. The document is tightly drafted and so difficult to get out of, unlike some more recent S106 agreements. Presumably GBC felt the route was a good thing for pedestrians which was far-sighted because at that stage the Odeon was at the top of the town and the Walnut Bridge far less wide than it is now. The current route via the station to the cinema or into town over the Walnut Bridge is a lot more pleasant than down the Farnham Road and Bridge Street.
The Wodeland Avenue and down the Mount route into town is fine but not so good in reverse. The Mount is really steep. Try it with two or three bags of groceries. Walnut Tree Close and Yorkies bridge is, again, less pleasant than out of the back of the station and through the car park to the campus. When the car park is eventually built on with housing the route will be more pleasant still. It just occurs to me that maybe the university was expanding at the tail end of the eighties?
As Surreyman points out the bus stop at the back of the station is always busy with people using it for travel to the university and the hospital. There's a lot of university up beyond the Royal Surrey. Anyone want to walk from the town over the Farnham Road Bridge against a bus load of people coming back from the hospital?
If you want to be objective about this you use the time argument. But the route via the Guildford Park Road entrance/exit is simply preferable to many, including me. It's a steep climb from the end of Walnut Tree Close on to the Farnham Road Bridge. And somehow it gets steeper with each year that passes.
Given that the BTP are so close to the station it's surprising that there aren't recent figures about fare evasion and anti-social behaviour in the planning application. But there aren't. Why not?
Some posters have been around Guildford a lot longer than I. Can anyone remember a time when there wasn't an exit from the station on Guildford Park Road? Then came the S52 agreement in 1988 by which pedestrians were guaranteed access through the station and British Railways got their planning permission. The document is tightly drafted and so difficult to get out of, unlike some more recent S106 agreements. Presumably GBC felt the route was a good thing for pedestrians which was far-sighted because at that stage the Odeon was at the top of the town and the Walnut Bridge far less wide than it is now. The current route via the station to the cinema or into town over the Walnut Bridge is a lot more pleasant than down the Farnham Road and Bridge Street.
The Wodeland Avenue and down the Mount route into town is fine but not so good in reverse. The Mount is really steep. Try it with two or three bags of groceries. Walnut Tree Close and Yorkies bridge is, again, less pleasant than out of the back of the station and through the car park to the campus. When the car park is eventually built on with housing the route will be more pleasant still. It just occurs to me that maybe the university was expanding at the tail end of the eighties?
As Surreyman points out the bus stop at the back of the station is always busy with people using it for travel to the university and the hospital. There's a lot of university up beyond the Royal Surrey. Anyone want to walk from the town over the Farnham Road Bridge against a bus load of people coming back from the hospital?
If you want to be objective about this you use the time argument. But the route via the Guildford Park Road entrance/exit is simply preferable to many, including me. It's a steep climb from the end of Walnut Tree Close on to the Farnham Road Bridge. And somehow it gets steeper with each year that passes.
Given that the BTP are so close to the station it's surprising that there aren't recent figures about fare evasion and anti-social behaviour in the planning application. But there aren't. Why not?
I used to get caught out by this and I just had to start leaving early enough to have enough time to go round to the front entrance still. It's annoying, but separate from the discussion of closing the non-passenger access to the bridge (I would be very much against reducing the hours of the back entrance)
Do we know if the so-called "Great Wall of Guildford" redevelopment of the station will include a new bridge, and if so will there be non-passenger access to that bridge?
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 34,237
It definitely didn’t when discussed earlier in the thread.
Subject seems to have been first mentioned over two years ago, starting here:
SWR to withdraw public access to Guildford Station Footbridge
1) if NR closes the bridge, will it inspire/force Surrey CC to do something about the pavements situation? No 2) will Surrey CC block NR closing the bridge, unless NR either build a new bridge or contribute to pavement+road improvements? No
www.railforums.co.uk
If the actual *law* was changed by Parliament in a very substantial way, and in a way which is unlikely to be compatible with other parts of the law.
gembercannelle
Member
I actually said that when the Yorkie Bridge is closed, the route via the station bridge to campus is by far preferable to any other route.
Forgive my cynicism but I do wonder if there is an element of 'playing the political/procedural game' going on here?
SWR/NR (soon to be GBR) know they have a problem with fare dodging and also issues around effectively staffing the Guildford Park Rd station entrance.
They have previously succeeded with an earlier short term restriction to non rail passengers using the bridge, now they are following up with a permanent restriction.
I don't pretend to understand the finer legal procedures required to do this but I imagine that SWR/NR anticipate objections from local residents and other interested parties, to say nothing of local councillors or the local MP (The soon to be West Surrey unitary authority will doubtless also have a view).
SWR/NR may well be thinking 'We have to give this a try and if it gets refused we know where we stand and can proceed with other solutions' (maybe longer/better staffing, more spot checks, BTP involvement etc. (there will be a cost element in all this).
Any future incidents involving anti social behaviour, confrontations with staff etc will reference/highlight whatever decision is taken.
As an aside, can anyone clarify exactly who all the High Viz wearing staff actually are? As far as I can tell we have SWR platform staff, Revenue protection staff, Welfare staff, BTP, and temporary Agency staff (I am excluding drivers and Guards).
SWR/NR (soon to be GBR) know they have a problem with fare dodging and also issues around effectively staffing the Guildford Park Rd station entrance.
They have previously succeeded with an earlier short term restriction to non rail passengers using the bridge, now they are following up with a permanent restriction.
I don't pretend to understand the finer legal procedures required to do this but I imagine that SWR/NR anticipate objections from local residents and other interested parties, to say nothing of local councillors or the local MP (The soon to be West Surrey unitary authority will doubtless also have a view).
SWR/NR may well be thinking 'We have to give this a try and if it gets refused we know where we stand and can proceed with other solutions' (maybe longer/better staffing, more spot checks, BTP involvement etc. (there will be a cost element in all this).
Any future incidents involving anti social behaviour, confrontations with staff etc will reference/highlight whatever decision is taken.
As an aside, can anyone clarify exactly who all the High Viz wearing staff actually are? As far as I can tell we have SWR platform staff, Revenue protection staff, Welfare staff, BTP, and temporary Agency staff (I am excluding drivers and Guards).
I'd be interested in knowing this too - Guildford is an NR operated station, even though most of the services are SWR (apart from the few GWR services on the Gatwick--Reading/North Downs route). So are the station staff SWR, NR, GWR, or something else?
I don’t understand this part of your post.
Presumably almost all of those waiting at the bus stops at the back of the station to go to the hospital / university etc have recently alighted trains. Or live in the housing that side of the station. I can’t imagine many people have crossed the station to get to that bus stop, you‘d surely just board at the bus station. Perhaps the exception would be those (few) people who live at the bottom end of Walnut Tree Close who didn’t want to go across Yorkies.
Last edited:
You're right, of course, Bald Rick. Overheated brain.
As to playing/gaming the system, planning is almost designed to encourage that. That's how we end up with all sorts of weird stuff getting built. As someone pointed out some while back, fare-dodging and ASB have nothing to do with planning and everything to do with revenue protection and British Transport and Surrey Police.
As to playing/gaming the system, planning is almost designed to encourage that. That's how we end up with all sorts of weird stuff getting built. As someone pointed out some while back, fare-dodging and ASB have nothing to do with planning and everything to do with revenue protection and British Transport and Surrey Police.