Attitudes to ticketless travel

[XAM2175]

On a related point, what would be the correct course of action if there was only a Permit to Travel machine on a station (they still exist, Beaulieu Road has one) which took only cash? Given that many people don't necessarily carry cash these days, would it be acceptable in that case to jump on the train and see the guard?

In my case (the other day) it was a non-issue as the PTT machine was broken in any case. I had the princely sum of 5p cash on me.

From the National Rail Conditions of Travel:

6. Your Requirement to Have a Valid Ticket to Travel
6.1 You must hold a valid Ticket or authority to travel before you board a train where there was the opportunity to buy one unless one of the following circumstances applies:
6.1.1 At the station where you start your journey, there is no means of purchasing a Ticket, either because there is no Ticket office open or a self-service Ticket machine is not in working order, or will not accept your only available method of payment (card or cash); and where notices indicate that Penalty Fares may apply from that station, you purchase a Permit to Travel if there is a working Permit to Travel issuing machine at the station where you start your journey ...; or
...
6.1.3 At the station where you start your journey, there is no means of purchasing a Ticket, because
6.1.3.1 the Ticket office is closed; or
6.1.3.2 a self-service Ticket machine is not in working order, or will not accept your preferred method of payment (card or cash); or
6.1.3.3 You have a disability and Ticket purchasing arrangements at the station you are departing from are not accessible to you.

In these cases, you must, as soon as you are reasonably able, buy an appropriate Ticket to complete your journey. The price of the Ticket you purchase will be the same as if you had bought a Ticket at the station from which you first departed.

Unfortunately the wording of 6.1.1 is a bit cumbersome, because it suggests - as far as I understand - that if you board in a Penalty Fares zone and there is a working Permit to Travel Issuing System you are required to purchase a Permit to Travel regardless of whether or not it accepts your preferred method of payment, even though the preferred method of payment exemption applies to buying a full ticket.

 

[Kite159]

I know of people who go even further to avoid proper payment by buying the cheapest ticket available with a railcard to get through the barriers then board a packed train with no chance of a check and alight at an unstaffed station.

Sadly that is probably the most common way for someone to dodge a fare. Tickets barriers are fine at saying if a particular ticket is valid at that station, but not valid for the journey being undertaken.

Buy the cheapest ticket available to bypass barriers at the main station then travel to home station which is open, either on a DOO service or when two ungangway units are run together by ensuring they jump in the front unit knowing the guard has to remain in the rear unit (i.e. someone travelling to lets say Todmorden buying a ticket from Victoria to Salford Central to bypass the barriers at Victoria, and ensuring they are in a service worked with a pair of 195/0s). Or even those routes where the guards very rarely carry out revenue checks. Someone travelling to Sutton Coldfield buying a ticket to say Duddeston in order to bypass the barriers at New Street if they arrive to find them working.

 

[nw1]

From the National Rail Conditions of Travel:

Unfortunately the wording of 6.1.1 is a bit cumbersome, because it suggests - as far as I understand - that if you board in a Penalty Fares zone and there is a working Permit to Travel Issuing System you are required to purchase a Permit to Travel regardless of whether or not it accepts your preferred method of payment, even though the preferred method of payment exemption applies to buying a full ticket.

Unfortunate if so, but I suspect in practice the guard would sell you a ticket if you were out of cash.

 

[jon0844]

In my local Morrison’s the security staff normally hang around at the end of the self-scan area, presumably to watch for any fiddles. However, they are often much too busy chatting.

Most likely they aren't that bothered because it isn't their money and they're probably wanting to avoid the confrontation and even a risk of violence.

My local Asda often has just one security guard on duty*, at the 'pod' by the exit. They are literally on their own for a lot of the time, and also have to manage searches and presumably the security of the car park and petrol station. When there was an aggressive beggar at the petrol station, I had to wait until the security guard came off his phone (personal call) and be told that he couldn't leave his post and to call the police as there was nothing he could (or would) do.

I fear the same issues with the railway now apply to many other places too, and while analogies about the railway and supermarkets rarely add-up, there are certainly lots of problems in retail and an lax attitude to doing anything about it, not helped by the fact the police aren't interested in shoplifting.

* You might wonder why a store the size of Asda chooses to have times with just one security guard, but a contributory factor might be low-paid staff that don't want hassle, which means hiring more people doesn't noticeably improve detections and management have therefore just accepted the losses.

 

[RPI]

Going back to the Cross City line, I don't think anyone who travels regularly on the core part of the route, say Longbridge to Four Oaks, can say that they thought they could pay on board because there are literally never any onboard checks other than on the incredibly rare occasion that there is some sort of Revenue Protection operation, and in those cases you'd be PF'd or at least receive a stern warning, Sometimes the guard might appear between Redditch and Barnt Green or after Lichfield at the other end on rare occasions but that's about it.

 

[Hadders]

Most likely they aren't that bothered because it isn't their money and they're probably wanting to avoid the confrontation and even a risk of violence.

My local Asda often has just one security guard on duty*, at the 'pod' by the exit. They are literally on their own for a lot of the time, and also have to manage searches and presumably the security of the car park and petrol station. When there was an aggressive beggar at the petrol station, I had to wait until the security guard came off his phone (personal call) and be told that he couldn't leave his post and to call the police as there was nothing he could (or would) do.

I fear the same issues with the railway now apply to many other places too, and while analogies about the railway and supermarkets rarely add-up, there are certainly lots of problems in retail and an lax attitude to doing anything about it, not helped by the fact the police aren't interested in shoplifting.

* You might wonder why a store the size of Asda chooses to have times with just one security guard, but a contributory factor might be low-paid staff that don't want hassle, which means hiring more people doesn't noticeably improve detections and management have therefore just accepted the losses.

Security guards in supermarkets are not normally deployed to prevent theft or to monitor the goings on in self checkout areas. They are deployed to deter anti-social behaviour and to provide customer and staff reassurance. That said, a security guard does provide some deterrent against theft.

Under cover store detectives are deployed to catch shoplifters.

 

[WesternLancer]

Security guards in supermarkets are not normally deployed to prevent theft or to monitor the goings on in self checkout areas. They are deployed to deter anti-social behaviour and to provide customer and staff reassurance. That said, a security guard does provide some deterrent against theft.

Under cover store detectives are deployed to catch shoplifters.

you can see why on line shopping is an appealing retail model.....

 

[Haywain]

you can see why on line shopping is an appealing retail model.....

You're not suggesting that online shopping removes dishonest behaviour, are you?

 

[WesternLancer]

You're not suggesting that online shopping removes dishonest behaviour, are you?

I guess not, but may reduce in store shoplifting opportunities (to be replaced by warehouse pilfering I guess).

eg is the former an issue for Ocado for example.

 

[SuspectUsual]

I guess not, but may reduce in store shoplifting opportunities (to be replaced by warehouse pilfering I guess).

eg is the former an issue for Ocado for example.

Stock loss in warehouses is generally pretty low. Most have a reasonable level of security, random searches etc, no personal bags allowed into the warehouse, that sort of thing.

Somewhat ironically, most warehouses I’ve worked in have actually been net positive in terms of the stock position, because pickers tend to make more short picks than they do over picks. Of course this is at the expense of the stores who’ll have been overcharged, but won’t immediately notice because most businesses operate a good faith receiving process for internal stock movements (ie the cost of checking outweighs the benefit of the check). The food businesses I’ve worked for generally issue periodic credits of maybe 0.25% of total product cost to the stores as recompense for this

 

[Haywain]

I guess not, but may reduce in store shoplifting opportunities (to be replaced by warehouse pilfering I guess).

eg is the former an issue for Ocado for example.

Instead of shoplifting read ‘lost’ and ‘damaged’ in transit.

 

[Hadders]

I guess not, but may reduce in store shoplifting opportunities (to be replaced by warehouse pilfering I guess).

eg is the former an issue for Ocado for example.

With online shopping retailers face:

Customers dishonestly claiming items were missing from their orders
Cost of dealing with returned goods (customers have a legal right to return goods)
Payment card fraud
Additional costs of picking and delivering stock which doesn't exist when a customer purchases in a 'bricks and mortar' store

I could go on....

 

[Edsmith]

Most likely they aren't that bothered because it isn't their money and they're probably wanting to avoid the confrontation and even a risk of violence.

My local Asda often has just one security guard on duty*, at the 'pod' by the exit. They are literally on their own for a lot of the time, and also have to manage searches and presumably the security of the car park and petrol station. When there was an aggressive beggar at the petrol station, I had to wait until the security guard came off his phone (personal call) and be told that he couldn't leave his post and to call the police as there was nothing he could (or would) do.

I fear the same issues with the railway now apply to many other places too, and while analogies about the railway and supermarkets rarely add-up, there are certainly lots of problems in retail and an lax attitude to doing anything about it, not helped by the fact the police aren't interested in shoplifting.

* You might wonder why a store the size of Asda chooses to have times with just one security guard, but a contributory factor might be low-paid staff that don't want hassle, which means hiring more people doesn't noticeably improve detections and management have therefore just accepted the losses.

Asda have in house security who are not SIA licensed (I assume it's the same at all their stores?) and generally do very little in the event of any sort of incident.

 

[Hadders]

Asda have in house security who are not SIA licensed (I assume it's the same at all their stores?) and generally do very little in the event of any sort of incident.

Genuine question - what do you expect a security guard earning around £10 an hour to do? Other than asking someone to stop doing something, and providing a visual deterrent there’s isn’t much they can do.

 

[WesternLancer]

Genuine question - what do you expect a security guard earning around £10 an hour to do? Other than asking someone to stop doing something, and providing a visual deterrent there’s isn’t much they can do.

maybe @Edsmith was outlining the job description

 

[bleeder4]

Fare evasion happens because the railway allows it to happen. I would estimate that on around half of my train journeys this year my ticket was not checked. Until the railway puts travelling ticket inspectors on every single train, then people will always take the risk. If it's a busy route/time of day and there will not be enough time for the ticket inspector to check the whole train, then there needs to be a second one starting from the other end.

Do away with unstaffed stations as well. Every station should be manned during the time period that trains are stopping there. A member of staff can be there on the platform making sure that everyone has a ticket well before the train has even arrived. If there is spare capacity on the line (eg rural lines) then dwell times at stations could be increased, to allow time for tickets to be checked as passengers board the train.

 

[Edsmith]

Genuine question - what do you expect a security guard earning around £10 an hour to do? Other than asking someone to stop doing something, and providing a visual deterrent there’s isn’t much they can do.

Much the same as all forms of civil enforcement including revenue inspectors on the railway.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Oct 2022 ==

Fare evasion happens because the railway allows it to happen. I would estimate that on around half of my train journeys this year my ticket was not checked. Until the railway puts travelling ticket inspectors on every single train, then people will always take the risk. If it's a busy route/time of day and there will not be enough time for the ticket inspector to check the whole train, then there needs to be a second one starting from the other end.

Do away with unstaffed stations as well. Every station should be manned during the time period that trains are stopping there. A member of staff can be there on the platform making sure that everyone has a ticket well before the train has even arrived. If there is spare capacity on the line (eg rural lines) then dwell times at stations could be increased, to allow time for tickets to be checked as passengers board the train.

It's just not practical to have ticket inspectors on every train or staff at every station, locations like Berney Arms for example.

 

[Haywain]

Do away with unstaffed stations as well. Every station should be manned during the time period that trains are stopping there. A member of staff can be there on the platform making sure that everyone has a ticket well before the train has even arrived. If there is spare capacity on the line (eg rural lines) then dwell times at stations could be increased, to allow time for tickets to be checked as passengers board the train.

You’ll be happy with the resulting mass closures of stations and many branch lines then, will you?

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Fare evasion happens because the railway allows it to happen. I would estimate that on around half of my train journeys this year my ticket was not checked. Until the railway puts travelling ticket inspectors on every single train, then people will always take the risk. If it's a busy route/time of day and there will not be enough time for the ticket inspector to check the whole train, then there needs to be a second one starting from the other end.

Do away with unstaffed stations as well. Every station should be manned during the time period that trains are stopping there. A member of staff can be there on the platform making sure that everyone has a ticket well before the train has even arrived. If there is spare capacity on the line (eg rural lines) then dwell times at stations could be increased, to allow time for tickets to be checked as passengers board the train.

Yup. It's part of policing by consent - broadly speaking people are expected to obey the law even though there isn't someone standing there to make sure that they do. We don't just see it on the railways - we see it every day when we drive and stick to the speed limit* and stay on the right side of the road. We see it when we meet someone we don't like in the pub and manage not to murder them.

The alternative is for everything to be regulated with a visible regulator there. That's what's proposed here for the railway, and it would be rejected as too expensive (are there really enough passengers from Burney Arms every day to cover the cost of full time staffing?) just as not having everyone followed around by their onw personalised policeman is not pursued for reasons of costs even before getting on to the moral argument about personal responsibility.

* OK, maybe this isn't a good example

 

[Watershed]

stay on the right side of the road

On the left side, no?

 

[skyhigh]

Every station should be manned during the time period that trains are stopping there.

Berney Arms, Ulleskelf, Blea Moor etc... It would cost more in staffing costs than you'd save in the reduction of fare evasion. And where would these staff work? You couldn't just leave staff on a platform with no facilities for a full shift.

If there is spare capacity on the line (eg rural lines) then dwell times at stations could be increased, to allow time for tickets to be checked as passengers board the train.

And ruin timetables, connections and journey times. I can't say that would be a positive development.

 

[Edsmith]

Yup. It's part of policing by consent - broadly speaking people are expected to obey the law even though there isn't someone standing there to make sure that they do. We don't just see it on the railways - we see it every day when we drive and stick to the speed limit* and stay on the right side of the road. We see it when we meet someone we don't like in the pub and manage not to murder them.

The alternative is for everything to be regulated with a visible regulator there. That's what's proposed here for the railway, and it would be rejected as too expensive (are there really enough passengers from Burney Arms every day to cover the cost of full time staffing?) just as not having everyone followed around by their onw personalised policeman is not pursued for reasons of costs even before getting on to the moral argument about personal responsibility.

* OK, maybe this isn't a good example

I'm sure most reasonable people are happy to comply with the rules of the road to keep us all safe but present them with an opportunity not to pay for their train travel and what's not to like? I'm pretty sure most see it as a victimless crime.

 

[AlterEgo]

Every station should be manned during the time period that trains are stopping there. A member of staff can be there on the platform making sure that everyone has a ticket well before the train has even arrived.

Surely not a serious suggestion?

 

[philthetube]

There is no need to check every train or station all the time, There should be a good chance of being caught if avoiding fares. Tickets checked once on every trips is enough if results of not having a ticket is prosecution or a fine of 25 times the amount saved by not having a ticket.

 

[jon0844]

The £100 penalty fare might well change some people's attitudes (while at the same time potentially causing more chance of conflict with staff). As said, you don't need to be on every station or train to have an impact.

 

[fwsmVor]

The railways would do well to look at the other service where not paying for it is generally accepted: software and digital media. The video games, music and film industries up to the late 2000s tried the most stringent, ridiculous measures to prevent piracy: Sony even resorted to installing malware on their legitimate customers' computers (BMG), supposedly to prevent copying but actually providing an unvetted backdoor into the system. Video games publishers would often force users to insert the game's disk every time they wanted to play it (so no listening to a CD and playing a game at the same time), and the film industry lobbied to make DVDs region-locked and Blu-rays encrypted with a proprietary CSS key.
All these measures were very easily defeated by anyone with the slightest motivation. What stopped piracy being so commonplace was convenience of buying. The rise of Steam, Netflix and Spotify meant that it was, for the first time, genuinely easier to buy media than to illegally download it.
The railways, right now, have not worked that out. They insist on more and more stringent punishments and opaque regulations, which serve to penalise infrequent travellers who have made a genuine mistake, whilst genuine deliberate evaders figure out how to trivially get around them, and share these tips on social media.
If the railways wanted to make it easier to pay than to evade, they'd install universal tap-in-tap-out (with the readers at multiple positions on every platform, not tucked in some obscure corner of the country end of the least-used platform, coughGWRcough), and perhaps a system like the "forgotten railcard" scheme: once a year (enforced by having to present valid ID), you're allowed to buy onboard. I suspect they wouldn't do this, because it would mean they couldn't squeeze the young and the elderly for hundreds in "admin fees" any more.

 

[Kite159]

The railways would do well to look at the other service where not paying for it is generally accepted: software and digital media. The video games, music and film industries up to the late 2000s tried the most stringent, ridiculous measures to prevent piracy: Sony even resorted to installing malware on their legitimate customers' computers (BMG), supposedly to prevent copying but actually providing an unvetted backdoor into the system. Video games publishers would often force users to insert the game's disk every time they wanted to play it (so no listening to a CD and playing a game at the same time), and the film industry lobbied to make DVDs region-locked and Blu-rays encrypted with a proprietary CSS key.
All these measures were very easily defeated by anyone with the slightest motivation. What stopped piracy being so commonplace was convenience of buying. The rise of Steam, Netflix and Spotify meant that it was, for the first time, genuinely easier to buy media than to illegally download it.
The railways, right now, have not worked that out. They insist on more and more stringent punishments and opaque regulations, which serve to penalise infrequent travellers who have made a genuine mistake, whilst genuine deliberate evaders figure out how to trivially get around them, and share these tips on social media.
If the railways wanted to make it easier to pay than to evade, they'd install universal tap-in-tap-out (with the readers at multiple positions on every platform, not tucked in some obscure corner of the country end of the least-used platform, coughGWRcough), and perhaps a system like the "forgotten railcard" scheme: once a year (enforced by having to present valid ID), you're allowed to buy onboard. I suspect they wouldn't do this, because it would mean they couldn't squeeze the young and the elderly for hundreds in "admin fees" any more.

I dare say the rise of e-tickets and buying on apps has made it easier for passengers to buy tickets. Especially at those stations which don't have ticket offices and the queue for the TVM can get long

 

[Fawkes Cat]

They insist on more and more stringent punishments and opaque regulations,

Would you care to expand on this? I can think of the published timetable of the day, and the (not yet implemented?) increase in the penalty fare, but that's all. Which doesn't feel like 'more and more' but 'a couple of increases in stringency'.

 

[Haywain]

If the railways wanted to make it easier to pay than to evade, they'd install universal tap-in-tap-out (with the readers at multiple positions on every platform,

I think you need to post this in the Speculative Ideas forum. But first, consider maximum journey time, maximum fares, and things like how you deal with those who don’t have a balance high enough to cover their fare and those don’t have contactless cards - the last two of which sound like being a free pass for fare evaders.

 

[Watershed]

Would you care to expand on this? I can think of the published timetable of the day, and the (not yet implemented?) increase in the penalty fare, but that's all. Which doesn't feel like 'more and more' but 'a couple of increases in stringency'.

I think the advent people having their purchase history investigated and then being threatened with prosecutions on the basis of (at best) circumstantial evidence can also be added to that category. Similarly with Delay Repay claims, as per what Greater Anglia did last year.

And if you look over a longer period, the 2005 Byelaws introduced a strict liability offence for ticketless travel. That was a major, and highly problematic, change.