Do We Really Need Ticket Offices?

[AlterEgo]

Typical economist view of life - you REALLY REALLY think a young female feels safer at an unstaffed South London station as opposed to a staffed underground station? This is the typical cut everything to the bone cheapskate view - cheapest is not best and you get what you pay for.

How the hell is my point NOT VALID ? Certainly not because you think it isn't. You think most people feel safer and there is less vandalism at Walkden of Fazakerley?
You may not like to hear this but reality is people DON'T feel safer at unstaffed stations - why don't you try asking them instead of believing obviously weighted bull**** customer "satisfaction" surveys.

Could you explain how the National Passenger Survey is "obviously weighted"?

 

[Mutant Lemming]

Actually they don't, if you look at the Transport Focus NPS scores, for years and TOCs where lines went DOO or ticket offices got closed.

Woo Hooo - so let's believe manipulated b/s .
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Could you explain how the National Passenger Survey is "obviously weighted"?

mainly down to the where and when people are asked - try asking people arriving at Charing Cross after 10pm if they felt safer waiting at Eltham or at Charing Cross.

 

[HH]

However, it is possible that the TOC's would lose out in that if they are taking a profit of (say) 3% of the turnover, then if turnover falls then if their percentage stays the same then their profit will fall. In that 3% of £100 (£3) is more than 3% of £90 (£2.70), to retain the £3 profit their share would have to rise to 3.33%. Therefore either the TOC takes a hit (£2.70 rather than £3) or the tax payer takes even more of a hit (£10.30 rather than £10).

You're still wrong. If the revenue drops due to DfT changing fares then their profit is protected by the change mechanism; it doesn't stay at a % of revenue.

TOCs (note no apostrophe) would actually like ticketing to be sorted, because at the moment it's actually a risk to their profit. It's the DfT that are hanging on to the status quo.

 

[cjp]

Hi,

Just wondering, with all of this new technology coming out, is there really a need for stations on the mainline and light rail/underground to have ticket offices? Self serving ticket machines are becoming the norm now, and there are usually plenty of staff to help you if you get stuck. Also, online booking is becoming more common, and you also pick your tickets up from the machines!

I'd like to hear other people's views and opinions.

Thanks

From my thread on today's pet hates http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=134112

And whilst I am at it – self service check outs or ticket machines for that matter. I am being asked to do what was a real persons job for which I receive nothing, no discount, no pay and if I get a faster service it is because the companies concerned have chosen, rather than to have extra staff, to put me to work for them. This as we know swells company's profits and leads to fewer being employed and less checkouts or ticket offices being in place. And as for those Judas goats (sometimes called queue busters) inviting you to leave the queue and tackle a machine I tell them quite clearly I am not doing someone else's job, that their company need more staff in place and ask why do they not get themselves doing something more useful.

 

[AlterEgo]

Woo Hooo - so let's believe manipulated b/s .
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


mainly down to the where and when people are asked - try asking people arriving at Charing Cross after 10pm if they felt safer waiting at Eltham or at Charing Cross.

I have pretty good knowledge of the NPS methodology and they are specific in asking about the TOC or journey concerned, not the location concerned. They do some on-train surveys as well as surveys on stations themselves.

Think about it. The NPS is done by Transport Focus. This is a body whose whole raison d'être is to highlight shortcomings in the rail service. What possible motive would they have to paint TOCs in a better light than they deserve?

 

[Bletchleyite]

TOCs (note no apostrophe) would actually like ticketing to be sorted, because at the moment it's actually a risk to their profit. It's the DfT that are hanging on to the status quo.

The problem is that the way the TOCs want it sorted is full commercial freedom, which is unlikely to simplify anything, other than that Any Permitted tickets would totally disappear.

 

[Llanigraham]

It will work if you load a valid ticket onto it.

Which we cannot do in england, since it is a WELSH card!
Don't blame me, blame your Westminster government for not allowing reciprocal arrangements.

 

[transmanche]

Which we cannot do in england, since it is a WELSH card!

Of course you can, so long as it an ITSO card - and if it's not, it can easily be replaced with one that is ITSO compliant.

Don't blame me, blame your Westminster government for not allowing reciprocal arrangements.

What are you guffing on about? This isn't anything to do with the extent of your current concession, it's about what information can be stored on the card!

 

[PermitToTravel]

Which we cannot do in england, since it is a WELSH card!

Wanna bet?

 

[Gareth Marston]

I have pretty good knowledge of the NPS methodology and they are specific in asking about the TOC or journey concerned, not the location concerned. They do some on-train surveys as well as surveys on stations themselves.

Think about it. The NPS is done by Transport Focus. This is a body whose whole raison d'être is to highlight shortcomings in the rail service. What possible motive would they have to paint TOCs in a better light than they deserve?

passenger Focus was set up as a body that would "tow the party line" by darlings Transport Act of 2005 asNew Labour couldn't stand any independent comment criticism.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

Many, many holders of the Senior Railcard, I would suggest. Takeup would very probably drop significantly if it moved to online only. Groups representing the target market for Disabled Railcards are also likely to have something to say about it.

'new' business for senior railcards are people born in the mid - late 1950s

arguments based around the technological lack of exposure of those born in the 1930s are increasingly less relevant...

the 'new retiree' today is likely to be a social media user, probably on a smartphone , and if not on a tablet or laptop ...

 

[AlterEgo]

passenger Focus was set up as a body that would "tow the party line" by darlings Transport Act of 2005 asNew Labour couldn't stand any independent comment criticism.

Yes, it's all a big conspiracy. :roll:

 

[Dave1987]

Actually they don't, if you look at the Transport Focus NPS scores, for years and TOCs where lines went DOO or ticket offices got closed.

Hmmm it would seem TFL believe passengers want stations staffed all the time. Was one of their key pledges when they took over the Liv St - Shenfield Metros.

 

[AlterEgo]

Hmmm it would seem TFL believe passengers want stations staffed all the time. Was one of their key pledges when they took over the Liv St - Shenfield Metros.

They're not that bothered about ticket offices though (lots of the stations are barriered which mean staff are essential, so not a difficult pledge to make).

On ticket offices:

5.2 The Operator may seek to obtain consent from the Secretary of State to amend the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement to provide for alternative ticket office opening and closing hours at each Operator Station from those set out in schedule 17 of the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement

 

[All Line Rover]

If the TOCs and DfT really would be the clear winners from this then it beggars belief it's not been done already, doesn't it?

What DfT civil servants want and what their master - the government - considers politically viable does not necessarily overlap.

ATOC have for years wanted a system where passengers must select the specific train operator they will travel with (in both directions) and the specific route they will travel on. "Simple", and profitable for the train operators, but highly restrictive and not acceptable with the public.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But the vast majority of people do not actually want reams of choice and make complex decisions, they want a simple system. They want to feel reassured that they have the best value ticket for their needs, and that they have not missed out on a better deal.

Mrs Evans does not want to know that there is a combination of three tickets (each with vastly different conditions) that is cheaper than the one she really wants. She feels ripped off as a result.

Where split ticketing occurs, especially on interavailable tickets, you have a winning TOC and a losing TOC too. The losing TOC is usually an InterCity one.

So in the case of Bristol to Birmingham, you propose to increase the Bristol to Cheltenham CDR (currently £9) and Cheltenham to Birmingham SVR (currently £25) so that, when combined, they are equal to the Bristol to Birmingham SOR (£109) which is the cheapest walk-up through fare for a passenger wishing to travel on the 09:00 from Bristol to Birmingham and returning the same day? Even if you propose to increase the former two fares by 50% and halve the latter fare, I can't see that going down well with passengers or the TOCs.

 

[AlterEgo]

So in the case of Bristol to Birmingham, you propose to increase the Bristol to Cheltenham CDR (currently £9) and Cheltenham to Birmingham SVR (currently £25) so that, when combined, they are equal to the Bristol to Birmingham SOR (£109) which is the cheapest walk-up through fare for a passenger wishing to travel on the 09:00 from Bristol to Birmingham and returning the same day? Even if you propose to increase the former two fares by 50% and halve the latter fare, I can't see that going down well with passengers or the TOCs.

I'd propose making all fares single fares, so that one might mix off peak and peak journeys without having to pay the full Anytime fare.

I'd abolish CDRs, as part of that. There should be no distinction between a day ticket and a period ticket if all fares were singles. All single tickets would be valid for one day only. Off peak singles would be half the price of the current SVR fare.

I would advocate entirely removing the current fares structure and deleting it overnight, and replacing it with something entirely new. A zonal structure would probably be the best way forward but I am not married to that idea. The Routeing guide should be binned entirely and all journeys made based on the most direct route only. Routes which are less direct may have their own fare.

For too long the railway has been obsessed with catering to niche requests and it is partly this which has led to the confusing myriad of products available. The vast, vast majority (over 99%) of journeys made are by people wanting to go from A to B via the most direct route possible in the confidence that the ticket they hold is the best value available for their journey.

As you illustrate, some losers will come out of that scenario, and some of them would be heavy losers. Some routes may even cease to be viable as a going concern. I accept all of this. I still think it's the best way forward - and the only one in fact.

 

[Dave1987]

They're not that bothered about ticket offices though (lots of the stations are barriered which mean staff are essential, so not a difficult pledge to make).

On ticket offices:

Im sure you could find a creative way of getting rid of barrier line staff :roll: most posts I read of yours are about how staff can be got rid of.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Hmmm it would seem TFL believe passengers want stations staffed all the time. Was one of their key pledges when they took over the Liv St - Shenfield Metros.

Staff are more use for ensuring personal safety when not hidden behind glass in a ticket office, often well away from the platform.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[AlterEgo]

Im sure you could find a creative way of getting rid of barrier line staff :roll: most posts I read of yours are about how staff can be got rid of.

You probably don't read much of the forum then Dave. If I was being equally dismissive, I could say that most of your posts are formed around ensuring there are as many jobs as possible.

A creative way? You wouldn't need to be creative to demolish a barrier. I dislike barriers strongly. On train ticket checks are - in my opinion - much more effective (but that person wouldn't be opening or closing the doors!)

I haven't missed the fact you didn't disagree with the factual material I posted, which shows that the contract with MTR does indeed give them options to close or reduce the hours of ticket offices. I would be interested to see the sales figures of those ticket offices and what products they sell.

 

[All Line Rover]

I'd propose making all fares single fares, so that one might mix off peak and peak journeys without having to pay the full Anytime fare.

I'd abolish CDRs, as part of that. There should be no distinction between a day ticket and a period ticket if all fares were singles. All single tickets would be valid for one day only. Off peak singles would be half the price of the current SVR fare.

I would advocate entirely removing the current fares structure and deleting it overnight, and replacing it with something entirely new. A zonal structure would probably be the best way forward but I am not married to that idea. The Routeing guide should be binned entirely and all journeys made based on the most direct route only. Routes which are less direct may have their own fare.

For too long the railway has been obsessed with catering to niche requests and it is partly this which has led to the confusing myriad of products available. The vast, vast majority (over 99%) of journeys made are by people wanting to go from A to B via the most direct route possible in the confidence that the ticket they hold is the best value available for their journey.

As you illustrate, some losers will come out of that scenario, and some of them would be heavy losers. Some routes may even cease to be viable as a going concern. I accept all of this. I still think it's the best way forward - and the only one in fact.

As I understand it, this would mean setting prices for distances between stations and calculating the fare charged by combining the prices for distances between the stations passed, with the total fare varying depending on the route taken.

When would peak start/end? If it starts at 09:30, how would your proposal obviate the benefit of buying a peak ticket to Cheltenham Spa (for departing Bristol at 09:00) and an off-peak ticket from Cheltenham Spa (for departing Cheltenham Spa at 09:42)?

How would season tickets be affected?

Would off-peak single fares need to rise above 50% of existing off-peak return fares to reflect the fact that, if all fares are single fares, passengers may be more inclined to combine peak single with off-peak single fares? Would this result in significant fare rises for passengers who currently make return journeys wholly during off-peak hours?

And overall, what would you estimate the single fare to be for the following journeys:

A: Bristol to Birmingham any time at or after 09:00?

B: Bristol to Cheltenham Spa any time at or after 09:00?

C: Cheltenham Spa to Birmingham any time at or after 09:30?

If the answer to B and C is "double the existing fare" or even "triple the existing fare" - just for this particular example - it will be a struggle to convince the entire population that the new system is an improvement purely because it is simpler.

 

[transmanche]

Staff are more use for ensuring personal safety when not hidden behind glass in a ticket office, often well away from the platform.

Exactly! TfL is more concerned about stations being staffed from first train to last train, than having tickets offices. All LO (plus LU & TfL Rail and, in the future, Crossrail) stations are staffed from first train to last train, even though not all stations have a ticket office.

 

[All Line Rover]

For too long the railway has been obsessed with catering to niche requests and it is partly this which has led to the confusing myriad of products available. The vast, vast majority (over 99%) of journeys made are by people wanting to go from A to B via the most direct route possible in the confidence that the ticket they hold is the best value available for their journey.

I would highly recommend looking at the fares between Nuneaton and Milton Keynes (Advance, walk-up, and season) and telling us which you would abolish.

 

[AlterEgo]

As I understand it, this would mean setting prices for distances between stations and calculating the fare charged by combining the prices for distances between the stations passed, with the total fare varying depending on the route taken.

When would peak start/end? If it starts at 09:30, how would your proposal obviate the benefit of buying a peak ticket to Cheltenham Spa (for departing Bristol at 09:00) and an off-peak ticket from Cheltenham Spa (for departing Cheltenham Spa at 09:42)?

How would season tickets be affected?

Would off-peak single fares need to rise above 50% of existing off-peak return fares to reflect the fact that, if all fares are single fares, passengers may be more inclined to combine peak single with off-peak single fares? Would this result in significant fare rises for passengers who currently make return journeys wholly during off-peak hours?

And overall, what would you estimate the single fare to be for the following journeys:

A: Bristol to Birmingham any time at or after 09:00?

B: Bristol to Cheltenham Spa any time at or after 09:00?

C: Cheltenham Spa to Birmingham any time at or after 09:30?

If the answer to B and C is "double the existing fare" or even "triple the existing fare" - just for this particular example - it will be a struggle to convince the entire population that the new system is an improvement purely because it is simpler.

You are never going to eradicate split ticketing on direct journeys for as long as paper tickets exist. It doesn't matter what system you have, there will always be anomalies like you mention. Split ticketing would be a great deal less attractive if you had to activate your ticket on a reader at a station. Or if your ticket system was PAYG like Oyster. There may even be ways of storing or paying for tickets that we haven't even thought of yet.

I'm not going to speculate what the fares might be for certain flows, but the answer to some flows might indeed be to double the fare, or more! I am entirely comfortable with passengers combining singles between peak and off peak to save money, because it is true that some other fares may rise quite a bit.

Hard choices. In the 1960s whole railway lines were entirely closed, yet the railway as a public service continued to function and became more efficient. It may be that certain lines like the Esk Valley line become uneconomical to run, and significant change or even closure may happen.

It would be a hard sell, you're right.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I would highly recommend looking at the fares between Nuneaton and Milton Keynes (Advance, walk-up, and season) and telling us which you would abolish.

All of them.

I'd replace them with a season, a peak single, an off peak single (valid after 0900/0930 whatever), and the TOCs may set whatever advances they like. The only permitted route would be the most direct one, up the WCML proper. So, if LM want people to go via Northampton they'll have to set an Advance fare to do so. Yup, means less choice and some loss of flexibility. Hard sell.

 

[All Line Rover]

You are never going to eradicate split ticketing for as long as paper tickets exist. It doesn't matter what system you have, there will always be anomalies like you mention. Split ticketing would be a great deal less attractive if you had to activate your ticket on a reader at a station. Or if your ticket system was PAYG like Oyster. There may even be ways of storing or paying for tickets that we haven't even thought of yet.

I'm not going to speculate what the fares might be for certain flows, but the answer to some flows might indeed be to double the fare, or more! I am entirely comfortable with passengers combining singles between peak and off peak to save money, because it is true that some other fares may rise quite a bit.

Hard choices. In the 1960s whole railway lines were entirely closed, yet the railway as a public service continued to function and became more efficient. It may be that certain lines like the Esk Valley line become uneconomical to run, and significant change or even closure may happen.

It would be a hard sell, you're right.

To eradicate split-ticketing through the eroding of passenger rights is effectively to say "we know you can save money by doing X, so we're going to stop you doing X". Not particularly compelling from a voter's perspective.

Smart ticketing would, in any case, be compatible with split-ticketing (such as combining peak and off-peak fares) if, as is already the case with m-tickets, all passengers need to do is activate the appropriate ticket before departing from the origin station on that ticket.

If I was a civil servant in the rail division of the DfT and aimed to achieve the government's financial objectives, increasing fares to the level at which the maximum revenue is generated, regardless of whether patronage in terms of passenger numbers decreases, would be my goal. But I would appreciate that this is not politically viable and that reducing rail subsidy, while one of the government's considerations, is not the government's sole consideration.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'd replace them with a season, a peak single, an off peak single (valid after 0900/0930 whatever), and the TOCs may set whatever advances they like. The only permitted route would be the most direct one, up the WCML proper. So, if LM want people to go via Northampton they'll have to set an Advance fare to do so. Yup, means less choice and some loss of flexibility. Hard sell.

I'd like that, other than the removal of the routes via Northampton (and Coventry). What if Rugby to Milton Keynes avoiding Northampton was determined to be the more expensive route? And even if the route via Northampton was, remarkably, determined to be the more expensive route, would passengers holding walk-up tickets be forbidden from travelling on e.g. the 18:49 ex. Euston? And by removing the route via Coventry, Nuneaton to Milton Keynes commuters would only be able to arrive in Milton Keynes at 07:13 or 08:55!

Regardless of the permitted routes issue, the TOCs will be unlikely to accept simplification in the manner described (another example being Milton Keynes to London) unless the average fare were to increase, perhaps substantially.

And with respect to Nuneaton to Milton Keynes, who would set the fares? Currently it is Virgin Trains, but London Midland operate the vast majority of services between these stations. If Virgin Trains were to price the fares, passengers would end up paying intercity-level peak time fares to travel on mediocre trains (particularly first class on the 350s): there is no sensibly-timed Nuneaton to Milton Keynes VTWC service on a weekday morning. But if London Midland were to price the fares, would Virgin Trains be happy with first class fares between Milton Keynes and Nuneaton (for which there are two premium VTWC evening peak trains with a comprehensive meal service) substantially decreasing?

 

[AlterEgo]

To eradicate split-ticketing through the eroding of passenger rights is effectively to say "we know you can save money by doing X, so we're going to stop you doing X". Not particularly compelling from a voter's perspective.

Smart ticketing would, in any case, be compatible with split-ticketing (such as combining peak and off-peak fares) if, as is already the case with m-tickets, all passengers need to do is activate the appropriate ticket before departing from the origin station on that ticket.

If I was a civil servant in the rail division of the DfT and aimed to achieve the government's financial objectives, increasing fares to the level at which the maximum revenue is generated, regardless of whether patronage in terms of passenger numbers decreases, would be my goal. But I would appreciate that it is not politically viable, and that reducing rail subsidy, while one of the government's considerations, is not the government's sole consideration.

It is not compelling at all from a voter's perspective, but none of the elections in recent memory have been fought with the railways as a principal issue.

Split ticketing is not really the core issue - in fact, in some situations passengers actually *expect* to split their tickets. Sometimes when switching between what they consider to the the "mainline" and a "branch", or when transferring between TOCs for example. The ticketing system should be intuitive and comply as closely as possible to the preconceived notions the public have. Passengers shouldn't have to learn the system.

If I could change just one thing about the "system" it would be the standardisation of Off Peak nationally.

Much of the opposition to wholesale simplification of the system and the removal of loopholes comes from those who take most advantage of them.

 

[All Line Rover]

It is not compelling at all from a voter's perspective, but none of the elections in recent memory have been fought with the railways as a principal issue.

True, but one gets the distinct impression that appeasing the "hard-working commuter" is - rightly - an important consideration for all political parties.

Split ticketing is not really the core issue - in fact, in some situations passengers actually *expect* to split their tickets. Sometimes when switching between what they consider to the the "mainline" and a "branch", or when transferring between TOCs for example. The ticketing system should be intuitive and comply as closely as possible to the preconceived notions the public have. Passengers shouldn't have to learn the system.

Much of this could be done by the TOCs right now, as with Nuneaton to Milton Keynes or Milton Keynes to London, though it might be construed as collusive if TOCs aren't instructed to co-operate by the DfT.

If I could change just one thing about the "system" it would be the standardisation of Off Peak nationally.

A standardisation of off-peak restrictions would not eliminate the benefit of splitting tickets at certain times of day, although it would at least make it easier for passengers to understand when it is appropriate to do so.

Much of the opposition to wholesale simplification of the system and the removal of loopholes comes from those who take most advantage of them.

And by those who are against fare rises masquerading as "simplification".

 

[AlterEgo]

How would you fix the system? Or do you not think it is broken?

 

[All Line Rover]

How would you fix the system? Or do you not think it is broken?

I believe it to be a fudge in which all parties are at a stalemate, and where any wholesale changes would not be acceptable to at least one of the three main stakeholders (government, rail industry, passengers). Much, if not most, of the complexity is caused by government fares regulation, but there were good reasons for its implementation and good reasons remain for its retention.

I would rather that focus were directed towards removing unnecessary tickets (e.g. Advance fares which are higher than walk-up single fares, and TOC-specific fares which are higher than, or almost the same price as, Any Permitted fares) and, even more importantly, creating greater uniformity in the fares structure. For example, deciding that all intercity TOCs should offer SOR, SVR and SSR tickets, deciding that all intercity TOCs should offer single tickets at 60% of the price of return tickets, and deciding on a single time restriction to apply to all off-peak, and super-off-peak, tickets.

 

[Dave1987]

You probably don't read much of the forum then Dave. If I was being equally dismissive, I could say that most of your posts are formed around ensuring there are as many jobs as possible.

A creative way? You wouldn't need to be creative to demolish a barrier. I dislike barriers strongly. On train ticket checks are - in my opinion - much more effective (but that person wouldn't be opening or closing the doors!)

I haven't missed the fact you didn't disagree with the factual material I posted, which shows that the contract with MTR does indeed give them options to close or reduce the hours of ticket offices. I would be interested to see the sales figures of those ticket offices and what products they sell.

Well in the economy several people on this thread seem to envision would have mass unemployment as they seem to be determined to replace humans with machines in as many ways as possible. We should be protecting as many jobs as possible not looking at getting rid of them.

 

[AlterEgo]

Well in the economy several people on this thread seem to envision would have mass unemployment as they seem to be determined to replace humans with machines in as many ways as possible. We should be protecting as many jobs as possible not looking at getting rid of them.

Yes, let's keep people in ticket offices, behind glass, because change is bad and everyone needs a job....!