First post - split ticket challenged today

[Flamingo]

Probably not. Oyster I have to accept as I can't prove, but I'd interpret Ealing to Didcot and Didcot to Swindon as two seperate tickets. We have to accept a season and a ticket (oyster and ticket to Didcot), but the extra ticket Didcot - Swindon would be a bridge too far. I'd probably compromise by excessing them the difference between the Ealing-Swindon ticket and whatever they had paid. If they wished to appeal this, I'd happily furnish them with addresses and receipts and a form and my first name. If they refused this, I might do them a UPFN for the full fare Reading - Swindon and let them sort it out with the TOC depending on how much time I have, my mood and their attitude. If it was before Reading and they wouldn't go for either option, I'd involve Revenue at Reading, or gateline at Swindon.

If it's something that correspondence to the TOC hasn't already clarified, then I'm not far enough up the food chain to do so, and will probably revert to the "Is this reasonable and done by a lot of people, or is it someone being a smart-ass", and nobody loves a smart-ass!

 

[John @ home]

We have to accept a season and a ticket (oyster and ticket to Didcot), but the extra ticket Didcot - Swindon would be a bridge too far.

The National Rail Conditions of Carriage allow

• one (and only one) season ticket or leisure pass, and
• an unlimited number of other tickets, none of which which are season tickets or leisure passes.

19. Using a combination of tickets

You may use two or more tickets for one journey as long as together they cover the entire journey and one of the following applies: ...

(c) one of the tickets is a Season Ticket (which for this purpose does not include Season Tickets or travel passes issued on behalf of a passenger transport executive or local authority) or a leisure travel pass, and the other ticket(s) is/are not.

http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/system/galleries/download/misc/NRCOC.pdf

 

[yorkie]

Flamingo - that's a risky course of action to take. ATOC have already stated that it is valid.

 

[Flamingo]

As i said, it is one of the more esoteric combinations (I've not come across it in five years of working trains from London daily and checking thousands of tickets weekly, which must say a lot about how often it is used), and I've stated what I'd have done if I'd been presented with it tonight.

However, as I've now been informed what it is, I'll look out for it.

The problem with Oyster cards (season ticket attached or not) is at this stage, we have no way of checking them, which I suspect is being abused, given the number of short tickets and a piece of plastic combinations that get shown to us. Especially given that I can see no attempt being made to touch out when we come in on un-barriered platforms.

There is an assumption from some posters (rightly or wrongly) that the average train guard knows (or should know) the fare manual inside out and all possible routes and combinations. That's simply not true, and to be honest, if those outside the industry know the level of training and updates we receive you'd probably be horrified. Revenue is the thing we have the highest profile for, and receive most flak over, but is one of the least important or supported parts of the Train Guards job.

I'm not commenting about RPI's, but from my experience, Train Guards do tickets when they are bored and have nothing more interesting to do. They are very far down the list of priorities, and are the first thing that get abandoned in pretty much any circumstance.

Most (99%) ticketing disputes are pretty straightforward, and involve either no ticket at all, wrong route, missing railcard or wrong time (advanced or off-peak tickets) and usually involve the mysterious "man on the platform" who said it would be OK! They don't take a PhD to work out, and my usual approach is to only take money from someone if I am pretty certain that I am in the right.

 

[yorkie]

The problem with Oyster cards (season ticket attached or not) is at this stage, we have no way of checking them, which I suspect is being abused, given the number of short tickets and a piece of plastic combinations that get shown to us.

That's no evidence of them being abused. However if you have concerns, let management know and ask if they can supply readers (I suspect you will tell me this has already been requested! If so, any news on that?)

Especially given that I can see no attempt being made to touch out when we come in on un-barriered platforms

Why would anyone need to touch in or out?

There is an assumption from some posters (rightly or wrongly) that the average train guard knows (or should know) the fare manual inside out and all possible routes and combinations. That's simply not true, and to be honest, if those outside the industry know the level of training and updates we receive you'd probably be horrified. Revenue is the thing we have the highest profile for, and receive most flak over, but is one of the least important or supported parts of the Train Guards job.

If you don't know it you have 2 acceptable choices
1) Look it up (or ask Control to); or
2) Accept it

(Or a combination of the two - accept it for now, and ask us so you know for next time! )

Yes I know it's time consuming but charging passengers and getting them to sort it out later when they may be perfectly valid is not really acceptable! You wouldn't expect to be charged more for a meal in a restaurant and write to head office asking for a refund if you got it wrong. You'd likely put a complaint, the member of staff would be told to disappear, and you'd never return. OK so railways are not the same I know, but customers can't be assumed to be wrong on the basis of the guard not knowing.

I'm not commenting about RPI's, but from my experience, Train Guards do tickets when they are bored and have nothing more interesting to do. They are very far down the list of priorities, and are the first thing that get abandoned in pretty much any circumstance.

Most (99%) ticketing disputes are pretty straightforward, and involve either no ticket at all, wrong route, missing railcard or wrong time (advanced or off-peak tickets) and usually involve the mysterious "man on the platform" who said it would be OK! They don't take a PhD to work out, and my usual approach is to only take money from someone if I am pretty certain that I am in the right.

Yes I agree with this, but people using combinations and unusual (but valid) tickets etc are only going to get more common as the fares unfairly increase at ludicrous rates and people get wise to the magic of splitting and buying further, and the routes available in the Routeing Guide.

 

[Flamingo]

As the restaurant analogy is so favoured around here, if you turned up at a restaurant and asked the waiter for a special meal not on the menu, or a mix of side orders and items not on a listed dish and said "You have all the ingredients in other dishes, make this for me" - if the chef had never been asked for it before and does not know how, they are liable to refuse. Also, if the dish has not been analysed in terms of costs, the restaurateur would be entitled to err on the side of caution when working out what to charge the customer.

When it comes to revenue, my aim is to protect the revenue coming in, as that is what ultimately pays my wages. When in doubt, I am prepared to charge, as if the combination is not correct, I seriously doubt that Joe Bloggs is going to write in with a cheque the next day saying he underpaid, but there is a mechanism in place to allow Joe Bloggs to claim back any overpayment (and probably a bit more as well as an apology for the "misunderstanding"). A briefing will ultimately find it's way to the coal-face to say that a potential problem has been flagged up by customer services and the company approach to it is to allow or not, and on past experience, a "please explain" will probably end up in my pigeon-hole as well. (Still, it does give my manager something to read on a Monday morning )

In the real world, if there are 400+ people on my train coming out of London on an evening, I'm not going to spend 10 of the 15 to 25 minutes I have between stops ringing Control, who are trying to co-ordinate several dozen trains across a large part of the country, to ask if somebody may be free to look up the fares manual to work out if a certain combination is legal or not for just one passenger. (or to take the tickets and issue a UPFN which is also extremely time-consuming). Also, I'm not going to delay the 400-odd passengers (and the equally crowded trains behind) whilst I wait at Reading to work it out after calling the Revenue staff to the train to get their opinion. My starting point is going to be the A to B fare and the more "usual" combinations, and one of the down sides to passengers of using a "rare" combination is that the user can expect to have to argue the legality of it with the revenue staff.

That may not be right in a perfect world, but it's the reality of it.

The analogy was made earlier that if someone pays for three DVD's and the individual DVD's are £4 cheaper than a boxed set then they still have the DVD's to look at, but they can't then complain that they don't have the box. A lot of the split ticketing issues I come up against on a day to day basis are people who want the cheaper fares that split ticketing bring, but don't want the hassle or restrictions this brings. They want the cheaper DVD's but also want the pretty box to keep it all together with. The less you pay, the more potential hassle or restrictions is a maxim of life, not just when it comes to rail travel.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Interesting little hypothetical question to throw into the split ticketing subject.

Tickets split at Didcot, train reaches Didcot on time, but then delayed for over 1 hour due to signal failure at Uffington.

To my mind it's only the Didcot onwards portion that compensation would be able to be claimed on, as the journey to Didcot was unaffected.

Any thoughts?

 

[John @ home]

To my mind it's only the Didcot onwards portion that compensation would be able to be claimed on, as the journey to Didcot was unaffected.

Prior to this happening to me, I wondered about this too. It has now happened to me twice.

On NXEC my party had straightforward splits, that is A-B and B-C. I took photocopies of all the tickets and the claim, then sent all the originals in one envelope with one claim form. NXEC did their usual trick of "losing" the claim. A month later, I made more copies and sent them to the NXEC MD and to Passenger Focus. This promptly produced compensation for all the tickets, both A-B and B-C, rounded up to the next pound for each passenger, giving a total a few pounds more than I expected.

This also got me promoted to the NXEC list of passengers receiving 24-hour turnround on their claims. I remained on that list until they handed back the keys, but it appears the list was not passed on to East Coast.

On ATW we had overlapping splits, that is A-C and B-D where the journey was A-B-C-D. As it happened, the delay occurred between B and C where each of us had two valid travel tickets. Once again, we received the correct compensation for all tickets submitted, in this instance without any rounding up.

If you're looking for a technical reason for this method of calculation, I suspect it's the phrase You may use two or more tickets for one journey at the start of Condition 19. Both NXEC and ATW calculated the compensation on the basis that we were undertaking one journey.

 

[yorkie]

Flamingo - my thoughts are that you appear to be refusing valid ticket combinations and that this should be taken very seriously. If you want to be challenged on it, we can arrange for someone to use a combination and we can then post the outcome here (including the complaint to FGW and their response when you carry out your intended actions), if you wish to be open about it. I would certainly not advise that for your sake though.

The idea that "the journey to Didcot was unaffected" indicates a lack of knowledge on the NRCoC. This is probably due to lack of training.

19. Using a combination of tickets
You may use two or more tickets for one journey as long as together they cover the entire journey and one of the following applies:
(a) they are both Zonal Tickets (unless special conditions prohibit their use);
(b) the train you are in calls at a station where you change from one
ticket to another; or
(c) one of the tickets is a Season Ticket (which for this purpose does not include
Season Tickets or travel passes issued on behalf of a passenger transport
executive or local authority) or a leisure travel pass, and the other ticket(s) is/are not.

So your argument is contrary to the conditions of carriage.

You cannot simply ignore them. If you admit to ignoring them and over-charging customers you are inviting legitimate complaints leading to possible disciplinary action. I would urge you to re-consider.

If anyone else was contemplating making up their own rules and over-charging customers in ANY other service industry, they could expect to be picking up their P45 when their boss gets to hear about it. You may not like analogies but that is undeniable. Yes I admit railways are not quite the same as any other service industry, and you have the strongest union around so I wouldn't suggest a guard would be sacked for this, but in any other industry it would be playing with fire, and I still think even in the rail industry it is a risky business to invent conditions and overcharge customers and deny them rights in the conditions of carriage on the basis that they can sort it out later.

I believe it's unacceptable but if you want to put this to the test it could be arranged, if you wish, but I would urge you to reconsider.

In the real world, if there are 400+ people on my train coming out of London on an evening, I'm not going to spend 10 of the 15 to 25 minutes I have between stops ringing Control, who are trying to co-ordinate several dozen trains across a large part of the country, to ask if somebody may be free to look up the fares manual to work out if a certain combination is legal or not for just one passenger. (or to take the tickets and issue a UPFN which is also extremely time-consuming). Also, I'm not going to delay the 400-odd passengers (and the equally crowded trains behind) whilst I wait at Reading to work it out after calling the Revenue staff to the train to get their opinion. My starting point is going to be the A to B fare and the more "usual" combinations, and one of the down sides to passengers of using a "rare" combination is that the user can expect to have to argue the legality of it with the revenue staff.

Is this is a coded way of saying you will eject someone with a valid combination that you don't like and don't want to check at Reading?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The less you pay, the more potential hassle or restrictions is a maxim of life, not just when it comes to rail travel.

This suggests that splitting always means the customer pays less. DaveNewcastle made the point earlier this is not necessarily the case! Someone may have already bought one ticket and not know about excesses (or the staff didn't want the hassle and sold a point to point ticket instead of an excess) or may be doing a circular route not permitted on one ticket.

Just because someone has paid less for a combination does NOT mean that they should experience "hassle" on their journeys. I do not believe anyone should expect "hassle" just for getting an acceptable priced valid journey.

 

[premier01]

As i said, it is one of the more esoteric combinations (I've not come across it in five years of working trains from London daily and checking thousands of tickets weekly, which must say a lot about how often it is used), and I've stated what I'd have done if I'd been presented with it tonight.

However, as I've now been informed what it is, I'll look out for it.

The problem with Oyster cards (season ticket attached or not) is at this stage, we have no way of checking them, which I suspect is being abused, given the number of short tickets and a piece of plastic combinations that get shown to us. Especially given that I can see no attempt being made to touch out when we come in on un-barriered platforms.

There is an assumption from some posters (rightly or wrongly) that the average train guard knows (or should know) the fare manual inside out and all possible routes and combinations. That's simply not true, and to be honest, if those outside the industry know the level of training and updates we receive you'd probably be horrified. Revenue is the thing we have the highest profile for, and receive most flak over, but is one of the least important or supported parts of the Train Guards job.

I'm not commenting about RPI's, but from my experience, Train Guards do tickets when they are bored and have nothing more interesting to do. They are very far down the list of priorities, and are the first thing that get abandoned in pretty much any circumstance.

Most (99%) ticketing disputes are pretty straightforward, and involve either no ticket at all, wrong route, missing railcard or wrong time (advanced or off-peak tickets) and usually involve the mysterious "man on the platform" who said it would be OK! They don't take a PhD to work out, and my usual approach is to only take money from someone if I am pretty certain that I am in the right.

I have no issue with the train staff not knwoing the fares processes inside out-that would be a near impossible expectation-however what really annoys me-and others it would seem-is if the conductor is presented with a situation that they don't know the process that needs to be followed-they should consult management, systems or give the customer the benefit of the doubt-almost innocent until proven guilty-however what usually happens is if they don't know the process they slam the customer with the most expenisve option or worse issue a UPFN or contact BTP e.g. where they don't know the excess process.

 

[jkdd77]

On ATW we had overlapping splits, that is A-C and B-D where the journey was A-B-C-D. As it happened, the delay occurred between B and C where each of us had two valid travel tickets. Once again, we received the correct compensation for all tickets submitted, in this instance without any rounding up.

If you're looking for a technical reason for this method of calculation, I suspect it's the phrase You may use two or more tickets for one journey at the start of Condition 19. Both NXEC and ATW calculated the compensation on the basis that we were undertaking one journey.

I also made a compensation claim on 'split tickets' from A to B and from B to C, when delayed at A for over an hour. I received compensation (in the form of vouchers) for both tickets.

To me, this implies, although not guarantees, that a combination of tickets is also considered to be a single journey for the purpose of determining whether a passenger was at their origin station in time to catch the train(s) specified on a second or subsequent advance ticket when using a combination of tickets.

 

[Flamingo]

You cannot simply ignore them. If you admit to ignoring them and over-charging customers you are inviting legitimate complaints leading to possible disciplinary action. I would urge you to re-consider.

Yorkie, I'm not refusing valid ticketing combinations that I am aware of. I am making the point that if someone shows up with a ticket combination that may be more than a little obscure (as some of the routes and tickets post on this and other forums are), the passenger may have to expect that staff, acting in good faith, may not think it is valid, and probably will not have the time or resources to find out at that moment in time. Look at this thread, for an example http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=36870&highlight=cleethorpes

In that kind of scenario, in my opinion, it is equally valid for the guard to say I'm charging or am issuing a UPFN, and it can be sorted out at a later date by someone who has got the time and the resources to hand to go through the fare manual and follow the sometimes torturous reasoning that is applied.

In the real world, if there are 400+ people on my train coming out of London on an evening, I'm not going to spend 10 of the 15 to 25 minutes I have between stops ringing Control, who are trying to co-ordinate several dozen trains across a large part of the country, to ask if somebody may be free to look up the fares manual to work out if a certain combination is legal or not for just one passenger. (or to take the tickets and issue a UPFN which is also extremely time-consuming). Also, I'm not going to delay the 400-odd passengers (and the equally crowded trains behind) whilst I wait at Reading to work it out after calling the Revenue staff to the train to get their opinion. My starting point is going to be the A to B fare and the more "usual" combinations, and one of the down sides to passengers of using a "rare" combination is that the user can expect to have to argue the legality of it with the revenue staff.

Is this is a coded way of saying you will eject someone with a valid combination that you don't like and don't want to check at Reading?

It's nothing to do with whether I like the combination or not, I actually don't care. It's whether I can find if it is valid for the journey being made or not. And I'm not going to block platform 4 at Reading for 20 minutes whilst I do so. Anyway, who said I would eject anybody? I certainly didn't say that, you are making assumptions.

You are very quick to say the passenger should be given the benefit of the doubt in all circumstances. I'm trying to point out that this can be abused, and that the response of the person on the ground may be influenced by the bigger picture. Also, I am trying to give the best advice to passengers, and that also includes letting them know if a certain combination is valid before they end up being charged a PF or an ANYTIME single due to ignorance or misunderstanding. I may not charge them (indeed, probably won't), but I will let them know if it is not OK, or only OK at certain times. I believe this is called customer service. I have had a passenger in the past who was regularly travelling on an incorrect combination, he didn't appreciate me telling him (I didn't charge him), but I did appreciate that he came up a few nights later and apologised as he had written in and been told I was right. (I think he also appreciated the free 1st class upgrades I gave him on several occasions afterwards to show that I appreciated his attitude.)

If you want to be challenged on it, we can arrange for someone to use a combination and we can then post the outcome here (including the complaint to FGW and their response when you carry out your intended actions), if you wish to be open about it. I would certainly not advise that for your sake though.

If anyone else was contemplating making up their own rules and over-charging customers in ANY other service industry, they could expect to be picking up their P45 when their boss gets to hear about it. ... Yes I admit railways are not quite the same as any other service industry, and you have the strongest union around so I wouldn't suggest a guard would be sacked for this.

I believe it's unacceptable but if you want to put this to the test it could be arranged, if you wish, but I would urge you to reconsider.

I'll chose to believe that the wording of your last post was ill chosen, and is not a threat to attempt to ambush me or some of my colleagues by presenting some obscure combination that you have trawled the fares manual to come up with, initiate a confrontation, and subsequently make a malicious complaint in an attempt to have us fired or disciplined just to prove your point. (You're not an Asian wheelchair user, are you? )

 

[Mintona]

Hang about. If I'm reading this correctly then surely flamingo is correct? If you have an oyster card, a paper ticket Ealing Broadway - Didcot and another paper ticket Didcot - Swindon then your train has to call at Didcot, no? If it doesn't the combination of tickets isnt valid.

The oyster card and first ticket should be accepted, but not the second two.

Or am I completely not understanding?

 

[tony_mac]

I think that it is obviously not supposed to be valid - but the literal interpretation of the rules say that it is; and at some point ATOC sent an email agreeing with this interpretation.

You are combining two or more tickets - one of them is a season - therefore the train does not need to call at the station where the tickets change. That is what it says! It doesn't say that this only applies to the station where a season changes to a non-season.

Personally, I wouldn't accept that the literal interpretation is correct, and that common sense would then apply. I understand that is normal procedure in legal situations.
However, I think that the unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations would apply here, and that the consumer may choose the most favourable interpretation. If the industry doesn't like it, it is completely within their power to change the wording to something that actually says what is intended.

 

[jkdd77]

I think that it is obviously not supposed to be valid - but the literal interpretation of the rules say that it is; and at some point ATOC sent an email agreeing with this interpretation.

You are combining two or more tickets - one of them is a season - therefore the train does not need to call at the station where the tickets change. That is what it says! It doesn't say that this only applies to the station where a season changes to a non-season.

Personally, I wouldn't accept that the literal interpretation is correct, and that common sense would then apply. I understand that is normal procedure in legal situations.
However, I think that the unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations would apply here, and that the consumer may choose the most favourable interpretation. If the industry doesn't like it, it is completely within their power to change the wording to something that actually says what is intended.

If I'm not mistaken, I understand GNER prosecuted someone for combining a 7DS to the next station with a succession of short SDRs on a fast non-stopping train, and lost; the magistrate ruled that the tickets were valid as used, courtesy of 19(c).

The Office of the Rail Regulator have told me that the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations probably do not apply to the NRCOC, although they did not answer my supplementary question on whether 'additional' contractual terms which are not specifically mandated by the NRCOC (such as BoJ restrictions) are themselves covered by the UTCCR. Their reply was as follows (full response available on request):

"With regard to your specific point about the compatibility of the National Rail Conditions of Carriage (NRCC) with the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations (UTCCRs), we believe that it is unlikely that the UTCCRs apply to the NRCC.

This is because Article 1 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts (which the UTCCRs implement) provides that the following provisions are not within the scope of the Directive “contractual terms which reflect mandatory statutory or regulatory provisions and the provisions of international conventions to which the Member States or the Community are party, particularly in the transport area.”

Regulation 4 of the UTCCRs is drafted in similar terms (although it does not specifically refer to the transport area).

Our view is that it is likely that the NRCC are mandatory regulatory provisions within the meaning of Article 1 of the Directive and Regulation 4 of the UTCCRs and hence fall outside of the scope of application of those rules. This is because the Department for Transport approves the NRCC and train operating companies are required under their franchises, and to a more limited extent through operating licences, to apply the NRCC."

 

[penaltyfines]

Whether the actual effect of that section of the CoC reflects its intention is pretty irrelevent. A contract is a contract, it's not even worded ambiguously - if you break down the text's grammar and layout it's quite clear. 2 or more tickets if one is a season ticket. I've had this confirmed by FGW and ATOC recently.

flamingo - You're an embarrasment to the Rail Industry, particularly to those staff who do their job properly. You can argue all day about what you have time for, what you can be expected to know and whether it's reasonable to have to ring control, the issue here is your resulting actions.

Unless you can positively demonstrate that a ticket is NOT valid, you should accept it as valid - exactly the same principle as oyster usage, if you don't have a reader, you have to presume it's valid for the purpose supplied. You have no grounds to issue an UPFN, PF, de-train, BTP, Gateline assistance or whatever, because you have no grounds to believe the ticket isn't valid.

If you don't want to check the fares manual, routing guide, control etc, for whatever reason, move on - next customer please.

Simples.

 

[Flamingo]

flamingo - You're an embarrasment to the Rail Industry, particularly to those staff who do their job properly.

Well, I was trying to point out the considerations that might be taken into account by staff facing an unusual combination of tickets, in part to increase the knowledge of those who don't do the job and may have an interest in the day-to-day workings of the railway from the perspective of a lowly guard. Sorry if it doesn't fit with your ideas of what I should be posting.

As regards my being an embarrassment to the rail industry and not doing my job properly, well, I'll just have to live with that, won't I? I've been called worse over the years (usually by drunks on the late trains as I try to get them to buy tickets or shift them from 1st class) - but funnily enough, the letters to Customer Services from passengers praising me for my assistance and attitude just keep on coming in regardless of how badly I do my job. I'll just have to try harder to get people to stop writing them.

I must say, I'm delighted to see that in the space of a month you have gone from pretty basic questions about "What's a split ticket?" (without even knowing how to look up the CoC) to a ticketing and revenue expert. Well done. You are obviously a quick learner. I wish I'd been able to master the job that quickly, as several years on, I'm still learning things all the time (which is part of the reason I frequent these forums).

(By the way, if you are going to insult people, learn to spell the names you are calling them, or at least work out how to download a spell-checker onto your PC. :roll: )

Pip Pip

 

[tony_mac]

flamingo - You're an embarrasment to the Rail Industry, particularly to those staff who do their job properly.

That's pretty offensive, and also I think completely unjustified.
I see a guy who seems to be trying to be reasonable, and admits he won't always be able to get it right.

I actually think it is unrealistic to expect guards to take the customers word for it all the time - I've seen some of the lies that customers tell. and as rail staff don't always have the ability to check, the occassionaly mistake will happen, and as long as it's rectified sensibly and everyone learns from it, I don't see a big problem.

If a policeman suspects you have done something wrong, he can handcuff you, throw you in a cell and drag you to court to defend yourself. That's a lot more hassle than an unpaid fares notice, but nobody sane would suggest that the police must be 100% sure before they are allowed to do anything.

 

[b0b]

If a policeman suspects you have done something wrong, he can handcuff you, throw you in a cell and drag you to court to defend yourself.

Presumably the Police Officer has some suspicion that you've done something wrong. Flamingo, for all of his honesty, has pretty much admitted he doesn't know if what you are doing is wrong.

I think the general agreement is Flamingo needs to be a little more flexible in the corner cases where he doesn't know and can't/doesn't want to check.

However we must not let ATOC slide on this, since its their incredibly complicated, indefensible system that makes things that look valid not valid and vice-versa and really hang on-train staff out to dry.

It's way beyond the time that on-train staff should have equipment to read the mag stripes of tickets and check validity so the on-train staff aren't forced to make a call.