How could the Southeastern network be improved?

[Craig1122]

Firstly, Gateline staff are not on minimum wage.

Secondly, the way shifts work means that for 2 staff on duty to cover a station every day will need about 8 - 10 people on the roster, to cover things like leave, training, absence, etc., and that’s before we consider what happens with breaks.

Third, the very nature of shift work leads to enhanced pay for some shifts, whether it be Sundays, Bank Holidays, overtime, rest days, nights, whatever.

Fourth, with every employee comes a cost of supervision (ie additional management), training costs, and other back office costs eg HR, Finance, and all the rest of it.

Can't speak for SE as my experience was with another operator but we were paying just about minimum wage with no shift enchantments of any kind.

The number of people recruited for each station was closer to 6 full time equivalent with any gaps covered by overtime or agency staff, so no spares in the same way you might have with drivers.

Training was fairly minimal at recruitment with virtually nothing on going. From a management perspective we were expected to just get on with it, no additional resources provided despite a fairly substantial increase in headcount.

 

[43066]

Can't speak for SE as my experience was with another operator but we were paying just about minimum wage with no shift enchantments of any kind.

I think sometimes there’s confusion between TOC gate-line staff who, as you say, are often on very low wages, and their LU equivalents who can earn a fair bit more (I believe they are on around £30k?).

 

[ScotGG]

8-10 seems a very high number if two on duty at a time. Many other non rail roles in, say retail or local authority services such as lesiure centres would have staff working as and when and will work across a wide area eg a borough or two.

Staff in those roving roles covering for the short term don't take leave or have holidays as factored into regular pay. Some people like the flexibility of it.

On a Metro route it'd be easy for staff to get to another station along the line. Training and the like would be minimal.

A further way to increase efficiency is remote monitoring if two exits.

 

[Craig1122]

I think sometimes there’s confusion between TOC gate-line staff who, as you say, are often on very low wages, and their LU equivalents who can earn a fair bit more (I believe they are on around £30k?).

LU staff are multi functional (so generally a lower headcount overall on stations but a higher wage) whereas most TOC's have separate staff who just do gateline.

Also TOC revenue protection staff who are trained to sell tickets and penalty fare will be on much higher wages, However it's rare for them to be static on a gateline these days.

 

[hkstudent]

Why do you need staff? Other countries manage it.

Been to Japanese stations, fully barriered and only way to contact staff is via a touchscreen. (with English spoken too.)

Agreed.
What usually happen in Japan is: the only station staff sit inside station office and remotely control all the gatelines. They would walk out to help if required.
One staff is enough to control the whole station.

Even like those medium used station as Anamori-Inari station just next to Haneda Airport, only one staff and he can just leave the station for toilets and still keep the gates locked.

 

[Edsmith]

Agreed.
What usually happen in Japan is: the only station staff sit inside station office and remotely control all the gatelines. They would walk out to help if required.
One staff is enough to control the whole station.

Even like those medium used station as Anamori-Inari station just next to Haneda Airport, only one staff and he can just leave the station for toilets and still keep the gates locked.

That's all well and good until something goes wrong, an emergency and people are delayed getting out or somebody gets trapped in the closing gates as well as perfectly valid tickets being rejected. Things are a bit more civilised in Japan, here fare evaders would force the gates open or jump over them if no staff were present.

 

[Kite159]

That's all well and good until something goes wrong, an emergency and people are delayed getting out or somebody gets trapped in the closing gates as well as perfectly valid tickets being rejected. Things are a bit more civilised in Japan, here fare evaders would force the gates open or jump over them if no staff were present.

You already get fare evaders forcing the gates open in this country, even in the presence of a member of staff. Safe in the knowledge that the staff are effectively powerless to do anything about it (other than maybe reporting it so CCTV can be taken).

Both on the main railway and on the underground.

Some contracted out gateline staff are a bit hopeless when it comes to concepts like break in journey for when passengers have a 25 minute connection and want to pop out to a local shop (or in some cases pop out for a smoke). Mainly due to lack of training.

 

[Craig1122]

Some contracted out gateline staff are a bit hopeless when it comes to concepts like break in journey for when passengers have a 25 minute connection and want to pop out to a local shop (or in some cases pop out for a smoke). Mainly due to lack of training.

I had an argument with agency staff at Windsor Riverside when changing stations from Central to get to Staines and my ticket didn't work the barrier.

"It's not valid because you're not at Henley" The ticket only being valid at either origin or destination but not anywhere in-between is certainly a new concept!

 

[Edsmith]

You already get fare evaders forcing the gates open in this country, even in the presence of a member of staff. Safe in the knowledge that the staff are effectively powerless to do anything about it (other than maybe reporting it so CCTV can be taken).

Both on the main railway and on the underground.

Some contracted out gateline staff are a bit hopeless when it comes to concepts like break in journey for when passengers have a 25 minute connection and want to pop out to a local shop (or in some cases pop out for a smoke). Mainly due to lack of training.

I know and it's likely to be more commonplace without any staff there. Yes some agency staff do seem a bit clueless although it's probably not their fault.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Firstly, Gateline staff are not on minimum wage.

Secondly, the way shifts work means that for 2 staff on duty to cover a station every day will need about 8 - 10 people on the roster, to cover things like leave, training, absence, etc., and that’s before we consider what happens with breaks.

Third, the very nature of shift work leads to enhanced pay for some shifts, whether it be Sundays, Bank Holidays, overtime, rest days, nights, whatever.

Fourth, with every employee comes a cost of supervision (ie additional management), training costs, and other back office costs eg HR, Finance, and all the rest of it.

would seem far more cost effective to have a roving revenue protection team allocated to North Kent routes as well as giving some visible presence on those routes.

 

[ComUtoR]

would seem far more cost effective to have a roving revenue protection team allocated to North Kent routes as well as giving some visible presence on those routes.

Do the North Kent route have higher fare evasion ? Are you guessing or is there evidence to show that those lines are significantly worse than other parts of the South East and Kent area ?

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Do the North Kent route have higher fare evasion ? Are you guessing or is there evidence to show that those lines are significantly worse than other parts of the South East and Kent area ?

Not at all suggesting that revenue protection staff would be more cost effective than installing gates and resourcing the gatelines

 

[Craig1122]

Not at all suggesting that revenue protection staff would be more cost effective than installing gates and resourcing the gatelines

Especially as there's a lot of revenue loss that isn't caught by gatelines.

 

[ComUtoR]

Not at all suggesting that revenue protection staff would be more cost effective than installing gates and resourcing the gatelines

My concern isn't about being cost effective. Nobody is willing to provide the revenue loss statistics for SE so cost/benefit will be limited to those who's job it is to look at the data.

However, you specifically mentioned 'North Kent lines'. Why are those lines constantly picked out as being problematic ? Are fares on that route high enough that the cost of evasion is higher than coastal route ? Or is it a case of volume ? Do more people.evade the fare on Metro than Mainline ?

I get the impression that this is more of a biassed view of the area than actual hard facts.

 

[hkstudent]

My concern isn't about being cost effective. Nobody is willing to provide the revenue loss statistics for SE so cost/benefit will be limited to those who's job it is to look at the data.

However, you specifically mentioned 'North Kent lines'. Why are those lines constantly picked out as being problematic ? Are fares on that route high enough that the cost of evasion is higher than coastal route ? Or is it a case of volume ? Do more people.evade the fare on Metro than Mainline ?

I get the impression that this is more of a biassed view of the area than actual hard facts.

Likely be area bias, as the area is well known to be highly deprived.

I think c2c approach is quite good, with most stations to be gates especially in the more deprived Thurrock area which managed to keep the revenue.

 

[bramling]

Likely be area bias, as the area is well known to be highly deprived.

I think c2c approach is quite good, with most stations to be gates especially in the more deprived Thurrock area which managed to keep the revenue.

My concern isn't about being cost effective. Nobody is willing to provide the revenue loss statistics for SE so cost/benefit will be limited to those who's job it is to look at the data.

However, you specifically mentioned 'North Kent lines'. Why are those lines constantly picked out as being problematic ? Are fares on that route high enough that the cost of evasion is higher than coastal route ? Or is it a case of volume ? Do more people.evade the fare on Metro than Mainline ?

I get the impression that this is more of a biassed view of the area than actual hard facts.

Presumably it’s a reasonable guess that fare evasion would be higher on the metro routes due to the lack of guards? (Though I do realise it’s relatively easy for the determined fare-evader to avoid the guard on an 8 or 12 car train).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Mar 2023 ==

Likely be area bias, as the area is well known to be highly deprived.

To be fair, parts of Kent are pretty deprived as well - east Kent in particular.

I think c2c approach is quite good, with most stations to be gates especially in the more deprived Thurrock area which managed to keep the revenue.

They do have a slight advantage in being a fairly compact network with a relatively low number of stations.

 

[Edsmith]

My concern isn't about being cost effective. Nobody is willing to provide the revenue loss statistics for SE so cost/benefit will be limited to those who's job it is to look at the data.

However, you specifically mentioned 'North Kent lines'. Why are those lines constantly picked out as being problematic ? Are fares on that route high enough that the cost of evasion is higher than coastal route ? Or is it a case of volume ? Do more people.evade the fare on Metro than Mainline ?

I get the impression that this is more of a biassed view of the area than actual hard facts.

It must be difficult if not impossible to provide any such statistics as there is obviously no record of those who travel without paying? However I would think it reasonable to assume that the North Kent Line, between Woolwich Arsenal and the Medway Towns must have quite a high level of fare evasion given how easy it is?

 

[ComUtoR]

It must be difficult if not impossible to provide any such statistics as there is obviously no record of those who travel without paying?

There are ticketless travel estimates and I guarantee SE know where it's most prevalent. It isn't as bad as people like to think.

However I would think it reasonable to assume that the North Kent Line, between Woolwich Arsenal and the Medway Towns must have quite a high level of fare evasion given how easy it is?

It's easy everywhere. It's just as easy as Knockholt and Petts Wood and almost every station on the Chatham line towards Victoria. When I worked a bit of mainline. Many passengers still believe that they pay on board and just walk onto trains without paying. So even if their intent isn't to avoid the fare, it's still very easy to do.

Even when there are gates at a station, they are never staffed 24/7. Again, it's too easy.

Again, mentioned upthread, Ticketless travel is the tip of the iceberg. Probably the hardest statistic to pull is the amount of fraud that takes place.

The fact is, railway passengers have a very different attitude towards ticketing. I'm not sure we will ever get towards the tube model where it's tap in, tap out. I've never seen a ticket inspector on the tube but but I've never once not bought a ticket. Trains however......

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Mar 2023 ==

Presumably it’s a reasonable guess that fare evasion would be higher on the metro routes due to the lack of guards? (Though I do realise it’s relatively easy for the determined fare-evader to avoid the guard on an 8 or 12 car train).

When a Guard walks through a train.. how many times do you see them stopping to sell tickets. I see REOs going through Metro trains and most have a ticket.

Anecdotal evidence doesn't prove much either way and it's hard to really pin down the issues as there are so many factors at play. If Ticketless travel was a huge issue, something would be done, but it isn't.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

My concern isn't about being cost effective. Nobody is willing to provide the revenue loss statistics for SE so cost/benefit will be limited to those who's job it is to look at the data.

However, you specifically mentioned 'North Kent lines'. Why are those lines constantly picked out as being problematic ? Are fares on that route high enough that the cost of evasion is higher than coastal route ? Or is it a case of volume ? Do more people.evade the fare on Metro than Mainline ?

I get the impression that this is more of a biassed view of the area than actual hard facts.

Because they are DOO. Whenever i use SE ML services id say 8/10 times the conductor comes through at some point.

 

[ScotGG]

Evidence is thin but the fact Abbey Wood passengers shot up substantially from 2018 when TfL took over and manned barriers all day despite no change at all in services is probably one of the best we have.

I'm sure SE would do more but given they were on about a decades worth of short term extensions it didn't happen. Now DFT don't want to spend a penny regardless of savings down the line.

In the past SE did also state on a rare check at stations very large numbers were fined for not having suitable ticket.

 

[Mikey C]

I was in SW London today, getting off at Norbiton, a relatively minor SWR station and it had ticket barriers in operation. If stations like Norbiton can have them, there's no excuse for Southeastern to not fit them in more stations.

 

[Craig1122]

I was in SW London today, getting off at Norbiton, a relatively minor SWR station and it had ticket barriers in operation. If stations like Norbiton can have them, there's no excuse for Southeastern to not fit them in more stations.

Part of one of the SWT franchise agreements was a big expansion of gateline provision and hours of operation. For whatever reason the equivalent never seems to have happened with SE. It's one of the absurdities of the system when quite clearly the evidence for or against gating must be the same and you'd think the approach would be consistent for 2 very similar operators.

I do recall that the financing of the gateline installations was guaranteed in some way by the Dft as it wouldn't have paid for itself within the length of the franchise when it was mandated.

 

[Edsmith]

I was in SW London today, getting off at Norbiton, a relatively minor SWR station and it had ticket barriers in operation. If stations like Norbiton can have them, there's no excuse for Southeastern to not fit them in more stations.

I've seen the ticket barriers at Norbiton and Kingston left open before and a lot of SWR stations don't have them, from memory I don't think there are any on the Shepperton branch for example?

The layout of a lot of Southeastern stations would make it difficult to install them.

 

[JonathanH]

The layout of a lot of Southeastern stations would make it difficult to install them.

That isn't an excuse. Gatelines can be installed in fairly rudimentary shelters as Southern have demonstrated.

 

[ComUtoR]

Because they are DOO. Whenever i use SE ML services id say 8/10 times the conductor comes through at some point.

Yes a Conductor comes through but haven't you noticed how many tickets they sell. Passengers have boarded the train without a ticket. They have already walked past TVMs, Ticket offices, and gatelines. It's a pay when challenged culture.

DOO is not the whipping boy here. Metro mentality is very different. When ticket inspections take place on a Metro service you do not get the high volume of people without tickets that Mainline has.

Granted there isn't as many checks and blockades are very successful but in terms of passenger numbers the percentage starts to shrink.

Getting people to buy before they board is what needs to change. Looking at where and why revenue is lost needs to be factored in and then the cost / benefit will be done. I suspect that one of the reasons it isn't done is because the net gain from barriers is too small.

 

[Meglos]

I've seen the ticket barriers at Norbiton and Kingston left open before and a lot of SWR stations don't have them, from memory I don't think there are any on the Shepperton branch for example?

No barriers between Motspur Park and Chessington North, or between Claygate and London Road (Guildford), or at Thames Ditton on the Hampton Court branch.
Also between Motspur Park and Bookham except for Epsom, Ashtead, and Leatherhead which are all managed by Southern.

 

[Edsmith]

That isn't an excuse. Gatelines can be installed in fairly rudimentary shelters as Southern have demonstrated.

Let's not pretend Southern are perfect either, side gates at Gipsy Hill and West Norwood seem to be permanently left open for example totally defeating the point of ticket gates.

 

[CFRAIL]

I believe there are currently plans to install more gate lines on the SE network

 

[Horizon22]

Yes a Conductor comes through but haven't you noticed how many tickets they sell. Passengers have boarded the train without a ticket. They have already walked past TVMs, Ticket offices, and gatelines. It's a pay when challenged culture.

DOO is not the whipping boy here. Metro mentality is very different. When ticket inspections take place on a Metro service you do not get the high volume of people without tickets that Mainline has.

Granted there isn't as many checks and blockades are very successful but in terms of passenger numbers the percentage starts to shrink.

Getting people to buy before they board is what needs to change. Looking at where and why revenue is lost needs to be factored in and then the cost / benefit will be done. I suspect that one of the reasons it isn't done is because the net gain from barriers is too small.

It's a culture on Southeastern that's been built up over decades now. Other metro routes in London & SE do not have the same issues, and this includes those with DOO.

What also doesn't help is that there are a number of stations - especially on the Victoria routes - that have lots of "right of way" walkways between the platforms or tiny over/underbridges where an equivalent station might be gated. Even where there are gatelines, coverage is extremely patchy.

Southeastern staffing also suffers generally (particularly noticable amongst the driver grade) whereby it is relatively low-paid with lots of other operators easily commutable in the area (GTR, Overground, SWR, Elizabeth line, London terminals for other TOCs) which cannot help staffing retention.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

No barriers between Motspur Park and Chessington North, or between Claygate and London Road (Guildford), or at Thames Ditton on the Hampton Court branch.
Also between Motspur Park and Bookham except for Epsom, Ashtead, and Leatherhead which are all managed by Southern.

Not sure any of the Hounslow loop has barriers either