Is needing a ticket before travel obvious?

[Wombat]

Given that choice, why would anyone not go for the second option?

Well, they probably would, unless they didn't want their details on the TOC's database (which is why I provided option A). They wouldn't be able to use option B more than once, because the TOC has their details from the original infraction.

 

[Haywain]

Perhaps this might be a nicer way of handling things:

You're approached by an RPI and you don't have a ticket because you didn't realise that you needed one. The RPI explains the situation and gives you two options:

a) You can pay a penalty fare of £x; or
b) You can provide your details and the TOC will send you a friendly letter, advising that no penalty will be applied this time, but that you're expected to follow the rules in future now that you're aware of them. They might even go so far as to enclose a cheerful leaflet describing their ticket-purchasing options.

I realise that this would have an administrative cost but it's a sacrifice that I'm happy for the TOC to make. (Less glibly, it's a sacrifice that I expect I'd ultimately pay for, which is also OK with me.)

Given that choice, why would anyone not go for the second option?

More pertinently, why would anyone ever bother buying a ticket at all? After all, if the RPI doesn't know they have already encountered this procedure they will continue to go for option b.

 

[Silverdale]

More pertinently, why would anyone ever bother buying a ticket at all? After all, if the RPI doesn't know they have already encountered this procedure they will continue to go for option b.

I think the point is, that it gives the benefit of the doubt to the customer on the first occasion, but that subsequently they can't use the "I didn't know" (about the byelaw) excuse, as their details will be on record as having be told. Opting for option b a second time, wouldn't receive a friendly letter, but one of intention to prosecute.

 

[Wombat]

I think I must have expressed option B poorly. The idea is that if you're caught without a ticket a second time, and claim ignorance again, the TOC will check its records and send a letter to the effect of "You've already claimed ignorance once, and we let you off and set you straight that time, so this time you owe us £xyz".

 

[Wombat]

I think the point is, that it gives the benefit of the doubt to the customer on the first occasion, but that subsequently they can't use the "I didn't know" (about the byelaw) excuse, as their details will be on record as having be told. Opting for option b a second time, wouldn't receive a friendly letter, but one of intention to prosecute.

Yes, thank you.

 

[LowLevel]

From the guard's perspective:

Most guards didn't ask for or want penalty fares. Where I am there are 2 routes which were full pay trains with conductor guards and assistant ticket examiners from their point of opening for over 20 years. Suddenly the DfT decided they should be penalty fare routes. In went unreliable TVMs in shelters, out went the ATEs.

The TVMs don't sell the full range of tickets and there's plenty you still have to buy from the guard.

So you have the ludicrous position of it being a penalty fare route and station if A) the TVM is working and B) it sells the tickets with appropriate discounts that you want to use which is by no means guaranteed otherwise C) you pay the guard. So someone wanting a Groupsave with their mates on a Saturday will pay the guard. On a Monday morning they might go to work and potentially receive a penalty fare for buying a normal ticket. Coupled to that the machines were faulty as installed and didn't issue tickets correctly/had a habit of eating money so they were put off even further.

With the lack of RPIs to advise and enforce the issue no wonder the guards can't be arsed with explaining this rubbish to the nth degree.

Consequently anyone buying from a station with a decent booking office gets a warning from me. Anyone elsewhere gets a cursory 'there's a penalty fare warning on the back of the ticket' and I leave it at that.

I am a perfectly happy conductor guard. I didn't sign up to be an RPI, unless my hand is forced I try to keep my interactions with passengers positive.

Even better - some trains are only penalty fare services for part of their journey!!!

 

[sheff1]

On the signage etc front - at Wakefield Kirkgate there is now a TVM (although NRE states otherwise) and Northern state it is a PF station, but last time I was there the prominent full width sign above the only entrance stating "please buy your ticket on the train" was still in place.

And now, finally, the sign has been removed and the station info on NRE has been updated. So things are clearer at one station, at least.

 

[alfo75]

A nearby station has a ticket machine on 1 platform only (3 minute walk from the 2nd platform). It is also frequently out of service.

I don't think it is reasonable to expect an elderly person to always purchase a ticket before travel when the ticket buying facilities are so poor.

 

[Signal Head]

And now, finally, the sign has been removed and the station info on NRE has been updated. So things are clearer at one station, at least.

Here's another, approach from the left and the PF sign, together with TVM, cannot be missed. Approach from the right however, and all you'll see is the BR era 'Paytrain' sign. Could they really issue a PF in this instance?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Here's another, approach from the left and the PF sign, together with TVM, cannot be missed. Approach from the right however, and all you'll see is the BR era 'Paytrain' sign. Could they really issue a PF in this instance?
View attachment 62039

No, because the sign gives undeniable authority to board without a ticket!