New ticket after missing booked train

[Krokodil]

however there is more potential for problems and rejection of the ticket compared with pdf files or printed versions, because of problems reading the screen

I'm a Conductor and in my many years of scanning tickets (initially with a phone camera and later with a proper scanner) I've never encountered a situation where a screenshot made a previously readable ticket unreadable. They are usually at the same resolution after all. If the screen is damaged or the brightness low it won't make a difference whether it's a screenshot or the original, the readability will be the same. In fact I've asked passengers to take screenshots before when their screens were damaged and the screenshot was a means of moving the aztec code into a less damaged part of the screen.

 

[redreni]

With the greatest respect to the OP, I can see that the TOCs have a difficult job on their hands if some people will just dig in and cling on for grim death to an idea that's obviously wrong.

There can be as many copies of an e-ticket as the purchaser chooses to make, in any number of formats, included printed. The protection against multiple copies being used is that scanners on gatelines and handheld devices will reveal the fact they've been used before - gates will reject them and handheld devices will flag them and show the previous scans. If the reproduction is poor and they can't be scanned, that's the customer's own silly fault, hence the SWR advice to present the original email rather than a copy. It's not a rule, though, it's advice.

If the barcode can be scanned and the ticket is valid and hasn't been used before, it's valid. End of discussion. If somebody in the ticket office thinks it's not valid because it's a photograph and it's a bit slanted, then the person in the ticket office is wrong. And if they're continuing to say that even after it's been explained to them a dozen times that copies of e-tickets are valid as long as they can be scanned, that is frankly very worrying.

 

[Starmill]

Ok well I accept that I got it wrong in saying that the e-ticket was not valid in photograph form, it was the fact that it was a slanted photograph which made it look suspicious and knowing that railcards are not valid as screenshots (or has that since changed?), I assumed this barcode ticket wasn't acceptable either. To be fair I've never come across an e-ticket presented the way this one was before, all the ones I've seen you wouldn't know the difference between a pdf and a screenshot.

I think I have made some good points about why it's better not to rely on a screenshot with e-tickets. I'm sorry I've come across suspicious and argumentative against posts challenging what I initially said, but I accept you were giving good advice for future reference here.

Thank you. No worries.

 

[infobleep]

Therevare numerous problems with this, one that screenshots or as in this case a photograph are prone to failing when being scanned, because of faults with the screen, the photograph not being clear etc.

If a passenger's e-ticket was valid and downloaded or printed, but rejected at the barrier, then they would be permitted to travel on the grounds of the barrier scanner possibly being faulty. If the ticket was rejected because it was a photo or one of numerous printed copies of the same ticket, then the revenue staff would be within their rights to refuse entry, or for the guard to charge for a new ticket, because of the potential for it being used fraudulently.

In what way would a screenshot fail?

I'm only talking about screenshots here.

 

[Y Ddraig Coch]

I'll reword my initial post to say that screenshots of tickets are valid, if the scanner accepts them, however there is more potential for problems and rejection of the ticket compared with pdf files or printed versions, because of problems reading the screen. That's why a lot of TOCs only mention pdf or print out and don't recommend using a screenshot.

If a passenger prints numerous copies of the same ticket to give to accompanying passengers, the scanners at my TOC's stations will accept one copy but then reject the others, to prevent fraud. Providing no fault with the scanner, it should have no problem reading a valid ticket in paper or pdf form.
However there is a grey area if a seemingly valid e-ticket is displayed on the phone in screenshot-form and the scanner rejects, as it could either be because of fraudulent use with the passenger having been sent a screenshot or taken a photo of someone else's ticket, or because there is a problem with the device screen, or a blurred photo. Revenue staff have to make a decision in this scenario and if they suspect fraudulent use, they are allowed to refuse the ticket.

This is why TOCs don't like to promote screenshots of e-tickets & in some cases state they're invalid, and by promoting them here people are undermining the TOCs.

Printing things out as you keep suggesting is completely taking away from the whole point of e tickets which in the not so distant future will probably become the only type of ticket. Its 2024 not 1974.

 

[infobleep]

I'm a Conductor and in my many years of scanning tickets (initially with a phone camera and later with a proper scanner) I've never encountered a situation where a screenshot made a previously readable ticket unreadable. They are usually at the same resolution after all. If the screen is damaged or the brightness low it won't make a difference whether it's a screenshot or the original, the readability will be the same. In fact I've asked passengers to take screenshots before when their screens were damaged and the screenshot was a means of moving the aztec code into a less damaged part of the screen.

Krokodil, has answered my question. To be fair I knew the answer already.

 

[Haywain]

Printing things out as you keep suggesting is completely taking away from the whole point of e tickets which in the not so distant future will probably become the only type of ticket. Its 2024 not 1974.

But lots of people choose to print eTickets, do you have a problem with that?

 

[MrJeeves]

knowing that railcards are not valid as screenshots (or has that since changed?)

No, as they need to be able to be hotlisted and also not accepting screenshots (i.e. you need to look for the moving "hologram") is a way to prevent fraud such as replacing the name and photo.

Ideally staff should be scanning railcard barcodes (GWR have been doing this a lot recently, and some other TOCs do it occasionally as well) as this can verify that the details match up with what is being shown to you, and ensure the Railcard hasn't been hotlisted.

 

[87 027]

In what way would a screenshot fail?

I'm only talking about screenshots here.

I suspect there may be some talking at cross-purposes about what we understand by the term "screenshot". I see a distinction between:

(i) a screen capture taken on the first device which can then be transferred electronically to a second device, and
(ii) a photograph taken by a second device of whatever is shown on the screen on the first device, and subject to the vagaries of camera quality, dust on the lens, lighting conditions, slanted angle of capture etc. etc..

I can understand why (ii) may not work but I tend to equate the term screenshot with (i) above.

Having travelled on an e-ticket this weekend for the first time in a long time I thought I would experiment with presenting a screenshot. The ticket was bought through this forum's website, I downloaded it into the wallet on my iPhone, made a screen capture on the phone itself and then transferred the resulting image onto my ancient iPod 4 of 2010 vintage, so predates Apple Wallet and the earlier Passbook app doesn't work. I presented the Aztec code from the camera roll on the iPod at the barriers and although it wouldn't initially recognise the image at default magnification, once I had zoomed in on the code to fill the available screen it worked fine. (Both the journey and the station were operated by GWR.)

 

[infobleep]

I suspect there may be some talking at cross-purposes about what we understand by the term "screenshot". I see a distinction between:

(i) a screen capture taken on the first device which can then be transferred electronically to a second device, and
(ii) a photograph taken by a second device of whatever is shown on the screen on the first device, and subject to the vagaries of camera quality, dust on the lens, lighting conditions, slanted angle of capture etc. etc..

I can understand why (ii) may not work but I tend to equate the term screenshot with (i) above.

Having travelled on an e-ticket this weekend for the first time in a long time I thought I would experiment with presenting a screenshot. The ticket was bought through this forum's website, I downloaded it into the wallet on my iPhone, made a screen capture on the phone itself and then transferred the resulting image onto my ancient iPod 4 of 2010 vintage, so predates Apple Wallet and the earlier Passbook app doesn't work. I presented the Aztec code from the camera roll on the iPod at the barriers and although it wouldn't initially recognise the image at default magnification, once I had zoomed in on the code to fill the available screen it worked fine. (Both the journey and the station were operated by GWR.)

Very interesting.