one stop, no ticket

[jb]

But do you blame the TM for selling the single anytime fare (complete with commission) without mentioning to the passenger that they were supposed to have a ticket before they boarded, or they could be prosecuted?

OK, since we're playing "oblique questions", why did you mention commission?

 

[Asian Demon]

I have to say reading this that passengers do try and get away with all sorts. A woman on my train asked for a ticket and asked for a discounted evening cheap day return. This is after walking past an open ticket office and working ticket machine. When explained that due to walking past all these she would be sold the anytime ticket without discount and that what she did could lead to prosecution, she acted quite surprised and stated 'Oh I did not know this. No one has ever told me this'

Only when I mentioned I had explained this to her the day before did she remember my face and realise who she had been talking to. The Conductor for the service she took the day before had been me. She paid up quickly without making another fuss. So it goes to show that a lot of passengers will try it on. I do think TOCS can advertise it better. God knows they are bad at relaying information to the public.

But there is a minority who will try to get away with paying their fare/correct fare. It's these individuals who harden our views on the public and buying on board. As for bringing up Commission, it's pretty irrelevant. I know it makes f'all difference to my wages so I don't concern myself with it. I just make sure everyone has a ticket. I don't agree with some of the tactics that TOC's use to prosecute people. They never deal with the serial evaders. Anyhow a debate for another day.

 

[Tibbs]

OK, since we're playing "oblique questions", why did you mention commission?

So does that mean you do or don't blame the Guard? Go on, answer the question.

The question isn't oblique, I supplied the reason why the guard may not want people to know that they can buy a discounted ticket at the station.

I'm not surprised that a Virgin TM, for example, wants to sell Anytime tickets to people on board, and wouldn't want to frighten people off buying their full price ticket on the train by telling them they committed a crime and could be prosecuted.

 

[jb]

The question isn't oblique, I supplied the reason why the guard may not want people to know that they can buy a discounted ticket at the station.

Actually, you made something up in the abstract which suits a particular flavour of tin-foil-hattedness. Meanwhile, someone immediately above you in the thread, who apparently works in that position, dismissed it as pretty irrelevant.

 

[Goatboy]

Your terminology. Some of it is people who want to be patted on the head and told it's all OK, that they can pay when the nasty man comes around or if they have to get past that nasty barrier.

Some people do it deliberately despite knowing the law. I have no sympathy for these people and like you wish to see them prosecuted.

However, the situation is often ambiguous and not helped by often contradictory statements in promotional material. You seem to think I am arguing in favour of no prosecutions for those who dont buy before boarding. Not so. It must simply be made more crystal clear what the rules are.

Then, presumably, the rail companies can prosecute even more people once its abundantly clear to everyone they face prosecution if they dont buy before boarding. Which would be fine by me.

I hardly blame TMs when those who don't pay their fare will react with self-righteous indignation when challenged (and get backed-up by the likes of you).

The likes of me? Charming.

I don't blame TM's either, infact I can appreciate why they choose the path of least resistence when faced with these situations but doing so does continue to perpetuate the myth that if you want a full fare ticket you can buy on board.

 

[455driver]

I think the answer is to make all major stations gated - why on earth hasn't this happened at Sheffield yet?!

Because the Council wont let them.

As stated it is your responsibility to purchase a ticket for your journey at the earliest opportunity, all this wibble about how documents are worded doesnt change that!

 

[Goatboy]

And neither should it change that. The point is sort the documents and advertising out, not 'allow people to buy on board'.

 

[455driver]

Rather than pick and chose which bit of this you want to read, why dont you read it all as it will all fall into context then!

If you are boarding at a station that has an open ticket
office, you must purchase your tickets before you get on the train.

This also applies if you are boarding at a station
equipped with a self service ticket machine.

If the ticket machine is not working, or you cannot use the machine,
or the ticket office is closed, you must buy a ticket from
the conductor on the train at the earliest opportunity.

If you board a train without a ticket at a station where
ticket purchasing facilities are available the conductor
will only sell you the full price single or return fare and you
will not be entitled to any discounts or special terms
which would otherwise apply.

Where fraudulent travel is
involved it is our policy to seek criminal prosecution.

Seems clear enough to me!

 

[jb]

Seems clear enough to me!

Even the likes of me () would concede that the fourth sentence of that quote, in context or out, is somewhat ambiguous.

 

[Goatboy]

You have inadvertently proved my point. Paragraph 4 implies you can buy a full fare ticket on the train. Paragraph 5 says they will prosecute in cases of fraud. Given paragraph 4 not many would take from this that buying on board is fraud!

Why not remove paragraph 4 and revise para 5?

That way they can prosecute everyone who didn't buy a ticket and its clear cut.

 

[michael769]

You still ignore the first sentence which makes it abundantly clear that passengers must buy a ticket before boarding.

Even if we accept that the later passages may imply that the penalty is limited to being made to pay the full fare, a low or non existent penalty is a poor excuse for failing to comply with the perfectly request made by the owners of the railway.

How would you like it if I parked my car in your front garden (if you don't have one assume for a moment you do) just because the police would probably not be interested in assisting you?

 

[maniacmartin]

My interpretation is that someone just reading the extract quoted by 455driver is likely to come to the conclusion that you should purchase a ticket before boarding, but if you don't then you can just pay the full Anytime fare.

It's only upon reading Byelaws and other bits literature that it becomes apparent that this is not the case.

 

[bb21]

The solution is quite simple really to remove any doubt that you can be prosecuted. Just add the words "or you may be prosecuted instead" to the end and this argument here will no longer be needed.

 

[Goatboy]

You still ignore the first sentence which makes it abundantly clear that passengers must buy a ticket before boarding.

If it was there in isolation it would - but it's not, so it doesn't. It explains you must buy a ticket and then goes on to explain what happens if you don't - a more restricted range of tickets is available to you.

To any reasonable person (I tested it on a few people who use rail infrequently and have interest in it like we do) that says you can buy on board but only receive a small range of tickets - meaning it will cost more as a result.

Don't forget of course that when TOC's prosecute they don't prosecute for boarding without a ticket alone. They prosecute for intent to avoid the fare, which is why they tend to ask if you'd have purchased had there been no barrier at the destination station.

Again I must clarify my position - I do not beleive people should be able to buy tickets ontrains without problems if the booking office is open. I beleive they should face prosecution if they do this, BUT this can only realistically happen if its very clear to everyone using the railway what the consequences are.

Currently, its not clear.

What I want is for it to be made clear - not for prosecutions to stop. I find it annoying that I take the trouble to get to the station in good time to purchase a ticket and others don't bother but unlike some in this thread I appreciate much of this is the fault of the railway industry.

How would you like it if I parked my car in your front garden (if you don't have one assume for a moment you do) just because the police would probably not be interested in assisting you?

I have absolutely no idea what relevence you think this has, but if I did so without causing damage to your property you couldn't initially prosecute me for it anyway.

 

[island]

Even the likes of me () would concede that the fourth sentence of that quote, in context or out, is somewhat ambiguous.

Not in the slightest. It says "you will only be sold the undiscounted anytime fare", meaning if you are sold a ticket, it will be an anytime fare. The next paragraph makes it abundantly clear that failure to buy before boarding can lead to prosecution.

 

[maniacmartin]

Not in the slightest. It says "you will only be sold the undiscounted anytime fare", meaning if you are sold a ticket, it will be an anytime fare.

But it could be read as the only thing that will happen to you is to be sold the Anytime fare

The next paragraph makes it abundantly clear that failure to buy before boarding can lead to prosecution.

No it doesn't. It states that those who travel fraudulently will be prosecuted. It does not define who fraudulent travel covers. It is implied that boarding without a ticket will lead to only the Anytime fare being charged, so that can't be fraudulent travel, given that the previous paragraphs instruct passengers to do that. Perhaps it refers to people who use altered tickets or hide in the toilets when the guard comes round?

It needs rewriting to be clearer. It's obvious to us what it is intended to mean, but it isn't obvious to someone who isn't versed in the Byelaws and RoRA, etc.

 

[jon0844]

It does seem a bit contradictory though and open to misinterpretation, in that people might skip buying a ticket before travel (when they could do so) because they'd rather pay the higher price on the train just to get going.

You can quite happily do that on Heathrow Express, for example, where you'll pay a surcharged. Yet, go on Heathrow Connect without a ticket and you'll get a penalty fare.

 

[maniacmartin]

Yet, go on Heathrow Connect without a ticket and you'll get a penalty fare.

A Penalty Fare is a surcharge

 

[Goatboy]

Not in the slightest. It says "you will only be sold the undiscounted anytime fare", meaning if you are sold a ticket, it will be an anytime fare. The next paragraph makes it abundantly clear that failure to buy before boarding can lead to prosecution.

It doesn't make it abundantly clear at all - the fact we are still arguing about this means it isn't abundantly clear. It's only clear to you becuase there is confirmation bias as a result of you already knowing the law - as most of us here do.

It is not crystal clear to those who do not know the law. The paragraph relates to prosecutions for ticketing fraud - most people are not going to associate joining a train without a ticket when a paragraph of texts explains that anytime fares available on board with being 'fraud' and will therefore quite rationally assume it's talking about something else. Remember, some people (not all, I appreciate some are pure fare dodging scum) will board a train without a ticket but with the intention to purchase a ticket onboard. Most people will not consider this fraud.

The wording is a mess and should be sorted.

Why can't we simply remove the whole Anytime ticket onboard thing all together? If the intention is to prosecute people why have this available as an option? If the intention is to have anytime tickets available to buy onboard why have prosecution as an option? Make up your mind which you want and then make sure everyone travelling is in no doubt as to what the policy is.

Wouldn't it better for everyone if the policy was as follows:

If there are no purchasing facilities, the full range of tickets are on offer. If there are purchasing facilities, no tickets are available on board and anyone who boards a train without having purchased a ticket will be sent a UFN or considered for prosecution. Advertise this prominently at all stations and clearly within the TOC's Charters and the NRCOC.

Result? People who dont buy tickets get prosecuted and have nobody to blame but themselves. Isn't that what we all want?

 

[island]

What's the difference between being charged for an anytime ticket and sent a UFN?

 

[Goatboy]

Perhaps I used the wrong terminology then with UFN. Basically, no ticket = bad times rather than 'Perhaps no ticket means you get sold an Anytime Single. Perhaps it means you get accosted by an RPI and taken to court, who really knows'

At the moment I know for a fact that if I go to Exeter St Davids station right now and walk past the open booking office and board an XC train to Bristol, I will be happily sold an Anytime Return for £30, just £4 more than the discounted Offpeak. You can imagine why lazy people who are running late might elect to just board the train! Yet if I do the same thing in the North of England I'll probably be prosecuted by Northern Trains.

This is inconsistent, ridiculous and sends out the wrong message. The act in both cases is the same yet depending on where I do it I'll either be sold a ticket or taken to court. How is that sensible?

Take everyone to court, or sell everyone a ticket. This ridiculous half-way house lottery-style approach doesn't help the rail industry nor does it help the travelling public.

 

[island]

You could say the same about Penalty Fares, which might happen if you are seen by an authorized collector, but not if you run into a normal guard or staff member.

 

[sheff1]

. I think the answer is to make all major stations gated - why on earth hasn't this happened at Sheffield yet?

No the answer is for you to buy a ticket from one of the many sales points at Sheffield station.

I really do not see why I should have my valid tickets rejected by an inadequately programmed barrier and then have to engage with an inadequately trained barrier attendant before finally being allowed entrance/exit ('just this time') because some people can't be bothered to buy a ticket unless they are forced to because of a barrier.

 

[ian959]

This is inconsistent, ridiculous and sends out the wrong message. The act in both cases is the same yet depending on where I do it I'll either be sold a ticket or taken to court. How is that sensible?

It is sensible in as much as each TOC adopts a practice appropriate to its operations.

Northern for example operates in an environment with frequently stopping trains where it may be impractical for a guard to get through a train to check tickets let alone sell tickets AND deal with the next station stop.

XC operates in an environment with less frequent stops for a guard to get through a train to check and sell tickets before the next station stop.

All TOCs operate under the overriding consideration that you SHOULD buy a valid ticket before boarding UNLESS there is no opportunity to buy one.

It seems fairly simple to me and I live the other side of the world and know that when I am in the UK I MUST buy a ticket before I board a train. Simple.

 

[Goatboy]

Except you mustn't, as operators like XC will happily sell you one if you don't.

 

[island]

The principle that was supposed to apply to Penalty Fares schemes was that they would apply in cases where frequent stops and high passenger volume meant that it was impractical to check every passenger's ticket between stops. Northern certainly meets this definition on at least part of its network, but does not have sufficient ticket-selling capacity to be allowed to run a penalty fares scheme. The perverse outcome of this is that Northern now has a home-made scheme with far fewer checks and balances, a penalty more than three times greater than the rest of the country, and passengers who get thoroughly confused by the whole situation.

XC does not need to throw prosecutions around because its guards can check tickets between every stop (or every couple of stops at worst, e.g. University and Birmingham N St) and there is normally a substantial penalty for buying on board as most XC routes have a price differential between off-peak and anytime.

However, the law still requires you to buy a ticket before joining an XC train if there were facilities to do so. The fact that the consequences may be different should you fail to do so does not remove this obligation.

 

[Ferret]

Except you mustn't, as operators like XC will happily sell you one if you don't.

So will Northern if the Guard gets through. And XC will still prosecute if intent to avoid the fare is demonstrated. The over-riding point that still stands is that it is the passenger's responsibility to pay their fare, not the train company's responsibility to chase the passenger.

 

[snail]

Even the likes of me () would concede that the fourth sentence of that quote, in context or out, is somewhat ambiguous.

No it's not. Northern conductors generally will sell tickets. They leave enforcement to RPIs, occasionally on trains but more generally at the stations. TPE operate the same policy (here in the NW at least).

I see no ambiguity in the instructions. You are required (by law) to have a ticket before boarding where it is possible to purchase one. If you don't have one a conductor will sell you one OR an RPI may report you for further action to be taken.

Given the first requirement, anyone that takes a chance on purchasing their ticket on the train or at their destination is at risk of prosecution. The TOC may offer a second chance to purchase a limited range of tickets via their Conductors but I see that as a concession not a right.

 

[455driver]

Does it say-

"you should buy a ticket" or does it say "you must buy a ticket"

That difference should answer it really, must is an instruction, should is a request!

 

[silencio]

But if you want to play that game:

If you board a train without a ticket at a station whereticket purchasing facilities are available the conductor will only sell you the full price single or return fare and you will not be entitled to any discounts or special terms which would otherwise apply.

Of course this is ambiguous, or as said this debate wouldn't have gone on for a number of pages