Protests against proposed ticket barriers at Sheffield railway station

[newbie babs]

There was a protest at the station this week about a leaked letter showing the government was actually in favour of introducing the barriers and wanted this done as soon as possible.

The timeline that has lead up to this is as follows.
In November 2009, Sheffield City Council rejected the plans on the grounds that the barriers would affect the character of the listed building.

Then in April 2010 the former transport secretary Lord Adonis said barriers would not be installed before a new footbridge was built.

In a statement, the current Transport Minister Norman Baker said ticketless travel at Sheffield cost more than £2m each year.

How do they get the £2 million figure?
What do the forum members think? Do they actually work ?

 

[Cherry_Picker]

Barriers work everywhere else they are installed, and they are installed in far prettier stations than Sheffield without ruining their character. I am genuinely surprised that Sheffield doesnt already have barriers tbh.

The £2m figure could be pie in the sky, but then it could be based on research on how much extra revenue that barriers installed at similarly busy stations have generated.

 

[trentside]

Sheffield has not had barriers installed because it blocks off a route people use as a cut through, from the city centre to an area beyond the station and tram stop. This is why there has been such controversy, and why the council really rejected the proposals (but used the cover of the station being a listed building). The only way to solve this would be to declare the footbridge a public right of way (as I believe is the case at Nottingham?) or build a new bridge over the station.

 

[newbie babs]

One of the problems is the footbridge access as far as I know.

So if they work everywhere else they are installed, are there any figures showing what the station revenue lost before they were installed and what the figure is now

 

[Lampshade]

Urgh, as if they're still pressing ahead with this :roll:

 

[YorkshireBear]

Should be done i see fare dodgers everyday out of sheffield. Mostly meadowhall shoppers.

Either build a second footbridge or change design to have barriers on platforms rather than each end of bridge. Either way it should be done. Same with doncaster, meadowhall, rotherham central and barnsley.

 

[Old Timer]

....In November 2009, Sheffield City Council rejected the plans on the grounds that the barriers would affect the character of the listed building.....

How do you reach this particular conclusion when railway stations had barriers since almost their inception ?

The removal of barriers only occurred in the last 20 years or so.

 

[glenbogle]

Can they not have manual barriers at Sheffield and if not why not ?

 

[Lampshade]

How do you reach this particular conclusion when railway stations had barriers since almost their inception ?

The removal of barriers only occurred in the last 20 years or so.

Barriers, not gates. As far as I'm aware, the 'barriers' at Sheffield pre-refurbishment was a manned booth at the bottom of the stairs. What Sheffield Council were objecting to were entirely different.

I've been an extremely vocal critic of these plans and it was such a good birthday present when I read the plans had been refused.

 

[button_boxer]

The main objection to barriers at Sheffield is the fact that the station bridge is the only step-free way to cross the railway line in that area without making a half mile detour via the bridges over Park Square roundabout. The alternative footbridge to the south end of the station has stairs (not to mention being enclosed and apparently strewn with discarded needles etc.).

Derby has the same issue, with the station bridge being the main route between the city centre and the college, and here they've issued college students with an ITSO smartcard to let them through the barriers at both ends of the bridge (presumably they can track cases where a card is misused). Could the same compromise work at Sheffield?

 

[sonic2009]

Can they not have manual barriers at Sheffield and if not why not ?

Yeah the Whole Argument from the Council is that the Bridge is used for the Housing and Tram Stop on the Other Side of the Station. If you had manual barriers how can you stop the normal people from the good people. One thought could be like what Exists at Finsbury Park, can you not put Barriers at the Bottom of the Stairs on each Platform. Although work would need to be done, but this could be in the short term, until such a new bridge is done seperating paid from non-paid.

 

[Old Timer]

It has been a while since I was at Sheffield, however Reading seem to manage with a divided footbridge - one side inside the barrier line and the other side fenced off.

 

[Lampshade]

Derby has the same issue, with the station bridge being the main route between the city centre and the college, and here they've issued college students with an ITSO smartcard to let them through the barriers at both ends of the bridge (presumably they can track cases where a card is misused). Could the same compromise work at Sheffield?

No because the scheme would only have been open to Park Hill residents - whereas the tram stop is 'Sheffield Station - Sheffield Hallam University', so people arriving by tram/students living the other side of the station would not have been eligible.

 

[Minilad]

Yeah the Whole Argument from the Council is that the Bridge is used for the Housing and Tram Stop on the Other Side of the Station. If you had manual barriers how can you stop the normal people from the good people. One thought could be like what Exists at Finsbury Park, can you not put Barriers at the Bottom of the Stairs on each Platform. Although work would need to be done, but this could be in the short term, until such a new bridge is done seperating paid from non-paid.

I know the bridge layout is different but at Reading you can walk across the bridge without going through the barriers

 

[sonic2009]

It has been a while since I was at Sheffield, however Reading seem to manage with a divided footbridge - one side inside the barrier line and the other side fenced off.

Reading does have a divided Bridge yes. A lot wider than Sheffield. Although i do seem to recall that you can still get to the Platforms with out a ticket. One year a while back with a friend we had luggage, so took the lift from Platform 5 to the Footbridge and it comes out on the unpaid side. I also remember mentioning this to the meet a manager at reading a few months ago, and he mentioned that this will change with the re-development, also mentioned the fact that the ticket barriers by platform 9 were unmanned due to staff shortage yet there were 3 staff on the main reading barriers.

 

[Max]

This could be solved through a bit of creative thinking and investment. What they could do is barrier the existing footbridge, leaving platform 1 open. The old footbridge, accessed from platform 1, already has a lift, and could be opened to the public and extended over platform 8 to the tram stop. Alternatively, the existing public footbridge could be lit and refurbished, and a lift installed on platform 1 (the bridge passes over the station).

I also imagine it would be possible to change booked platforms so that Transpennine and XC services could call at platform 1 instead of 2, as these services probably don't require barriers. Local stoppers could then call at platform 2 instead.

 

[Ferret]

Well, if they want to barrier Sheffield, they need to sort out the ticket office then. I'm regularly informed by pax that at peak times, the queue lengths are beyond what is acceptable - and this is not limited to the traditional morning/evening commuter flows but also Thursday/Friday afternoons, and Sundays even too. I'm afraid that in its present form, Sheffield is not suitable for barriering.

 

[shinkansen1966]

Barriers work everywhere else they are installed.

Would more on board ticket inspectors and and an appealing fares structure work just as well ?

Was in Germany last month. I'd almost forgotten that you can still have open stations. At Frankfurt Flughafen Fbf, walked from the public open areas and boarded an international train bound for Brussels: no gates, no controls, nothing. Just thorough regular onboard inspections.

Mind you, DB may be thinking about gates to raise revenue. Who knows ?

 

[Mojo]

To what extent do barriers ''work?'' The real fare evaders know how to get around them, either by double gating, travelling at times they are left unstaffed (usually late evenings when they are needed most), or by using a different exit (eg. the lifts at Reading or footbridge at Paddington). I have also never been turned away by asking the staff to pass through to meet someone and at Kings + and Waterloo I have been let through to retrieve a bicycle.

To what extent are staff aware of double gating through barriers? It happened to me at Euston (LM/LO platforms) about a year ago and when I reported it to the staff they were completely oblivious and assured me that it was not possible to do what I had just described, despite the fact I am fully aware of it.

 

[Old Timer]

To what extent do barriers ''work?'' The real fare evaders know how to get around them, either by double gating, travelling at times they are left unstaffed (usually late evenings when they are needed most), or by using a different exit (eg. the lifts at Reading or footbridge at Paddington). I have also never been turned away by asking the staff to pass through to meet someone and at Kings + and Waterloo I have been let through to retrieve a bicycle.

To what extent are staff aware of double gating through barriers? It happened to me at Euston (LM/LO platforms) about a year ago and when I reported it to the staff they were completely oblivious and assured me that it was not possible to do what I had just described, despite the fact I am fully aware of it.

Your examples demonstrate failings on the part of the TOC. Obviously barriers need to be attended, and there needs to be a wider barrier(s) for those with luggage aka London Underground.

We also need to get away from this "just in time" syndrome from which rail travellers seem to suffer. People should allow sufficient time to arrive, buy their ticket and make their way to the platform so as to be there before the train arrives. Trying to gain access to the platform after that causes all sorts of obvious and readily identifiable problems.

 

[swt_passenger]

There was a protest at the station this week about a leaked letter showing the government was actually in favour of introducing the barriers and wanted this done as soon as possible.

It wouldn't need to have been a 'leaked' letter - the policy of fitting barriers at Sheffield was clearly established in EMT's franchise spec, which is hardly a secret.

 

[shinkansen1966]

Your examples demonstrate failings on the part of the TOC.

This is it.

Fare evasion is a problem for TOCs. They are responsible for collecting fares to cover their overheads.

Before ticket barriers, fare evasion was a TOC problem. They merely passed on the problem through collecting more fares from those who paid.

Now we have gates, fare evasion makes it the passengers' problem. Gates can slow passengers down. And there are instances of valid tickets being rejected at the gates.

I dislike these notices along the lines of "First Capital Connect is installing gates at Lands End South to reduce fare evasion and make it fairer for everyone". Don't financially blackmail fare paying passengers by saying that a few people's evasion is now resulting in automatic checks for everyone prior to boarding the train. Sort the problem out by specifically identifying those who've evaded their fare through better inspections.

 

[Old Timer]

...Now we have gates, fare evasion makes it the passengers' problem. Gates can slow passengers down. And there are instances of valid tickets being rejected at the gates.

I dislike these notices along the lines of "First Capital Connect is installing gates at Lands End South to reduce fare evasion and make it fairer for everyone". Don't financially blackmail fare paying passengers by saying that a few people's evasion is now resulting in automatic checks for everyone prior to boarding the train. Sort the problem out by specifically identifying those who've evaded their fare through better inspections.

Abuse and fraud by passengers has led to this situation.

 

[shinkansen1966]

Abuse and fraud by passengers has led to this situation.

This was the TOCs would like you to think. By financially blackmailing fare paying passengers, they immediately leave themselves hostage to fortune.

Because what I want to know is: exactly how much extra revenue has been raised by gates and exactly what will the TOCs do with this additional revenue raised ?

 

[Lampshade]

EMT argue that they're losing X amount due to there not being barriers - but how much exactly? No one knows, who's to say that ANY is lost? EMT just made up a random figure (10%, just like they did at Derby) and said that's how many ticketless travellers there were. I highly doubt extensive research had taken place and is the evidence publically available? No.

Then there's ATOC babbling on about how fare evasion happens every 90 seconds... well, again, where's the proof?

I'm aware barriering Sheffield was a franchise commitment but I seem to remember EMT put Sheffield in themselves, whereas the others were specified by the DfT, so if that's the case EMT deserve all the grief they get.

Many people are fully willing to buy a ticket but can't because of two problems; 1. the trains are often so packed the conductor can't physically get to them, and 2. the conductor hasn't been round/machine has broken/whatever reason. Both of these are rolling stock and staffing issues respectively, NOT fare evasion. Barriers are just papering over the cracks in an attempt to shift blame and accountability from the TOCs onto the passengers.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, barriers should be a last resort after every other solution has been tried and exhausted and where there is the research and evidence to suggest there is no alternative.

 

[shinkansen1966]

EMT argue that they're losing X amount due to there not being barriers - but how much exactly? No one knows, who's to say that ANY is lost? EMT just made up a random figure (10%, just like they did at Derby) and said that's how many ticketless travellers there were. I highly doubt extensive research had taken place and is the evidence publically available? No.

Then there's ATOC babbling on about how fare evasion happens every 90 seconds... well, again, where's the proof?

Agreed.

By saying that 'we're installing ticket barriers to reduce fare evasion', the TOCs are saying that they are making the problem one for all passengers to suffer.

By introducing more onboard inspections to specifically identify those already travelling without a ticket, it looks better because the TOCS are sorting out the problem without dragging everyone else in.

And it's all part of the TOCs lazy rail fares policy. The other being raising revenue by reducing the number of trains on which a ticket is valid. Anyone can do that.

 

[Oswyntail]

.....We also need to get away from this "just in time" syndrome from which rail travellers seem to suffer. People should allow sufficient time to arrive, buy their ticket and make their way to the platform so as to be there before the train arrives. Trying to gain access to the platform after that causes all sorts of obvious and readily identifiable problems.

I disagree. The main competition for rail travel is by road, and the biggest selling point there is convenience. I can run to a bus stop as the bus arrives and buy my ticket there and then; I can hop in my car and drive off. The rail industry has this perverse syndrome of trying to make life more difficult for its customers. As has been said before, there has been little authenticated evidence published on the scale or cost of fare evasion, or whether barriers have much effect on it. Neither has there been any serious attempt at modelling the effect on revenue and usage of a simpler, cheaper fare structure combined with more human revenue protection. IMHO, the rail industry is stuck in the groove of "pax will evade fares if they can and we must control them".

 

[shinkansen1966]

I disagree. The main competition for rail travel is by road, and the biggest selling point there is convenience. I can run to a bus stop as the bus arrives and buy my ticket there and then; I can hop in my car and drive off. The rail industry has this perverse syndrome of trying to make life more difficult for its customers. As has been said before, there has been little authenticated evidence published on the scale or cost of fare evasion, or whether barriers have much effect on it. Neither has there been any serious attempt at modelling the effect on revenue and usage of a simpler, cheaper fare structure combined with more human revenue protection. IMHO, the rail industry is stuck in the groove of "pax will evade fares if they can and we must control them".

Well said.

Remember that these TOCs are artificial constructs. They have few assets and a fixed life expectancy. It's not like Sainsbury who grow their business over decades and expand their asset of supermarket buildings, staff, check out machines and delivery vehicles.

With their fixed 7-20 year life, TOCs have two objectives: raise revenue and controls costs. The railway industry as a whole is struggling with costs, something confirmed by transport secretary Philip Hammond. This leaves TOCs only one less difficult objective: raise revenue. And these fare barriers (with all their unintended consequences) are an easy fix for the short lived TOCs. And lasting reminder to passengers, long after that franchise has been passed from one to TOC to another.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Abuse and fraud by passengers has led to this situation.

But why should genuine passengers have to suffer because of the minority who do abuse the system?

We also need to get away from this "just in time" syndrome from which rail travellers seem to suffer.

I disagree. Indeed one of the reasons rail travel is so popular with a lot of people is because you can decide to go someone and just turn up (as is the case with buses too). I live 5 minutes away from the local train station, so can decide around ten minutes before the train is due that I want to go somewhere. If we changed the railways into something more like airports, then I would just use the bus instead.

 

[shinkansen1966]

Indeed one of the reasons rail travel is so popular .

Yes, just one of reasons rail travel is more popular. Other reasons include:

• development of cheaper advance purchase tickets: first used by BR (remember APEX fares ?) and SNCF; expanded by the TOCs and copied in Germany, Spain and Italy.
  
• the internet makes it easier to find cheaper fares. Passengers are getting wise to deals and searching for them at home, rather spending ages in queue at a station. Again, something expanded by Deutsche Bahn with their easy to deliver e-ticket and mobile tickets.
  
• increasingly unreliable long distance road journeys. Motorways are become busier and journey times longer. Look at longer National Express intercity coach journey times, despite the removal service station refreshment breaks
  
• generally growth in the economy over the last 20 years, with many commute longer for employment

My own view is that the current fare structure together with mulitple rail web sites still requiring a ticket from a ticket machine is impeding rail growth and use.

To makes things easier, for intra urban journeys, the country should be covered by a national OysterCard. For intercity journeys, have one web site point of sale, together with national e-ticketing and mobile tickets as an addition to traditional points of sale. And fewer ticket barriers.