Rail Magazine Gibber

[Username]

I really fail to see why people are getting so worked up about what marks are made on tickets, or why some marks are 'professional' and why that should be important?

Marking a ticket surely just indicates that it has been seen and checked by a member of revenue protection staff.

If at a later date or time it is checked by another member of revenue staff - whether it's because the passenger broke their journey or simply because they had to change services - what information do you really think the second member of staff needs to know or indeed cares about?

Is the ticket valid in terms of date, time and route restriction?
If the ticket has already been marked then is it reasonable to conclude it was marked on an earlier service? (i.e. is the station where they boarded intermediate to the origin and destination stations on the ticket?)

If the guard is satisfied that the answer to both these questions is "yes" then exactly what else do they need to know?
How much information 'should' there be? The date? The time? The headcode? A description of the passenger and what they are wearing?

Does it matter what the headcode of the previous service used was? No.
If the validity is for any more than one day does it matter what date it was last used on? No
Would this knowledge be of any use or indeed interest to the guard? No.

All they (should) care about is whether or not it can be seen to be valid at the point and time that they are inspecting it.

For example, a passenger travelling from Huntly to Newcastle boards the the 14.01 service to Aberdeen and has their ticket marked.
They change in Aberdeen. The guard on this service checks their ticket, sees it has already been marked but this is acceptable since the origin was Huntly. The second guard gives it another mark.
The passenger then changes in Dundee. The third conductor to check the ticket sees two marks. This is reasonable, the ticket is valid, they mark it a third time.
The passenger changes train in Edinburgh. The fourth guard checks the ticket. The ticket is in date, any previous marks are attributed to earlier services, it's accepted and marked again.

That's four perfectly reasonable and 'expected' marks on one ticket and that's without any break of journey. Does anyone really believe the second, third or fourth guard cares which services the passenger previously used so long as the ticket can be seen to be valid on their service?

If the passenger broke their journey a dozen times en-route and collects marks each time then this should not be an issue so long as the ticket is in date. Why? Because (a)the passenger is permitted to do so (ticket type permitting) and (b) even if the guard suspects misuse they cannot refuse the ticket as they have no proof.

As an aside, if the guard is advised by the passenger that they'll be breaking their journey then the ticket can be endorsed "used to <station>" which helps clarify the situation when the journey is subsequently resumed from that station. But the passenger doesn't have to advise the guard of their intention and lack of this endorsement is not an indication of misuse.

The only time a mark on a ticket would need to be queried is when it is unexpected, i.e. the passenger has boarded at the station designated as the origination of the journey so their ticket should be unmarked. This stands for whichever method of marking is used, be it a stamp, a punched hole or a handwritten 'squiggle'.

So again, given that a marked ticket simply signifies it has been seen and checked at some point during its use, what difference does it make to the passenger which form the marking takes?

 

[CarterUSM]

I really fail to see why people are getting so worked up about what marks are made on tickets, or why some marks are 'professional' and why that should be important?

Marking a ticket surely just indicates that it has been seen and checked by a member of revenue protection staff.

If at a later date or time it is checked by another member of revenue staff - whether it's because the passenger broke their journey or simply because they had to change services - what information do you really think the second member of staff needs to know or indeed cares about?

Is the ticket valid in terms of date, time and route restriction?
If the ticket has already been marked then is it reasonable to conclude it was marked on an earlier service? (i.e. is the station where they boarded intermediate to the origin and destination stations on the ticket?)

If the guard is satisfied that the answer to both these questions is "yes" then exactly what else do they need to know?
How much information 'should' there be? The date? The time? The headcode? A description of the passenger and what they are wearing?

Does it matter what the headcode of the previous service used was? No.
If the validity is for any more than one day does it matter what date it was last used on? No
Would this knowledge be of any use or indeed interest to the guard? No.

All they (should) care about is whether or not it can be seen to be valid at the point and time that they are inspecting it.

For example, a passenger travelling from Huntly to Newcastle boards the the 14.01 service to Aberdeen and has their ticket marked.
They change in Aberdeen. The guard on this service checks their ticket, sees it has already been marked but this is acceptable since the origin was Huntly. The second guard gives it another mark.
The passenger then changes in Dundee. The third conductor to check the ticket sees two marks. This is reasonable, the ticket is valid, they mark it a third time.
The passenger changes train in Edinburgh. The fourth guard checks the ticket. The ticket is in date, any previous marks are attributed to earlier services, it's accepted and marked again.

That's four perfectly reasonable and 'expected' marks on one ticket and that's without any break of journey. Does anyone really believe the second, third or fourth guard cares which services the passenger previously used so long as the ticket can be seen to be valid on their service?

If the passenger broke their journey a dozen times en-route and collects marks each time then this should not be an issue so long as the ticket is in date. Why? Because (a)the passenger is permitted to do so (ticket type permitting) and (b) even if the guard suspects misuse they cannot refuse the ticket as they have no proof.

As an aside, if the guard is advised by the passenger that they'll be breaking their journey then the ticket can be endorsed "used to <station>" which helps clarify the situation when the journey is subsequently resumed from that station. But the passenger doesn't have to advise the guard of their intention and lack of this endorsement is not an indication of misuse.

The only time a mark on a ticket would need to be queried is when it is unexpected, i.e. the passenger has boarded at the station designated as the origination of the journey so their ticket should be unmarked. This stands for whichever method of marking is used, be it a stamp, a punched hole or a handwritten 'squiggle'.

So again, given that a marked ticket simply signifies it has been seen and checked at some point during its use, what difference does it make to the passenger which form the marking takes?

Indeed, i don't find it hard to notice tickets that have been already marked usually signify the resumption of the journey, but some staff do unfortunately . You're right though, i find this a bit of a non discussion myself .

 

[jopsuk]

I don't understand why people are getting wound up by an article that appeared only in a magazine with a readership of just over 20,000, many of whom are rail industry employees anyway (and thus even less likely to be fare didgers- I'd hope!), and that the vast, vast majority of fare-dodging scrotes quite probably don't even know exists (and wouldn't be caught reading it if they did know, probably dismissing it it as for "saddoes").

 

[hairyhandedfool]

The problem there is that, in my experience, 'the scrotes' are not actually the vast majority of dodgers, that's just how society portrays them, or rather, how it portrays others.

I've seen 40 odd year old males in expensive suits being given a penalty fare and giving reasons like "I saw the train when I entered the station and just ran for it" when the service in question not only runs every 15 minutes, but also would've been beneath their feet in a tunnel at the time!

I've heard of people from the fraud dept. of HMRC (or whatever it calls itself this year) being taken to court for fare evasion from company magazines and such.

I really don't believe these are one off incidents or anything approaching the minority of them.

I'm sure that if that is the case you might want to re-evaulate if they read it or not, besides, a readership of 20,000 only accounts for the copies actually bought, rather than including those read in the local WHSmiths, which can found on railway stations up and down the country.

 

[Deerfold]

I really fail to see why people are getting so worked up about what marks are made on tickets, or why some marks are 'professional' and why that should be important?

...

For example, a passenger travelling from Huntly to Newcastle boards the the 14.01 service to Aberdeen and has their ticket marked.
They change in Aberdeen. The guard on this service checks their ticket, sees it has already been marked but this is acceptable since the origin was Huntly. The second guard gives it another mark.
The passenger then changes in Dundee. The third conductor to check the ticket sees two marks. This is reasonable, the ticket is valid, they mark it a third time.
The passenger changes train in Edinburgh. The fourth guard checks the ticket. The ticket is in date, any previous marks are attributed to earlier services, it's accepted and marked again.

That's four perfectly reasonable and 'expected' marks on one ticket and that's without any break of journey. Does anyone really believe the second, third or fourth guard cares which services the passenger previously used so long as the ticket can be seen to be valid on their service?
...

The only time a mark on a ticket would need to be queried is when it is unexpected, i.e. the passenger has boarded at the station designated as the origination of the journey so their ticket should be unmarked. This stands for whichever method of marking is used, be it a stamp, a punched hole or a handwritten 'squiggle'.

So again, given that a marked ticket simply signifies it has been seen and checked at some point during its use, what difference does it make to the passenger which form the marking takes?

If the only use is to tell if a passenger has already started their journey then isn't it a huge waste of time and effort all the other guards marking the ticket too? Why do some companies both with expensive stamps with headcodes if this doesn't add anything useful?

 

[Flamingo]

I've seen 40 odd year old males in expensive suits being given a penalty fare

As you say, just because they are in an expensive suit and sitting in 1st class doesn't mean they are not a drunken troublemaking scrote - and just because they are in a hoodie and carrying a can of 'bow doesn't mean they don't have a 1st class ticket and are pleasant and helpful...

 

[Username]

If the only use is to tell if a passenger has already started their journey then isn't it a huge waste of time and effort all the other guards marking the ticket too?

The actual time taken to check a ticket is time spent getting it, looking at it and handing it back. It doesn't take any extra time or effort to mark it as this is done whilst looking at it. So there's no reason not to. But equally there are those who will see a ticket has been marked and not bother. Each to their own.

Why do some companies both with expensive stamps with headcodes if this doesn't add anything useful?

No idea.

Perhaps it helps in the event of claims for delays to confirm that the ticket holder was in fact on a late service as they can check the headcode off the stamped ticket?
Perhaps they just want to be 'different'?
Perhaps the initial outlay for the stampers works out as a financially viable option when compared against the constant need to resupply staff with special pens? (someone mentioned they come in at £5 a pop but I can't speak for the accuracy of that)

 

[Failed Unit]

Perhaps it helps in the event of claims for delays to confirm that the ticket holder was in fact on a late service as they can check the headcode off the stamped ticket?
Perhaps they just want to be 'different'?
Perhaps the initial outlay for the stampers works out as a financially viable option when compared against the constant need to resupply staff with special pens? (someone mentioned they come in at £5 a pop but I can't speak for the accuracy of that)

From the users point of view it is very useful for compensation claims, but I guess that is equally useful from the TOC point of view in case someone has an open ticket, sees a train is 2 hours late and just claims they were on it.

On thing however as others have mentioned the stamps with headcodes done stamp a lot of tickets, the ink just rubs off, I suppose the simple solution is to just write on the otherside of the tickets, something I often have to do on flexi-pases as it often doesn't write on the correct side! At least the gaurd see's I have made an effort even if it isn't in the correct boxes!

 

[cyclebytrain]

On southeastern some of the staff have personalised cutters not sure if thats official or not but Ive recently had a steam train and a kiwi!

Apparently there's an unofficial competition going on at the moment. I assume it'll come to a head around Christmas :roll:

 

[Anvil1984]

As I say the most problems come on the shorter distance SORs not the likes of the Aberdeen - Newcastles. For m usual example New Pudsey to York. I come across a outwrd portion of a SOR dated yesterday after a ticket check from Leeds. If it has a hole on it I cant draw many conclusions and have to pass it, if it has 1S66 and the date from yesterday then I know it ws used after Leeds yesterday and will have been used as far as York therefore a TI job. If it has a date then I can question the date difference then make a call.

 

[Failed Unit]

On southeastern some of the staff have personalised cutters not sure if thats official or not but Ive recently had a steam train and a kiwi!

I have noticed that, I got a whitch - the gaurd in question was female. Didn't know if it was someone the depot trying to tell her something.

 

[yorkie]

If it has a hole on it I cant draw many conclusions and have to pass it, if it has 1S66 and the date from yesterday then I know it ws used after Leeds yesterday and will have been used as far as York therefore a TI job.

Right, so it's the headcode that makes the difference, not the date, so why do some guards write the date (and not a headcode)? The answer appears to be that the ones who do this appear to not realise that tickets are perfectly valid for a break of overnight stay. They write the date, thinking it's not valid after that. And unfortunately some guards read that date and think the same. It is simply unacceptable for this small minority of guards to not be aware of the rules. It's their job to know the rules and if they are in any doubt that they know them, they have the means to check. If others made such mistakes in their jobs they'd be sacked. It's also not fair on the vast majority of guards that a small minority give them a bad name.

If it has a date then I can question the date difference then make a call.

What question is there to ask? It's perfectly valid to break the journey and resume a different day. As you identify earlier, it's not about the date. It's where the ticket has been used to. It would take ages to write this on every ticket, this is clearly impractical. On some occasions the headcode may give it away as you say. But some guards have said they recognise the same faces doing this on a daily commute. So for those passengers that they recognise as a problem, it makes sense to write where the ticket has been used to.

 

[reb0118]

I used to mark tickets with my companies three letter code, my pay number, the headcode, line of route code, & date.

If a flexi pass is undated I put three xxx in the date box & the headcode.

 

[Lee_Again]

Sorry but I can't see the need for anyone to put any kind of mark on a ticket. Why does anybody need to know that a ticket has been checked? Surely, when asked to show one, a customer should show a valid ticket for the journey they're on. No need to explain any break of journey, or anything else.

 

[Anvil1984]

A date on the ticket can lead to a simple question of did you use this ticket yesterday? Now as mentionned on another forum they will either say yeah but only to Leeds as I had a meeting (doesn't have to be an accusory tone) or they will say oh no that's an old ticket (sometimes legitimately as they have about 50 tickets in the wallet) if it just has a hole in you'd just have to presume that its been just checked by last guy and put a date on it. Also some people because its valid for 5 days think it can bbe used for 5 days just because of the complexity of the systen and not because they re looking to dodge the fare. Had an instance where a lady going from York to Horsforh had a Lincoln - Horsforth SOR outward portion ask before she got on if she could use it again tomorrow from York as it ws valid for 5 days.

I'd prefer a headcode and date on all tickets but when I have 2 minutes between stations and just a biro its not going to happen. A date on there is a little help and also can lead to a conversation (especially if its a nice female).A headcode alone can be useful especially if mentionned it is one for the last part of the route. A hole is only any good if our the first guard that guy will see. A squiggle is the same.

 

[cyclebytrain]

Sorry but I can't see the need for anyone to put any kind of mark on a ticket. Why does anybody need to know that a ticket has been checked? Surely, when asked to show one, a customer should show a valid ticket for the journey they're on. No need to explain any break of journey, or anything else.

This just raised a serious, albeit tongue in cheek question -where (from a legalistic point of view) is a ticket from A to B restricted to only travelling from A to B once?
(I am genuinely curious; because I assume it's in the NRCOC but I can't actually find it)

 

[RJ]

Sorry but I can't see the need for anyone to put any kind of mark on a ticket. Why does anybody need to know that a ticket has been checked? Surely, when asked to show one, a customer should show a valid ticket for the journey they're on. No need to explain any break of journey, or anything else.

To prevent people paying for an SOR and enjoying up to five return trips on that one ticket.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

This just raised a serious, albeit tongue in cheek question -where (from a legalistic point of view) is a ticket from A to B restricted to only travelling from A to B once?
(I am genuinely curious; because I assume it's in the NRCOC but I can't actually find it)

I have a suspicion that your hunch is quite correct. But perhaps this is more from the point of view of some interested pedants (you and me included!) rather than a legal one!
The question of the number of journeys for which the ticket-holding passenger may be conveyed would, historically, have been quite adequately defined in the ticket name "Single", "Return", "Season" etc. These don't leave any doubt. In current times, the 3 bold letters "SGL" on a ticket do not have such an ordinary meaning, so could not be expected to provide any clarity to your question.

However, if you wished to look further into a legal construction, then I doubt case law will assist us. The overwhelming evidence of the custom and practice of millions of travellers over many decades would be construed as evidential. They have taken a ticket marked "SGL" as being valid for conveying the passenger from origin to destination once. And only once.
I can't think of a barrister who would be willing to argue that a ticket permitted an undefined number of journeys!

(Good idea! - That kind of thinking will pay off one day, but sadly, not with this particular issue. I have a hunch that there might be other anomalies waiting to be exploited, though. But its not just going to be passengers looking for those, but also Operators, Infrastructure contractors, Regulating Authorities and of course the government of the day. They'll all enjoy finding an interpretation which gives them an advantage. Frankly, I'm more concerned about those who relentlessly look for ways to reduce thier exposure to risk or liability to costs, and as a result make rail travel either more expensive, less pleasant or convenient, or in some cases, non-existant!)

 

[yorkie]

I guess it's assumed. A "normal" person may reasonably expect that a "single", or "return" would only allow one journey, and one journey each way, respectively. The terms "Rover" and "Ranger" seem simple and obvious enough to me, but perhaps some people may not realise that they are valid for unlimited journeys. Some obscure ones like "Saveaway" may confuse people. The term "season" surely leaves no doubt.

I think many people are more likely to underestimate validity than overestimate it. (e.g. assuming a Day ticket is not valid after 23:59, or assuming that break of journey is not permitted on any ticket, or that all Off Peak tickets are not valid until 9:30am or similar, or that Railcards can never be used before 10am. All of which are incorrect assumptions to make)

 

[Anvil1984]

Most the questions I get asked up here is what time can i travel from x to y on an off peak ticket in the afternoon on a local journey when there is no off peak. There are a few There are a few restrictions which are barely enforced or really known like the Northern Duos afternoon restriction on Harrogate Line, but I'm digressing
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
But not all are under-estimations, how many words in the ears I have on New Pudsey to York returns on a morning service (Yes I know I have those stations on the brain a lot) with passengers on return portions of railcard discount tickets under 12 quid.

 

[yorkie]

Hmm, Railcards appear to be protected products however I cannot determine which terms are protected. Given that the minimum fare for these tickets was £8 prior to Complication (which ATOC named Simplification, to describe the process in their terms), I have suspected that the increase to £12 may not be legitimate, however I cannot confirm this. Furthermore, ATOC claimed that no prices were rising as a result of their "Simplification". The only way to honour that claim is to honour those tickets. However, ATOC are not honourable. When asked to admit that price rises did occur as a result, they refused to admit it. So they are basically liars. If someone had enough cash to mount a legal challenge, I reckon they just might have a case...

 

[Anvil1984]

Yep but if I was feeling all jobsworthy (i hate that phrase) I'd be within my rights to excess any one on said ticket. The current range and restrictions of tickets is stupid at the moment (in my opinion) why should off-peak tickets be valid at all times these should be renamed as Anytime returns, why can old dears get a discount at 0800 and not the students / young people.

 

[cyclebytrain]

I can't think of a barrister who would be willing to argue that a ticket permitted an undefined number of journeys!

You have more faith in the integrity of lawyers than I do -I was once involved on the periphery of a contract dispute once where it basically boiled down to the supplier saying "our contract didn't say it had to work" (and it didn't). All who were involved are now remarkably anal about contracts.

 

[yorkie]

Yep but if I was feeling all jobsworthy (i hate that phrase) I'd be within my rights to excess any one on said ticket. The current range and restrictions of tickets is stupid at the moment (in my opinion) why should off-peak tickets be valid at all times these should be renamed as Anytime returns, why can old dears get a discount at 0800 and not the students / young people.

Yes, I agree. The TOCs that don't call them Anytime are doing this to artificially inflate the fare that they then charge for people on the wrong Advance fare, and also over-charge PRIV holders.

It's crazy that a student doing a £8 journey in the North can not get a discount, but an over 60 can.

Yet in the South East, a student doing a £12 journey can get a discount, but an over 60 can not.

If it's a long distance journey from North to South, then they all can.

There is no logic to this. This lack of logic complies with ATOC policy not to apply logic.

 

[43167]

Scribbling on tickets in the style of a 2 year old with a biro hardly looks professional. Is this the image the TOCs wish to portray?

I second that. Nearly all Northern Guards have the pen. It looks poor. Bring back the tongs.

Slightly off topic, my Derbyshire Wayfarer on thursday got a nice hole punched in it by a EMT revenue protection inspector. If they all did that to rovers and dayrangers there would be no ticket left.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

You have more faith in the integrity of lawyers than I do . . . . .

I know you're remark is in good humour, but just if you were making a serious point, then I must say that my analysis is not influenced by faith or integrity.
I think the difference between the situation you first raised and now this example about the fulfillment of a contract by a supplier is in the crucial factor I put to you :- ". . . I doubt case law will assist us. The overwhelming evidence of the custom and practice of millions of travellers over many decades would be construed as evidential. They have taken a ticket marked "SGL" as being valid for conveying the passenger from origin to destination once. And only once."
That is profoundly helpful evidence in construing the ill-worded terms of a contract; something that simply isn't available to the 2-party dispute which the Courts have to hear every day.

 

[Lee_Again]

To prevent people paying for an SOR and enjoying up to five return trips on that one ticket.

By that logic all tickets that are not marked can be used multiple times.

If tickets are only to be used once, and then become invalid, a system better than a guards paw print is required. Barriers are the obvious solution but I realise these aren't fool proof.

I think the system used on the continent is much simpler. When you get on a train, any train, the valid ticket you are using is stamped by a machine. The train ID and date is stamped. This validates the ticket. No stamp, ticket not valid, penalty fare issued.

 

[CarterUSM]

I agree, it does seem simpler, but i'd like to see the vast majority of passengers getting to grips with it.

 

[Lee_Again]

I don't think it would be that difficult. Plenty of people travel abroad and don't have any problems. People won't like it because it is so simple and fool proof. It takes away the ability to provide excuses when challenged.

It also means that guards or other ticket inspectors, many of whom don't fully understand ticket restrictions, won't need a stamp or a pen.

Having read this thread it seems two problems can be solved in one.

 

[bnm]

Here in FGW land the Zifa ticket stampers are becoming more prevalent. Some that have been used on my tickets even appear to be using ink that adheres to the thermal ticket stock!

It's interesting to note that use of Zifas was actually prescribed in FGWs Franchise Agreement - with 6 months allowed from the start of the franchise to their full roll-out to all relevant staff. That would've been 1st October 2006, so only 4 years later and FGW are finally complying with a franchise requirement!

Incidentally, I don't agree with the requirement per se. It does rather smack of a classic example of DfT micromanagement. Having said that there are numerous other examples of TOCs failing to comply with more important franchise commitments.....