• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Retention of tickets

Status
Not open for further replies.

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
78,463
Location
Yorkshire
I imagine that the intention is that without a CTA the rights protected by 4.10 should exist anyway. 4.10 protects those rights where a CTA is in place. SWT don't call what they do a CTA, but enforce the usual rules associated with a CTA without the protection granted by 4.10.
Absolutely correct.

It would be absurd to interpret that if a station is designated a CTA, then there must be a way of letting people see family onto a train, but if a station is not a CTA then those rights can be denied! ;)

However I wonder if, by not registering their stations as CTAs, SWT are perhaps not subjected to inspections or scrutiny to ensure they are complying with good practice? Just a hunch though.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Deerfold

Veteran Member
Joined
26 Nov 2009
Messages
13,762
Location
Yorkshire
I don't think it does to be honest. Can you think of any other words whereby you can have an "ing" after an "e"? All English words I know of you should remove the "e" to make way for the "ing". Achieveing? Achieving? The latter, obviously is correct.

I think the Americans have something to do with "routeing" so I'll let them off on this occasion. Dictionary.com.

On Wikipedia the only mention of routeing as opposed to routing is for the Routeing guide. "Routeing" redirects to "Routing (disambiguation)".

Google assumes you've misspelt it.

And this amused me: http://list.opera.com/pipermail/opera-users/2004-October/024411.html
 

moonrakerz

Member
Joined
10 Feb 2009
Messages
870
Moonrakerz's logic appears to be that if he cannot get on a platform because of barriers then it is a de facto CTA, and he can henceforth refer to it as one.

Absolutely correct ! SWT were not letting anyone enter the platform area without a ticket - yet when I asked SWT 3 times in writing to tell me if this was a CTA - each reply ignored my question. When I spoke to DfT they informed me that there was NO CTA at Salisbury. (Perhaps SWT didn't know what "de-facto" meant !)
SWT also informed me (in writing) that Salisbury was a Penalty Fares station for all TOCs operating from there (normally a requirement for a CTA) - this is NOT so (see FGW website) - my letter to SWT pointing this out was totally ignored.
AIUI the staff are simply using their discretion not to let him on the platform, which seems OK as far as the byelaws go?

How can the staff be "using their discretion not to let him on the platform, which seems OK as far as the byelaws go" ? If I am contravening the byelaws I am committing an offence, since when has asking to meet my unwell daughter off a train been an offence ? Should BTP not have been summoned to arrest me ?
There is NO "discretion" applicable to someone wishing to access the platforms, the DfT rules on this are quite clear:
"4.10 At stations with a CTA, operators must make arrangements for people who are not travelling to be allowed into the part of the station covered by the CTA, if they have a good reason. This includes people who are meeting passengers, seeing passengers off or helping them with luggage, people helping passengers with disabilities, and people such as railway enthusiasts. The arrangements might include making platform tickets available at the ticket office or from a machine. People who are helping passengers with disabilities should not be charged to enter a CTA."

I have every sympathy with the TOCs trying to catch fare dodgers, but when their response is to treat every honest visitor/passenger as a fare dodger then I am NOT prepared to be treated as such.

Perhaps the most annoying thing about the original "incident", which occurred on a fairly quiet Saturday evening, was that a couple of weeks later when I visited Salisbury as a fare paying passenger, on a busy Tuesday (market day) was that on arrival and departure, there were NO staff in attendance and all the barriers were locked open !!! A couple of weeks later, both entering and leaving the platforms, my ticket was rejected - the response from the barrier staff ? " oh - these machines don't like tickets from Warminster"..............

However I wonder if, by not registering their stations as CTAs, SWT are perhaps not subjected to inspections or scrutiny to ensure they are complying with good practice? Just a hunch though.

That was obviously their train (:roll:) of thought - but according to DfT all the complaints had caused at least 2 (possibly 3) visits by DfT to see what was going on and to tell them to follow the Rules - regardless of what this area was called or actually was.
 
Last edited:

Flamingo

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2010
Messages
6,806
I have every sympathy with the TOCs trying to catch fare dodgers, but when their response is to treat every honest visitor/passenger as a fare dodger then I am NOT prepared to be treated as such.
Unfortunately, fare-dodgers come in all shapes and sizes, and do their best to look like honest visitors/passengers. Some VERY convincingly.
 

moonrakerz

Member
Joined
10 Feb 2009
Messages
870
Unfortunately, fare-dodgers come in all shapes and sizes, and do their best to look like honest visitors/passengers. Some VERY convincingly.

So true - just like when ever I take my Nikon out I become a fully paid up child molester or Osama Bin laden in disguise :lol::lol:
 

bnm

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2009
Messages
4,992
Also, it bugs me somewhat that where ever a train route is discussed, it's called "Routeing" even ATOC say it! Surely proper English would be to lose the "e" and spell it as "Routing"...?

Both spellings for the present participle are perfectly acceptable.

From the OED:

route, v.

Inflections: Present participle routing, routeing.

In British English, the form routeing is sometimes preferred for the present participle.
 

Deerfold

Veteran Member
Joined
26 Nov 2009
Messages
13,762
Location
Yorkshire
Both spellings for the present participle are perfectly acceptable.

From the OED:

Acceptable, but not widely used. Except by ATOC.

By the way the link to the OED doesn't work unless you're a subscriber and logged in.
 

Stigy

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2009
Messages
4,969
On Wikipedia the only mention of routeing as opposed to routing is for the Routeing guide. "Routeing" redirects to "Routing (disambiguation)".

Google assumes you've misspelt it.

And this amused me: http://list.opera.com/pipermail/opera-users/2004-October/024411.html
Liked that link, and very true about all words really! The word 'routeing' sure looks strange, and goes against the general rule about the 'e' remaining present when the 'ing' is also there, surely? Still, I'm not going to lose sleep over this one! If ATOC say it, it must be right.... ;)
 

blacknight

Member
Joined
19 Feb 2009
Messages
543
Location
Crow Park
Whilst true, I think ticket barriers, ticket checks, RPIs, CTAs, Penalty fares, etc etc are enough without being hassled for tickets once you've actually left the station!

Simple question did you have a valid for journey you made yes or no. Sometimes to proove case of fare evasion you have to stop person at the doors for example person arrives at gateline with no ticket & they are directed to ticket office but decide instead to head to exit until they actually attempt to leave station have they committed an offence that can be prooven in court, likewise a person without a ticket on platform until they attempt to board a train have they committed an offence.
 

Old Timer

Established Member
Joined
24 Aug 2009
Messages
3,702
Location
On a plane somewhere at 35,000
Absolutely correct ! SWT were not letting anyone enter the platform area without a ticket - yet when I asked SWT 3 times in writing to tell me if this was a CTA - each reply ignored my question. When I spoke to DfT they informed me that there was NO CTA at Salisbury. (Perhaps SWT didn't know what "de-facto" meant !)
SWT also informed me (in writing) that Salisbury was a Penalty Fares station for all TOCs operating from there (normally a requirement for a CTA) - this is NOT so (see FGW website) - my letter to SWT pointing this out was totally ignored. .
The provision of a ticket barrier does not require the are to be defined as a CTA.

Ticket barriers existed for over 150 years prior to the opening up of stations. If SWT wish to barrier off the platforms then they do not have to declare the station a CTA station to do so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top