Ticket Gates

[MidnightFlyer]

a) Are they the best way to control fare evasion?
b) Where else are they planned?
c) Why's everyone in York and Sheffield so dead set against them?

 

[Lampshade]

I'll try and stay as open minded as possible but as many forum members know I hate them more than just about anything

a) No, they make the Guard lazy. They're just a cost cutting measure to get rid of staff and a complete inconvenience to honest fare paying passengers, the majority have to suffer for the actions of the minority.

b) Hopefully nowhere.

c) It's more to do with through access. In York the gates were going to close the footbridge entrance from the NRM and in Sheffield it would prevent people using a safe walking route from Park Hill to the city centre. Both cases were eventually rejected on listed building grounds.

 

[Fred26]

I'm in favour. Provided they're manned from first train to last... which I've never seen anywhere. But in principal, I like them.

(Anecdote) Apart from fare evasion, barriers can also help reduce other crimes. My supervisor has told me stories from before gates were fitted at our station; apparently the platforms were rife with drug dealers and the homeless. Not anymore. Also as a result of having a gateline, we now have more staff for most of the day. Win-Win.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I'm in favour. Provided they're manned from first train to last... which I've never seen anywhere. But in principal, I like them.

(Anecdote) Apart from fare evasion, barriers can also help reduce other crimes. My supervisor has told me stories from before gates were fitted at our station; apparently the platforms were rife with drug dealers and the homeless. Not anymore. Also as a result of having a gateline, we now have more staff for most of the day. Win-Win.

Where's your station?

They are planned for Liverpool Lime St.

Strange at Sheffield - Stagecoach EMT want to block the public, and people with valid tram tickets from crossing - the tram of course supplied by...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'll try and stay as open minded as possible but as many forum members know I hate them more than just about anything

a) No, they make the Guard lazy. They're just a cost cutting measure to get rid of staff and a complete inconvenience to honest fare paying passengers, the majority have to suffer for the actions of the minority.

b) Hopefully nowhere.

c) It's more to do with through access. In York the gates were going to close the footbridge entrance from the NRM and in Sheffield it would prevent people using a safe walking route from Park Hill to the city centre. Both cases were eventually rejected on listed building grounds.

b) Maybe Preston...?

 

[Fred26]

*****

 

[142094]

1) Yes and no, barriers force people to have a ticket but of course it doesn't necessarily have to be the right one. We'll still need guards on trains. Plus it isn't feasible to barrier every station.

2) Tyne and Wear Metro will be getting some at selected stations

3) At Sheffield the barriers would stop an important link between the tram stop and houses on that side to the city centre. IIRC I read that it is in fact a public right of way over the railway, so another bridge would have to be prvided if the main station one was barriered. At York it would detract from such grand architecture as it does at Newcastle.

I know a few people have seen it but there is some sort of barrier in place at York already...(not talking about metal fences and ticket checkers either)

 

[Lampshade]

b) Maybe Preston...?

A few things:

1. It's Grade II Listed
2. Preston City Council aren't that naive
3. It has 4 entrances
4. They can't even organise manual barriers there
5. Nowhere to put them

 

[MidnightFlyer]

2) Tyne and Wear Metro will be getting some at selected stations

Is this the same Tyne & Wear Metro who made it illegal to take photos of anything to do with them on their network? Idiotic. But as I've only ever been on the T&WM once (to get to the Stadium of Light), I don't really mind. Anyone seen the new Sunderland station? Nice, bright, cheerful. Shame about the rest of Sunderland.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Preston City Council aren't that naive.

You wanna bet? You only have to close the two side entrances, and put RPIs over the main exit. Enjoy your potential ticket gates

 

[142094]

Is this the same Tyne and wear Metro who made it illegal to take photos of anything to do with them on their network? Idiotic. But as i've only ever been on the T&WM once (to get to the Stadium of Light), I don't really mind Anyone seen the new Sunderland station - nice, bright, cheerful. Shame about the rest of Sunderland

Yup, although in practise I have never been bothered yet when taking pics. They've done a good job with Sunderland however it is still quite dark. Haymarket is much better, and that is completely underground with no natural light.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

A few things:

1. It's Grade II Listed
2. Preston City Council aren't that naive
3. It has 4 entrances
4. They can't even organise manual barriers there
5. Nowhere to put them

1. They'll get round it
2. You wanna bet?
3. I can only think of three
4. I know - the evaders use the subway
5. Over the main exit when you close the two side exits

 

[142094]

1. It's Grade II Listed

That means diddly squat, Newcastle is Grade 1 listed and looked what happened.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

That means diddly squat, Newcastle is Grade 1 listed and looked what happened.

Don't think VT would mind flattening Carlisle, Preston and Crewe totally, and they are all listed.

 

[222007]

c) Why's everyone in York and Sheffield so dead set against them?

*tongue in cheek* maybe there's lots of fare dodgers from these places Seriously though my TOC assist with the manual barrier at sheffield station with spectactular results so i can fully appreciate why EMT want barriers

 

[Lampshade]

That means diddly squat, Newcastle is Grade 1 listed and looked what happened.

That's more down to Newcastle City Council falling for NXEC's babblings about how they would deter anti social behaviour and increase security. The proposals were recommended for refusal but were approved anyway. The exact opposite happened in York (Grade II), they were recommended for approval but they refused them on listed building grounds.

 

[GB]

They do not make guards "lazy" as someone has suggested. The guards I see still do on board ticket checks even tho the majority of station calls have barriers. I imagine barriers would relief a percentage of pressure on guards to catch fare evaders and allow them a bit more freedom to perform their other duties.

I do not see how they are "cost cutting" measures. They can't be that cheap to install and the tocs employ gate line staff to man them. Without the gates there would be alot of people out of jobs and there would be less staff on hand to deal with the public.

I also do not see how they inconvenience fare paying passengers (providing there is a member of staff there), it takes but seconds to get through in my experience...even in the peak.

Gates as a sole means of revenue protection is probably not a great thing, but couple it with on board checks then I don't see the issue.

 

[Donny Dave]

c) Why's everyone in York and Sheffield so dead set against them?

*tongue in cheek* maybe there's lots of fare dodgers from these places Seriously though my TOC assist with the manual barrier at sheffield station with spectactular results so i can fully appreciate why EMT want barriers

I've just checked a topic on WNXX about the proposed barriers at Sheffield, and there is a big dispute about whether the footbridge is a legal right of way.

When the Supertram network was the stop added at Sheffield station, it appears that Sheffield City Council contributed to the alterations of the footbridge to allow passengers from the trams, and residents from the "wrong side" of the railway to access A. Sheffield station itself, and B. Sheffield City Centre. It is therefore the position of Sheffield City Council, that the footbridge is a public right of way.

The position held by the DfT however, is that the footbridge isn't a public right of way as it is on Network Rail property, and should therefore be barriered so only people who hold valid rail or tram tickets can access the platforms or station concourse.

Residents of Sheffield who live on the "wrong side" of the station face a lengthy walk round to reach the station entrance, or an alternative route across another footbridge closer to the station, but which isn't in a "desirable" part of town. Map here (the alternative footbridge is shown by a dashed green line just to the south of Sheffield station). For that reason, local residents want the footbridge kept open so they have a shorter walk to the station, and don't have to run as much risk from the more nefarious members of the local population.

I hope this explains a bit about what is happening a Sheffield concerning the barriers.

 

[imagination]

I don't see Twyford getting ticket barriers any time soon. Almost every other station from Reading to London (inclusive) has them now, but Twyford has a ridiculous number of entrances (6), NONE of which could fit more than 2 barriers, and none of which give access to all the station's platforms either

Plus the footbridge (which is the only way of getting to the middle platforms but doesnt give direct access to any of the other ones) is frequently used by people as a shortcut for getting into Twyford from the south of the village.

Edit: and then there's the fact that passengers from Wargrave often can't get a ticket between there and Twyford...

 

[Aictos]

I'm in favour. Provided they're manned from first train to last... which I've never seen anywhere. But in principal, I like them.

(Anecdote) Apart from fare evasion, barriers can also help reduce other crimes. My supervisor has told me stories from before gates were fitted at our station; apparently the platforms were rife with drug dealers and the homeless. Not anymore. Also as a result of having a gateline, we now have more staff for most of the day. Win-Win.

I quite agree but they also need to be manned properly ie if you see a line of people queueing at the booking office, you get the Adventix out if you've got one and bust that queue rather then do nothing and read a paper.

I'm a firm believer in them but they need to be staffed properly.

 

[142094]

Thought it was a legal requirement for barriers to be staffed when in operation due to H+S laws or something similar?

 

[causton]

Thought it was a legal requirement for barriers to be staffed when in operation due to H+S laws or something similar?

I remember reading that at least on FCC lines, the barriers need to be staffed or disabled to help with disabled passengers in case they have troubles (and for other passengers too I guess!)

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I remember reading that at least on FCC lines, the barriers need to be staffed or disabled to help with disabled passengers in case they have troubles (and for other passengers too I guess!)

Also if you got too much luggage or a staff pass etc

 

[adc82140]

but Twyford has a ridiculous number of entrances (6), NONE of which could fit more than 2 barriers,

Also there's the entrance from the car park at the end of platform 4- it would need barriers and a new building to put them in.

 

[scotsman]

Glasgow Central has them planned. I can't help but think they must save a lot for ScotRail between Edinburgh and Haymarket, as before the barriers it was pretty much a given that you could get into the city centre for free, every couple of minutes.

 

[imagination]

Also there's the entrance from the car park at the end of platform 4- it would need barriers and a new building to put them in.

Ooh yes. Forgot about that one because I've never used it.

7 then

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Isn't there a Ring of Steel planned for Glasgow - Argyle St, High St, GCLL & Exhb Cent all being barrieired

 

[furryfeet]

They're just a cost cutting measure to get rid of staff and a complete inconvenience to honest fare paying passengers, the majority have to suffer for the actions of the minority.

I would still like to see some actual figures of
a) install cost
b) what they save ( as a pose to just the guards collecting the fares )
c) what business is lost because of the inconvenience
d) ongoing operating cost
e) what it would cost to have staff on duty through the night, to deal with "druggies and undesirables"

I am against them - I know from personal experience at Oxford Road, how difficult it is, even when one has only one item of luggage to keep that safe whilst trying to get a ticket out of one's pocket and insert and retrieve the ticket from the barrier.

p.s. the next time, I used Deansgate instead !

 

[me123]

a) No, they make the Guard lazy. They're just a cost cutting measure to get rid of staff and a complete inconvenience to honest fare paying passengers, the majority have to suffer for the actions of the minority.

I don't buy into any of this. Even though ticket barriers prevent ticketless travel, they don't prevent people using incorrect tickets; or even people who accidentally are on the wrong train.

Let's look at Glasgow Queen Street as an example. A single ticket to nearby Ashfield costs a mere £1.40. For that, you get through the barriers and access to all nine platforms (including the two lower level platforms). This means that the passenger (accidentally or otherwise) can board a service to, say, Aberdeen (a single ticket costing a rather more pricey £40.30). The guard still has to check that the ticket held is valid for the journey.

And, on the way in to the barriered station, the guard still has the additional incentive to sell tickets so that customers are able to get through the barriers on arrival. At all times of the day, passengers will need tickets, whereas manual barriers are often only in place in the rush hour.

Then you have to consider the effectiveness of human barriers. I've passed through them plenty of times, and they frankly do not have the time to care. I've passed through with wrong tickets and seat reservations and have never been stopped. As long as it looks vaguely like a ticket, they'll let you through. (I hasten to add that I always have had a valid ticket when doing this!) And I'm not criticising the barrier staff (with the exception of the seat reservation one); they've got so many people, and they have to check so much information in such a short space of time. Humans cannot process information as quickly. Barriers tend to be more selective. You can't use a London-Bristol ticket in Aberdeen (for example). And you can't use an out of date ticket, or a seat reservation. And they also confiscate a used ticket (which human barriers seem to rarely do).

And as for staff losses to barriers; surely not a real issue? Even with automatic barriers, there's always someone on duty. And often several people are also on hand to sell tickets. If anything, staffing levels have probably increased at Glasgow Queen Street since the barriers were installed, because people need to be there all the time (and there's still lots of them in the rush hour of course).

And as for being an "inconvenience"... it's not. I think the automatic barriers at Queen Street Low Level are actually better than the human barriers were; there's less queuing on the Platform 8 stairs for example. And personally, I don't mind using ticket barriers when I know that it is an effective method of reducing fare dodging.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Isn't there a Ring of Steel planned for Glasgow - Argyle St, High St, GCLL & Exhb Cent all being barrieired

Aye. Here's the story. It's not 100% clear about whether they're doing Central High Level, though. That would certainly be a challenge!

 

[Lampshade]

I don't buy into any of this. Even though ticket barriers prevent ticketless travel, they don't prevent people using incorrect tickets; or even people who accidentally are on the wrong train.

...

I appreciate the points you have made, I was only generalising using my past experiences.

 

[LE Greys]

I would still like to see some actual figures of
a) install cost
b) what they save ( as a pose to just the guards collecting the fares )
c) what business is lost because of the inconvenience
d) ongoing operating cost
e) what it would cost to have staff on duty through the night, to deal with "druggies and undesirables"

I am against them - I know from personal experience at Oxford Road, how difficult it is, even when one has only one item of luggage to keep that safe whilst trying to get a ticket out of one's pocket and insert and retrieve the ticket from the barrier.

p.s. the next time, I used Deansgate instead !

Apart from the fact that they are seriously annoying if you're left-handed, they must cause problems for people who can only use one hand. They also messed up NHDC's expenses system, where they demanded a used ticket as proof of travel (a receipt only proves that you bought the ticket, not that you made the journey). Then there's the situation that occurs with big stations, where facilities are on the wrong side of the barriers (like Newcastle, where they're constantly having to let people through to use the cash machine before buying their ticket, or the other way to let people get food while changing trains).

With new stations, they can be made to work well enough (provided you're right-handed with minimal luggage). Retrofitting them to old stations creates problems for everybody.

 

[90019]

Haymarket is much better, and that is completely underground with no natural light.

You sure about that? :?

It certainly wasn't last time I checked.