TOCs requesting fulfilment method changes from Trainline

[Cuthbert]

Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/crosscountry-unexpected-settlement-demand.273754/

With my ToC we have contacted TrainLine and asked them to do "Collect at station" for a couple of short fare evasion stations that have a huge population of travellers.

The stations have barriers so when we see someone with the collect ticket we ask where they have come from. As it was not from the station nor the next station further on as it also has barriers.

 

[robbeech]

With my ToC we have contacted TrainLine and asked them to do "Collect at station" for a couple of short fare evasion stations that have a huge population of travellers.

The stations have barriers so when we see someone with the collect ticket we ask where they have come from. As it was not from the station nor the next station further on as it also has barriers.

I think this may need its own thread for discussion.

Are you suggesting that, at the request of your employer, a TOC, a retailer will be told which flows it can and cannot fulfil by e-ticket?

That seems bizarre and surely can’t be considered acceptable from an accredited retailer?

 

[island]

Are you suggesting that, at the request of your employer, a TOC, a retailer will be told which flows it can and cannot fulfil by e-ticket?

That seems bizarre and surely can’t be considered acceptable from an accredited retailer?

TOCs have always been able to specify what fulfilment methods are permitted for their tickets.

 

[MrJeeves]

Are you suggesting that, at the request of your employer, a TOC, a retailer will be told which flows it can and cannot fulfil by e-ticket?

That seems bizarre and surely can’t be considered acceptable from an accredited retailer?

That is exactly how third party retailing works. Retailers read from a TOC-controlled system to determine how particular tickets for particular journeys are allowed to be fulfilled.

Trainline, however, don't use this system and instead decide for themselves, hence the explicitly need for a TOC to request Trainline to change this, and why you'll sometimes get tickets offered as E-Tickets on Trainline but not from other retailers.

 

[Adam Williams]

Fare evasion/ticketless travel is not a valid reason to restrict tickets / flows to be collected via ToD; if anything it's just a way for a TOC to limit the richness of the data and visibility they get in terms of the scan records, which makes identifying anomalous travel even harder.

A very short-sighted thing to do, indeed.

The stations have barriers so when we see someone with the collect ticket we ask where they have come from. As it was not from the station nor the next station further on as it also has barriers.

If you want to play this game, do a full revenue block and look for the absence of scan records at the origin station, ask the passenger how they passed through the gateline, take details and pursue it offline (i.e. double check to make sure the barrier hasn't sent the scans late).

That way you don't inconvenience legitimate, fare-paying passengers and retailers.

 

[Mike395]

Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/crosscountry-unexpected-settlement-demand.273754/

With my ToC we have contacted TrainLine and asked them to do "Collect at station" for a couple of short fare evasion stations that have a huge population of travellers.

The stations have barriers so when we see someone with the collect ticket we ask where they have come from. As it was not from the station nor the next station further on as it also has barriers.

This is a terrible idea, and I hope it's not rolled out more widely. Passengers shouldn't be at the whims of TOC revenue teams as to whether a fare is offered via e-ticket or not on a given day. In a lot of other ways (particularly around ticket re-use), e-tickets help rather than hinder, and are surely a net benefit overall?

 

[hux385]

Haymarket-Edinburgh and Charing Cross-Glasgow Queen Street are examples of this, with pick up at the station the only option given when purchasing a ticket on either Trainline or the Scotrail app (which is in turn powered by Trainline) - no mTickets are offered although loading onto a Smartcard does seem to be possible.

 

[Sleepy]

Haymarket-Edinburgh and Charing Cross-Glasgow Queen Street are examples of this, with pick up at the station the only option given when purchasing a ticket on either Trainline or the Scotrail app (which is in turn powered by Trainline) - no mTickets are offered although loading onto a Smartcard does seem to be possible.

As I understand it in Scotland Penalty Fares etc are not available as a deterrent to fare evasion ?

 

[hexagon789]

As I understand it in Scotland Penalty Fares etc are not available as a deterrent to fare evasion ?

ScotRail don't operate a Penalty Fares scheme, but the relevant enabling legislation would allow them to set one up if desired.

 

[Lewisham2221]

Fare evasion/ticketless travel is not a valid reason to restrict tickets / flows to be collected via ToD; if anything it's just a way for a TOC to limit the richness of the data and visibility they get in terms of the scan records, which makes identifying anomalous travel even harder.

A very short-sighted thing to do, indeed.



If you want to play this game, do a full revenue block and look for the absence of scan records at the origin station, ask the passenger how they passed through the gateline, take details and pursue it offline (i.e. double check to make sure the barrier hasn't sent the scans late).

That way you don't inconvenience legitimate, fare-paying passengers and retailers.

Surely you inconvenience far more legitimate passengers by conducting a full revenue block and detailed inspection of the scan history for every ticket, than you do by disabling e-tickets for very specific station pairs where the legitimate usage is an absolute minority?

 

[Adam Williams]

than you do by disabling e-tickets for very specific station pairs where the legitimate usage is an absolute minority?

Have you heard of split ticketing? It only takes one fare in a ticket-set of 20+ that's ToD only for the entire journey to need to be ToD only. And buying a ticket from station X to station Y does not mean you are getting on at station X!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Surely you inconvenience far more legitimate passengers by conducting a full revenue block and detailed inspection of the scan history for every ticket, than you do by disabling e-tickets for very specific station pairs where the legitimate usage is an absolute minority?

Who's doing a detailed inspection? You're just scanning the ticket and very quickly seeing if there's a scan in recorded or not. If there isn't, you ask why, and they either show you the other bit of the split or go "dunno" and get written up.

 

[Lewisham2221]

Have you heard of split ticketing? It only takes one fare in a ticket-set of 20+ that's ToD only for the entire journey to need to be ToD only.

Perhaps if you go and speak nicely to all the fare Dodgers you'll be able to convince them to buy the correct ticket instead of inconveniencing the small minority of people travelling on a 20+ e-ticket split.

And buying a ticket from station X to station Y does not mean you are getting on at station X!

That's kind of the problem though. People travelling from station A to station Y, but only buying a ticket from X to Y (perhaps A to B as well depending on the origin station).

Who's doing a detailed inspection? You're just scanning the ticket and very quickly seeing if there's a scan in recorded or not. If there isn't, you ask why, and they either show you the other bit of the split or go "dunno" and get written up.

A person manually scanning a ticket (in addition to scanning through the barriers too?) and then "quickly" checking the scan history still takes longer and is more inconvenient than just scanning through the barriers and exiting the station. And if you're doing that for everyone, you're inconveniencing far more people than the amount of people being inconvenienced by the removal of e-tickets for the specific situations in question.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Given that one can collect a paper ticket anywhere, I'm confused at how this actually helps.

 

[Adam Williams]

That's kind of the problem though. People travelling from station A to station Y, but only buying a ticket from X to Y (perhaps A to B as well depending on the origin station).

There's a very simple solution here: Scan the tickets on-board at stations between A and X.

A person manually scanning a ticket (in addition to scanning through the barriers too?) and then "quickly" checking the scan history still takes longer and is more inconvenient than just scanning through the barriers and exiting the station

I'm sure if a TOC wanted their gateline supplier to add some additional logic in along the lines of "If fare origin = UngatedStationX and not previously scanned, do not open the gate and flag to staff" to make the whole operation more efficient, they could agree something.

Perhaps if you go and speak nicely to all the fare Dodgers you'll be able to convince them to buy the correct ticket instead of inconveniencing the small minority of people travelling on a 20+ e-ticket split.

You realise the largest ticket retailer by market share offers splits too, right? Most splits do not involve 20+ tickets, but that concept illustrates my point very well with respect to it only taking one fare being ToD-only before you're forced to fulfil the whole booking as ToD - you're being incredibly myopic if you think that messing up the RCS data for the sake of revenue protection (and not for something which I think actually helps significantly, either) has no wider negative effects.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Nov 2024 ==

Given that one can collect a paper ticket anywhere, I'm confused at how this actually helps.

Perhaps they're manually checking the Issuing Office NLC printed on each CCST ticket, and have memorised them all to be able to identify at a glance where it was printed? Clearly more efficient than scanning an E-Ticket!

 

[Lewisham2221]

Given that one can collect a paper ticket anywhere, I'm confused at how this actually helps.

Situations were identified where large numbers of people were purchasing e-tickets for these stations almost immediately before scanning to exit the destination station, and with no corresponding entry scan at the barriered origin station.

 

[Hadders]

I don’t agree with this approach from @Knoodlepot employer.

I am all for catching fare evaders but there are better ways of doing this. What this requested change is doing actually introduces more confusion for passengers, whether they are honest or dishonest.

I don’t know if it’s possible to program ticket gates to reject e-tickets between particular pairs of stations, if so this would be a much better way of dealing with the issue. Alternatively old fashioned revenue blocks, onboard ticket checks and maybe a data trawl of people buying short distance tickets to identify travelling patterns and times to target specific individuals.

 

[Bungle965]

I don’t know if it’s possible to program ticket gates to reject e-tickets between particular pairs of stations, if so this would be a much better way of dealing with the issue.

Not for E-Tickets sadly.

 

[Adam Williams]

I know this has been discussed before (how useless the Cubic gates seem to be w/ E-Tix), but there is no technical reason why things like @Hadders suggests shouldn't be trivial to implement from a software perspective.

I don't know if it's something the other manufacturers can do - potentially e.g. S&B?

 

[Lewisham2221]

There's a very simple solution here: Scan the tickets on-board at stations between A and X.

There's many situations where it's far from that simple.

I'm sure if a TOC wanted their gateline supplier to add some additional logic in along the lines of "If fare origin = UngatedStationX and not previously scanned, do not open the gate and flag to staff" to make the whole operation more efficient, they could agree something.

Maybe they could. Maybe they can't.

You realise the largest ticket retailer by market share offers splits too, right?

Yep, well aware of that, thanks.

Most splits do not involve 20+ tickets, but that concept illustrates my point very well with respect to it only taking one fare being ToD-only before you're forced to fulfil the whole booking as ToD - you're being incredibly myopic if you think that messing up the RCS data for the sake of revenue protection (and not for something which I think actually helps significantly, either) has no wider negative effects.

Unfortunately there are many things in life which are made slightly more inconvenient as a result of not being able to to trust 100% of the population to be 100% honest and obey 100% of the law/rules, 100% of the time.

Do I think it's a perfect solution? Absolutely not. Do I understand why it's been done? Yes.

 

[Bungle965]

I know this has been discussed before (how useless the Cubic gates seem to be w/ E-Tix), but there is no technical reason why things like @Hadders suggests shouldn't be trivial to implement from a software perspective.

I don't know if it's something the other manufacturers can do - potentially e.g. S&B?

It’s on the list to be done, as you might imagine the sums are eye watering for Cubic to do the work.

@Wallsendmag can probably comment regarding S&B.

 

[Starmill]

A person manually scanning a ticket (in addition to scanning through the barriers too?) and then "quickly" checking the scan history still takes longer and is more inconvenient than just scanning through the barriers and exiting the station.

That's an awful lot quicker than checking where a ToD happened though.

 

[Hadders]

Not for E-Tickets sadly.

I know this has been discussed before (how useless the Cubic gates seem to be w/ E-Tix), but there is no technical reason why things like @Hadders suggests shouldn't be trivial to implement from a software perspective.

I don't know if it's something the other manufacturers can do - potentially e.g. S&B?

If it can be done then it really should be. There would be many advantages of blocking tickets between certain station pairs so that a manual ticket inspection could take place.

Changing the subject slightly, doesn't a ToD ticket cost a retailer far more to fulfil. What's the deal when a TOC changes a ticket from e-ticketable to ToD only. This will cost retailers money which I hope is reimbursed by the TOC requesting the change....

 

[Adam Williams]

Changing the subject slightly, doesn't a ToD ticket cost a retailer far more to fulfil.

A very good point. It does, yes, which ultimately will be borne by the customer (indirectly) through booking fees or other fees.

There's also the support cost: simply put, more things can go wrong with ToD. Whether that's assisting a customer who has encountered a print failure, or being sent to a station to test a ticket machine / TIS implementation in the field or just having to hand-hold some passengers through the collection process who've never used anything other than an E-Ticket. It all takes time and costs money.

This will cost retailers money which I hope is reimbursed by the TOC

Hahahahaha

 

[Krokodil]

Given that one can collect a paper ticket anywhere, I'm confused at how this actually helps.

Several ways:

For one thing, when you've just made the change the person will have been used to getting an e-Ticket and will turn up at the exit barriers before realising that they've got a ToD code. At this point the RPI can pounce: "Now Sir, can you tell me why you've arrived at Cardiff Central with an uncollected ticket from Cardiff Queen Street, despite Queen Street having barriers?" Anyone who has genuinely come from Queen Street will have printed their ticket before entering that station (and let's face it, who would do Queen Street to Central as an isolated journey rather than walk?)

Report to the digital fraud team, they request the purchase history from the retailer and can see the journey from A to B and the journey from Y to Z. Using the footage captured by the RPI they now have a face to look for on the CCTV to prove that the same person did make both journeys (with the timings at entry and exit station conveniently coinciding with the journey time by train, funny that) rather than having bought one of the tickets for a friend or relative.

Alternatively the fact that someone collected the ToD at a different station to the origin of the journey (whether it be a TVM on the inside of the barriers at the destination, or somewhere completely different) can be flagged up to the digital fraud team who can then look at the purchase history for suspicious patterns (funny how the station the ToD from Y to Z was collected at just happens to be "A", with a journey from A to B made immediately after). Obviously collecting a ToD at a different station from the one booked is usually perfectly legitimate, but we're talking about flows almost no one would make as an isolated journey by train, such as Cardiff Central to Cardiff Queen Street.

I must admit that I'm not entirely clear why it's better than automatically flagging up eTickets between Y and Z, but it's produced results so who am I to argue?

 

[Doctor Fegg]

A very good point. It does, yes, which ultimately will be borne by the customer (indirectly) through booking fees or other fees.

As, to be fair, would the suggestions upthread of full ticket checks between A and B, or full revenue blocks at B, both of which have considerable staffing implications.

 

[800Travel]

As, to be fair, would the suggestions upthread of full ticket checks between A and B, or full revenue blocks at B, both of which have considerable staffing implications.

Ticket checks would be my preferred approach. Revenue Blocks look quite intimidating - even as a fare-paying passenger.

 

[WestCoast]

Haymarket-Edinburgh and Charing Cross-Glasgow Queen Street are examples of this, with pick up at the station the only option given when purchasing a ticket on either Trainline or the Scotrail app (which is in turn powered by Trainline) - no mTickets are offered although loading onto a Smartcard does seem to be possible.

As someone who often travels Queen Street to Charing Cross it is rather annoying and plenty of people use the North Clyde line to cross town in the same way they use the Subway to go from Buchanan Street to St Georges Cross.

 

[185]

My opinion but the only exceptions to the rule should be i) is it via London Underground or ii) is it via Merseyrail.

It is 2024 and e-tickets, simply put, should be enabled on all flows - those intentionally short faring should be caught and prosecuted by conventional methods (eg, by setting the gates to flag up an origin, then examining the passenger's gate scan data) without detriment to the majority of honest passengers. Two weeks ago, I noticed a ticket between two major stops (Liverpool LS - Manchester Stns) defaulted to TOD-collect only for a passenger - government should remove this silly option for TOCs, and whilst there, force Merseyrail to either end their no e-tickets nonsense or threaten kicking them out of the UK Railway network altogether.

 

[TUC]

Can you imagine anything more confusing for passengers than a situation where they are used to e-tickets for every journey they make, but where there are random pairs of stations that are Collect at Station only?