What Do Rail Companies Want?

[easilydone]

Hi - just wondering, when it comes to revenue protection prosecution proceedings, what are the main goals of train companies.

It seems to me that threat of prosecution can be used as an effective way to get a settlement many multiples in excess of a penalty fare. And so for minor, one-off offences it seems like TOCs would like to settle?

In the instance of repeat offenders, or evidence of fraud then it seems like a prosecution makes more sense as it's not really about the money by that point?

Are these assertions correct? Or are prosecution departments run to get prosecutions and not money? Also which train companies are tougher/easier than others?

 

[Gareth Marston]

Hi - just wondering, when it comes to revenue protection prosecution proceedings, what are the main goals of train companies.

It seems to me that threat of prosecution can be used as an effective way to get a settlement many multiples in excess of a penalty fare. And so for minor, one-off offences it seems like TOCs would like to settle?

In the instance of repeat offenders, or evidence of fraud then it seems like a prosecution makes more sense as it's not really about the money by that point?

Are these assertions correct? Or are prosecution departments run to get prosecutions and not money? Also which train companies are tougher/easier than others?

Most fines are actually court costs and the TOC never sees them so its not in their £ interest for cases to go to court however the court cases get reported on and can act as a deterrent to ticketless travel.

There's a huge problem with "pay when challenged" and then attempt to short fare in the South Wales Valleys. If ATW want to really clamp down on it they need a few high profile court cases as well as "sorry Butt he-ears a £100 wont do it again honest" out of courts.

 

[najaB]

Hi - just wondering, when it comes to revenue protection prosecution proceedings, what are the main goals of train companies.

To get people to pay their fare.

 

[EssexGonzo]

To deliver shareholder value. That's their number one goal, and the reasons why they want to maximise revenue and minimise costs.

 

[farleigh]

I think 'To get people to pay their fare' is a naive view.

 

[RT4038]

I think 'To get people to pay their fare' is a naive view.

Anything else would be conspiracy theory!

 

[AlterEgo]

I think 'To get people to pay their fare' is a naive view.

Why?

That's what the strategy is designed to achieve. That might be through the fear of prosecution, but at its most basic, that's what it is.

 

[najaB]

I think 'To get people to pay their fare' is a naive view.

So what do you suggest as the reason for revenue protection activities?

 

[farleigh]

If the rationale is 'to get people to pay their fares', then:

The methods used have been mostly unsuccessful. The same methods have been used for a significant time and there is still a fairly high level of fare evasion across the network.

Given that is not a successful method, have you thought about why it is still implemented in much the same way?

Do you think any TOCs see that the can make additional profit through their 'Revenue Protection' schemes?

And my favourite - 'we all pay higher fares because of fare evaders'. People actually believe that I think...

 

[LAX54]

If the rationale is 'to get people to pay their fares', then:

The methods used have been mostly unsuccessful. The same methods have been used for a significant time and there is still a fairly high level of fare evasion across the network.

Given that is not a successful method, have you thought about why it is still implemented in much the same way?

Do you think any TOCs see that the can make additional profit through their 'Revenue Protection' schemes?

And my favourite - 'we all pay higher fares because of fare evaders'. People actually believe that I think...

Fare dodging is seen as a National Sport, even those who earn high salaries will try it on, so yes the idea is to get people to pay their way, and as for higher fares, maybe we do ? someone has to pay for RPI's and Office Staff chasing said non-payers.

 

[Bertie the bus]

And my favourite - 'we all pay higher fares because of fare evaders'. People actually believe that I think...

It’s pretty obvious we do pay more to subsidise fare dodgers. Although it has largely been abandoned now the policy of both the last Labour and the coalition governments was for passengers to pay a higher percentage of the cost of the railway through fares. If the fare take had been higher this policy might not have even come into existence or could have finished earlier.

 

[Gareth Marston]

If the rationale is 'to get people to pay their fares', then:

The methods used have been mostly unsuccessful. The same methods have been used for a significant time and there is still a fairly high level of fare evasion across the network.

Given that is not a successful method, have you thought about why it is still implemented in much the same way?

Do you think any TOCs see that the can make additional profit through their 'Revenue Protection' schemes?

And my favourite - 'we all pay higher fares because of fare evaders'. People actually believe that I think...

The current angst on £200 million lost on fare dodging has largely come out the bunker at Marsham St and is now finding its way into FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS. A typical tilting at windmills rather than addressing the real reasons for cost increases and increased subsidy.

The only way to collect 100% of revenue owed is to have a fully closed system with station staff from first to last train and this costs. There's a point of equilibrium where the cost of collecting outweighs what you get from it. Though there are legitimate other reasons for this approach. Instead we have the "angry operator" approach where they stamp their feet and publicly berate and catch the occasional dodger as they have not invested sufficiently to deter the majority that do it.

 

[RT4038]

The current angst on £200 million lost on fare dodging has largely come out the bunker at Marsham St and is now finding its way into FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS. A typical tilting at windmills rather than addressing the real reasons for cost increases and increased subsidy.

The only way to collect 100% of revenue owed is to have a fully closed system with station staff from first to last train and this costs. There's a point of equilibrium where the cost of collecting outweighs what you get from it. Though there are legitimate other reasons for this approach. Instead we have the "angry operator" approach where they stamp their feet and publicly berate and catch the occasional dodger as they have not invested sufficiently to deter the majority that do it.

Maybe they are at, or near, your 'point of equilibrium' now? If there was a clear financial case for more cost of sales/enforcement then it would be done now!

 

[Gareth Marston]

Maybe they are at, or near, your 'point of equilibrium' now? If there was a clear financial case for more cost of sales/enforcement then it would be done now!

I suspect the "angry operator" approach is ineffectual because:

not enough people are being fined
and
Rail privatisation is a toxic brand and it can come across as "greedy operator whines for more profits"

You almost need a Show Trial with large numbers being prosecuted to have a deterrent shock effect when it becomes someone you know from your community work with etc then its real. However this comes with its own pitfalls.

 

[sheff1]

If there was a clear financial case for more cost of sales/enforcement then it would be done now!

I am not convinced. Very occasionally you will see a 'fares collector' on trains around here in addition to the normal guard. Whenever I have seen them in action they have taken more than enough in fares on that train to cover their hourly rate plus overheads. When they are not there, which they are not for 99% of the time, many of these these fares from people who are ready to pay (often with money in hand) are not collected.

 

[RT4038]

I am not convinced. Very occasionally you will see a 'fares collector' on trains around here in addition to the normal guard. Whenever I have seen them in action they have taken more than enough in fares on that train to cover their hourly rate plus overheads. When they are not there, which they are not for 99% of the time, many of these these fares from people who are ready to pay (often with money in hand) are not collected.

Maybe it is not as clear cut as you think? The trains I usually travel on have frequent ticket inspection and only rarely is there irregularities.....

 

[cuccir]

Out of court settlements (OOCS), broadly, work. They work for the TOC, who can off-set the cost of revenue protection. And they work for the traveller, who can hopefully understand the mistake they've made.

So the OP's (easilydone's) assertions are, I think, broadly correct. With first time offenders most TOCs are interested in OOCS. But repeat offenders are more likely to be prosecuted. TOCs operate with the assumption that most people caught evading fares are not doing it just once, so if someone is caught multiple times it is presumed that this is a regular habit and that getting the occasional OOCS from them is not going to recoup the lost revenue.

We can't of course know the motivations that companies, or rather their managers, have. I suspect that it varies. Many, myself included, are suspicious of a company like Northern who operate their £80 'Penalty Fakes' OOCS without offering good ticket buying facilities and with very limited use of barriers or other tools of revenue protection. Or Arriva Trains Wales, who seem to have a real endemic problem with people evading fares in the Cardiff area, but who equally seem to offer very poor ticket buying facilities. By contrast, Transport for London have an extensive infrastructure of revenue protection, use regulated Penalty Fares, and are more likely to jump to prosecution where these don't work.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Out of court settlements (OOCS), broadly, work. They work for the TOC, who can off-set the cost of revenue protection. And they work for the traveller, who can hopefully understand the mistake they've made.

So the OP's (easilydone's) assertions are, I think, broadly correct. With first time offenders most TOCs are interested in OOCS. But repeat offenders are more likely to be prosecuted. TOCs operate with the assumption that most people caught evading fares are not doing it just once, so if someone is caught multiple times it is presumed that this is a regular habit and that getting the occasional OOCS from them is not going to recoup the lost revenue.

We can't of course know the motivations that companies, or rather their managers, have. I suspect that it varies. Many, myself included, are suspicious of a company like Northern who operate their £80 'Penalty Fakes' OOCS without offering good ticket buying facilities and with very limited use of barriers or other tools of revenue protection. Or Arriva Trains Wales, who seem to have a real endemic problem with people evading fares in the Cardiff area, but who equally seem to offer very poor ticket buying facilities. By contrast, Transport for London have an extensive infrastructure of revenue protection, use regulated Penalty Fares, and are more likely to jump to prosecution where these don't work.

OOCS may help square the circle on costs but by there very nature apart from individual concerned they don't act as any future deterrent to others. People don't have to broadcast to family friends, colleagues and their home town they have had an OOCs....and surprisingly don't.

Ticket buying facilities of course cost money and that effects the bottom line for TOC's and Subsidy for Daft. Of course if we huff and puff a bit and recoup some £ through OOCS we look like were doing something without having to spend the proper amount.

 

[Hadders]

Some other things to consider:

OOCS are cheaper to impose. Court papers don't need tonne prepared, TOC staff don't need to attend court either, reducing their costs.
The courts are happy as they don't need to deal with as many cases.

The burden of proof is also lower - take Northern's 'Penalty Fakes', if they went to court half of them would probably get thrown out for lack of evidence but many will simply pay up to make them go away.

My own view is there should be ticket machines at every station with a proper Penalty Fare regime. If this happened then the issues in South Wales would quickly reduce. It's TOC's trying to do things on the cheap that's the problem.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Some other things to consider:

OOCS are cheaper to impose. Court papers don't need tonne prepared, TOC staff don't need to attend court either, reducing their costs.
The courts are happy as they don't need to deal with as many cases.

The burden of proof is also lower - take Northern's 'Penalty Fakes', if they went to court half of them would probably get thrown out for lack of evidence but many will simply pay up to make them go away.

My own view is there should be ticket machines at every station with a proper Penalty Fare regime. If this happened then the issues in South Wales would quickly reduce. It's TOC's trying to do things on the cheap that's the problem.

Trying to have their cake and eat it usually goes nowhere. How much is it Daft driving (hypothetical figure of money lost with the Treasury behind it) not realising it costs £ and means employing staff to collect 100%? Its far from being low lying fruit on a money saving tree.

 

[Hadders]

DafT probably tells the TOC to cut down on fare evasion as part of a franchise award.

TO do it properly TOC needs to invest in TVMs, barriers and staff and introduce a Penalty Fares scheme. This costs lots of money and time to introduce and the TOC only has a relatively short contract.

TOC decides to introduce a 'Penalty Fake' scheme:

- Put up a few posters at stations telling passengers to buy before boarding, even though there are totally inadequate facilities at many stations
- Peddle a bit of 'fake news' in the posters like you must actively seek out the conductor if there are no ticket issuing facilities at the station where you board
- Employ a 3rd party guarding company to check tickets at the exit of many stations, pay the staff the minimum wage, give them little training, and instruct them to get the names and addresses of as many passengers as possible if they don't have a ticket. Allow no discretion to be used
- Send a strongly worded intimidatory 'Penalty Fake' notice to the people who've names and addresses have been collected threatening all sorts of bad things if they don't pay up
- Sit back and wait for the money to roll in from passengers who want to make the nightmare go away

TOCs will never be able to collect 100% of the fares due but they do need to act with integrity when enforcing non-payment. Some of the stories we hear on here suggest that isn't always the case.

 

[Gareth Marston]

DafT probably tells the TOC to cut down on fare evasion as part of a franchise award.

TO do it properly TOC needs to invest in TVMs, barriers and staff and introduce a Penalty Fares scheme. This costs lots of money and time to introduce and the TOC only has a relatively short contract.

TOC decides to introduce a 'Penalty Fake' scheme:

- Put up a few posters at stations telling passengers to buy before boarding, even though there are totally inadequate facilities at many stations
- Peddle a bit of 'fake news' in the posters like you must actively seek out the conductor if there are no ticket issuing facilities at the station where you board
- Employ a 3rd party guarding company to check tickets at the exit of many stations, pay the staff the minimum wage, give them little training, and instruct them to get the names and addresses of as many passengers as possible if they don't have a ticket. Allow no discretion to be used
- Send a strongly worded intimidatory 'Penalty Fake' notice to the people who've names and addresses have been collected threatening all sorts of bad things if they don't pay up
- Sit back and wait for the money to roll in from passengers who want to make the nightmare go away

TOCs will never be able to collect 100% of the fares due but they do need to act with integrity when enforcing non-payment. Some of the stories we hear on here suggest that isn't always the case.

You need to collect an awful lot of Penalty Fakes to pay even for the hired in low wage contractors.

 

[FenMan]

You need to collect an awful lot of Penalty Fakes to pay even for the hired in low wage contractors.

Given the actuality, I would suggest the TOC concerned is not losing money doing this.

 

[najaB]

Given the actuality, I would suggest the TOC concerned is not losing money doing this.

In that case, if people really want to 'stick it to The Man', they should pay their fare!

 

[Tetchytyke]

You need to collect an awful lot of Penalty Fakes to pay even for the hired in low wage contractors.

Including on-costs, you'd be looking at say £25ph to hire in a contractor. Catch four people in a ten hour shift and you've pretty much broken even. You'd not have to try to catch five in an hour at somewhere like Preston.

OOCS is about rinsing the low-hanging fruit. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[najaB]

You'd not have to try to catch five in an hour at somewhere like Preston.

Again, it would be pretty hard to catch them if they bought tickets (and, yes I know that not all stations have ticketing facilities but that's what seasons, m- and e- tickets are for).

 

[thejuggler]

Based on this story its certainly not as simple as just getting the fare:

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co....then-threw-her-out-of-leeds-station-1-8742192

Northern muddy the waters even further with their statement that the policy is to 'ask' passengers to buy tickets before travel, but 'where it is not possible' guards can sell tickets.

 

[najaB]

Based on this story...

As with every story it is risky to reach a conclusion without all the facts. It's clear that someone who says "“The people at the station are jobsworths. They’re patronising and they seem to get off on the power kick.”" isn't providing an unbiased statement.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Again, it would be pretty hard to catch them if they bought tickets

If everyone bought tickets, they'd be losing stacks of money. All those RPIs would be costing them money: a lot of money.

There's no real incentive for Northern- or whoever- to actually provide high quality ticket retailing. They'd lose money. Why would they want to do that?

 

[jon0844]

The current angst on £200 million lost on fare dodging has largely come out the bunker at Marsham St and is now finding its way into FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS. A typical tilting at windmills rather than addressing the real reasons for cost increases and increased subsidy.

The only way to collect 100% of revenue owed is to have a fully closed system with station staff from first to last train and this costs. There's a point of equilibrium where the cost of collecting outweighs what you get from it. Though there are legitimate other reasons for this approach. Instead we have the "angry operator" approach where they stamp their feet and publicly berate and catch the occasional dodger as they have not invested sufficiently to deter the majority that do it.

GTR has to operate the gatelines for 80% of the time (not sure if that's daily or over a set period) and it does mean the gates usually being open at night, which I'd argue is when you have more chancers than necessarily in the day (or peaks).

Now if you staggered opening around the line, so common destinations are likely to be staffed at one end, then maybe you can make the best of not having 100% protection. I am not sure if this happens.