York Station Ticket Barriers

[BlythPower]

Does anyone know if these are in place yet? Cheers.

 

[will1337]

I'm passing through it now and they aren't.

 

[BlythPower]

I'm passing through it now and they aren't.

Cheers Will!

 

[mathmo]

They haven't been approved yet - if you haven't already and don't think they should be there then object online: go to http://planning.york.gov.uk/PublicAccess/tdc/DcApplication/application_detailview.aspx?caseno=KBXF5PSJ0A700 and click Submit Comments (apparently the deadline has been extended to 26th June).

 

[paul1609]

Is there a website taxpayers fed up of subsidising rampant fare evasion in the north can register?

 

[stut]

Have you tried http://www.wellputsomeguardsonthetrainsthen.com/ ?

 

[paul1609]

Apparently that server doesnt exist!

 

[yorkie]

It doesn't need to - there are already regular checks on services to/from York. Unlike in the South East of England where guards checking tickets are a rarity in comparison!

 

[paul1609]

It doesn't need to - there are already regular checks on services to/from York. Unlike in the South East of England where guards checking tickets are a rarity in comparison!

Comparing West Sussex with Yorkshire I'm afraid thats not true. Ticket checks are far more frequent on Southern than on NXEC, TPE or Northern in my experience. However ticket revenue still leaped when barriers were installed at the major stations some stations by £250,000 a week I understand.

 

[jrhilton]

Comparing West Sussex with Yorkshire I'm afraid thats not true. Ticket checks are far more frequent on Southern than on NXEC, TPE or Northern in my experience. However ticket revenue still leaped when barriers were installed at the major stations some stations by £250,000 a week I understand.

That doesn't suprise me, here at Raynes Park (a small station I would point out) where they have had new ticket gates going for less than a month now, there is still a que of people being caught each day for not having tickets at the barriers, and it is not just at rush hour, its almost all through the day! The gates must have paid for themselves already, many times over!

 

[asylumxl]

However ticket revenue still leaped when barriers were installed at the major stations some stations by £250,000 a week I understand.

Yes, because the fat cats and shareholders don't get enough money already... :-x

 

[jp4712]

Yes, because the fat cats and shareholders don't get enough money already... :-x

Are you suggesting that it's okay to fare dodge?

 

[nedchester]

Not going to be installed it would now appear:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_yorkshire/8153287.stm

 

[yorkie]

If NXEC really think they are losing money on York to Doncaster passengers (or whatever) they can spend the money they'll save by not implementing this scheme on ticket checkers who travel on the trains checking tickets.

Of course they won't do that, because they actually wanted to increase their own revenue at the expense of other TOCs who sell on board (and have no problems checking all tickets out of York), by getting a slice of the commission. They probably also wanted to encourage people to stop buying split tickets as those coming from car parks/NRM entrances would have faced a ticket machine or a longer walk.

 

[paul1609]

Not going to be installed it would now appear:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_yorkshire/8153287.stm

It just means that they will either appeal the planning decision or compromise with the council to get it accepted. The barriers are a franchise obligation and the business case for them will be very convincing. its unthinkable that the Dft wouldnt carry the scheme forward.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Just had a look at the planning documents for the York scheme - there seemed to be about 400 "representations" (too many to count) - these would include the objections from residents from English heritage, other Council officers and an excellent letter from Councillor Dave Taylor.
Its not clear what decision was made yesterday, though - York Council's July Planning Committee meeting agenda is on their website but not the minutes/decision - yet. The City's Environmental report states that they are content with the proposal and all their heritage concerns had been removed in this, revised, proposal.

But I agree with Paul that either an Appeal to the Inspectorate or, more simply, a modified application is a likely next step if it is refused - modified to deal with the principal reasons for refusal that the City's Planning Committee gives.

It seemed significant, to me anyway, that the plans include modifications to the Chaplain's office which cut it in half to make a new "Excess Fares Office" with a glass panelled window protected by metal shutter in a new brick wall with new security door. Out with the Chaplain and in with the heavy duty Excess Fares . . . . fully DDA compliant of course.

 

[theblackwatch]

I have today received the following from York Council:

You wrote recently with comments about the above proposal.

The letter concerning the application was reported to the Planning Committee meeting on 16 July 2009.

The Committee visited the site before the meeting.
The decision was "Refuse", subject to the following:

1 The design, location and materials of the proposed gates and barriers will have a serious adverse effect on the Grade 2* Listed Building by reason both of their incongruity with the existing structure and the detracting effect they would have on its unique character. This would be contrary to policy HE4 which states that consent will only be granted for internal alterations to listed buildings where there is no adverse effect on the character and appearance of the building and also contrary to advice contained within paragraphs 3.12 and 3.13 of PPG15 'Planning and the Historic Environment'.

 

[D841]

The Committee visited the site before the meeting.
The decision was "Refuse", subject to the following:

1 The design, location and materials of the proposed gates and barriers will have a serious adverse effect on the Grade 2* Listed Building by reason both of their incongruity with the existing structure and the detracting effect they would have on its unique character. This would be contrary to policy HE4 which states that consent will only be granted for internal alterations to listed buildings where there is no adverse effect on the character and appearance of the building and also contrary to advice contained within paragraphs 3.12 and 3.13 of PPG15 'Planning and the Historic Environment'.[/I]

This begs the question - what did the old barriers look like, where were they situated, and why didn't they have said adverse effect at the time? Or is it just that the station wasn't listed then?

 

[yorkie]

They already changed the application quite heavily as they realised it was going to get rejected early on!!! Having changed it a lot, it's difficult to see how they can keep changing it time after time.

All they've done is give themselves a terrible reputation, but they also had to make so many concessions that the barriers would be pointless! They had to admit that anyone meeting or seeing off friends/relatives and rail enthusiasts would be allowed through the barriers.

Apparently in Donny they didn't allow people to do that (according to what I've been told) when a 'manual' barrier was in place, probably because there wasn't a planning application therefore no objections and bad publicity, therefore people wanting to access the platforms simply bought a ticket to Bentley (60p single / 80p return - peanuts!). Sales of Bentley tickets skyrocketed as a result, but nearly all the revenue had to go to Northern, so all NXEC did was effectively charge an entry fee that was going to a different company

York-Poppleton at £2.70 SDS is too expensive to use as a 'platform ticket' though.

 

[paul1609]

Its difficult to see why barriers are such a problem in a grade II* building when they have already been installed in (higher rated) Grade 1 stations at Bristol Temple Meads and Brighton. I think that unless they are careful York Council will end up having a decision imposed on them by the arbitrator.

 

[theblackwatch]

Its difficult to see why barriers are such a problem in a grade II* building when they have already been installed in (higher rated) Grade 1 stations at Bristol Temple Meads and Brighton. I think that unless they are careful York Council will end up having a decision imposed on them by the arbitrator.

By the time anything gets through, NXEC will have run out of money and given up. If they haven't got the money to paint a line at the top of platform 8/9 and instead claim there's an imaginary one there, how will they afford to fit barriers!

 

[yorkie]

It's been all over the local radio & papers. If NXEC persist in this action it will just get them even more bad publicity. If that's what they want, they'll get it.

 

[paul1609]

By the time anything gets through, NXEC will have run out of money and given up. If they haven't got the money to paint a line at the top of platform 8/9 and instead claim there's an imaginary one there, how will they afford to fit barriers!

I reckon thats NXEC will be with us for a while yet.I think certain people in the Government have made a huge mistake in their reckoning and that you can expect to hear about fresh renegotiations by late summer!

 

[blacknight]

This begs the question - what did the old barriers look like, where were they situated, and why didn't they have said adverse effect at the time? Or is it just that the station wasn't listed then?

At a guess I would say made of good old solid English oak not stainless steel & glass from Germany. Why they want to transpose a fixture from the tube into Grade 2 listed buildings is beyond me.
Then to complete the white elephant they lack the will to make then a closed station after they put them in:-x

 

[dave_wm]

I recieved an email from York City Council yesterday stating that the application for barriers had been rejected.

The decision was "Refuse", subject to the following:

1 The design, location and materials of the proposed gates and barriers will have a serious adverse effect on the Grade 2* Listed Building by reason both of their incongruity with the existing structure and the detracting effect they would have on its unique character. This would be contrary to policy HE4 which states that consent will only be granted for internal alterations to listed buildings where there is no adverse effect on the character and appearance of the building and also contrary to advice contained within paragraphs 3.12 and 3.13 of PPG15 'Planning and the Historic Environment'.

 

[theblackwatch]

I recieved an email from York City Council yesterday stating that the application for barriers had been rejected.

I posted that same e-mail earlier in this thread, there is no need for everyone else who received it to do the same.

 

[dave_wm]

Oops! Apologies, I must have missed that! Sorry!

 

[Tom B]

I'm sure NXEC have more to worry about than some ticket barriers!

It does seem pretty stupid - ticket checks on NXEC are generally very good so little point wasting money on barriers.

 

[theblackwatch]

It does seem pretty stupid - ticket checks on NXEC are generally very good so little point wasting money on barriers.

I disagree - in my experience NXEC are appaling at gripping. I regularly travel from York and I find of all the TOCs that operate from there, NXEC is the one that will not bother to grip, particularly on a journey to Doncaster. Only a couple of weeks ago, I travelled all the way from King's Cross to York without a ticket check.

 

[me123]

I'd agree with TBW. In my experience, each crew make one ticket check. And London-Edinburgh passengers have the cheek to moan that they're getting gripped twice :roll: But, with exceptions, I wouldn't expect to see the TM more than once.

The exceptions are notably the Aberdeen and Inverness crews, who are very good at checking. I assume this is because they're used to those particular trains, which are largely used for local services.