Spending Review: steeper train fare hikes from 2012

Ebe_Scrooge wrote: »

At the moment my commute is just ever so slightly cheaper by train than it would be by car. If the fares go up much more, it'll be cheaper - not to mention a lot more convenient and reliable - to drive. That's more traffic on the roads, more congestion, more greenhouse gasses ..... I thought they wanted to encourage us out of our cars and on to public transport ?

What a great plan.

Indeed, still the mainly privately owned train companies will not complain, they will be lapping it up.

I can see inflation going through the roof in a very short space of time.

It doesn't make sense that it can be cheaper to drive (with only the driver in the car) than to take a train!

There used to be long queues at my local train station if the machines were out of order (which seemed to happen with alarming regularity)
Because I didn't use the train every day it meant that buying a season ticket was uneconomic so I purchased the paper tickets on the day (when I could) It was a penalty fare route but see the following from the SRA

Ticket facilities
4.11 One of the SRA’s three basic conditions for approving a penalty fares scheme is that
passengers must be given a sufficient opportunity to buy a ticket or permit to travel before
they get on a penalty fares train or enter a compulsory ticket area. Every penalty fares station
must have sufficient facilities for selling tickets.

4.12 Where penalty fares apply, passengers must allow enough time to buy a ticket, including time
to queue, if necessary. Under normal circumstances, passengers may still be charged a penalty
fare if they join a train without a ticket, even if there was a queue at the ticket office or ticket
machine. However, we expect operators to provide enough ticket windows, ticket machines
and staff at staffed stations to meet the queuing standards set out in the Ticketing and
Settlement Agreement and their Passenger’s Charter under normal circumstances. This
standard is normally five minutes at peak times and three minutes at other times. If queues at a
particular station regularly fail to meet these standards at certain times or days of the week,
the operator must either take action to sort out the problem before a penalty fares scheme is
introduced or make sure that passengers are not charged penalty fares when these queuing
standards are not met. This might include providing extra staff or ticket machines. A penalty
fares scheme must include arrangements for telling authorised collectors when long queues
build up at ticket offices (see paragraph 4.33).


I did have a couple of run-ins with ticket inspectors but quoting the above usually got them to quickly move on. One of them clearly saw me make a dash from midline in the queue onto the train and immediately asked me, but never took any details (or strangely even sell me a normal ticket?) I was never prepared to waste 20 minutes queuing for a ticket in the morning. A few times they did bring extra staff onto the station with portable machines which meant there wasn't a problem.

Well we're back to the early 80s when commuter fares rose 10% or more each year; except now the income goes into the private operator pocket not the state.

chattychappy wrote: »

The penalty fare regime is a practical demonstration of the contempt in which customers are held. My mate who runs a newsagent's regularly suffers from petty thefts. Nothing he can do - police don't bother to investigate, he just writes off the stock.

Meanwhile the railways effectively have their own private police force with strict liability laws written especially for them. A friend of mine bought "slightly" the wrong ticket from a machine at his local station after the guy at the window said that he couldn't do credit card transactions. The correct fare should have been £22, but he bought a £20 ticket. On arrival - penalty fare levied £20. No discretion applied, just officiousness. Plus they told him he'd have to buy a single back home - another £21. (He didn't have to, but he didn't know that.) Total cost £61 for a journey that would have taken him 90 minutes round the M25. Instead of being a happy customer, he felt criminalised. Yes he had the wrong ticket - but would someone seriously dodge £2 on a £22 fare? Typical officiousness.

Of course he now always drives.

Meanwhile the regular fare dodging yobs just get away with it - some are even organised enough to carry fake utility bills for "proof of ID".

I wish people would get out of the mindset that Penalty Fares are used for fare evaders!

Penalty Fares are meant as a deterrant to ensure that normal, law-abiding rail users have the coorrect ticket for their journey, and thus to prevent opportunistic, and sometimes more organised evasion of their fare. For example, if Joe Bloggs is travelling from station A to station D and only ever pay from station A to station B, just to get him through the ticket barriers and on to the train, knowing full well that once he arrives at station D the staff at the ticket barriers will just sell him an extention ticket, but also knows full well that twice a week on different days the ticket barriers are open, he could save himself a fortune over time!

Although not always the case, a Penalty Fare should NEVER be issued to a persistant fare evader, and this is why we report such individuals for summons. There are staff that will see the Penalty Fare as the easy way out, especially given that your average fare evader doesn't care about the £20 as he/she never intends to pay it or just gives false details, therefore they rarely kick off. Plus it's less paperwork for the revenue staff!

The Penalty Fare is like the Penalty Notice for Disorder or Fixed Penalty Notices that Police and local councils etc issue, so as to keep minor breaches or byelaws etc out of court to free them up for more serious breaches!

Although I'm sure most people think it's a "get out" for TOCs, there is truth in the fact that fares are increased largely because they're not making as much money as they could be due to fare evasion!

chattychappy wrote: »

I think what you have just written is contradictory. You say it is a deterrant to ensure that passengers have the correct ticket. Therefore it's designed as a penalty for when you don't have the right ticket - it's set at a "punishment" level. Why punish customers who intended to have the right ticket?

Anyway it is "penal", hence the name. Look at the way it was used in the case of my friend. £20 ticket instead of a £22 ticket. Ended up paying £61. He had a credible story and the barrier was open (because of crowding) so he could have just walked through without a check. But he had a query about his return journey so asked the gate guy which then prompted his being ushered away to have the penalty fare issued. All over £2.

This is my point - just officious. In a way you are right - in this case it wasn't used for evasion. That's what makes it even worse. A penal sanction without the need to prove intent. No other business could or would have this power over their customers. As for deterrent - pointless in this case - he clearly bought what he thought was the right ticket. So now he goes by car.

As for "people's mindset" - Most businesses have to get into the mindset of their customers, not the other way around.

It's meant to deter fare evasion. If Joe Bloggs thinks there's the chance of a £20 PF, he's more likely to purchase the correct rail ticket for his journey. Is it used to generate quick and easy revenue? Probably, but then if the staff are doing their jobs properly it should be used for first time offenders only. If the rail staff thought your freind intended to avoid payment of his/her fare, he/she would, or at least should, have been reported for an alleged offence.

If their needed to be intent proved in order to issue a Penalty Fare, then you'd be best off just reporting people instaed, as this defeats the object of the Penalty Fare! If your friend had found that there was nobdy at the ticket barriers, would he have paid the £2? I've reported people for a £1.80 fare before.