Train station overcrowding

robt_2

luckwudaveit wrote: »

But if it sorted the problem, wouldn't you get the result you wanted?

No, because they want to cause as much trouble as possible for South West Trains. I doubt they even care about the actual problem.

Stigy

newfoundglory wrote: »

For your information - tailgating is not against the bylaws - go and read them - it refers only to passing "through the barriers in the correct manner". It does not define what the correct manner might be, which would appear to be down to reasonable judgement.

I work with Railway Byelaws day-in day-out and can whole-heartedly say that comment is utter tripe. Just because the terminology doesn't specify Tailgating, doesn't mean that it is acceptable use of the barriers. It doesn't specify that crawling under the barriers is unacceptable either, or jumping over them, so tell me please, if we're using your train of thought, what on earth is the point in Byelaw 9(2)?!

The Byelaw reads as follows;

Where the entrance to or exit from any platform or station is via a manned or
an automatic ticket barrier no person shall enter or leave the station, except
with permission from an authorised person, without passing through the
barrier in the correct manner

Tailgating, is not correct usage. The Byelaw only becomes unenforceable if an authorised person (any railway staff or Police) allows you to use the barriers otherwise in accordance with how they're meant to be used.

Okay, here's an idiot guide for Ticket Gate usage

1. Insert ticket

2. Let gate do it's thing

3. Walk through

If for any number of reasons the barriers beep and a message appears saying "seek assistance", guess what you need to do?

timbo58

I have to add: if BR had not done away with ticket barriers (the manual type used in the 1970's at main stations) they wouldn't have caused such a 'culture shock' when privatised TOCs had to put them back in.

Once again: they didn't recruit staff and install very expensive barriers to decorate the station: they are there to prevent theft pure & simple.

However: if you have a legitimate argument re overcrowding the barriers also record throughput!
The TOC would have to reveal to the HSE (The rail regulator is not likely to be interested I'm afraid) their throughput rates when the safety case was first given for installations and throughout their use: you never know: the safety case might be changed if the numbers have risen a lot.

timbo58

and Stigy is spot on with that advice btw.
I missed that point!

If you have a valid ticket there is no need to tailgate, those who do so with a valid ticket are (inadvertently) 'covering up' those who do it to steal.

newfoundglory

Its not utter tripe. Correct use is undefined - it could easily be considered the same as passing through an already open barrier (which i'm sure you are about to tell me could be considered correct use). As i'm sure you are not a lawyer and have never argued it in front of a court you will never know...

timbo58

I take your point but don't agree, notr do I think any court would IME:
It's actually covered under the correct use: the barrier is not 'open' when someone else ticket has opened it for anyone else to use, their valid ticket is valid only for them, not for them and anyone else who manages to squeeze through.
You also aid those who do this as they have no ticket or intent to pay in this manner as I have already stated.

Even if you could argue your point, the byelaw '18: (2) A person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification of validity when asked to do so by an authorised person.

This covers barriers since all those who wish to pass through them are required under this byelaw to put the ticket for verification through the barrier (it is a ticket checking apparatus for this purpose) or to show it to the authorised person in charge of the gateline.

You can bet this has been argued in front of a court, every other byelaw has, and most of them have been in force since 1889s regulation of railways act.
The mere fact that not any of the main byelaws from 1889 have been changed since bears testament to their robustness.

Stigy

newfoundglory wrote: »

Its not utter tripe. Correct use is undefined - it could easily be considered the same as passing through an already open barrier (which i'm sure you are about to tell me could be considered correct use). As i'm sure you are not a lawyer and have never argued it in front of a court you will never know...

"Correct manner" is as defined as it need be. I'm not a lawyer, but I've reported people for all manner of byelaw breaches (including this one), and can guaranty that pushing, quite forcefully I might add, behind a fare paying customer, because you can't be arsed to either insert your ticket or because you're attempting to evade your fare, is NOT correct use of the ticket barriers. I challenge any Solicitor to find a defence for it, too, short of the station being on fire or behind under duress!

Also, passing through an already open ticket gate, if not opened for you to pass through, is not correct usage either. I'd tend to use discretion if a barrier was already open though and play it by ear as to the passenger's intentions.

Utter tripe

Humphrey10

newfoundglory wrote: »

Perhaps you work for a TOC and are biased - maybe you even get your travel for free.

Nope. And anyone (well I assume it's all staff) who does work for a TOC would get free travel, there is no 'maybe' about it.

I've never heard someone who doesn't work in the rail industry use the abbreviation 'TOC' before.

What station is it?

newfoundglory

Stigy wrote: »

"Correct manner" is as defined as it need be. I'm not a lawyer, but I've reported people for all manner of byelaw breaches (including this one), and can guaranty that pushing, quite forcefully I might add, behind a fare paying customer, because you can't be arsed to either insert your ticket or because you're attempting to evade your fare, is NOT correct use of the ticket barriers. I challenge any Solicitor to find a defence for it, too, short of the station being on fire or behind under duress!

I'm sure you have... but you've answered your own question here - as pushing forcefully and/or fare evasion are completely different offences, and would be ones far easier to prosecute than a watery "correct manner" argument. Because its not defined, only a court could decide, and that gets too expensive for anyone to try it (not on its own anyway)

18 (2) would ONLY cover the checking by an "authorised person" (is this defined anywhere? - because it should be).

I'm not sure what you are expected to do when there are too many people to move, the machine won't accept a paper ticket and there are insufficient staff on hand to cope. I was only following the person in front of me who was also forced to tailgate an oyster card user.

newfoundglory

"authorised person” means:
(i) a person acting in the course of his duties who:
(a) is an employee or agent of an Operator, or
(b) any other person authorised by an Operator, or
(ii) any constable, acting in the execution of his duties upon or in connection with the railway;

This definitely does not mean a gate or barrier of any kind, and definitely not something which is not a living individual.