To what extent is an operator entitled to delay your exit from a station?

[Wolfie]

A passenger who breaches Byelaws 1, 9, or 18 is by definition not “going about their lawful business”.

You appear to be asserting that the railway, because of its own underinvestment in barriers or people, has the right to delay people indefinitely. Bring on the litigation for de facto unlawful detention!

 

[Annetts key]

A passenger who breaches Byelaws 1, 9, or 18 is by definition not “going about their lawful business”.

Not at the station that this topic is about, but elsewhere, I regularly “breach” all the above mentioned Byelaws. And yes, I have been challenged, but the person challenging backed down.

As with any law, it has to be applied in a reasonable manner. And forcing people to queue for an unreasonable amount of time to exit a station when they are likely to have a valid ticket or otherwise detaining them for an unreasonable amount of time would likely not be deemed to be reasonable.

 

[87electric]

They can prosecute people for breaching byelaw 1 (2) (failing to queue properly on the railway) or 9 (2) (passing through a ticket barrier otherwise than in the correct manner).

As mentioned in post 1, by grabbing onto people or their belongings.

How well this works generally I cannot say.

And when a big crush finally happens at the barriered gates where life is ended for some poor souls, in true Monty Python style a deceased person will be slapped with byelaw breaching paperwork.

It is an accident waiting to happen. It can be avoided. But, the railway.

 

[Scott1]

And when a big crush finally happens at the barriered gates where life is ended for some poor souls, in true Monty Python style a deceased person will be slapped with byelaw breaching paperwork.

It is an accident waiting to happen. It can be avoided. But, the railway.

Barriered ticket gates can be forced open with a set amount of pressure. This is to prevent a person getting crushed by people behind them. What you've described is highly unlikely to ever happen, especially given how many years we have had ticket barriers without this kind of incident.

The news does seem to enjoy reporting on crushes, choas, etc at ticket gates, but invariably when you read the article it was simple the St Pancras style chaos, and no one actually got trampled and killed.

I'd say the biggest risk area is an overcrowded platform, where people can end up getting pushed off the platform edge and hit by a train, but that tends to be too many waiting to board a train, not leave a station, as they are moving away from the edge.

 

[setdown]

Having just spent a week travelling across Germany, what a brilliant system it is over there. No barriers anywhere at all, just on-board checks (with the threat of heavy fines if no ticket). Not even on the underground systems. Imagine all the money that could be saved across UK rail if you had no ticket barriers to manufacture, maintain, operate and update. No staff required to look after them. Also, I wonder how much time would be saved in total across the country if no-one had to queue up to enter/exit a station as well.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Having just spent a week travelling across Germany, what a brilliant system it is over there. No barriers anywhere at all, just on-board checks (with the threat of heavy fines if no ticket). Not even on the underground systems. Imagine all the money that could be saved across UK rail if you had no ticket barriers to manufacture, maintain, operate and update. No staff required to look after them. Also, I wonder how much time would be saved in total across the country if no-one had to queue up to enter/exit a station as well.

The UK has had a fully open system, it basically was in the late 1990s other than London Underground and possibly a couple of London termini (but Waterloo was definitely not gated, nor was Euston). Fare dodging was rife - just as it is in Germany, don't be misled by the generally compliant culture, though the cheapness of the Deutschlandticket has probably reduced it on regional services a fair bit. The other downside is antisocial behaviour on platform areas which can be quite high as there's not the need to pay to get in. Certainly the only place I've seen a drug-addled nutter come flying out of a train toilet with a needle still in his arm was Hamburg Hbf, though admittedly it was in about 1999 (though you did used to see discarded needles round the back of the shelter at genteel Aughton Park).

Das Schwarzfahren ist Nationalsport!
(fare dodging, literally "black travel"*, is a national sport)

* No, not racist, as in "black market" or similar.

 

[Silenos]

Having just spent a week travelling across Germany, what a brilliant system it is over there. No barriers anywhere at all, just on-board checks (with the threat of heavy fines if no ticket). Not even on the underground systems. Imagine all the money that could be saved across UK rail if you had no ticket barriers to manufacture, maintain, operate and update. No staff required to look after them. Also, I wonder how much time would be saved in total across the country if no-one had to queue up to enter/exit a station as well.

But presumably, to have a reasonable chance of deterring fare dodging, you need ticket checks on every service. That means at least 1 member of staff on each train to do the checking, so anything saved on barriers and people to man them would be swallowed up in increased staffing costs for the onboard checks.

Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to see that here, but I don’t think it would be cheaper.

 

[MotCO]

Not sure I’d recommend it.

Doing anything of that nature, especially at an airport, is likely to end with you face down on the ground, with guns pointed at your head, and in the back of a police van soon thereafter.

Then you'll definitely miss your flight, and you won't be able to claim delay repay

 

[Annetts key]

But presumably, to have a reasonable chance of deterring fare dodging, you need ticket checks on every service. That means at least 1 member of staff on each train to do the checking, so anything saved on barriers and people to man them would be swallowed up in increased staffing costs for the onboard checks.

Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to see that here, but I don’t think it would be cheaper.

But in some parts of the country, such as where I am, you do have train crew on every service and they normally do actually walk through the train checking tickets.

Further more, the stations that do have gate-lines are not continuously attended, hence early in the morning or late at night, are left open.

On one station before they spend millions putting gate lines in (along with the extra cost because the buildings are listed), there were many days where the revenue protection (at least two on top of the normal station staff) would check tickets. They were there so often, that after a couple of weeks they recognised me and stopped asking to see my annual season ticket.

I would dread to read how many years the payback on this investment would take before the costs are all repaid (if ever). Especially as the vast majority of passengers are travelling to a station that has existing gate lines…

 

[Silenos]

But in some parts of the country, such as where I am, you do have train crew on every service and they normally do actually walk through the train checking tickets

while I’m sure that’s true, wouldn’t putting additional crew on all driver-operated trains just to check tickets mean a considerable extra expense? And an ongoing one?

Further more, the stations that do have gate-lines are not continuously attended, hence early in the morning or late at night, are left open.

Not sure how that is an argument in favour of an open system? It just means that the present system accepts that sometimes you must put passenger safety and convenience ahead of revenue, a lesson that GA would do well to learn at Stansted Airport.

On one station before they spend millions putting gate lines in (along with the extra cost because the buildings are listed), there were many days where the revenue protection (at least two on top of the normal station staff) would check tickets. They were there so often, that after a couple of weeks they recognised me and stopped asking to see my annual season ticket.

I would dread to read how many years the payback on this investment would take before the costs are all repaid (if ever). Especially as the vast majority of passengers are travelling to a station that has existing gate lines…

But presumably all the RPOs carrying out the platform checks were already employed, so there was no additional cost to the TOC (though maybe a question as to whether such a ‘shock and awe’ programme was the best deployment of those resources).

 

[RailExplorer]

Last time I flew from Stansted I drove there. I was able to get from parking to my departure gate in 14 minutes (security was being phenomenally efficient!)

This is not the sort of action from railway companies that might encourage me to consider using them as an alternative next time I fly.

I landed at Stansted back in February at about midnight, but it took a further 15 minutes before the doors were opened, and then another 4 minutes before it was my turn to disembark.

From stepping foot off the plane to the train wheels rolling / departing Stansted it was 11 minutes. I ran like crazy with a toddler on my shoulders (no luggage to collect thankfully). It was the last train (00:30) and my flight was late and the thought of spending a night at the airport with a toddler didn’t appeal to me! That must be some sort of record. No ticket check though at the platforms.

 

[Annetts key]

while I’m sure that’s true, wouldn’t putting additional crew on all driver-operated trains just to check tickets mean a considerable extra expense? And an ongoing one?

What is the proportion of trains that have train crew that can check tickets vs. the number of DOO trains on the whole network? I don’t know the answer. I was just pointing out that the situation varies across the country.

Not sure how that is an argument in favour of an open system? It just means that the present system accepts that sometimes you must put passenger safety and convenience ahead of revenue, a lesson that GA would do well to learn at Stansted Airport.

I’m not arguing one way or the other, I’m just pointing out that if we are supposed to have a gate line to prevent people from travelling for free, it’s not fully effective if the gates are regularly open at known times. It points to that fact that at some stations, the cost of normal operation of the gates is higher than the estimated loss of revenue…

But presumably all the RPOs carrying out the platform checks were already employed, so there was no additional cost to the TOC (though maybe a question as to whether such a ‘shock and awe’ programme was the best deployment of those resources).

Of course the RPOs were already employed. My point was more that the costs of employing RPOs, gate line staff and/or installing gate lines in some stations may not actually increase revenue by an amount that justifies the cost of employing these staff or the cost of the gate line installation and the running costs (electricity and maintenance). In other words, it may actually be cheaper to not have RPOs, and/or gate lines and gate line staff. Especially if ALL the trains that use such stations already have ticket inspections on the trains.

 

[142blue]

There will be a designated point within the area near a barrier where if crowds build they could and should plunge the gates open

I've written station risk assessments before

 

[al78]

I’m not arguing one way or the other, I’m just pointing out that if we are supposed to have a gate line to prevent people from travelling for free, it’s not fully effective if the gates are regularly open at known times. It points to that fact that at some stations, the cost of normal operation of the gates is higher than the estimated loss of revenue…

At Redhill it almost seems pointless to have barriers at the main entrance when there is an open entrance to platform 3.

 

[Archvile]

A passenger who breaches Byelaws 1, 9, or 18 is by definition not “going about their lawful business”.

Byelaw 1 isn't applicable in this situation. It's important to pay attention to the wording.. The queue in this instance isn't pursuant to 'order' or 'safety'. In fact, it aggravates both.

 

[Danieldaniel]

Avanti

Happens at Euston P8-11 when it gets busy, but that is probably to avoid a problem with people being unable to reach trains to board them with the crowd blocking the way plus a potential safety issue of the crowd knocking people on the track when attempting to do so. It is pretty standard if two trains tip out at once at a busy time.

Avanti don't do arrival checks at all so you don't see it on other platfo

Avanti do do some arrivals checks, just

Happens at Euston P8-11 when it gets busy, but that is probably to avoid a problem with people being unable to reach trains to board them with the crowd blocking the way plus a potential safety issue of the crowd knocking people on the track when attempting to do so. It is pretty standard if two trains tip out at once at a busy time.

Avanti don't do arrival checks at all so you don't see it on other platforms.

not on the same level or scale.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Avanti

Avanti do do some arrivals checks, just

not on the same level or scale.

I have never experienced an arrival check on a Virgin or Avanti train at Euston, and I've travelled on more than a few. Must be very occasional indeed (e.g. the time fairly recently when a Pendolino went into Platform 11, something which doesn't happen very often!). Perhaps an RPI sting?

Even at 1-3 where there are the gates and another train is boarding, the usual practice is to have the side gate open for arriving passengers, even if using the gateline for boarding ones.

 

[setdown]

The UK has had a fully open system, it basically was in the late 1990s other than London Underground and possibly a couple of London termini (but Waterloo was definitely not gated, nor was Euston). Fare dodging was rife - just as it is in Germany, don't be misled by the generally compliant culture, though the cheapness of the Deutschlandticket has probably reduced it on regional services a fair bit. The other downside is antisocial behaviour on platform areas which can be quite high as there's not the need to pay to get in. Certainly the only place I've seen a drug-addled nutter come flying out of a train toilet with a needle still in his arm was Hamburg Hbf, though admittedly it was in about 1999 (though you did used to see discarded needles round the back of the shelter at genteel Aughton Park).

Das Schwarzfahren ist Nationalsport!
(fare dodging, literally "black travel"*, is a national sport)

* No, not racist, as in "black market" or similar.

Fair enough if that's your experience, at least in 2023 the German system felt like quite a safe one, on train and at station. Every regional and ICE train I was on had a ticket check, so that must be catching most of the revenue, to the point that it's not worth putting barriers in (or else they would).

off-topic: The Germans have the 'Comfort Check-in' system on the ICE trains, which spares you from ticket checks once you've sat in your seat and pressed a button in an app. Would love to see similar here.

 

[Silenos]

Fair enough if that's your experience, at least in 2023 the German system felt like quite a safe one, on train and at station. Every regional and ICE train I was on had a ticket check, so that must be catching most of the revenue, to the point that it's not worth putting barriers in (or else they would).

In most European countries I have travelled in/lived in, tickets are validated somewhere on the platform (this used to involve physical stamping of a paper ticket) before boarding, or activated in an app, and then checked (or not) on the train. Presumably all those systems share the same calculation as the German ones.

off-topic: The Germans have the 'Comfort Check-in' system on the ICE trains, which spares you from ticket checks once you've sat in your seat and pressed a button in an app. Would love to see similar here.

I am sure someone will be along shortly to explain how the U.K. is a unique case, and has nothing useful to learn from Continental systems.

 

[156421]

In most European countries I have travelled in/lived in, tickets are validated somewhere on the platform (this used to involve physical stamping of a paper ticket) before boarding, or activated in an app, and then checked (or not) on the train. Presumably all those systems share the same calculation as the German ones.

I am sure someone will be along shortly to explain how the U.K. is a unique case, and has nothing useful to learn from Continental systems.

The U.K. is a unique case, and has nothing useful to learn from Continental systems.

 

[Silenos]

The U.K. is a unique case, and has nothing useful to learn from Continental systems.

…is the accepted answer, you go through to the next round!

 

[Krokodil]

Imagine all the money that could be saved across UK rail if you had no ticket barriers to manufacture, maintain, operate and update.

In other words, it may actually be cheaper to not have RPOs, and/or gate lines and gate line staff. Especially if ALL the trains that use such stations already have ticket inspections on the trains.

Rubbish. When Arriva installed barriers at Chester, Rhyl, and Colwyn Bay (the latter two are exclusively served by trains with commercial guards), they estimated that the recovered revenue would pay for the capital within two years.

They were wrong. By quite a big margin. Rhyl and Colwyn Bay each recovered the cost of the capital in three months, Chester had done so within just a single month. That was how badly Arriva (amd Merseyrail who part-funded the Chester ones) had underestimated the scale of evasion.

I can think of plenty more stations where a similar result would be had.

 

[Annetts key]

The U.K. is a unique case, and has nothing useful to learn from Continental systems.

I believe the correct answer (post brexit) is “The U.K. is a unique nut case, and is not willing to learn from Continental systems”.

Rubbish. When Arriva installed barriers at Chester, Rhyl, and Colwyn Bay (the latter two are exclusively served by trains with commercial guards), they estimated that the recovered revenue would pay for the capital within two years.

They were wrong. By quite a big margin. Rhyl and Colwyn Bay each recovered the cost of the capital in three months, Chester had done so within just a single month. That was how badly Arriva (amd Merseyrail who part-funded the Chester ones) had underestimated the scale of evasion.

I can think of plenty more stations where a similar result would be had.

There will obviously be bigger or busier (or both, compared to the stations that I was talking about) stations where this is the case. I was not trying to say that the same situation applies everywhere. As every line and every station is not the same as everywhere else.

 

[MotCO]

off-topic: The Germans have the 'Comfort Check-in' system on the ICE trains, which spares you from ticket checks once you've sat in your seat and pressed a button in an app. Would love to see similar here.

How does that actually work? If you had a non-valid ticket (e.g. you wish to travel beyond the last station on the ticket, peal v non-peak etc ), you just sit in your chair and press 'comfort check-in' and all is well? No further ticket checks?

 

[Krokodil]

There will obviously be bigger or busier (or both, compared to the stations that I was talking about) stations where this is the case. I was not trying to say that the same situation applies everywhere. As every line and every station is not the same as everywhere else.

One of my examples - Colwyn Bay - has an annual footfall of circa 270k. There won't be many stations with a lower footfall that are fitted with barriers. Some, but not many.

Where barriers are very much part-time, it could be that the majority of the station's patronage is in the peaks, so as long as you make sure that one of the peak flows is targeted you've got most of your revenue. An alternative explanation is that the TOC just can't be bothered to collect the revenue, even when the recovered income more than exceeds the cost of longer manning hours. I can think of a few examples where this is almost certainly the case. In some cases the bulk of the revenue lost is coming out of another TOC's pockets, rather than the station operator, so they don't bother - even though it all comes from Johnny Taxpayer in the end.

 

[gingerheid]

A passenger who breaches Byelaws 1, 9, or 18 is by definition not “going about their lawful business”.

1. Queuing​

1. an operator or an authorised person may require any person to queue in order to regulate order or safety on or near the railway.
2. any person directed by a notice to queue, or when asked to queue by an authorised person, shall join the rear of the queue and obey the reasonable instructions of any authorised person regulating the queue.

1.1 The crowd waiting (for the photos testify that it is not a queue at all) at Stansted is clearly nothing to do with safety. There could be an argument that it regulates order, but it's at least as easy to make the argument that it creates disorder.

1.2 The fact that the crowd waiting has no identifiable end that you could be directed to join is clear proof that it is not a queue at all, and because it's not a queue this provision can't be applied.

If the crowd was a queue, then the instruction to join it is subject to a reasonablness test. This is subjective, but I can't see a lawyer wanting to get involved in any argument where there was a reasonable (pun intended) argument that it applied. Not surprisingly I can't find a definition of reasonable in terms of railway byelaws, and there are different tests applied in relation to other laws where the term comes up. Perhaps the most favourable might be "what would a reasonable person of ordinary prudence have done in the situation"? (So if you start a rebellion then you're well on your way to being in the clear because it's not just you).

In other areas of review of decisions of public authorities the test is quite firmly and intentionally biased in favour of the official "so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it". After 5 mins I think you can have a fair go at that, and after 10 mins I'd feel quite comfortable doing so.

2. 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

4. where there is a notice by an entrance or exit on any part of the railway indicating that it shall be used for entrance or exit only, no person shall enter by the exit or leave by the entrance.

These appear to be the relevant provisions to people standing by a tensabarrier rather than a ticket gate.

2 is difficult to breach because walking past someone isn't climbing over or forcing through anything.

4 is useful to note; because it makes walking past the queueless exist harder to defend than asserting a path through the crowd. However as there are conflicting signs from the days when everything was an exit I can't see them wanting to try and enforce that unless they cover them up.

8. Ticketless travel in non-compulsory ticket areas​

2. a person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification of validity when asked to do so by an authorised person

This is quiet easy to deal with by holding a ticket out prominantly while walking (and if they say "Stop" then that's not the same as ask to inspect a ticket and verify the validity of it). If they do ask to inspect it then that can be fulfilled by handing over the ticket and continuing walking, or if they refuse to take it by dropping it on the ground in front of them and continuing walking (a better or worse idea depending on whether the method of purchase gives you proof you had it).

I'm taking from this a new confidence if I do need to go through Stansted again, but I'll buy the ticket online and pick it up from a ticket machine so I have proof I did have the ticket, and if I decide I'm at my waiting limit I'll try and take a photo of it that includes the crowd and can identify the station.

On Tuesday though I'm just taking the coach, cos that's just less hassle annoyance and worry.

 

[Parham Wood]

I recall in the past that Paddington and Waterloo used to check tickets on arrival but in those days all tickets were paper and two men on the gate could ensure all passed through with minimal delay. Today with so many tickets electronic I cannot see that it can be as efficient given the need for passengers ideally to fire up and find their ticket on the phone in advance of the check with the ensuing problems that some will have. The bottom line is that railways have to recognise that they provide a public service and that exit times from platforms must be proportional to what people would expect. (I cannot see this happening under any government). Sadly they do not provide a public service, it is just a business which in many cases has scant regard for customer service backed up by public funds in many cases that support inefficiencies with bad practices and bylaws that do not accommodate genuine mistakes.

 

[XAM2175]

How does that actually work? If you had a non-valid ticket (e.g. you wish to travel beyond the last station on the ticket, peal v non-peak etc ), you just sit in your chair and press 'comfort check-in' and all is well? No further ticket checks?

For a start, you need to have your ticket loaded in the DB Navigator app before you can use the Comfort Check-in option, and it won't offer the option for an invalid ticket. After check-in, the conductor's tablet shows the passenger+seat combinations so they know which passengers (or more correctly, seats) they don't need to check. A passenger over-travelling will be detected because their check-in ends at the destination or interchange point on their ticket.

 

[156421]

I recall in the past that Paddington and Waterloo used to check tickets on arrival but in those days all tickets were paper and two men on the gate could ensure all passed through with minimal delay. Today with so many tickets electronic I cannot see that it can be as efficient given the need for passengers ideally to fire up and find their ticket on the phone in advance of the check with the ensuing problems that some will have. The bottom line is that railways have to recognise that they provide a public service and that exit times from platforms must be proportional to what people would expect. (I cannot see this happening under any government). Sadly they do not provide a public service, it is just a business which in many cases has scant regard for customer service backed up by public funds in many cases that support inefficiencies with bad practices and bylaws that do not accommodate genuine mistakes.

Almost as if it paper tickets are better after all...

 

[c52]

There was a queue of a good 100 people and suitcases (guess) to get out of the barriers at Gatwick this afternoon, impeding my ability to get to platform 2.