Oystercard boundary to be extended?

First Capital Connect has confirmed that they are in the early stages of discussions with the Department for Transport and Transport for London to introduce the Oyster card system into Hertfordshire.

If implemented it could see the Oyster boundary move out as far out as St Albans, Welwyn Garden City and Hertford North.

County Councillor for St Albans, Chris White, believes that now is the perfect time for the scheme to be introduced in Hertfordshire.

“These things take time but we are at a point of radical change on the railways. There is no reason why the scheme should not be rolled out even further than St Albans, including areas such as Harpenden. ”

It is believed that a hybrid system will operate combining the existing season ticket scheme with the new Oyster cards. In most situations, Oyster is the cheapest single fare, however there will still be times where a season ticket is the best option.  The main advantage of Oyster is that it is quick and convenient and may actually save money with Train Operating Companies not having to replace season tickets that no longer operate automated ticket barriers.

First Capital Connect have demonstrated by their discussions that they don’t see Oyster as a threat to their ticket revenues and this might also have a positive effect on other companies meaning the boundary could stretch even further.

T.W.A.Ts (Travelling Without A Ticket)

“Sorry Mate, I didn’t have enough time to buy my ticket.”
“The Ticket Office was closed”.
“There was a big queue at the ticket office and my train was in the platform”.

If I had £1 for every time I have heard the above, I would be lounging on a beach in Jamaica, not standing on a station platform.

Don’t get me wrong, there are people who have a genuine reason for not having a ticket but there are some who, after getting away without paying once, will travel time after time without spending anything on a ticket.

At some point however, either on train or at a station ticket barrier, they will be challenged.  Whilst in the past the ticket examiner may have turned a blind eye, recently Train Operating Companies(TOCS) have realised the costs of lost revenue from fare evasion.  As a result more automatic ticket barriers are appearing at stations and the TOCs are now taking each offence of travelling without a ticket very seriously.

Many people travel without a ticket in the belief that they are doing no harm and if they are caught they will simply be asked to pay for a full price ticket, this is now not the case at all.  Train operators are taking railway fare evasion incredibly seriously and have increased the number of people taken to court charged with fare evasion.

The biggest shock most people receive when told they are being taken to court is that they are actually being charged with FRAUD and that this can lead to not only a fine and/or custodial sentence but will also lead to a permanent criminal record.

A Criminal conviction will cause significant impact on the person’s future.  Consequences can include loss of employment/inability to get a job, being unable to gain personal credit and loss of personal relationships.  The other major implication of having a criminal conviction is that it will stop you entering certain countries(e.g Australia & The USA) completely. This ban on entry is indefinite.

What Should I Do As A Passenger?

Obviously the first and most sensible thing to do is ALWAYS BUY A VALID TICKET BEFORE YOU TRAVEL. If you make a genuine mistake and realise you have done so once you are on the train, find a conductor/guard as soon as possible, explain your mistake and ask to pay for a ticket.

DO NOT wait until you arrive at your destination unless there is no conductor/guard on the train. The onus is on YOU to prove that you have attempted to buy a ticket, not on the Train Operating Company to prove that you do not have a valid one, so you must make every effort to obtain the correct ticket for travel.

If you have forgotten to do this for any reason and have been caught, SEEK LEGAL ADVICE!!! Early discussions and explanations with the Train Operating Company MAY avoid a prosecution. If however you are caught by the British Transport Police (BTP), prosecution is a lot harder to avoid.

Conclusion

If you Travel Without A Ticket, YOU ARE A  T.W.A.T

The McNulty Report – Good News or Bad News?

The long-awaited McNulty value for money study of the rail industry has in my opinion fundamentally failed to put passengers’ needs at its centre.

Although the headlines for rail users appear to be fairness and tackling the complex fare structure, there are a lot of caveats buried in the detail of the report which could lead to a lower-quality, more expensive railway for passengers.

There is some good news, such as proposals for three-day season tickets that will provide benefits for part-time workers and also greater local control of the railways. The overall theme of the report is towards cutting the government’s subsidy and granting more flexibility to Train Operating Companies, while passengers’ needs – and a wider understanding of the social and environmental benefits of the railway are at serious risk of being sidelined.

Transport Minister Philip Hammond maintains that passengers will benefit eventually. But in reality, these rewards will happen beyond the life of the current government, and only if the rail industry as a whole rises to the challenge.  Meanwhile rail users are struggling with fare increases that far outstrip pay rises within the rail industry.

Media coverage seems to have focused on what will happen to off-peak fares.  Current fares are resulting in serious overcrowding just at the end of the rush hour period, when, unsurprisingly, regular rail users will wait to travel on a more affordable ticket. The McNulty report is proposing to change the current structure around the peak/off fares to make services less crowded by adjusting times and fares according to areas of heavy usage.  There are also fears being voiced that off-peak fares will be eroded by Train Operating Companies looking to make the most revenue from their services to cut subsidies from the Government.

Essentially, the majority of proposals regarding ticket prices boil down to avoiding costs associated with providing extra capacity, rather than making the option of rail more attractive to potential and existing users. There are also suggestions within the report that ticket prices could increase in areas where rail competes with other transport modes, which can only been seen as a backward step in encouraging more people to use rail as a greener mode of transport.

The other obvious concerns of the report include possible reduction of services on regional lines, the potential for frontline staff cuts meaning more unstaffed stations and the proposals to provide larger car parks which could create larger traffic problems around stations and risk turning passengers away, rather than encouraging more passengers and thus increasing revenue.people away from the train rather than increasing revenue.

Overall, the report leaves unanswered questions.  Namely, what are the railways for? Is the railway a public service, run for the benefit of passengers, Or are we moving towards a more commercial railway that suits the convenience of Train Operating Companies?

There is some good news as a result of the report.  Transport Minister Philip Hammond has committed to a fundamental review of fare structure. This needs to be structured to provide an easy to understand system that removes a lot of complex fares and is also fair to both commuters and occasional travellers alike.  The current fare structure is complicated to the point that even railway staff members cannot understand it and therefore cannot advise passengers properly.  The other opportunity of the fares review is that it gives the Government  a chance to ensure that the views, needs and importance of passengers are heard loud and clear.

To view Sir Roy McNulty’s report in full, you can download a copy from the DfT website.

Sacked Lymington stationmaster Ian Faletto will continue to fight for his job

I don’t really want to go over this whole topic again but the article below has some new elements that I feel need to be commented on.  My comments are in bold text throughout the article.

Source: Bournemouth Daily Echo

HE may have been sacked from his beloved job, but Ian Faletto is still fighting. Despite the prospect of a messy battle with his former employer South West Trains, the award-winning employee, buoyed by community support, has said he will continue to fight for his job at Lymington railway station.

Mr Faletto, 49, was sacked by the company for removing a shopping trolley that had been dumped on the line near the station.  Mr Faletto  was dismissed for breaching safety critical rules, not for removing the trolley.

The dismissal prompted a campaign and a 6,500-name petition led by the Rev Alex Russell and thousands of others including New Forest MP Desmond Swayne calling for him to be reinstated.

Mr Faletto said he has been overwhelmed by the response. “I never realised I was so popular or so highly regarded or thought of.”

Referring to his dismissal, he said: “I was shocked they were making an issue out of what had happened.  Shocked about an issue being made about breaching safety rules and putting his own life at risk.  Train Operating Companies ALWAYS inform employees about safety rules and what happens if they are breached.

“I had done my damnedest to prevent a rail accident. I know of people that have done similar things and it has not been a problem.  I was acting in good faith.”  “Prevent a Rail Accident”.  The line speed at Lymington is reported as being 20-25mph, this at most would have caused superficial damage to the train and would not have caused a derailment as previously stated by Mr Faletto.  

But despite the high-profile controversy, he still hopes to return to his job.

“I love it. Every day is different. I love meeting different people and dealing with different things. Also the fact that I am doing something – I like to be doing something all the time.  At the moment I’m trying to find things to do. It’s hard.”

SWT have said the facts of the case are ‘fundamentally different to the picture that has been painted to date’.

A company spokesman added: “We are ready to ensure the full facts are made public at an employment tribunal and would defend our position vigorously if required.”  Southwest Trains have acted superbly in their way of dealing with the press as a result of this incident.  They are not mud slinging in public and have preferred not to comment until any legal action is launched.

But Mr Faletto said: “Everything I have said is true. I think they will try to throw back anything they can to defend themselves.”  Or perhaps they will reveal facts that have not been previously reported that show that Mr Faletto is indeed at fault, there may even be evidence of previous breaches by Mr Faletto.

After 27 years on the railway, Ian has amassed a rather impressive collection of trophies and awards, testifying to his commitment and outstanding service.

The former ticket office clerk has also invested his own money in the improvements, buying sweets for the waiting room, paint for the floors, carpets, heaters and even putting his own Christmas tree there.  Is it me or do the press seem to be making an awful lot about this “generosity” as if it excuses what Mr Faletto has done?

As a response to the article, a reader posted the following comment:-

MJD, HAMWORTHY says…
10:56am Mon 23 May 11
Yes he broke the rules, as he did not have a permit to go on the road. Now look at it another way SWT. Daily Echo Head lines. 30 killed in Lymington train disaster as SWT staff couldn’t be bothered to remove shopping trolley from the Road due to not having a permit ???? Health and safety gone mad.

This comment shows once again how sensationalistic the general public can be.  The likelihood of disaster is ZERO!! The only person at risk of death or injury was Mr Faletto himself for not following established procedure.  It is not the fact that staff cannot be bothered, there are strict procedures that MUST be followed.  If those procedures were not followed, everyone could just jump down on the tracks and a lot more fatalities would result.

As usual, the UK press grab hold of a story and try and sensationalise everything about it to have a dig at the railways.  I always thought that the UK press was Impartial but once again they act whilst only havig one side of the story.  I honestly hope that an employment tribunal is called for this case and that Southwest Trains get the opportunity to present their evidence in an impartial setting, then perhaps this case can be laid to bed.

Overhaul of rail fares to simplify ticketing announced

A long overdue move to simplify the maze of fares faced by rail travellers will be announced tomorrow.

The government aims to save £1bn a year by the end of the decade in the biggest revolution of the network since the railways were nationalised.

Train Operating Companies will shoulder two-thirds of the proposed cuts and Network Rail the remaining third. However, the grim reality for passengers is more years of inflation-busting ticket price rises.

Greater emphasis will be placed on simple, flexible ‘airline-style’ ticketing, where passengers pay more when a train is full and less when it is empty.

The changes will follow the ‘value for money’ report of government trouble-shooter Sir Roy McNulty, who will present his report tomorrow.

Sir Roy is expected to heavily criticise escalating costs and partly blame trade unions’ demands.

His verdict could lead Transport Secretary Phillip Hammond into battle with RMT union boss Bob Crow. Mr Hammond will point to studies showing it costs 40% more to operate the UK rail network than systems in Germany, Holland and France.

There is also a likelihood that travel perks enjoyed by up to 500,000 former BR staff and their families will be targeted.

The Government is already committed to annual fare rises of Retail Price Index inflation plus 3% for the next three years. In response, Mr Hammond will announce the setting up of a ‘fares review’.