Having used the new station entrance for the H&C, Circle and Met lines
at Kings Cross, I've been using the new style barriers regularly and
must question who designed them or allowed them to be put into use?

Sure, they're smaller which means more barriers, but they open so slow
that they;

a) Make you wait to pass through, which causes delays and frustration
if you're in a hurry to make a connection.

b) Take ages to close, which means I've had a guy double up with me on
two separate occasions in a week. I've never had *anyone* double up
before, and on the second time I tried to walk slowly in the hope the
barrier would close on him. However, it stays open long enough that I
bet two people could double up. The police are usually there, but don't
seem interested - after all, they're looking for terrorists.

So, along with the bendy buses problem, it seems that fare evasion
isn't difficult in London - and presumably these 'new' barriers will be
rolled out to all stations in due course.

I picked up an interesting comment in another thread about fare evasion
on buses, from Paul Corfield, which points out that with many new
measures and initiatives in place, it's quite possible that TfL believe
they no longer need to try too hard to enforce what they believe is no
longer a real issue;

"The counter argument, of course, is that pre-payment is now so high in

London and that so many forms of fraud have been removed by structural
changes you can argue just how effective a big effort would be. We have

flat fares so no over-riding, we have one bus zone so no "out of zone"
season ticket fraud, Travelcards are valid on all buses so rail zones
are irrelevant, all Oyster personalised and registered cards can be
barred from use, smartcard technology facilitates sophisticated fraud
analysis, Oyster checking helps the driver detect out of date or out of

value cards more readily and children travel free. This really only
leaves out of date passes / permits, forgeries and stolen cards, non
validated cards on cashless routes and blatant non payment - again
probably only on cashless / heritage routes to any level as drivers
check on all other routes. Many people complain about the London fare
structure but it many ways the policy is ingenious in that it has
designed out the opportunity for many frauds to be committed."

It's a very valid point. However, even if TfL aren't too concerned,
what about passengers paying high fares and watching others going for
free?

It may be considered acceptable to allow a small percentage of
fraudsters, but this is infuriating - especially on overcrowded trains
or buses that wouldn't necessarily have to BE so crowded if you could
remove the free-riders. There is almost no chance of these people being
caught and, if as another poster said, there are regular checks in
certain areas, the chances are even lower once they know to avoid them.

Barriers were supposed to address the problem, and these will be the
ones rolled out on National Rail stations in the future (e.g. First
Capital Connect) so, for the ones not paying, they'll present almost no
barrier at all.

Jonathan

Jonathan Morris wrote:

Sure, they're smaller which means more barriers, but they open so slow
that they;

They're also of poor quality, or seem so. I don't believe they will
last.

However, on the tailgating issue, that's easily done on the old-style
LUL barriers. I have once or twice done it by accident when my ticket
didn't, for whatever reason, activate the barrier correctly, such as a
damaged magstripe, or where the person in front's ticket didn't work
properly but mine (inadvertently) let both through.

It may be considered acceptable to allow a small percentage of
fraudsters, but this is infuriating - especially on overcrowded trains
or buses that wouldn't necessarily have to BE so crowded if you could
remove the free-riders.

I would think that most fare-dodgers would travel anyway, and are just
trying to get for free a ride they would take anyway.

It certainly used to be the case that a lot of people would make a
"business decision" to fare dodge on unbarriered systems like
Manchester Metrolink, as a 20 quid penalty every couple of weeks was
cheaper than a season ticket. It was even more "favourable" when the
PF used to be a tenner.

Neil

Neil Williams wrote:
They're also of poor quality, or seem so. I don't believe they will
last.

I forgot to add that. Yes, their ability to read Oyster cards is
shocking. On the H&C, Circle, Met exit, the two barriers nearest the
gate (i.e. nearest the new ticket office) were rejecting the majority
of Oyster cards on the first week - effectively putting them out of
use. I now keep to the right, but you can hear the 'alarms' going off
all the time!

I have once or twice done it by accident when my ticket
didn't, for whatever reason, activate the barrier correctly, such as a
damaged magstripe, or where the person in front's ticket didn't work
properly but mine (inadvertently) let both through.

Indeed. On the old barriers, you often do get caught though. On the new
ones, it's not going to be a problem. Perhaps that's intentional then;
to aid the flow - but allowing people to take advantage of it. Word
will get around, you wait.

I should possibly try to double up intentionally (I'll still have a
valid ticket if stopped) as an experiment. Maybe we all should!!

a 20 quid penalty every couple of weeks was
cheaper than a season ticket. It was even more "favourable" when the
PF used to be a tenner.

Even after the £20 introduction last year, a gripper 'caught' a guy in
a suit that had £20 in his hand and gave it over before the inspector
said a word. He'd clearly worked out that it was cheaper than a ticket
every day. Sadly, he's right to think it.

Jonathan

Jonathan Morris wrote:
Having used the new station entrance for the H&C, Circle and Met lines
at Kings Cross, I've been using the new style barriers regularly and
must question who designed them or allowed them to be put into use?

In addition to all these points, I also find the angle of the Oyster
card reader very awkward compared to the old style gates where the
readers were retro-fitted. Maybe it's my height or the way I hold my
card, but it feels much more awkward to swipe on the new gates. Is it
just me, or has anyone else noticed this?

Patrick

Whatever hap to those barriers that were normally open
but only closed if someone attempted to pass without
first presenting a valid ticket ?

Richard [in SG19]



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Jonathan Morris wrote:

Even after the £20 introduction last year, a gripper 'caught' a guy in
a suit that had £20 in his hand and gave it over before the inspector
said a word. He'd clearly worked out that it was cheaper than a ticket
every day. Sadly, he's right to think it.

On the main line, that should be 20 quid or twice the full single fare
for the journey made. For some commuters into London that is likely to
take it well over that.

It's a good point, though. I'd like to see it increase to the level of
a parking fine, as the amount evaded is usually of a similar magnitude.
60 quid standard, discounted to 30 quid if paid on the spot/within one
month, increased to 90 quid if left too long, would be a good start.
TOCs do like prosecuting people instead of late, but that they have to
resort to this is IMO showing the failure of the penalty fare.

Neil

Richard M Willis wrote:
Whatever hap to those barriers that were normally open
but only closed if someone attempted to pass without
first presenting a valid ticket ?

I think they'd confuse people too much, and thus cause a safety hazard.

Neil

wrote:
Jonathan Morris wrote:
Having used the new station entrance for the H&C, Circle and Met lines
at Kings Cross, I've been using the new style barriers regularly and
must question who designed them or allowed them to be put into use?

In addition to all these points, I also find the angle of the Oyster
card reader very awkward compared to the old style gates where the
readers were retro-fitted. Maybe it's my height or the way I hold my
card, but it feels much more awkward to swipe on the new gates. Is it
just me, or has anyone else noticed this?

Not just you - I've noticed this too. I've also noticed how slow the
gates seem to be - I end up doing an emergency stop every time I use
them, because I expect them to open more quickly! Really I should
remember that when I go to King's Cross...


--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

On 14 Jun 2006 02:49:01 -0700, "Jonathan Morris"
wrote:

Having used the new station entrance for the H&C, Circle and Met lines
at Kings Cross, I've been using the new style barriers regularly and
must question who designed them or allowed them to be put into use?

Sure, they're smaller which means more barriers, but they open so slow
that they;

a) Make you wait to pass through, which causes delays and frustration
if you're in a hurry to make a connection.

b) Take ages to close, which means I've had a guy double up with me on
two separate occasions in a week. I've never had *anyone* double up
before, and on the second time I tried to walk slowly in the hope the
barrier would close on him. However, it stays open long enough that I
bet two people could double up. The police are usually there, but don't
seem interested - after all, they're looking for terrorists.

"Doing a lambada" at ticket gates can happen anywhere with any type of
gate. The electric gates have a more "swept" movement than the old air
gates which are at Kings Cross.

Your observations are not new but the latest small gates are not
indicative of a policy change. It is fair to say that the operation of
ticket gates and the paddle movements are a compromise between the
engineering design, throughput and safety. The end result will never be
ideal and I have yet to see a gate or turnstile anywhere in the world
that cannot be evaded by someone determined enough.

I would imagine that in time the manufacturers will review the setting
of the gates and could fine tune to reduce "lambadas" if it is
considered necessary.

So, along with the bendy buses problem, it seems that fare evasion
isn't difficult in London - and presumably these 'new' barriers will be
rolled out to all stations in due course.

The gates - not barriers please - will only be installed as and when the
air supply is no longer available as it feeds from the signalling system
or as in this case where new station areas need to be equipped. I
cannot recall the design life of the air gates but as they are modular
they can continue in service for a long time provided the air supply
remains available.

I picked up an interesting comment in another thread about fare evasion
on buses, from Paul Corfield, which points out that with many new
measures and initiatives in place, it's quite possible that TfL believe
they no longer need to try too hard to enforce what they believe is no
longer a real issue;

I don't think that is the case at all.

[snip]

It's a very valid point. However, even if TfL aren't too concerned,
what about passengers paying high fares and watching others going for
free?

I think you need to make sure you are quoting me in the correct context.
The comment I made was in the context of bus fraud and the ticketing
structure. That structure does not apply to the Tube and many forms of
fraud remain on LUL that are not present on buses. Ticket gates are an
excellent way of dealing with such frauds. Gates are also an excellent
tool to ensure that people do validate on entry and exit with Oyster so
that pre-pay and capping and auto extensions and auto add value / ticket
upload work.

As I am the person who was the LU business client for network wide
gating I cannot accept you attributing a quote of mine in the context of
LU's revenue collection policy or TfL's view of the same when that is
not what I was talking about.

I am also the person who spent a lot of time explaining the benefits of
gating and the business case issues to a wide range of TOCs as well as
the first private owners (Prism) of what is now C2C. While it is
obviously for each TOC to decide if they want gates I like to think that
I was pretty instrumental in getting them adopted on the national
network. Naturally I think they work well and after a period of
difficulty with both passenger and staff acceptance I am of the view
that we did an excellent job in getting network gating delivered on the
LU system.

It may be considered acceptable to allow a small percentage of
fraudsters, but this is infuriating - especially on overcrowded trains
or buses that wouldn't necessarily have to BE so crowded if you could
remove the free-riders. There is almost no chance of these people being
caught and, if as another poster said, there are regular checks in
certain areas, the chances are even lower once they know to avoid them.

No one said it is acceptable. I said that the business case for bendy
buses is such that a higher rate of evasion due to open boarding would
not destroy the case for having the form of bendy bus operation we have.
I also said that the nature of fraud risk had materially changed on the
buses due to structural change in the ticketing product range.

Barriers were supposed to address the problem, and these will be the
ones rolled out on National Rail stations in the future (e.g. First
Capital Connect) so, for the ones not paying, they'll present almost no
barrier at all.

Sorry but not correct. There are many different suppliers of gates and
while Cubic have the biggest share of the market they are not without
competitors. The TOCs have procured gates from different manufacturers.
There is also no requirement at all for TOCs to have gates to the same
settings as those used on LU. In many cases there is justification for
them being different as the throughput requirement at Kings Cross Tube
is rather different to say Enfield Chase on FCC (to pull an example out
of the hat).
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Neil Williams wrote:
Jonathan Morris wrote:

Even after the £20 introduction last year, a gripper 'caught' a guy in
a suit that had £20 in his hand and gave it over before the inspector
said a word. He'd clearly worked out that it was cheaper than a ticket
every day. Sadly, he's right to think it.

On the main line, that should be 20 quid or twice the full single fare
for the journey made. For some commuters into London that is likely to
take it well over that.

It's a good point, though. I'd like to see it increase to the level of
a parking fine, as the amount evaded is usually of a similar magnitude.
60 quid standard, discounted to 30 quid if paid on the spot/within one
month, increased to 90 quid if left too long, would be a good start.
TOCs do like prosecuting people instead of late, but that they have to
resort to this is IMO showing the failure of the penalty fare.



No, the person with the £20 was showing evidence of deliberate
fare-evasion, and should have been prosecuted, risking a fine of £1000
or gaol or whatever is. Plenty of people have been prosecuted when
this sort of routine behaviour is observed.

I say yet again, that a penalty fare is NOT a fine, either on-the-spot
or any other kind. They got through Parliament on the grounds that
they were the standard fare for not paying in advance of getting on the
train. Penalty fares must not be issued if deliberate fare-evasion is
suspected.

(This is, of course, completely insane. In practice, penalty fares
collude with fare-evaders, by letting them off when they should be
prosecuted, and victimise soft targets who intended to pay but found it
difficult to get a ticket.)