The Tube...
 

I'm only just catching up on the series, and watched the one about
revenue inspectors yesterday. Doing some quick sums on the back of an
envelope, it seems it costs them about as much to run the revenue
inspectors as the fares they are failing to collect (£20m a year). In
any event that's 1% of their turnover, and not the complete financial
disaster they portray it as. Although I agree there's an element of
"encouraging the others" so you have to been seen to be doing
*something*.

It spoilt what's otherwise a very good show which I think gives a good
insight into what it's like from the inside (even if some of the staff
play to the cameras a bit).

Meanwhile, there was some speculation earlier about exactly how the chap
was misusing his Oyster. They showed him touching in then out again (but
staying in) which tricked the card into not registering the start of a
journey. What they didn't show was how he was touching-in at a station
closer to his destination, in order to be able to touch out (at a lower
fare) at the destination without incurring a penalty for an unresolved
journey.
--
Roland Perry

The Tube...
 

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 11:10:53 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
Meanwhile, there was some speculation earlier about exactly how the chap
was misusing his Oyster. They showed him touching in then out again (but
staying in) which tricked the card into not registering the start of a
journey. What they didn't show was how he was touching-in at a station
closer to his destination, in order to be able to touch out (at a lower
fare) at the destination without incurring a penalty for an unresolved
journey.

I thought he was travelling from zone 2 to zone 2, via zone 1, with a
zone 2 season ticket. If that is the case an unresolved journey isn't a
problem so on exit he doesn't need to touch in first once he has touched
in and out at the start.

The Tube...
 

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
I'm only just catching up on the series, and watched the one about revenue
inspectors yesterday. Doing some quick sums on the back of an envelope, it
seems it costs them about as much to run the revenue inspectors as the
fares they are failing to collect (£20m a year). In any event that's 1% of
their turnover, and not the complete financial disaster they portray it
as. Although I agree there's an element of "encouraging the others" so you
have to been seen to be doing *something*.

I'm not entirely convinced that you have to "be seen to be doing something"
with a barriered system that requires fare evaders to be really antisocial
to avoid paying

tim

The Tube...
 

On Mar 24, 1:48*pm, "tim...." wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote in message

...

I'm only just catching up on the series, and watched the one about revenue
inspectors yesterday. Doing some quick sums on the back of an envelope, it
seems it costs them about as much to run the revenue inspectors as the
fares they are failing to collect (£20m a year). In any event that's 1% of
their turnover, and not the complete financial disaster they portray it
as. Although I agree there's an element of "encouraging the others" so you
have to been seen to be doing *something*.

I'm not entirely convinced that you have to "be seen to be doing something"
with a barriered system that requires fare evaders to be really antisocial
to avoid paying

tim

There are many many ways to enter /leave LUL without going through
barriers

A good few met ones dont have them.
Bakerloo has too

A lot of time many are open

There is at least on central London station where lift goes from
inside gateline to outside
DLR at Bank
Stratford to NR
Bakerloo to NR

Etc etc
Then of course there is the abuse of freedom passes and young person
railcard linked oysters never mind shared season tickets

None of this abuse is prevented one Iota by barriers and can only be
detected by RPIs
HTH Phil

The Tube...
 

In message
, at
08:21:10 on Sat, 24 Mar 2012, "
remarked:
There is at least on central London station where lift goes from
inside gateline to outside

Two that I know of, at Bank and Euston Square.
--
Roland Perry

The Tube...
 

I'm not entirely convinced that you have to "be seen to be doing
something" with a barriered system that requires fare evaders to be
really antisocial to avoid paying


In addition to other comments I'll add that you need to explain then why
there are so many people milling around, most looking exceedingly
unhappy, outside my local Overground station whenever there are
inspectors (invariabl;y accompanied by police) checking entry and exit
at the barriers.
--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

The Tube...
 

"Robin" wrote in message
...
I'm not entirely convinced that you have to "be seen to be doing
something" with a barriered system that requires fare evaders to be
really antisocial to avoid paying


In addition to other comments I'll add that you need to explain then why
there are so many people milling around, most looking exceedingly unhappy,
outside my local Overground station whenever there are inspectors
(invariabl;y accompanied by police) checking entry and exit at the
barriers.

I'm not saying that they shouldn't have manual revenue protection

I'm just saying that "being seen to have it" isn't a reason for having it.

The people who cheat know that they are cheating - they don't need the
presence of inspectors to remind them

tim

The Tube...
 

On 24/03/12 11:10, Roland Perry wrote:
I'm only just catching up on the series, and watched the one about
revenue inspectors yesterday. Doing some quick sums on the back of an
envelope, it seems it costs them about as much to run the revenue
inspectors as the fares they are failing to collect (£20m a year).

That seems a reasonable amount to spend. How much more revenue would
they lose if they didn't spend anything on inspectors?

Roger

The Tube...
 

On 24/03/2012 11:10, Roland Perry wrote:
I'm only just catching up on the series, and watched the one about
revenue inspectors yesterday. Doing some quick sums on the back of an
envelope, it seems it costs them about as much to run the revenue
inspectors as the fares they are failing to collect (£20m a year). In
any event that's 1% of their turnover, and not the complete financial
disaster they portray it as. Although I agree there's an element of
"encouraging the others" so you have to been seen to be doing *something*.

It spoilt what's otherwise a very good show which I think gives a good
insight into what it's like from the inside (even if some of the staff
play to the cameras a bit).

Meanwhile, there was some speculation earlier about exactly how the chap
was misusing his Oyster. They showed him touching in then out again (but
staying in) which tricked the card into not registering the start of a
journey. What they didn't show was how he was touching-in at a station
closer to his destination, in order to be able to touch out (at a lower
fare) at the destination without incurring a penalty for an unresolved
journey.

If I touch in twice at a National Rails station with my Oyster, will it
be registered as a start of journey?

The Tube...
 

On Saturday, 24 March 2012 11:10:53 UTC, Roland Perry wrote:
I'm only just catching up on the series, and watched the one about
revenue inspectors yesterday. Doing some quick sums on the back of an
envelope, it seems it costs them about as much to run the revenue
inspectors as the fares they are failing to collect (£20m a year). In
any event that's 1% of their turnover, and not the complete financial
disaster they portray it as. Although I agree there's an element of
"encouraging the others" so you have to been seen to be doing
*something*.

It spoilt what's otherwise a very good show

I don't understand... WHAT has spoilt?