Mass cull of ticket offices

[jjb1970]

On 15/07/2023 at 16:47, Mallard60022 said:

I don't know why anyone uses Mac Donalds!

P

 

If you're in an alien place and just want something to eat which you know you will be able to eat the big fast food chains like McD, KFC, Burger King etc can be very useful. I used to spend a lot of time in China, not Beijing and Shanghai but the ship building towns and cities, small towns with engine works etc. Even as a sinophile (I love China, the country, people, food etc) I'd be lying if I denied there weren't times I didn't want a break and something like a burger and fries.

[The Stationmaster]

21 minutes ago, jjb1970 said:

As a few others have pointed out, the impact of a cull will be largely dependent on how confident people are about using rail services.

 

There will be many users for whom this won't matter. People who are happy to use on-line tools, know how to access the best tickets, are happy to use ticket machines etc. If you look around stations today, even where there are staffed ticket counters plenty of people go to the machines to either buy or collect tickets. For these people whether there is a staffed ticket office is probably irrelevant.

 

On the other hand there are infrequent users of rail services, or people less confident about buying tickets for whom a staffed ticket office is beneficial. Shutting ticket offices may well drive some of them away.

 

I guess it largely depends on how you view the railways. If it is a business, then whether to keep staffed ticket offices is a cost benefit decision, if the cost of keeping them open is justified by sales then keep them. Otherwise close them. If we still see an element of social service, and/or are serious about getting people out of cars and onto trains when they travel then anything that helps that cause (such as staffed ticket offices) needs very careful consideration before ditching.

 

I'm not sure I see the age thing as that important, it may have been the case 25 years ago that older people were less willing to use the Internet to buy tickets, look for travel info etc but these days most OAPs I know are quite happy to use technology.

 

A bigger question is where people fit into the future. We're already at a point where human kind is increasingly obsolescent in many commercial and business activities, so what do we want people (especially young people) to do with their lives? I live in an extremely advanced society which has deliberately chosen to retain station staff and staffed booking offices at stations as much because it is seen as better for society to maintain opportunities for people (it's not just the MRT, it's across the board) rather than automating and de-manning everything. I can't help thinking they have a better approach than we do to it.

Very much the case.  I think what many people are missing is that the booking office is also a local shop window for the railway and can deal with enquiries as readily as it can sell tickets.  And quite a lot of people, judging by what I have seen locally on the past, use the booking office as a place to make enquiries about potential future journeys or which particular routes and/or tickets wil best suit their intended journey.  

 

This too doesn't seem to be particularly age related and in fact younger people seem to have far poorer geoographical knowledge of theri own country than many older people although lack of railway geographical knowledge can apply to any age unless they are regular rail users for a variety of journeys.  And public transport is a foreign country for many people - and always has been - so they need reassurance and machines can't do that.   Again it is not, in my experience, an age thing and that also explains why many people prefer to travel by car where they are in an environment they know.

 

And do machines tell the truth or does it depend on whose machine you consult?  On Saturday a chap on one train I travelled on had to purchase an upgrade from the on-train staff because 'the machine would not let him book a ticket and reserve a seat in 1si Class; so he bought a. Stanbard Class tiket and paid £20 for the upgrade = loss of revenue.  Also on Saturday a woman, with no luggage, asked on boarding a LIz Line train at Reading if it was going to Abbey Wood?  Her journey, at no extra cost,  would have been nearly 30 minutes quicker if she'd asked a different machine ( i.e. National Rail Enquiries). 

[APOLLO]

Ahh, Mc Donalds in the Far East !!

 

 

Brit15

[adb968008]

Yet here in my town, Just Eat keeps asking me if

 

I “fancy a dirty wing”.

 

Had to read that twice

 

[woodenhead]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

And do machines tell the truth or does it depend on whose machine you consult?  On Saturday a chap on one train I travelled on had to purchase an upgrade from the on-train staff because 'the machine would not let him book a ticket and reserve a seat in 1si Class; so he bought a. Stanbard Class tiket and paid £20 for the upgrade = loss of revenue.  Also on Saturday a woman, with no luggage, asked on boarding a LIz Line train at Reading if it was going to Abbey Wood?  Her journey, at no extra cost,  would have been nearly 30 minutes quicker if she'd asked a different machine ( i.e. National Rail Enquiries). 

People are known to be biased or not know everything as well so can be as fallable as a machine, at least a machine will have a logic to it's decisions that can be quickly corrected.

 

I think really the bigger question is how does society wish to be treated and how does that play into Government policy as @jjb1970 alludes.  A lot of people would like the 1950s view of society - the local shops, the friendly postman, the GP, the station manager but overlaid with modern values as well so tolerance and respect in a multi-cultural setting.  Unfortunately the governments appear less inclined to this and want an increasingly isolated automated society with services delivered based purely on least cost unless it is feeding shareholders when it is about extracting as much cash from the general public as possible.

[Phil Parker]

8 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

A lot of people would like the 1950s view of society - the local shops, the friendly postman, the GP, the station manager

 

As long as they don't have to use those local shops themselves, preferring to drive to a supermarket. It's the difference between what people say they want, and what they actually want.

 

If they really wanted this, the concept of 15-minute cities, where everything is available in a 15-minute walk, would be more popular.

[Reorte]

6 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

As long as they don't have to use those local shops themselves, preferring to drive to a supermarket. It's the difference between what people say they want, and what they actually want.

 

If they really wanted this, the concept of 15-minute cities, where everything is available in a 15-minute walk, would be more popular.

 

I'd much rather use small local shops, but I've no choice since they've mostly gone, other than the butcher (who I do use occasionally but even then the opening hours are a problem). It's the whole big picture of how everything fits together and is practical.

 

Of course there are also a large number of people who simply don't care about anything other than cost and convenience.

 

At the risk of moving things in a political direction I think it's the stick aspects that put people off the 15 minute city idea - providing everything in that range, popular, making it more awkward to go anywhere else, not popular.

[woodenhead]

13 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

As long as they don't have to use those local shops themselves, preferring to drive to a supermarket. It's the difference between what people say they want, and what they actually want.

 

If they really wanted this, the concept of 15-minute cities, where everything is available in a 15-minute walk, would be more popular.

The thing is, did we all ask for big Tescos that could only be reached by car, or did the relaxation in planning and a general push towards car centric lifestyles allow it to happen resulting in those local shops being unable to compete and failing, allowing a few major organisations to monopolise the shopping baskets.  Tesco were probably the worst for doing this but came unstuck and are now saddled with massive Tesco Extras they cannot fill so have to let out part of the store to other groups to remain viable as nothing worse than large empty spaces.  No reason why we cannot go back to smaller units again with click and collect ensuring those harder to find items can be delivered to store or simply delivered to home.  Smaller local stores also offer local employment within walking distance too, great for older employees or people that need part time work whilst also looking after school age dependents.

 

Aldi and Lidl have begun to swing it back forcing these larger groups to contemplate smaller local versions to counter the competition.

 

When I was a nipper all the shops we needed day to day were within walking distance.

Edited July 17, 2023 by woodenhead

[woodenhead]

Where I live now has a nice sized Sainsburys and an Aldi in the town centre about 20 minutes walk, or another Aldi plus a Tesco local in less than 10 minutes walk, there is also a Home Bargains and an Iceland plus quite a few artisan type shops and a regular makers market.

 

Only thing we aint got is a shoe shop (and anyone else who's on RmWeb from my locale will probably recognise this in joke).

 

 

[Reorte]

2 hours ago, woodenhead said:

The thing is, did we all ask for big Tescos that could only be reached by car, or did the relaxation in planning and a general push towards car centric lifestyles allow it to happen resulting in those local shops being unable to compete and failing, allowing a few major organisations to monopolise the shopping baskets.

 

Society overall did ask for that I guess, otherwise that model wouldn't have succeeded, although "ask" is pushing it a bit.

 

I don't believe there ever was a push towards car centric lifestyles, they developed simply because that's what people used. People had cars, it thus became practical to build larger, more centralised shops and economies of scale meant people went to those because it was cheaper to do so, that (and other things) generated traffic so infrastructure was built to accommodate that traffic, which can be a self-feeding loop. No deliberate car-centric policy needed, just reactions and responses to the situation on the ground.

 

I don't like the results of that but it's easy enough to see how the came about, and why it's very hard to do anything about it now even though I believe in the long run society would be rather better if it wasn't the case. You can run along with human nature, and the present situation is what you get, or try to stop it, and you end up going down an authoritarian path. It's no wonder it's very hard to come up with good solutions.

[woodenhead]

@ReorteIt felt like the American model of one stop shopping being adopted whilst not quite on the scale of Costco but the idea you drive to the supermarket load up with everything for the week (or longer) and not visit any other retailer.

 

In the US, walking is not deemed normal behaviour, we Europeans are looked at funny when we consider walking to somewhere.

 

But just like the supermarkets ate up all the grocers, butchers etc, Amazon came along, delivery shopping followed and those massive store on retail parks began to look like money pits for their owners.

[adb968008]

Very soon the “bots” will do it all for us..

shopping, cleaning, cooking, driving.

 

i’m just wondering what we will be doing ?

[Derekl]

This is my submission to Transport Focus as part of the "consultation". I hope it is of some interest:

 

The proposal is to close ticket offices and redeploy ticket office staff to concourse and platforms. The ticket offices will be repurposed for retail or staff use. I primarily use Wivelsfield station and my observations are associated with use of that station and the other destination stations I use. The purpose of the exercise is said to be to save money.

1. The practicality seems to me poor. The idea that a person roving the platforms and concourse (where there is one) is easily accessible because they are on a platform or concourse rather than a ticket office seems to me misplaced. How is a person wandering around the station easier to locate that a person based in a ticket office, where all know that advice is available?

Specifically at Wivelsfield station, the chances are that the assistance would have to be supplied at the ticket machine, which is unpleasantly located and exposed. Far better to get the advice in the booking hall from a person comfortably seated in a warm office.

Roaming the platforms at Wivelsfield would simply be a waste of time and reduce accessibility as there are two separated platforms – you need the advice before you get to the platform. That observation will apply to many smaller stations.

2. I use the machine to buy tickets when I know what I am getting – that is for a routine trip. Otherwise, I get advice from the ticket office. This can be worthwhile as the ticket office often is aware of cheaper fares not readily available on the machines or internet. For instance, on a recent trip from Wivelsfield to Heathrow, the internet and machine offered a fare in excess of £20, whereas the ticket office proffered a Wivelsfield to London Travelcard at £10.80.

The reason “only” 12% of people use the ticket office is likely to be that others are undertaking routine journeys and now know what ticket to buy having had advice previously – the ticket office may have queues (or partial closure) encouraging use of the machines, which at some stations are more prominent than the booking office.

3. The above is exacerbated by the excessively complex fare structure which requires a substantial knowledge of its vagaries to obtain the optimum fare.

4. A further problem is the prospects of existing well informed staff finding the new arrangements unsatisfactory, possibly because they will be unable to provide a decent level of service (see 1 above) or because they find the new working arrangements less than congenial. How will they be replaced?

5. A large problem which will need to be addressed if this proposal is to go ahead is how to deal with those who currently use ticket offices as a result of disability or inability to use the machines (or internet). These proposal seem simply to abandon those (a substantial element of the passenger traffic). There may also be discrimination issues for those with disabilities.

6. The proposals are said to save money. It is unclear how. All the stations in Sussex that I have checked propose to have staffing at the same hours as present. That will thus require the same level of staffing as at present, so it is difficult to see any saving, although the cynic might think that existing staff will not accept the new conditions and can thus be replaced with cheaper. In addition, some traffic is likely to be lost (as 5 above) reducing fare income.

Overall, it does not seem to me that this proposal has been thought through or the consequences fully appreciated. It is not a good idea as currently constituted.

[TheQ]

There hasn't been a ticket office at my local railway station in at least 20 years. , You buy off the guard.

That being said, I haven't travelled by train ( except preserved lines) in that time. 

It's almost as difficult to travel by train as it is by bus, 3 or 4 hours to travel by bus to the nearest city 25 miles away.

I hate using the phone when cash will do, but they're even trying to make us use phones to park..  I've not gone to one model railway show because it's not got its own parking and the town is use a phone to park..

I can see me retreating from the world as life gets to complicated to go anywhere.

[Bernard Lamb]

3 hours ago, Reorte said:

 

Society overall did ask for that I guess, otherwise that model wouldn't have succeeded, although "ask" is pushing it a bit.

 

I don't believe there ever was a push towards car centric lifestyles, they developed simply because that's what people used. People had cars, it thus became practical to build larger, more centralised shops and economies of scale meant people went to those because it was cheaper to do so, that (and other things) generated traffic so infrastructure was built to accommodate that traffic, which can be a self-feeding loop. No deliberate car-centric policy needed, just reactions and responses to the situation on the ground.

 

I don't like the results of that but it's easy enough to see how the came about, and why it's very hard to do anything about it now even though I believe in the long run society would be rather better if it wasn't the case. You can run along with human nature, and the present situation is what you get, or try to stop it, and you end up going down an authoritarian path. It's no wonder it's very hard to come up with good solutions.

It depends on the date. Back in the early 1960s there was a move to close a great deal of the railway system and cut back on other forms of public transport. This resulted in a massive expansion of private car ownership. The government could of course have slowed this expansion by controlling costs. But as it involved the growth of manufacturing industries they decded not to. When a congestion charging scheme was proposed it was rapidly jumped on by the pro private car lobby. Private car ownership seems to have been very much a political move, led ny Marples and co, rather than a consumer led change.

As for shops, large or small, we only had a converted bus twice a week in the early 1950s to provide groceries. The good old Coop.

Bernard

[Trainshed Terry]

1 hour ago, adb968008 said:

I'm just wondering what we will be doing ?

Getting over weight and suffering with diabetes

 

Terry.

[Mallard60022]

9 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

 

If you're in an alien place and just want something to eat which you know you will be able to eat the big fast food chains like McD, KFC, Burger King etc can be very useful. I used to spend a lot of time in China, not Beijing and Shanghai but the ship building towns and cities, small towns with engine works etc. Even as a sinophile (I love China, the country, people, food etc) I'd be lying if I denied there weren't times I didn't want a break and something like a burger and fries.

My days of visiting Alien places is long gone, however I do sometimes have to go to Worksop and I ensure I have relevant supplies. 

My eldest Grandson did his stint as a student in a MacDs in Donny. After what he told me I'd never ever eat in those places, however, whatever suits. 

P

[rodent279]

11 hours ago, Bernard Lamb said:

Back in the early 1960s there was a move to close a great deal of the railway system and cut back on other forms of public transport. This resulted in a massive expansion of private car ownership.

Was this cause or effect? I'd say the massive increase in private car ownership was going to happen anyway, and that a large proportion of the closures were justified and had to happen. That's not to say all closures were justified, undoubtedly some lines and station closures were premature.

I've always thought the real mistake lies not so much in closing railways, as in dismantling and destroying the infrastructure, giving up the rights of way and selling the land.

But the vast majority of those cars would still have been sold, regardless of how many miles of railway were retained.

Edited July 18, 2023 by rodent279

[andyman7]

10 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

It is a sad fact of railway life that there cab n be, and have been booking office clerks who get things wrong - and that goes right back to BR days when some things were even more complicated than they are now.  There can be an awful to know ina role like that and unless there is instant machine based infornmation errors could occur.

 

However don't forget that the room for error has now largely been transferred from the person behind the booking office or travel centre counter to those who enter the information into the systems - and they're also human (at the moment).  Public timetables, now mainly online still appear with mistakes in them - just as they used to 50 or 60 years ago when they were on printed paper.

Having started my career as a booking clerk back in 1987 I know this only too well. The term 'modernisation' has rather been weaponised during the current railway industrial action but there is certainly some considerable scope to reform a lot of end-to-end processes in the whole fare setting and distribution system that collectively create a lot of scope for human error. Obviously that should be done before widespread proposals to redeploy the staff!

[andyman7]

2 hours ago, Derekl said:

6. The proposals are said to save money. It is unclear how. All the stations in Sussex that I have checked propose to have staffing at the same hours as present. That will thus require the same level of staffing as at present, so it is difficult to see any saving, although the cynic might think that existing staff will not accept the new conditions and can thus be replaced with cheaper. In addition, some traffic is likely to be lost (as 5 above) reducing fare income.

Overall, it does not seem to me that this proposal has been thought through or the consequences fully appreciated. It is not a good idea as currently constituted.

It's good that you have responded. Regarding this point, when the GTR contract (it like the others is no longer a 'franchise') it retained a provision for  Southern stations that they be staffed from first train to last. That staff provision is via what was historically referred to as the 'platform' grades, with a separate grade in the ticket office. There is therefore quite a considerable saving to be made by enhancing the 'platform' role to also provide ticketing advice and assistance. Other TOCs have different staffing arrangements and requirements in their contracts bit it's worth noting the situation on Southern.  

[phil-b259]

33 minutes ago, andyman7 said:

There is therefore quite a considerable saving to be made by enhancing the 'platform' role to also provide ticketing advice and assistance. Other TOCs have different staffing arrangements and requirements in their contracts bit it's worth noting the situation on Southern.  

 

And therein lies the REAL motivation by the DfT for the closure programme - to cut costs by de-skilling the workforce. Yes at present the DfT may say they are merely redeploying staff but it doesn't take a genius to realise that its then a very easy step to replace those staff with contracted in 'security guards' on even lower wages from the Governments outsourcing mates who will no doubt be compensated very well monetarily for such services.

Edited July 17, 2023 by phil-b259

[andyman7]

5 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

And therein lies the REAL motivation by the DfT for the closure programme - to cut costs by de-skilling the workforce. Yes at present the DfT may say they are merely redeploying staff but it doesn't take a genius to realise that its then a very easy step to replace those staff with contracted in 'security guards' on even lower wages from the Governments outsourcing mates who will no doubt be compensated very well monetarily for such services.

I've no truck for how the DfT are approaching this but done well it is not actually de-skilling - what should be the end result is fewer but better paid and more skilled staff. The proposals as tabled are rushed, not consistently thought through and highly variable but the most frustrating things is that there is a potential roadmap to a positive outcome provided the railways stopped being a political football with no sign of stable strategic arms-length management away from Whitehall factions and short-termism.
Ironically, I would contend that the bigger risk to outsourcing is the 'opportunity' to bypass the union collective bargaining arrangements. In this regard, union engagement in what the pre-requisites are to modernising terms and conditions would be a better approach than the 'no change' agenda from that side; but we really are currently at an intractable stalemate where trust - essential in any dealmaking - is entirely absent.

Edited July 17, 2023 by andyman7

[phil-b259]

25 minutes ago, andyman7 said:

I've no truck for how the DfT are approaching this 

 

And therein lies the problem... 

 

Of course that this is only the latest in a string of 'how not to do' emanating from Whitehall....

 

Is it any wonder the rail unions (and quite a lot of staff) are feeling royally pissed off at present.

[adb968008]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

 

And therein lies the REAL motivation by the DfT for the closure programme - to cut costs by de-skilling the workforce. Yes at present the DfT may say they are merely redeploying staff but it doesn't take a genius to realise that its then a very easy step to replace those staff with contracted in 'security guards' on even lower wages from the Governments outsourcing mates who will no doubt be compensated very well monetarily for such services.

But what about the ticket offices themselves…. Starbucks ?

[adb968008]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

 

And therein lies the problem... 

 

Of course that this is only the latest in a string of 'how not to do' emanating from Whitehall....

 

Is it any wonder the rail unions (and quite a lot of staff) are feeling royally pissed off at present.

 

1960’s all over again.

They are doing everything except closing stations and lines.