Sheffield Council vs E.M.T

[The Stationmaster]

I'm pretty certain that the barrier situation will remain in limbo in Sheffield for the duration of the EMT franchise at least, they require planning permission which the council won't give them.

 

 

Provided the barriers are on Network Rail operational land and are being provided in connection the movement of traffic by rail (which would no doubt include passengers!) then Planning Permission is not required. That has long been the case with operational railway land and was restated in the Town & Country Planning Act of 1992 (well that's the Act quoted on several websites, not WIKI ). Something to do with a Listed Building or structure would be quite another matter as consent is required; that is perhaps what happened at York but equally it was my understanding that the barriers there were to be installed on the approximate line of the previous ticket barriers.

 

Barriers are a right pain I would agree, especially for those of us whose tickets won't operate them (although I do have a useful thing called a 'Gate Pass', but it only works on FGW barriers). But judging by the queues (at the office for people without tickets) which can sometimes be seen at Reading since the barriers were installed it would seem that they are reasonably effective at catching people who might otherwise not bother to pay.

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Provided the barriers are on Network Rail operational land and are being provided in connection the movement of traffic by rail (which would no doubt include passengers!) then Planning Permission is not required. That has long been the case with operational railway land and was restated in the Town & Country Planning Act of 1992 (well that's the Act quoted on several websites, not WIKI ). Something to do with a Listed Building or structure would be quite another matter as consent is required; that is perhaps what happened at York but equally it was my understanding that the barriers there were to be installed on the approximate line of the previous ticket barriers.

 

i]

 

Yes, they had to have permission for barriers at, for example, Bournemouth (Grade 2 listed) which was granted. Anyone know if Sheffield Midland is listed as that would be another hurdle to overcome.

 

Just found out it's Grade 2; this includes the attached bridges.

[Talltim]

Hence the planning permission refusal

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/8374527.stm

[Oldddudders]

Hence the planning permission refusal

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/8374527.stm

BBC displaying usual substantial ignorance of anything to do with transport. All gatelines since the year dot have had a manual gate, operated by the duty staff, wide enough to permit access to prams, buggies and wheelchairs, so their report is substantively inaccurate. The necessary Safety Case requires this as an absolute minimum.

 

I installed the first gates on a London Major Station at Euston platforms 8-11 in September 1998. Gates are a bore - but very necessary in our time. They do indeed form part of "Reclaiming the railway" from an excess of useless freeloaders, who seek not to pay taxes, but to receive everything going, including free public transport. Buy a ticket or walk!

[pete_mcfarlane]

Hence the planning permission refusal

http://news.bbc.co.u...ire/8374527.stm

Another quality gem from Sheffield's politicians:

Council leader Paul Scriven said: "This is great news for anyone who uses our footbridge to get to work, or to their homes, or to do business in the city centre.

"Our footbridge"? Surely it belongs to Network Rail?

 

And more drivel:

"People are justifiably outraged at the idea that our footbridge, paid for with £15m of taxpayers' money, could be shut off by a private company for the purposes of profit."

I'm not sure I like this "Purposes of profit" comment. Ticketless travel is a crime, effectively a form of stealing. It's being suggested that EMT is somehow being greedy in trying to stop people stealing from it. This is quite a dangerous route for a politician to be going down.

 

[Enterprisingwestern]

Call me old fashioned if you like, but, to prevent fraudulent or ticketless travel, why not have a guard on every train to inspect said tickets, and to keep the stations free of unwanted specimens, why not have a British Transport Police officer about the place.

 

Or am I missing something here?

[Oldddudders]

Call me old fashioned if you like, but, to prevent fraudulent or ticketless travel, why not have a guard on every train to inspect said tickets, and to keep the stations free of unwanted specimens, why not have a British Transport Police officer about the place.

 

Or am I missing something here?

No, you are not missing anything important. I anticipate that EMT conductors do patrol the train, although I do not know whether they have a £ bonus for doing so effectively i.e. a % of ticket value issued. What barriers do at a busy station like Sheffield is to cream off the 90%+ people who have the right ticket, who will often find they get on and off the platform more quickly by using the barrier. This then enables the staff to concentrate on the small number of people who have heavy luggage, buggies, bambini in arms or wheelchairs etc, or whose ticket doesn't work, is lost, mangled, off-route, whatever. BT Police are traditionally in short supply - and cost a bit more than security bozos, which is why you see more of the latter. Also, if the franchise gets on hard times, laying off the security firm is achievable, while the BT Police are in effect a fixed cost, and thus a lot less attractive to the Finance Director! Privatisation has thrown up any number of conundra of this sort - but the country got what it voted for in 1992!

[Guest stuartp]

Call me old fashioned if you like, but, to prevent fraudulent or ticketless travel, why not have a guard on every train to inspect said tickets

 

There's a guard on every Northern service and additional revenue staff on the busiest ones but there's no way they can get through a full and standing train to check much in the time available. Some of the busiest commuter stations are only a few minutes running time outside major centres.

 

Ticket gates cost an absolute fortune to install but will still recoup their own costs within the franchise term (otherwise the franchisees wouldn't be installing them) which should give you an idea of the scope of the problem. They can check tickets a lot quicker than the staff can, no matter how many extra bods you employ.

[Talltim]

Another quality gem from Sheffield's politicians:

 

"Our footbridge"? Surely it belongs to Network Rail?

which belongs to who?

And more drivel:

 

I'm not sure I like this "Purposes of profit" comment. Ticketless travel is a crime, effectively a form of stealing. It's being suggested that EMT is somehow being greedy in trying to stop people stealing from it. This is quite a dangerous route for a politician to be going down.

it's a perfectly reasonable position to take if your political view is that rail should not be privatised. He's not condoning ticketless travel, he is saying that a bridge that was publicly funded on the understanding that it could be used by the public should not then be closed off for the benfit of a private company.

 

However whatever the failings of BBC reporting and the rights and wrongs of barriers, it remains the fact the the council did withhold planning permission and will probably do so again.

 

I should probably make my position clear. I don't really care if the bridge stops being a public access route for non-rail/tram users. However I do care that access to and from the tram stop is being blocked for tram customers using a stop named Sheffield Hallam University, for those making the tram/train interchange and for those accessing the station to travel by rail from the tram end of the bridge. As I said earlier, the tram end of the bridge has ticket machines which can only provide simple tickets. Anyone arriving at the tram end of the bridge, by tram or on foot and wishing to purchase a more complicated ticket is severely inconvinienced. It's not really joined-up-transport thinking.

[Edwin_m]

I wonder if the Hallam University people would be better using the Castle Square stop - OK it's a bit further but less of a hill and has a better tram service. This being so the people most inconvenienced are the rail/tram users and those going to/from the flats above the station on its east side. Perhaps they could station somebody with a portable machine to sell the more unusual tickets, as they often do at Nottingham?

 

I think the long-term plan is to provide an alternative foot crossing on the unpaid side of the barrier by adapting the other footbridge, though converting and extending it would cost money so is unlikely to happen any time soon.

[The Stationmaster]

I wonder if the Hallam University people would be better using the Castle Square stop - OK it's a bit further but less of a hill and has a better tram service. This being so the people most inconvenienced are the rail/tram users and those going to/from the flats above the station on its east side. Perhaps they could station somebody with a portable machine to sell the more unusual tickets, as they often do at Nottingham?

 

I think the long-term plan is to provide an alternative foot crossing on the unpaid side of the barrier by adapting the other footbridge, though converting and extending it would cost money so is unlikely to happen any time soon.

 

I would have thought - from my recent experience of visiting Sheffield - that Castle Square would be a much more useful stop for folk going to & from Sheffield Hallam Uni as it avoids very steep climbs and footbridges etc.

 

As far as the reported comments of the Council regarding the barriers is concerned (assuming the BBC reported it accurately???) they appear to have wandered some way off the 'listed building' area. In reality they can only look at such an application from the listed building viewpoint and any other comments they might make, even if accurately reported, are irrelevant and not binding on the operator of the operational railway (although that operator might wish to take notice of them).

[pete_mcfarlane]

it's a perfectly reasonable position to take if your political view is that rail should not be privatised.

And there perhaps lies the root of the problems. EMT are a private company, and the councillors and local MPs don't like this, which makes them less likely to compromise. It has led to both sides becoming entrenched in their positions.

 

It also seems that there is a blurring of issues between the technical objections to granting listed building consent for the barriers, and the more general one of the use of the station as a thoroughfare.

 

What happened to the scheme to give the local residents gate passes?

[Torn-on-the-platform]

I'm not sure I've been on a train, local or to London, from Sheffield that hasn't had a ticket inspector onboard. The 'revenue inspection chaps' can't be needed for this purpose. They also cause long queues and require other staff to handle the queues. Luckily, I always leave plenty of time to get to my train so they have never caused me a problem.

 

I've only lived in Sheffield for a year, but I can't see drunks and anti-social behaviour being a problem in the station. I've been out at night in the city countless times and have never felt intimidated. I can't say this is the case in my 'sleepy' London suburb home. The station is a little way out from the main concentration of pubs and clubs.

 

I can imagine that deterring homeless people would only require the odd police patrol or perhaps a 2 or 3 staff kept on over night to ensure everything is safe. As pointed out earlier in the thread, most London stations open their barriers at night as there are so few staff to man them.

 

I'm pretty certain that the barrier situation will remain in limbo in Sheffield for the duration of the EMT franchise at least, they require planning permission which the council won't give them.

 

I agree. I'm so glad that the plans have fallen through as there is no need for ticket barriers and they would damage the station's fantastic image, but I get the feeling that they are not dead and buried.

[beast66606]

All ticket barriers prove is you've got a ticket to get on/off the platform and nothing more.

 

Hypothetically what's to stop me buying a return to Dore and then travelling to Leicester, I could get on and off Sheffield station without problem - but if I was checked on the train it wouldn't be quite so easy to get away with it - maybe there's a clue there

[pete_mcfarlane]

All ticket barriers prove is you've got a ticket to get on/off the platform and nothing more.

 

Hypothetically what's to stop me buying a return to Dore and then travelling to Leicester, I could get on and off Sheffield station without problem - but if I was checked on the train it wouldn't be quite so easy to get away with it - maybe there's a clue there

Presumably barriers prevent this once they are installed at enough stations in an area. If you need a ticket to get through the barrier at Leicester (which I think is now the case) then this trick won't work. I suspect we'll end up with barriers at every staffed station.

[beast66606]

Presumably barriers prevent this once they are installed at enough stations in an area. If you need a ticket to get through the barrier at Leicester (which I think is now the case) then this trick won't work. I suspect we'll end up with barriers at every staffed station.

 

It was an example, but I could easily buy an (via the Internet for example) open return from the station nearest to Leicester (for example) to get around the problem there - I'm sure the price of those two is cheaper than a return and if you get caught then pay, otherwise spend the journey in the loo.

 

I'm not advocating any of this, what I'm pointing out is barriers solve little, genuine revenue protection can only be done on the train.

[stewartingram]

I suspect we'll end up with barriers at every staffed station.

Which is precisely what I said much earlier in the thread - it used to be the norm to have (manual) barriers at every platform! So why the fuss now?

[Talltim]

It used to the the norm that every station was staffed, of course this is not true now. Hence the point that beast66606 was making. I could buy a ticket at Sheffield to Dore to get me through the (hypothetical) barriers and have the choice of stations halfway to Manchester before I got to a staffed station. Basically barriers cannot replace on train inspection, even between barriered stations (beast's example) and I can't see that all stations will ever be staffed/barriered again.

[Oldddudders]

it's a perfectly reasonable position to take if your political view is that rail should not be privatised.

We tend to see Privatisation as a novelty. After all, the railways were under national ownership from 1948 - coincidentally the year of my birth, and before the birth of most RMWebbers. Actually, of course, railways were built by private enterprise, and remained in the private sector from 1825 until 1948, by which time, after valiant national service during two world wars, they were well and truly knackered. The 48-year period of true state ownership is actually not much more than a quarter of the life of railways in the UK. But politicians will be politicians...

[stewartingram]

Its not strictly true that a station has to be manned if barriers are in use. Remote monitoring of the gateline by CCTV, with electrical control of the (wide) gate is in common use. To be fair, I can't off the top of my head think of a practical example which is manned from off the station - but it is theoretically possible. Huntingdon on the mainline has remote monitoring/operation of the Down platform from the Up side. On the LU stations, which is where I am more familiar with installations, stations are frequently single-manned from the ticket office. When I worked for Cubic (the major player in ticket barriers) part of the spec included remote monitoring/operation. In fact, Cubic used to be a major player in tube maintenance of comms equipment, because in the early days it was realised that CCTV could be offered as an extra on the gates so they could be remotely worked.

[Guest stuartp]

Basically barriers cannot replace on train inspection, even between barriered stations

 

I don't know the details of the EMT scheme but the Northern and GNER/EC schemes aren't designed to replace on-train revenue protection. They're designed to deal with full-and-standing services where people currently don't feel obliged to pay if the conductor doesn't get to them in time. The barriers sweep up the short distance commuters who currently get a free ride, the on train staff deal with the people on Dore tickets who've been over-carried to Leicester.

[beast66606]

The barriers sweep up the short distance commuters who currently get a free ride, the on train staff deal with the people on Dore tickets who've been over-carried to Leicester.

 

Not those who have already bought some open returns for the Dore service (just in case) - as I said I'm not advocating this but it doesn't take a genius to work out how to get round the barriers without a full ticket.

[Oldddudders]

Cheating the railways is hardly novel. In the '50s there was a radio show called Take It From Here. Jimmy Edwards and somewhat dim Dick Bentley met a friend from Brighton on the platform at Victoria - he'd arrived on a Brighton platform ticket, and they exchanged it for a Victoria ditto, joining his train to go back to Brighton. Only problem arose when they proffered the Brighton ticket at the other end - and discovered they'd actually gone to Bognor Regis!