>From another post: "About 2% of people travelling on the railways do so

without a ticket costing the industry "millions", First Great Western
said."

This 2% figure is commonly spouted by the rail indistry, especially
National Express. It was the figure they quoted at a recently GN/TL
presentation I went to.

I asked if they got this figure by finding that 2% of the people they
challenged did not have a figure, and they confirmed this.

Surely this is not a statistically safe method of assessing the number
of people fare dodging.

It makes a lot of assumptions such as:
a) they manage to check the ticket of every person on a train
b) they trains they check are totally representative of all passenger
trains.

On a non-stop train like the 45-minute Cambridge Cruiser, there is time
to check the ticket of every perosn on the train so the 2% figure would
be quite accurate. However, on a frequently stopping train a dodger can
more to the far end of the train and get off before they are asked for
a ticket.

On a frequently, say, 15 minute service a dodger might see that an
inspector is on board and wait for the next train. However, for an
hourly service they wouldn't do so, as the wait is not worth the
saving.

There are services where the TOC never check tickets. Surely frequent
travellers would get to know this and would know that it's safe not to
buy a ticket.

Also, if a large group of youths get on a train and will be getting off
in a couple of stops it's worth none of them buying a ticket, since the
ticket inspector will not have time to collect money from all of them.

The above are examples of dodging the full fare. However, we all know
that people move from standard to first class as soon as the insepctor
has gone past. I've only been asked to produce my network railcard
about five times in the last four years. Does the inspector really know
when someone has travelled beyond their destination?

I think that about 10% extra revenue would be raised if there was no
cheating.

What do others think?

I said "...2% of the people they challenged did not have a figure". Of
course I meant "ticket".

Jerry

Jerry wrote:

>From another post: "About 2% of people travelling on the railways do so
>without a ticket costing the industry "millions", First Great Western
>said."
>
>This 2% figure is commonly spouted by the rail indistry, especially
>National Express. It was the figure they quoted at a recently GN/TL
>presentation I went to.
>
>I asked if they got this figure by finding that 2% of the people they
>challenged did not have a figure, and they confirmed this.

[...]

>I think that about 10% extra revenue would be raised if there was no
>cheating.
>
>What do others think?


I think that I'd be more likely to accept a value derived from a
random sample, than one that's been plucked out of the air at random.

-- 
Neil Sunderland
Braunton, Devon

Please observe the Reply-To address

"Jerry"  wrote in message 
news:1124391820.715538.75090@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> >From another post: "About 2% of people travelling on the railways do so
> without a ticket costing the industry "millions", First Great Western
> said."
>
> This 2% figure is commonly spouted by the rail indistry, especially
> National Express. It was the figure they quoted at a recently GN/TL
> presentation I went to.
>
> I asked if they got this figure by finding that 2% of the people they
> challenged did not have a figure, and they confirmed this.
>
> Surely this is not a statistically safe method of assessing the number
> of people fare dodging.
>
> It makes a lot of assumptions such as:
> a) they manage to check the ticket of every person on a train
> b) they trains they check are totally representative of all passenger
> trains.
>
> On a non-stop train like the 45-minute Cambridge Cruiser, there is time
> to check the ticket of every perosn on the train so the 2% figure would
> be quite accurate. However, on a frequently stopping train a dodger can
> more to the far end of the train and get off before they are asked for
> a ticket.
>
> On a frequently, say, 15 minute service a dodger might see that an
> inspector is on board and wait for the next train. However, for an
> hourly service they wouldn't do so, as the wait is not worth the
> saving.
>
> There are services where the TOC never check tickets. Surely frequent
> travellers would get to know this and would know that it's safe not to
> buy a ticket.
>
> Also, if a large group of youths get on a train and will be getting off
> in a couple of stops it's worth none of them buying a ticket, since the
> ticket inspector will not have time to collect money from all of them.
>
> The above are examples of dodging the full fare. However, we all know
> that people move from standard to first class as soon as the insepctor
> has gone past. I've only been asked to produce my network railcard
> about five times in the last four years. Does the inspector really know
> when someone has travelled beyond their destination?
>
> I think that about 10% extra revenue would be raised if there was no
> cheating.
>
> What do others think?
>
>

As a revenue protection manager for South central in 1992 I arranged lots of 
surveys
The more passengers checked I think gave a better figure.
South London lines 52416 passengers checked gave us 2.15% ticketless travel
1.31% had a valid reason for not having a ticket and .84% got a penalty 
fare.

"Jerry"  wrote in message
news:1124391820.715538.75090@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> >From another post: "About 2% of people travelling on the railways do so
> without a ticket costing the industry "millions", First Great Western
> said."
>
> This 2% figure is commonly spouted by the rail indistry, especially
> National Express. It was the figure they quoted at a recently GN/TL
> presentation I went to.
>
> I asked if they got this figure by finding that 2% of the people they
> challenged did not have a figure, and they confirmed this.
>
> Surely this is not a statistically safe method of assessing the number
> of people fare dodging.
>
> It makes a lot of assumptions such as:
> a) they manage to check the ticket of every person on a train
> b) they trains they check are totally representative of all passenger
> trains.
>
> I think that about 10% extra revenue would be raised if there was no
> cheating.
>

AIUI revenue typically increases by considerably more than 2% at stations
when ticket gates are installed.

Peter

> AIUI revenue typically increases by considerably more than 2% at stations
> when ticket gates are installed.


But gates don't stop it all, because they only really stop opportunist
fare dodgers, not those determined to get away with it.

Joe Patrick wrote:

> > AIUI revenue typically increases by considerably more than 2% at stations
> > when ticket gates are installed.
>
> But gates don't stop it all, because they only really stop opportunist
> fare dodgers, not those determined to get away with it.



I would be very interested to know statistics on how revenue increases
and decreases when ticket office opening hours are changed at a
particular station.

Thanks Peter.

Yes, the increases from barriers (more than 10% in some reports I've
seen) was partly where I plucked 10% out of thin air, accepting that
different stations and services have a different profile.

The one that I forgot to mention is the permit to travel. That's where
I think a lot of revenue is lost from unstaffed stations.

Fen Line stations to Kings Cross is a classic - no gates or human
barriers at KX. Occasional travellers can pay a couple of pounds in the
morning at peak time, then use a Network Card in the evening. That's a
40% saving to the passenger.

Jerry

> But gates don't stop it all, because they only really stop opportunist
> fare dodgers, not those determined to get away with it.


Wow! What a surprise!

Joe Patrick writes something sensible at last.

Well done sir!

:-)

Mark F

> As a revenue protection manager for South central in 1992 I arranged lots of 
> surveys
> The more passengers checked I think gave a better figure.
> South London lines 52416 passengers checked gave us 2.15% ticketless travel
> 1.31% had a valid reason for not having a ticket and .84% got a penalty 
> fare. 


Unfortunately when I found the time to accompany my RPIs on our south 
London services in the mid/late '90s the true ticketless travel was 
nearer 8% as we were doing the job properly but was 3% if the RPIs were 
left unsupervised. The true figure had fallen to 3% by the time I moved 
on as they had pride in their work and had been treated as human beings 
by us as they have a very difficult job. RPIs are considered to be the 
scum of the earth by all passengers without a valid ticket and many of 
those with a valid ticket so require sensitive handling to increase 
their performance to an acceptable level. It is not a job that the 
majority of workers would be able to cope with for more than a few days.


Mark F

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 19:45:43 +0000 (UTC), Peter Masson wrote:

> "Jerry"  wrote in message
>> From another post: "About 2% of people travelling on the railways do so
>> without a ticket costing the industry "millions", First Great Western
>> said."

> AIUI revenue typically increases by considerably more than 2% at stations
> when ticket gates are installed.


Presumably the 98% includes season ticket holders, who travel at a
discount compared with singles and returns, as well as people who have
been using their railcards properly. So catching the ticketless 2% is
bound to increase income by more than 2%, AOTBE.
-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632977.html
(43 153 at London Kings Cross, Aug 1985)

"Jerry"  wrote in message 
news:1124391820.715538.75090@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> >From another post: "About 2% of people travelling on the railways do so
> without a ticket costing the industry "millions", First Great Western
> said."
>
> This 2% figure is commonly spouted by the rail indistry, especially
> National Express. It was the figure they quoted at a recently GN/TL
> presentation I went to.
>
> I asked if they got this figure by finding that 2% of the people they
> challenged did not have a figure, and they confirmed this.
>
> Surely this is not a statistically safe method of assessing the number
> of people fare dodging.


You are assuming that all of these 2% are fare dodgers, whereas on many 
services in the north operated by conductor guards it is often not possible 
to pay because the conductor doesn't manage to get round before you get off, 
or, as is often the case, he can't be bothered.

On my last two journeys from Dore to Sheffield, the first was a Northern and 
the conductor didn't bother coming out of the back cab, even when I knocked 
on the door and tried to pay; he said he was too busy filling in a form and 
the second was a Central where the new ticket machine wouldn't do a SYPTE 
senior citizens concessionary fare.

Peter Fox

Peter Fox

Chris Tolley wrote:


> Presumably the 98% includes season ticket holders, who travel at a
> discount compared with singles and returns, as well as people who have
> been using their railcards properly. So catching the ticketless 2% is
> bound to increase income by more than 2%, AOTBE.


On the other hand, I suspect that most ticket dodgers are only
travelling short distances. It's very common on local services to see
people buying tickets from the conductor or to hear them laughing with
each other about how they've got away without paying - far less common
to see that on long-distance trains, where the fares are much greater.

-- 
                          Stevie D
    \\\\\       /////     Bringing dating agencies to the
   \\\\\\\__X__///////    common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

"Stevie D"  wrote in message 
news:e9reg1lue67l69hi6neemgep6an769cg5r@4ax.com...

> Chris Tolley wrote:
>
>> Presumably the 98% includes season ticket holders, who travel at a
>> discount compared with singles and returns, as well as people who have
>> been using their railcards properly. So catching the ticketless 2% is
>> bound to increase income by more than 2%, AOTBE.
>
> On the other hand, I suspect that most ticket dodgers are only
> travelling short distances. It's very common on local services to see
> people buying tickets from the conductor or to hear them laughing with
> each other about how they've got away without paying - far less common
> to see that on long-distance trains, where the fares are much greater.
>
> -- 
>                          Stevie D
>    \\\\\       /////     Bringing dating agencies to the
>   \\\\\\\__X__///////    common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
> ___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________
>
>
>

Long distance tend to go for 'Short Bookers' or 'BR sandwiches'