If I travel with a ticket that requires a railcard but do not have a
railcard with me, how much will I be charged (assuming that tickets
are actually checked).  Will it be the difference beteen the
discounted and non-discounted versions of the ticket type I hold, or
will it be the full SOS fare for the journey concerned?

(I have just not dared to find out!  The difference between railcard
and non-railcard VV tickets for Watford to Manchester is a small
number of GBP, whereas the full SOS fare does not bear thinking
about.)  
-- 
Peter Lawrence

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 19:38:14 GMT, "Peter Lawrence"
 wrote:


>If I travel with a ticket that requires a railcard but do not have a
>railcard with me, how much will I be charged (assuming that tickets
>are actually checked).  Will it be the difference beteen the
>discounted and non-discounted versions of the ticket type I hold, or
>will it be the full SOS fare for the journey concerned?


The latter.

You will have to pay for a new ticket for your journey as if no 
Railcard/ticket were held.

So you will have to pay the full Open single/Day single fare for the 
journey.

-- 
King B Boogaloo
http://europeanrailways.fotopic.net/
Any views or opinions expressed and presented are not those of the author
and do not represent those of his employers, they belong to the voices in
his head.

"Peter Lawrence"  wrote in message 
news:4329ce30.13914601@text.news.ntlworld.com...

> If I travel with a ticket that requires a railcard but do not have a
> railcard with me, how much will I be charged (assuming that tickets
> are actually checked).  Will it be the difference beteen the
> discounted and non-discounted versions of the ticket type I hold, or
> will it be the full SOS fare for the journey concerned?


Many ticket inspectors would consider this deliberate fare evasion and would 
report you for possible prosecution.

Peter Smyth

KingBBoogaloo wrote:

> You will have to pay for a new ticket for your journey as if no 
> Railcard/ticket were held.
> 
> So you will have to pay the full Open single/Day single fare for the 
> journey.


Note to self: never forget Railcard! Having shelled out 35 return for 
the railcard fare, I'd hate to then have to shell out another 130 just 
because I'd forgotten my railcard.

Unforunately, there's no easy way of the railways being nice and letting 
you claim a refund if you really did have a railcard - too much 
opportunity for fraud, etc.

Although having said that, I think I've had to show my railcard on a 
train once or possibly twice in the past year on 50-odd journeys by 
train. But that beats National Express - I've only been asked for my 
coachcard twice ever - the first time was the one and only time that I 
had genuinely forgotten my card :(

-- 
Jonathan Stott
Canterbury Weather: http://www.canterburyweather.co.uk/
Reverse my e-mail address to reply by e-mail

* Peter Smyth  wrote:

> Many ticket inspectors would consider this deliberate fare evasion and would 
> report you for possible prosecution.


Is there any opportunity to show the railcard at the station and get
part of the penalty fare (or additional ticket) refunded?

And would a ticket inspector accept the explantion that I grabbed the
wrong wallet when I had to catch the train in a hurry (taking the wrong
railcard which would be clearly identifiable as it's a student railcard
with pictue)?

Gunter

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 19:38:14 GMT, "Peter Lawrence"
 wrote:


>If I travel with a ticket that requires a railcard but do not have a
>railcard with me, how much will I be charged (assuming that tickets
>are actually checked).  Will it be the difference beteen the
>discounted and non-discounted versions of the ticket type I hold, or
>will it be the full SOS fare for the journey concerned?
>

Officially it should be the latter, but it does depend on the
circumstances and ticket type. If, for example, you go to a Ticket
Office prior to boarding and say "I've forgotten my Railcard, can you
excess my ticket?", or if you take the time to go and find the Train
Manager as soon as you board, then you'll generally just pay the
appropriate excess.

If, however, you leave it to the Train Manager to come and find you,
you're more likely to have to pay the Standard Single, and have your
(invalid) ticket withdrawn.

HTH,

Barry

-- 
Barry Salter, barry at southie dot me dot uk
Read uk.* newsgroups? Read uk.net.news.announce!

Gunter Kuhnle wrote:


> Is there any opportunity to show the railcard at the station and get
> part of the penalty fare (or additional ticket) refunded?


What's to stop someone who delibrately travelled without a railcard 
passing the penalty fare (or whatever) to someone who did have a railcard?


> And would a ticket inspector accept the explantion that I grabbed the
> wrong wallet when I had to catch the train in a hurry (taking the wrong
> railcard which would be clearly identifiable as it's a student railcard
> with pictue)?


I guess the ticket's not valid without the railcard. Much in the same 
way as you can't fly abroad if you don't have a passport even though you 
have a ticket for the flight (although the consequences aren't quite the 
same).

-- 
Jonathan Stott
Canterbury Weather: http://www.canterburyweather.co.uk/
Reverse my e-mail address to reply by e-mail

"Thomas"  wrote in message news:3p00huF7vu14U1@individual.net...

>
>>>> But the grippers/train managers do seem to have a lot of autonomy -
>>>> are there targets for catching fare 'irregularities' that they have
>>>> to meet I wonder?
>>>
>>> Not for guards.
>>>
>>> There's an average 'take' for each turn of duty and if your take is
>>> significantly below that questions may be asked, especially if you're
>>> consistently significantly below the average take for every turn of
>>> duty you work. In many cases you can baffle the system by simply
>>> responding, "Oh, I had the RPIS with me" or "There was a Nottingham
>>> man travelling back, he did half the train", each of which translate
>>> as the "You *prove* I didn't do my job properly" challenge.
>>
>> Is there any incentive for guards to be lenient or not with passengers 
>> who
>> they think did not intend to do anything dishonest?
>
> 5%commission on ticket sales..
>


Not all TM's / Guards etc get %5. We get %1 of total on board ticket sales 
across the company. Every TM gets the same amount.

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 14:44:25 +0100, Thomas wrote in
, seen in uk.railway, quoting Adam:


> > Is there any incentive for guards to be lenient or not with passengers who
> > they think did not intend to do anything dishonest?
> 
> 5% commission on ticket sales.. 

 
Hah. CT guards haven't see even 0.5% commission since 1997.

In any case, if you're on a local working, 5% of a GBP 2 excess [1] is
basically not worth the hassle of getting, which is why as often as
not nowadays guards don't bother with that hassle.


[1] 'excess' being used in the sense of 'GBP 2 above the fare already
paid or cheaper ticket which can be sold'.

-- 
Ross, a.k.a.
Prof. E. Scrooge, CT, 153 & bar, Doctor of Cynicism (U. Life)
Hon. Pres., National Soc. for the Encouragement for Cruelty to Dogboxes
Proud to be the target of various trolls, sock puppets and other idiots

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 14:35:51 +0100, Adam Funk wrote in
<dgehnn$2rh6$2@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk>, seen in uk.railway:

[...]

> Is there any incentive for guards to be lenient or not with passengers who
> they think did not intend to do anything dishonest?


As in financial? Not really; 5% commission if it still exists can be
nice on a big ticket (i.e over 100 quid) but TBH the depots which will
sell such tickets are those which already have high revenue takes, so
the hassle factor will probably outweigh the commission value.

Employment-wise? TPTB won't think better of you whether you're lenient
or not. They measure your worth on how many complaints you get, if you
take the average amount of revenue and whether or not you dare go
sick. 


Overall it's easier for guards to do as little as they can get away
with; you get no thanks for working hard or doing your best in this
industry, although there are some who will do so for their own
reasons.

-- 
Ross, a.k.a.
Prof. E. Scrooge, CT, 153 & bar, Doctor of Cynicism (U. Life)
Hon. Pres., National Soc. for the Encouragement for Cruelty to Dogboxes
Proud to be the target of various trolls, sock puppets and other idiots

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:07:58 +0000 (UTC), Jonathan Morton wrote in
<dgf8mt$iph$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, seen in
uk.railway:

[...]

> As to the attitude of staff, I was once very grateful to a Virgin TM in
> similar circumstances. We were travelling Burton-Birmingham-London and
> returning the following day on a Family Railcard, but I was joining my wife
> and son (then actually aged 16 but under 16 when the card was bought) at New
> Street, having been at work. So I'd left them with all three tickets but I
> didn't remind them about the railcard and they forgot it. [...]
> I sought out the TM [...] and he was quite happy to accept my explanation - a
> particularly good piece of PR as the train was packed and running late.


I think that most guards will give benefit of the doubt *if they're
spoken to before they come across the problem*. It's easier that way
for them and, let's face it, a guard will have enough on his/her plate
dealing with those who are trying it on.

Besides: it's all a show, playing to the gallery. If a guard finds
someone without valid tickets, they're not just dealing with that
person; they're also showing everyone else around that they're doing
their job properly (or not, as the case may be!). They have to be seen
to do something. If, OTOH, a pax seeks the guard out and sorts a
problem out quietly, out of the hearing of the other pax, "what they
don't know won't hurt them" applies.

-- 
Ross, a.k.a.
Prof. E. Scrooge, CT, 153 & bar, Doctor of Cynicism (U. Life)
Hon. Pres., National Soc. for the Encouragement for Cruelty to Dogboxes
Proud to be the target of various trolls, sock puppets and other idiots

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 21:19:19 GMT, Steve wrote in
<rFGWe.38971$k22.11690@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, seen in uk.railway:

[No Railcard held]

> Paying the difference does not deter the people who seek to avoid paying the 
> correct fare. 


Spot on. Which is why I always used to charge full fare (or TI, we
didn't have unpaid fares pads in my days) when I was a guard.

Another reason I wasn't exactly popular with TPTB...

-- 
Ross, a.k.a.
Prof. E. Scrooge, CT, 153 & bar, Doctor of Cynicism (U. Life)
Hon. Pres., National Soc. for the Encouragement for Cruelty to Dogboxes
Proud to be the target of various trolls, sock puppets and other idiots

"Steve"  wrote in message 
news:8IGWe.38972$k22.31156@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

>
> "Thomas"  wrote in message news:3p00huF7vu14U1@individual.net...
>>
>>>>> But the grippers/train managers do seem to have a lot of autonomy -
>>>>> are there targets for catching fare 'irregularities' that they have
>>>>> to meet I wonder?
>>>>
>>>> Not for guards.
>>>>
>>>> There's an average 'take' for each turn of duty and if your take is
>>>> significantly below that questions may be asked, especially if you're
>>>> consistently significantly below the average take for every turn of
>>>> duty you work. In many cases you can baffle the system by simply
>>>> responding, "Oh, I had the RPIS with me" or "There was a Nottingham
>>>> man travelling back, he did half the train", each of which translate
>>>> as the "You *prove* I didn't do my job properly" challenge.
>>>
>>> Is there any incentive for guards to be lenient or not with passengers 
>>> who
>>> they think did not intend to do anything dishonest?
>>
>> 5%commission on ticket sales..
>>
>
> Not all TM's / Guards etc get %5. We get %1 of total on board ticket sales 
> across the company. Every TM gets the same amount.


well 5% is what a SWT guard told me..

"Thomas"  wrote in message news:3p1nquF8c5nnU1@individual.net...

>
> "Steve"  wrote in message 
> news:8IGWe.38972$k22.31156@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>
>> "Thomas"  wrote in message 
>> news:3p00huF7vu14U1@individual.net...
>>>
>>>>>> But the grippers/train managers do seem to have a lot of autonomy -
>>>>>> are there targets for catching fare 'irregularities' that they have
>>>>>> to meet I wonder?
>>>>>
>>>>> Not for guards.
>>>>>
>>>>> There's an average 'take' for each turn of duty and if your take is
>>>>> significantly below that questions may be asked, especially if you're
>>>>> consistently significantly below the average take for every turn of
>>>>> duty you work. In many cases you can baffle the system by simply
>>>>> responding, "Oh, I had the RPIS with me" or "There was a Nottingham
>>>>> man travelling back, he did half the train", each of which translate
>>>>> as the "You *prove* I didn't do my job properly" challenge.
>>>>
>>>> Is there any incentive for guards to be lenient or not with passengers 
>>>> who
>>>> they think did not intend to do anything dishonest?
>>>
>>> 5%commission on ticket sales..
>>>
>>
>> Not all TM's / Guards etc get %5. We get %1 of total on board ticket 
>> sales across the company. Every TM gets the same amount.
>
> well 5% is what a SWT guard told me..


And I did notice once, on the Totton-Romsey Shuttle, a couple had asked the 
guard how to get to Manchester, and he spent the whole time selling them a 
ticket. Didn't bother with anyone else despite the fact that most of the 
booking offices on that route were clsed..

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 23:52:41 +0100, Barry Salter
 wrote:


>On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 21:45:56 +0100, Jonathan Stott 
>wrote:
>
>>Unforunately, there's no easy way of the railways being nice and letting 
>>you claim a refund if you really did have a railcard - too much 
>>opportunity for fraud, etc.
>>
>One of the conditions of issue of Railcards states "You must carry your
>Railcard with you and when asked by rail staff, you must show a valid
>ticket and valid Railcard, otherwise the full fare will be payable as if
>no Railcard and/or no ticket were held."


Which is hardly a model of clarity.  Does it mean the full fare as if
no railcard were held, that is the non-railcard version of the fare I
have paid, or the full fare as if no ticket were helld, which is
likely to be the SOS fare.  
   

>To put it simply, why should a refund be payable if you breach the
>conditions of issue and use of the Railcard?


Perhaps the railways wish to keep the goodwill of a long standing and
valued customer??   

Peter Lawrence
-- 
Peter Lawrence

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 23:12:00 GMT, Chris Tolley 
wrote:


>Peter Lawrence wrote:
>
>> I have just not dared to find out!
>
>This remark casts a new light on your question, since it provides a
>strong suggestion that if you were in future to be caught travelling on
>a railcard-discounted ticket without the rail card, you would be doing
>so deliberately.


Eh?  Why does forgetting my card on one occasion, unknown to the TOC,
suggest that I will deliberately travel without a railcard in the
future.
 

>That would certainly have the potential to speed up any resulting court
>proceedings.


What court proceedings.  Has any TOC actually prosecuted a customer
for forgetting their railcard??  Would what I post here be admissible
evidence?
-- 
Peter Lawrence

Peter Lawrence wrote:


> Would what I post here be admissible evidence?


Why wouldn't it?
-- 
Michael Hoffman

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 06:27:56 +0100, Thomas wrote in
, seen in uk.railway:

> "Steve"  wrote in message 
> news:8IGWe.38972$k22.31156@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > "Thomas"  wrote in message news:3p00huF7vu14U1@individual.net...
> >>
[...]
> >> 5%commission on ticket sales..
> >
> > Not all TM's / Guards etc get %5. We get %1 of total on board ticket sales 
> > across the company. Every TM gets the same amount.
> 
> well 5% is what a SWT guard told me.. 


Please don't assume that because SWT guards get 5% commission, all
guards/conductors/train managers/whatever across the system *also* get
5%. It varies from company to company, just like pay rates and the
other conditions of service.

-- 
Ross, a.k.a.
Prof. E. Scrooge, CT, 153 & bar, Doctor of Cynicism (U. Life)
Hon. Pres., National Soc. for the Encouragement for Cruelty to Dogboxes
Proud to be the target of various trolls, sock puppets and other idiots

Peter Lawrence wrote:


> Which is hardly a model of clarity.  Does it mean the full fare as if
> no railcard were held, that is the non-railcard version of the fare I
> have paid, or the full fare as if no ticket were helld, which is
> likely to be the SOS fare.  


You are charged as though you had neither railcard nor ticket. This,
the applicable fare is a full Standard Day/Open Single or Return.


> Perhaps the railways wish to keep the goodwill of a long standing and
> valued customer??   


Earth calling Peter...

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

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 15:27:05 +0100, Michael Hoffman
<cam.ac.uk@mh391.invalid> wrote:


>Peter Lawrence wrote:
>
>> Would what I post here be admissible evidence?
>
>Why wouldn't it?


It would not relate to the alleged offence.

-- 
Peter Lawrence

In message , at 13:50:08 on 
Sun, 18 Sep 2005, Peter Lawrence  remarked:

>Has any TOC actually prosecuted a customer for forgetting their 
>railcard??


As the ToC have records of who has bought a railcard, one would hope 
that if a prosecution was brought it was either against someone who 
genuinely didn't have a railcard (which people claim is the real 
situation in most cases), or that they had a particular reason be 
vindictive against that specific customer.
-- 
Roland Perry

In message <dgjtft$rc5$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>, at 15:27:05 on Sun, 18 
Sep 2005, Michael Hoffman <cam.ac.uk@mh391.invalid> remarked:

>> Would what I post here be admissible evidence?
>
>Why wouldn't it?


Because in the real world of courts and defence lawyers, you could most 
likely show reasonable doubt as to whether or not he'd made the post, 
even before going on to decide whether or not it was relevant to the 
case.

-- 
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:


> As the ToC have records of who has bought a railcard


Why should any TOC have such records? Wouldn't they be held centrally?
-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p14515957.html
(47 571 at Reading, 1 Jun 1985)

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 12:35:16 GMT, Chris Tolley wrote in
<hqwgj43l97h9$.16fbuelbuv4uh.dlg@40tude.net>, seen in uk.railway:

> Roland Perry wrote:
> 
> > As the ToC have records of who has bought a railcard
> 
> Why should any TOC have such records? Wouldn't they be held centrally?


IIRC they're held at Liverpool, and the forms that are filled out by
purchasers get sent there without any details being retained by the
issuing office.

-- 
Ross, a.k.a.
Prof. E. Scrooge, CT, 153 & bar, Doctor of Cynicism (U. Life)
Hon. Pres., National Soc. for the Encouragement for Cruelty to Dogboxes
Proud to be the target of various trolls, sock puppets and other idiots

In message <hqwgj43l97h9$.16fbuelbuv4uh.dlg@40tude.net>, at 12:35:16 on 
Mon, 19 Sep 2005, Chris Tolley  remarked:

>> As the ToC have records of who has bought a railcard
>
>Why should any TOC have such records? Wouldn't they be held centrally?


OK, you've caught me out. 10/10 for effort.

The ToC who *sold* the railcard will have the record. The customer will 
probably remember which one that was, and in the event he was travelling 
with a different ToC when caught, would have to ask the two of them to 
put their heads together.
-- 
Roland Perry

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005, Chris Tolley wrote:


> Roland Perry wrote:
> 
> > As the ToC have records of who has bought a railcard
> 
> Why should any TOC have such records?


Well, my receipt says, in so many words, "The Senior Railcard is a 
Train Company product", and directs me, if I have any queries about 
it, to go to the station where it was issued -or- contact the TOC 
which issued it.

Does that go some way to answer your question?


> Wouldn't they be held centrally?


I'm not sure which central organ you expect to hold such records?

regards

Alan J. Flavell wrote:


>>Wouldn't they be held centrally?
> 
> I'm not sure which central organ you expect to hold such records?


ATOC?

eat

-- 
<><|"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure
....|      is to try to please everyone." - Bill Cosby
ScR|http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scot-rail/
Pix|http://photos.eatnet.org.uk/

In message , at 
13:53:59 on Mon, 19 Sep 2005, Alan J. Flavell  
remarked:

>> Wouldn't they be held centrally?
>
>I'm not sure which central organ you expect to hold such records?


Ross seems to think there's some such organ in Liverpool. Perhaps there 
is, but it's surely just an agent of the issuing ToC. The ToCs will need 
to have [at least access to the] records, for tax purposes.
-- 
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:


> The ToC who *sold* the railcard will have the record. The customer will
> probably remember which one that was, and in the event he was travelling
> with a different ToC when caught, would have to ask the two of them to
> put their heads together.


When you buy a railcard you also get a receipt, which you are supposed to
keep somewhere safe in case your railcard is lost or stolen.  You could use
that as evidence that you had bought the discounted ticket without
fraudulent intentions.

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005, Ewan wrote:


> Alan J. Flavell wrote:
> 
> > > Wouldn't they be held centrally?
> > 
> > I'm not sure which central organ you expect to hold such records?
> 
> ATOC?


Well, there does seem to be some confusion here.  Ross seems to know 
that they're all held in Liverpool.  But before I had read that, I 
posted 'in good faith' what I had understood from what's printed on 
the receipt, that it's a "Train Company product".

The web site (www.senior-railcard.co.uk) carries the logo of National 
Rail.  Its IP address (66.232.131.176) seems to belong to a whole farm 
of *.com, *.org and *.info web sites, nothing rail specific, so that 
gives nothing away.  http://whois.webhosting.info/66.232.131.176

But the web site says:

 ATOC Ltd enters into the contract for the issue and use of the Senior 
 Railcard on behalf of the Train Companies.

Whereas my current railcard receipt shows that it was issued by Virgin 
(the previous one having been issued by SCOTRAIL RAILWAYS LTD.) and, 
as I said, tells me to deal with queries at the station where I bought 
it or the TOC which issued it.  So who is acting for who in this hall 
of mirrors???

It's all rather confusing, really.

In message <dgme7e$2jos$1@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk>, at 14:25:02 on Mon, 19 Sep 
2005, Adam Funk  remarked:

>> The ToC who *sold* the railcard will have the record. The customer will
>> probably remember which one that was, and in the event he was travelling
>> with a different ToC when caught, would have to ask the two of them to
>> put their heads together.
>
>When you buy a railcard you also get a receipt, which you are supposed to
>keep somewhere safe in case your railcard is lost or stolen.  You could use
>that as evidence that you had bought the discounted ticket without
>fraudulent intentions.


That's a good idea. Although I was concentrating more on the possibility 
that a ToC wouldn't waste money on a prosecution if they already had on 
file that the person had paid for a railcard.
-- 
Roland Perry

The message 
from "Alan J. Flavell"  contains these words:


> It's all rather confusing, really.


It is even more confusing: my Senior Railcard is supplied by my Local
council at a reduced rate.  It is stamped "Manchester Victoria", but
whether the council tell ManVic who the particular card is going to is
another matter.  The card arrives here by return of post as soon as I
send the form back to the council.  IIRC last year's card was stamped
"Warrington Central".

-- 
Dave,                                     
Frodsham

Roland Perry wrote:


> In message <dgme7e$2jos$1@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk>, at 14:25:02 on Mon, 19 Sep
> 2005, Adam Funk  remarked:
>>> The ToC who *sold* the railcard will have the record. The customer will
>>> probably remember which one that was, and in the event he was travelling
>>> with a different ToC when caught, would have to ask the two of them to
>>> put their heads together.
>>
>>When you buy a railcard you also get a receipt, which you are supposed to
>>keep somewhere safe in case your railcard is lost or stolen.  You could
>>use that as evidence that you had bought the discounted ticket without
>>fraudulent intentions.
> 
> That's a good idea. Although I was concentrating more on the possibility
> that a ToC wouldn't waste money on a prosecution if they already had on
> file that the person had paid for a railcard.


I thought that's what you meant.  But you can probably find your receipt a
lot faster than you can convince the various companies involved to put
their heads together and find the record of the sale!

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 14:37:50 +0100, Alan J. Flavell wrote in
, seen in
uk.railway:

[...] 

> Whereas my current railcard receipt shows that it was issued by Virgin 
> (the previous one having been issued by SCOTRAIL RAILWAYS LTD.) and, 
> as I said, tells me to deal with queries at the station where I bought 
> it or the TOC which issued it.  So who is acting for who in this hall 
> of mirrors???
> 
> It's all rather confusing, really.


I think you've just summed up the intention behind the privatisation
of the railway system. It's meant to be so confusing that everyone
trying to deal with it (for anything the system doesn't want to play
with) will just get totally befuddled, give up and go away.

:-(

-- 
Ross, a.k.a.
Prof. E. Scrooge, CT, 153 & bar, Doctor of Cynicism (U. Life)
Hon. Pres., National Soc. for the Encouragement for Cruelty to Dogboxes
Proud to be the target of various trolls, sock puppets and other idiots

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 14:37:50 +0100, Alan J. Flavell wrote in
, seen in
uk.railway:

> On Mon, 19 Sep 2005, Ewan wrote:
> > Alan J. Flavell wrote:
> > 
> > > > Wouldn't they be held centrally?
> > > 
> > > I'm not sure which central organ you expect to hold such records?
> > 
> > ATOC?
> 
> Well, there does seem to be some confusion here.  Ross seems to know 
> that they're all held in Liverpool.  But before I had read that, I 
> posted 'in good faith' what I had understood from what's printed on 
> the receipt, that it's a "Train Company product".

[...]

Apologising for a second reply to the same post [1], on the subject of
receipts, I get the impression from my local ticket office types that
(for replacement purposes) the only way they know that a ticket has
been issued at their station is that the receipt has that station's
stamp on it.

Having spent some time in places I shouldn't have been, I also get the
impression that longer-term-season-tickets aside, station-level
record-keeping of sales is best described as dilatory.


[1] But at least to a different part of the post, so I'm not turning
into second H. Law, Esq. just yet.
-- 
Ross, a.k.a.
Prof. E. Scrooge, CT, 153 & bar, Doctor of Cynicism (U. Life)
Hon. Pres., National Soc. for the Encouragement for Cruelty to Dogboxes
Proud to be the target of various trolls, sock puppets and other idiots

Alan J. Flavell wrote:

> My receipt says, in so many words, "The Senior Railcard is a 
> Train Company product", and directs me, if I have any queries about 
> it, to go to the station where it was issued -or- contact the TOC 
> which issued it. Does that go some way to answer your question?

Not really. TOCs are temporary entities, and a railcard may outlive
them. And a YP railcard might be issued in the IoW but predominantly
used in Scotland, if the purchaser is, say, an Edinburgh undergrad. If
there is any virtue in keeping such records, they should be kept
centrally for ease of use and access.


>> Wouldn't they be held centrally?
> I'm not sure which central organ you expect to hold such records?

I don't know. Whoever is custodian of the fares manual, presumably.
-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9633030.html
(From all the smoke, you'd think 47 225's train was really heavy!)

>To put it simply, why should a refund be payable if you breach the
>conditions of issue and use of the Railcard?


Why should a refund *not* be payable if you can prove later on that you
were not a deliberate fare-dodger? It's time the people who ran public
transport companies realise that *they* have some moral
responsibilities....

Nick

>But - being only human - mistakes may happen.

Exactly, mistakes do happen from time to time. Why not give people XXX
days to produce a railcard... if they produce it, they get any excess
fare refunded (that's only fair... why should the train companies
profit from people's mistakes?) if not, then they can be fined, put in
the stocks, executed (joke!), whatever....

Nick

wrote in message 
news:1127161494.106458.139820@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> >But - being only human - mistakes may happen.
> Exactly, mistakes do happen from time to time. Why not give people XXX
> days to produce a railcard... if they produce it, they get any excess
> fare refunded (that's only fair... why should the train companies
> profit from people's mistakes?) if not, then they can be fined, put in
> the stocks, executed (joke!), whatever....


By the same token, why should the TOC incur extra costs (eventually passed 
on to the considerate customer) because some just can't be bothered to carry 
the "card" but expect the benefits of it?

Try telling the Police that you will, "have a look when I get home" because 
your car Tax Disk is missing!

KW.

Ken Ward wrote:

>  wrote in message
> news:1127161494.106458.139820@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >But - being only human - mistakes may happen.
> > Exactly, mistakes do happen from time to time. Why not give people XXX
> > days to produce a railcard... if they produce it, they get any excess
> > fare refunded (that's only fair... why should the train companies
> > profit from people's mistakes?) if not, then they can be fined, put in
> > the stocks, executed (joke!), whatever....
>
> By the same token, why should the TOC incur extra costs (eventually passed
> on to the considerate customer) because some just can't be bothered to carry
> the "card" but expect the benefits of it?
>


Exactly, its called personal responsibility. Something this nanny state
we're living in seems to increasingly ignore.

In message <Q1RXe.19293$hQ4.4907@newsfe4-win.ntli.net>, at 09:57:04 on 
Tue, 20 Sep 2005, Ken Ward  remarked:

>Try telling the Police that you will, "have a look when I get home" because
>your car Tax Disk is missing!


They can easily look up to see if one was ever issued, and will in the 
worst case ask for a "producer": take it to a police station within 7 
days. You'd have to have *really* pissed them off to get reported for an 
offence.
-- 
Roland Perry

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, Roland Perry wrote:


> They can easily look up to see if one was ever issued, and will in 
> the worst case ask for a "producer": take it to a police station 
> within 7 days. You'd have to have *really* pissed them off to get 
> reported for an offence.


More likely, you'd be "invited to pay a fixed penalty", and you
then have an unenviable choice between trying to contest it in 
court, and risking a criminal record, or saying good-bye to the money
in order to avoid the hassle.

Way back when, we opened the door of the company Landrover on a windy 
headland, and the wind ripped the tax disc off the windscreen and blew 
it straight out to sea.  We had quite a bit of talking to do, but that 
was before fixed penalties had been invented.

In message <KZk54EPw+9LDFAP$@donald.internetpolicynews.co.uk>
          Roland Perry  wrote:


> In message <Q1RXe.19293$hQ4.4907@newsfe4-win.ntli.net>, at 09:57:04 on 
> Tue, 20 Sep 2005, Ken Ward  remarked:
> > Try telling the Police that you will, "have a look when I get home"
> > because your car Tax Disk is missing!
> 
> They can easily look up to see if one was ever issued, and will in the 
> worst case ask for a "producer": take it to a police station within 7 
> days. You'd have to have *really* pissed them off to get reported for an 
> offence.


The offence is not displaying it, not having one is another offence. 
Picking up vehicles not displaying tax discs earns brownie points for traffic
wardens, so the worst case scenario is a fine (200GBP IIRC).

-- 
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>

"Roland Perry"  wrote in message 
news:KZk54EPw+9LDFAP$@donald.internetpolicynews.co.uk...

> In message <Q1RXe.19293$hQ4.4907@newsfe4-win.ntli.net>, at 09:57:04 on 
> Tue, 20 Sep 2005, Ken Ward  remarked:
>>Try telling the Police that you will, "have a look when I get home" 
>>because
>>your car Tax Disk is missing!
>
> They can easily look up to see if one was ever issued, and will in the 
> worst case ask for a "producer": take it to a police station within 7 
> days. You'd have to have *really* pissed them off to get reported for an 
> offence.


It is an offence to "not show" a valid Tax Disk whether you have one or not!
The "producer" is for documents that are not required to be carried.

KW

In message , at 
11:38:46 on Tue, 20 Sep 2005, Alan J. Flavell  
remarked:

>On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> They can easily look up to see if one was ever issued, and will in
>> the worst case ask for a "producer": take it to a police station
>> within 7 days. You'd have to have *really* pissed them off to get
>> reported for an offence.
>
>More likely, you'd be "invited to pay a fixed penalty", and you
>then have an unenviable choice between trying to contest it in
>court, and risking a criminal record, or saying good-bye to the money
>in order to avoid the hassle.


No, I don't think that's what would happen. Especially if the check they 
did at the roadside revealed that the tax had indeed been paid.

-- 
Roland Perry

In message <J5SXe.15037$QU3.2657@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>, at 11:09:29 on 
Tue, 20 Sep 2005, Ken Ward  remarked:

>It is an offence to "not show" a valid Tax Disk whether you have one or not!
>The "producer" is for documents that are not required to be carried.


I know, but they don't try to make work for themselves, even if you 
think they might.
-- 
Roland Perry

Alan J. Flavell wrote:


> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, Roland Perry wrote:
> 
>> They can easily look up to see if one was ever issued, and will in
>> the worst case ask for a "producer": take it to a police station
>> within 7 days. You'd have to have *really* pissed them off to get
>> reported for an offence.
> 
> More likely, you'd be "invited to pay a fixed penalty", and you
> then have an unenviable choice between trying to contest it in
> court, and risking a criminal record, or saying good-bye to the money
> in order to avoid the hassle.
> 
> Way back when, we opened the door of the company Landrover on a windy
> headland, and the wind ripped the tax disc off the windscreen and blew
> it straight out to sea.  We had quite a bit of talking to do, but that
> was before fixed penalties had been invented.


"Way back when" -- was this before the police could call someone to check
the computer records?

In message <dgota1$1fp5$1@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk>, at 12:54:41 on Tue, 20 Sep 
2005, Adam Funk  remarked:

>> Way back when, we opened the door of the company Landrover on a windy
>> headland, and the wind ripped the tax disc off the windscreen and blew
>> it straight out to sea.  We had quite a bit of talking to do, but that
>> was before fixed penalties had been invented.
>
>"Way back when" -- was this before the police could call someone to check
>the computer records?


I last got a prod in about 2000, when a traffic warden saw my car's tax 
had expired by a day or two. The replacement was "in the post". They 
left a note to say they'd look again in a couple of weeks (correctly 
assuming - or had they checked - that I lived nearby). Today, that 
town's traffic wardens are run by the council (LAPE) and don't have 
powers over tax discs.
-- 
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry"  wrote in message 
news:L+9JhCYWO$LDFAtf@donald.internetpolicynews.co.uk...

> In message <J5SXe.15037$QU3.2657@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>, at 11:09:29 on 
> Tue, 20 Sep 2005, Ken Ward  remarked:
>>It is an offence to "not show" a valid Tax Disk whether you have one or 
>>not!
>>The "producer" is for documents that are not required to be carried.
>
> I know, but they don't try to make work for themselves, even if you think 
> they might.


I do agree that they will ignore a situation when it is difficult or near to 
"shift end".

KW.

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 12:32:33 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:


>No, I don't think that's what would happen. Especially if the check they 
>did at the roadside revealed that the tax had indeed been paid.


Depends who's enforcing.  Vinci Park in Milton Keynes will put a clamp
on, with a removal fee charged.  The "offence" (not criminal, IIRC, as
it counts as a decriminalised parking offence if discovered in the
Council parking bays) is of not displaying, not whether you have one
or not.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, Adam Funk wrote:


> Alan J. Flavell wrote:
> 
> > Way back when, we opened the door of the company Landrover on a 
> > windy headland, and the wind ripped the tax disc off the 
> > windscreen and blew it straight out to sea.  We had quite a bit of 
> > talking to do, but that was before fixed penalties had been 
> > invented.
> 
> "Way back when" -- was this before the police could call someone to 
> check the computer records?


Right - it would have been around 1965-6.

Sure, they could check the paper records at county hall, but they 
seemed more concerned about what had *really* happened to the 
original. We got the impression they considered our story to be a 
made-up pack of lies, and that the disc was going to turn up somewhere 
else in due course.

In message , at 18:12:33 on Tue, 20 Sep 
2005, Neil Williams  remarked:

>Vinci Park in Milton Keynes will put a clamp
>on, with a removal fee charged.


Who are they?
-- 
Roland Perry

* Ken Ward  wrote:

> By the same token, why should the TOC incur extra costs (eventually passed 
> on to the considerate customer) because some just can't be bothered to carry 
> the "card" but expect the benefits of it?


For the same reason a lot of retailers allow their customers to exchange
their purchases? I always thought that TOCs - like other companies -
consider their customers as 'partners', not as subject which has to be
exploited as much as possible or as a 'beforderungsfall'.


> Try telling the Police that you will, "have a look when I get home" because 
> your car Tax Disk is missing!


So is - in your opinion - the relationship between a passenger and the
TOC the same as between the police and a normal person?

Gunter

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 19:50:46 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:


>In message , at 18:12:33 on Tue, 20 Sep 
>2005, Neil Williams  remarked:
>>Vinci Park in Milton Keynes will put a clamp
>>on, with a removal fee charged.
>
>Who are they?


Sorry for not clarifying.  They're the Council's on-street parking
enforcement contractor, or until next week they are, anyway.  They do
not have the highest of reputations, and indeed are to be replaced in
the next few weeks by NCP.

I believe the tax disc enforcement is under contract to Thames Valley
Police, though I don't have anything to back that up so I may well be
wrong.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

"Gunter Kuhnle"  wrote in message 
news:slrndj0p93.1f9.gk-usenet@kuhnle.co.uk...


> So is - in your opinion - the relationship between a passenger and the
> TOC the same as between the police and a normal person?


Yes of course it is. Both are looking after the interests of the other. It 
is only when one side starts to cheat that the relationship become strained.

KW

Hmmm... what nanny state is that? The so-called Labour government that
did not legislate against the introduction of minimum fares on the
Network Railcard? 

Nick

nick150...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

> Hmmm... what nanny state is that? The so-called Labour government that
> did not legislate against the introduction of minimum fares on the
> Network Railcard?
>
> Nick


No, the same nanny state that brought you "no win no fee" ambulance
chacers, and a compensation culture that is getting closer to US levels
every year.

What would happen if you forgot your Marks and Spencer gift voucher
when you were buying something from them. Would you hear, dont worry
Sir/Madam, just hand it in the next time your passing. Seriously doubt
it.

Life is tough, don't bleat about it, just get on with it.

* Ken Ward  wrote:

>> So is - in your opinion - the relationship between a passenger and the
>> TOC the same as between the police and a normal person?
> Yes of course it is. Both are looking after the interests of the other. It 
> is only when one side starts to cheat that the relationship become strained.


Well, the relationship between a normal citizen and the police is
slightly different as the police cannot be avoided and has some power
over the citizen.

I can avoid a TOC without any problem - I just don't have to use this
particular company. Therefore I thought a TOC would be interested in
treating its customers as customers and not as potential criminals.

Gunter

* 0.7ohm Drop Shunt  wrote:

> What would happen if you forgot your Marks and Spencer gift voucher
> when you were buying something from them. Would you hear, dont worry
> Sir/Madam, just hand it in the next time your passing. Seriously doubt
> it.


This is slightly different. The voucher doesn't offer a discount but
pays for the goods. So the loss for the customer is negligible; it would
be different if it was a card entitling for a discount. 

Gunter

>Life is tough, don't bleat about it, just get on with it.


Sadly the attitude of all post-1979 governments of either colour... :-(
BTW I too am strongly against the compensation culture, but I am also
against the selfish attitude of public transport companies.

Nick

"Gunter Kuhnle"  wrote in message 
news:slrndj14dh.1f9.gk-usenet@kuhnle.co.uk...

>* Ken Ward  wrote:
>>> So is - in your opinion - the relationship between a passenger and the
>>> TOC the same as between the police and a normal person?
>> Yes of course it is. Both are looking after the interests of the other. 
>> It
>> is only when one side starts to cheat that the relationship become 
>> strained.
>
> Well, the relationship between a normal citizen and the police is
> slightly different as the police cannot be avoided and has some power
> over the citizen.
>
> I can avoid a TOC without any problem - I just don't have to use this
> particular company. Therefore I thought a TOC would be interested in
> treating its customers as customers and not as potential criminals.



You don't live in Scotland then?

KW

In message , at 21:05:26 on Tue, 20 Sep 
2005, Neil Williams  remarked:

>>>Vinci Park in Milton Keynes will put a clamp
>>>on, with a removal fee charged.
>>
>>Who are they?
>
>Sorry for not clarifying.  They're the Council's on-street parking
>enforcement contractor, or until next week they are, anyway.  They do
>not have the highest of reputations, and indeed are to be replaced in
>the next few weeks by NCP.
>
>I believe the tax disc enforcement is under contract to Thames Valley
>Police, though I don't have anything to back that up so I may well be
>wrong.


I've not heard of local authority wardens (LAPE) having such powers as a 
result of being "subcontracted" to the police. The old style traffic 
wardens did, because they were genuinely part of the police (and the 
police wanted to get rid of them because of the administrative overhead 
of having them so tightly under their wing).
-- 
Roland Perry

* Ken Ward  wrote:

>> I can avoid a TOC without any problem - I just don't have to use this
>> particular company. Therefore I thought a TOC would be interested in
>> treating its customers as customers and not as potential criminals.
> You don't live in Scotland then?


No, in East Anglia. But could you enlighten me, please? Why would it be
different if I was living in Scotland?

Gunter

Alan J. Flavell wrote:


> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005, R.C. Payne wrote:
> 
>> Indeed, I make a point of not showing my railcard when the ticket
>> check happens, to see whether I am asked to produce it (I have it in
>> my other hand,
> 
> Take care.  The T&C say this:
> 
>  "when asked by staff, you must show a valid ticket *and* valid
>  Railcard, otherwise the full fare will be payable".  (my emphasis).


"He asked me for my ticket and I showed it to him.  Then he asked for my
railcard and I showed him that."  (Conjunctions are wonderful things.)


> I suspect that a real jobsworth could withdraw your ticket as
> irregular if you show it without *also* showing your railcard, and
> demand the full fare per the T&C. No matter whether you had the
> railcard hidden in your other hand, elsewhere on your person, or
> wherever.  After all, they *could* spend the time that you're
> deliberately wasting, on catching some real fare-dodger, and surely
> we'd all welcome that?


In comparison to the time the guard will spend arguing with you about
withdrawing the ticket you've already bought and trying to get you to buy
another one at full fare?

Ross wrote:


> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 10:07:02 GMT, Chris Game wrote in
> , seen in uk.railway:
> 
> [...]
>> But the grippers/train managers do seem to have a lot of autonomy -
>> are there targets for catching fare 'irregularities' that they have
>> to meet I wonder?
> 
> Not for guards.
> 
> There's an average 'take' for each turn of duty and if your take is
> significantly below that questions may be asked, especially if you're
> consistently significantly below the average take for every turn of
> duty you work. In many cases you can baffle the system by simply
> responding, "Oh, I had the RPIS with me" or "There was a Nottingham
> man travelling back, he did half the train", each of which translate
> as the "You *prove* I didn't do my job properly" challenge.


Is there any incentive for guards to be lenient or not with passengers who
they think did not intend to do anything dishonest?

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 10:07:02 GMT, Chris Game wrote in
, seen in uk.railway:

[...] 

> But the grippers/train managers do seem to have a lot of autonomy -
> are there targets for catching fare 'irregularities' that they have
> to meet I wonder?


Not for guards.

There's an average 'take' for each turn of duty and if your take is
significantly below that questions may be asked, especially if you're
consistently significantly below the average take for every turn of
duty you work. In many cases you can baffle the system by simply
responding, "Oh, I had the RPIS with me" or "There was a Nottingham
man travelling back, he did half the train", each of which translate
as the "You *prove* I didn't do my job properly" challenge.

-- 
Ross, a.k.a.
Prof. E. Scrooge, CT, 153 & bar, Doctor of Cynicism (U. Life)
Hon. Pres., National Soc. for the Encouragement for Cruelty to Dogboxes
Proud to be the target of various trolls, sock puppets and other idiots

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 21:41:22 +0100, Barry Salter
 wrote:


>Officially it should be the latter, but it does depend on the
>circumstances and ticket type. If, for example, you go to a Ticket
>Office prior to boarding and say "I've forgotten my Railcard, can you
>excess my ticket?"


Can you actually do that?  Could be useful to know...

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

>>> But the grippers/train managers do seem to have a lot of autonomy -
>>> are there targets for catching fare 'irregularities' that they have
>>> to meet I wonder?
>>
>> Not for guards.
>>
>> There's an average 'take' for each turn of duty and if your take is
>> significantly below that questions may be asked, especially if you're
>> consistently significantly below the average take for every turn of
>> duty you work. In many cases you can baffle the system by simply
>> responding, "Oh, I had the RPIS with me" or "There was a Nottingham
>> man travelling back, he did half the train", each of which translate
>> as the "You *prove* I didn't do my job properly" challenge.
>
> Is there any incentive for guards to be lenient or not with passengers who
> they think did not intend to do anything dishonest?


5%commission on ticket sales..

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005, R.C. Payne wrote:


> Indeed, I make a point of not showing my railcard when the ticket 
> check happens, to see whether I am asked to produce it (I have it in 
> my other hand,


Take care.  The T&C say this:

 "when asked by staff, you must show a valid ticket *and* valid 
 Railcard, otherwise the full fare will be payable".  (my emphasis).

I suspect that a real jobsworth could withdraw your ticket as 
irregular if you show it without *also* showing your railcard, and 
demand the full fare per the T&C. No matter whether you had the 
railcard hidden in your other hand, elsewhere on your person, or 
wherever.  After all, they *could* spend the time that you're 
deliberately wasting, on catching some real fare-dodger, and surely 
we'd all welcome that?

"Gunter Kuhnle"  wrote in message 
news:slrndijrjc.4c0.gk-usenet@kuhnle.co.uk...

>* mark  wrote:
>> I ALWAYS check I have my staff pass on me before I leave home for work.
>> Why should passengers not be expected to do the same and be sure they
>> have any required documentation with them?
>
> They normally should, I agree. But - being only human - mistakes may
> happen. I experienced many different approaches to genuinely forgotten
> or wrongly bought tickets - from very sympathetic to extremely
> aggressive. I was just wondering what the approach of tickets inspectors
> here is.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Gunter


If you have forgotten your railcard then you would be asked by me to pay the 
full SOS fare of SDS fare for the journey you are making. If you were on the 
outward part of your return the return ticket would also be endorsed with 
the words 'check railcard on return journey. Not present on outward journey'

If I suspected or you admitted that you didn't in fact own a railcard you 
would be reported for the offence and be dealt with via the prosecutions 
dept of my company.

Discounting tickets with a railcard discount and then trying the 'cant I 
just pay the difference' if caught is one of the oldest scams in the book. 
if you were fraudulently discounting tickets every time and you only got 
caught 50% of those times and of those %50 of the times you paid the 
difference you would still be quids in for the other journeys where it 
wasn't picked up on. If you got caught every time (unlikely) and you got 
asked to pay the difference between the normal fare and the discounted fare 
every time you would still only be paying what you should have paid.

Paying the difference does not deter the people who seek to avoid paying the 
correct fare.

Chris Game wrote:

> Peter Fox wrote:
> 
> 
>>Because if you buy your ticket from a machine, or on line, you do
>>not need the railcard. Hence itis  essential to have it with you
>>for inspection on the day.
> 
> 
> On the other hand it's unusual to be asked to show it, so the risk
> of detection if you forgot your card is low. If you are asked to pay
> for the full single fare, you just lost the bet. The thing those
> eagle eyed grippers do seem good at is spotting a ticket issued for
> a different (time) service on the same route!


Indeed, I make a point of not showing my railcard when the ticket check 
happens, to see whether I am asked to produce it (I have it in my other 
hand, so out it comes instantly), but I'd have to say that I am asked no 
more than about 10% of the time.  I tend to keep my railcard in my 
wallet, so if I have money/plastic with which to buy a ticket, I have my 
railcard.  Makes life easier, that way.

Robin

"Peter Fox"  wrote in message
news:dgds2u$ail$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...

>
> "Peter Smyth"  wrote in message
> news:dgcmb3$m9p$1$830fa79d@news.demon.co.uk...
> >
> > "Peter Lawrence"  wrote in message
> > news:4329ce30.13914601@text.news.ntlworld.com...
> >> If I travel with a ticket that requires a railcard but do not have a
> >> railcard with me, how much will I be charged (assuming that tickets
> >> are actually checked).  Will it be the difference beteen the
> >> discounted and non-discounted versions of the ticket type I hold, or
> >> will it be the full SOS fare for the journey concerned?
> >
> > Many ticket inspectors would consider this deliberate fare evasion and
> > would report you for possible prosecution.
> >
> > Peter Smyth
> Because if you buy your ticket from a machine, or on line, you do not need
> the railcard. Hence itis  essential to have it with you for inspection on
> the day.


Indeed, though the fact that the ticket is bought from a machine isn't of
itself evidence of attempted fraud.

As to the attitude of staff, I was once very grateful to a Virgin TM in
similar circumstances. We were travelling Burton-Birmingham-London and
returning the following day on a Family Railcard, but I was joining my wife
and son (then actually aged 16 but under 16 when the card was bought) at New
Street, having been at work. So I'd left them with all three tickets but I
didn't remind them about the railcard and they forgot it. It was a train on
which savers weren't normally valid, but of course on Virgin that doesn't
apply to tickets bought with a railcard, so the potential difference was
between 2 adult and 1 child SVR (with railcard discount) and 3 adult SORs
(full price). Ouch! I sought out the TM with a "you could just about save my
wife's marriage" and he was quite happy to accept my explanation - a
particularly good piece of PR as the train was packed and running late.

Needless to say I didn't risk the return the next morning and told them to
buy a new railcard at Euston.

Regards

Jonathan