This
is
the
last
day
for
lodging
responses
with
the
watchdogs
Transport
Focus
and
London
TravelWatch
on
the
proposals
to
close
most
station
ticket
offices
in
England



(writes
Sim
Harris).

The
consultation
was
announced
on
5
July,
and
the
barrage
of
public
protest
has
grown
day
by
day.
We
cannot
recall
having
received
so
many
messages
before
on
a
single
subject
from
our
readers,
all
of
whom
are
opposed
to
the
idea
of
closing
almost
every
ticket
office
between
Glasgow
Central
and
Penzance.

We
have
been
reassured
by
official
sources
that
the
staff
who
used
to
work
behind
the
glass
will
move
into
the
public
areas
of
stations,
such
as
concourses
and
platforms,
where
they
will
be
able
to
help
passengers
by
selling
them
tickets
directly
or
explaining
how
to
use
the
ticket
machines.

But
that
won’t
be
the
complete
answer.
Operators
have
conceded
that
some
tickets
and
services
will
no
longer
be
available
at
stations
without
conventional
offices.

LNER
has
said
8
per
cent
of
all
ticket
types
will
not
be
available
at
such
stations,
naming
them
as
‘Season
Replacement,
Rovers
and
Rangers,
Excesses,
Photocards,
Refunds,
Seat
Reservations
and
Railcards’.

Passengers
at
Berwick-upon-Tweed,
for
example,
who
need
these
services
will
be
advised
to
use
the
surviving
offices
at
Edinburgh
or
Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

This
kind
of
advice
would
be
pointless
on
an
operator
like
GWR.
Passengers
at,
say,
Newton
Abbot,
won’t
find
what
they
want
at
the
nearest
larger
stations
like
Plymouth
or
Exeter
St
David’s,
because
every
GWR
office
is
proposed
for
closure
by
the
end
of
next
year,
including
Bristol
Temple
Meads
and
London
Paddington.

At
London
Waterloo,
another
prospective
casualty,
something
like
14,000
passengers
still
use
the
ticket
windows
each
day.

However,
London
Fenchurch
Street,
a
much
smaller
terminus,
is
going
to
keep
its
windows,
which
are
run
by
c2c
rather
than
GWR
or
South
Western
Railway.

The
closures,
wherever
they
are,
have
been
attributed
to
the
individual
operators.
But
this
is
a
smokescreen
carefully
created
in
Whitehall
and
Westminster
to
shift
the
blame,
perhaps
because
there
will
be
a
General
Election
within
a
year.

Today’s
operators
are
contractors.
The
revenue
goes
to
the
government,
while
the
government
pays
the
operators’
costs,
plus
a
management
fee
to
make
it
worth
their
while.

To
quote
a
briefing
from
the
Rail
Delivery
Group,
which
was
issued
a
week
ago:
‘How
the
railway
is
funded
has
changed.
The
franchise
model
no
longer
exists.
Train
operators
are
paid
a
fixed
fee
of
0.5
per
cent
of
costs
to
provide
a
service
–
just
like
other
government
suppliers.’

Precisely.
And
government
suppliers
don’t
usually
make
changes
in
midstream
to
the
services
they
provide
–
at
least,
not
if
they
want
to
keep
their
contracts.

The
structure
which
the
RDG
describes
is
not,
perhaps,
likely
to
encourage
economies.
As
the
operators’
fees
are
based
on
their
costs,
reducing
those
costs
would
presumably
reduce
their
income.

But
the
closure
proposals
have
been
published
nonetheless,
while
the
government
keeps
its
head
down.

Rail
minister
Huw
Merriman
was
on
guard
in
the
Commons
this
week
when
Labour
MP
Tanmanjeet
Singh
Dhesi,
who
is
shadow
transport
minister,
put
down
this
question:
‘To
ask
the
Secretary
of
State
for
Transport,
if
he
will
publish
his
correspondence
with
the
(a)
Chair
of
the
Rail
Delivery
Group
and
(b)
chief
executive
officers
of
train
operating
companies
which
have
passenger
service
contracts
with
his
Department
on
the
proposals
to
close
ticket
offices.’

Mr
Merriman
could
see
a
googly
coming,
and
swiftly
took
evasive
action:
‘There
are
no
current
plans
for
any
general
publication
of
this
correspondence.’

Mr
Dhesi
followed
up
with
a
further
question,
asking
when
and
by
what
means
had
the
minister
become
aware
of
the
closure
proposals?
Again,
following
established
ministerial
practice,
Mr
Merriman
carefully
avoided
giving
a
direct
answer:
‘Ministers
regularly
hold
meetings
with
stakeholders,
including
the
Rail
Delivery
Group
and
train
operating
companies,
on
challenges
to
the
rail
network.
This
includes
discussions
on
modernising
and
improving
the
customer
experience.’

Mr
Merriman
must
know
by
now
that
the
customers
are
not
looking
forward
to
his
singular
‘improvements’.

To
quote
from
just
a
few
of
the
many
messages
received
at
Railnews:

‘This
is
a
cynical
cost-cutting
and
union-breaking
exercise,
glossily
dressed
up
as
“modernisation”.
I
am
not
convinced
and
am
totally
against
it.
Those
proposing
it
say
that
most
people
buy
their
tickets
using
the
station
ticket
machines.
That
doesn’t
mean
that
we
enjoy
or
prefer
using
them.
I
much
prefer
talking
with
a
live
person
about
ticket
options
and
ways
to
reduce
the
fares.
The
options
on
the
ticket
machines
are
limited.’
(Charles
Littleton,
Stevenage)

‘Shutting
ticket
offices
would
be
a
retrograde
step.
I
accept
that
many
people
now
use
the
internet.
However
many
do
not,
and
I
reverted
to
buying
tickets
at
Exmouth
ticket
office
a
couple
of
years
ago.
Frankly,
it’s
much
easier.
The
staff
there
are
knowledgeable,
patient
and
helpful.
The
ticket
office
was
modernised
recently.
The
staff
could
not
do
their
job
on
the
platform
without
access
to
their
computers.’
(Jonathan
Edward
Liggins,
Exmouth)

‘I
feel
this
is
purely
a
money
saving
exercise
driven
by
the
government.
This
is
the
government
that
is
supposed
to
be
reducing
carbon
emissions!
This
will
force
more
people,
particularly
the
elderly
and
disabled,
off
the
trains
–
probably
on
to
cars,
or
to
not
travel
at
all.’
(Gerry
Powell,
Gloucester)

‘The
Rail
Delivery
Group
and
the
Department
for
Transport
say
only
about
one
in
eight
passengers
still
use
ticket
offices.
What
other
business
would
deliberately
alienate
12.5
per
cent
of
their
customers?’
(Neil
Palmer,
Waterloo)

‘I
suffer
from
glaucoma
and
pre-cataracts
so
find
it
difficult
to
use
both
rail
apps
and
ticket
machines.
It
is
invaluable
to
speak
to
a
person
when
purchasing
rail
tickets.’
(Kevin
O’Malley,
Weymouth)

‘Please
do
not
do
this.
Using
the
internet
often
causes
a
great
deal
of
stress.
Also
I
have
a
son
who
is
disabled
in
his
communication
and
needs
to
feel
that
he
can
take
his
problems
re
booking
to
a
human
being.’
(Maggi
Deimel,
Bishop
Auckland)

There
are
still
more
reasons
to
feel
unhappy.
There
is
the
question
of
potential
fraud,
because
ticket
office
staff
being
asked
for
a
railcard
discount
want
to
see
the
railcard,
which
is
beyond
the
ability
of
a
ticket
machine
or
website.
Staff
also
have
a
pretty
good
idea
whether
the
would-be
traveller
is
entitled
to
a
child
ticket. There
is
the
fares
structure
itself,
which
is
ludicrously
complex.
No
wonder
that
many
passengers
need
a
helping
hand.

Indeed,
whether
there
is
an
increase
in
fraud
or
not,
if
people
are
discouraged
from
travelling
by
train
the
loss
of
revenue
may
outweigh
any
savings.

An
important
point
made
by
the
unions
is
that
ticket
offices
can
only
be
closed
after
a
consultation.
Displaced
former
ticket
office
staff
working
on
the
concourse
can
be
declared
redundant
without
any
consultation
with
railway
users.
Concerns
like
this
could
easily
make
existing
industrial
tensions
worse.

There
are
also
the
challenges
now
being
mounted
by
Mayors
in
the
city
regions
and
other
places,
who
allege
that
the
form
of
consultation
which
has
been
adopted
is
unlawful.
It
is
reported
that
the
first
legal
notices
have
been
served
on
operators
this
week.

Huw
Merriman
used
to
be
the
chairman
of
the
House
of
Commons
Transport
Select
Committee,
and
it
remains
to
be
seen
what
his
former
colleagues
will
make
of
this
Railway
Pantomime.

But
we
can
tell
him
this.
It
is
not
clever,
it
is
not
helpful,
and
it
won’t
work.