There's No Case for Gating East Coast Stations

26th April 2009

National Express East Coast's plans to gate stations are justified on the grounds that gating is "commonplace". Not true, says John Nelson, who points to Germany as an example of why NXEC's proposals are shortsighted.

I have had a thing about good grammar since it was drummed into me by my teacher father when I was a rising five. So when is a “criterion” a “criteria”? Answer – never. When is Network Rail’s Licence a “license”? Answer – it isn’t except when the infrastructure operator is “licensing” a third party to undertake repairs.
 The most irritating example of deteriorating grammar is the commonly used “practise” when “practice” is what is meant. According to the Natex planning application for automatic ticket gates (ATGs) at Newcastle the “practise” (ouch) of installing them is “becoming commonplace world-wide”; that is “habitual” or “customary” if my dictionary definition is correct. What rubbish.
Whilst one can agree that it is commonplace in Natex’s underworld of ticket bilkers on the Tilbury Loop or in the foreign land of my birth that is represented by its capital city of Norwich, it is less apparent elsewhere in the world. Recently I spent some time travelling in a country that by many standards is a role model for railways and for integrated transport. I can report that Germany has yet to catch on to the world class benefits espoused by the advocates of ATGs on long distance services – or S-Bahn or U-Bahn or trams for that matter.
I fear that the grandiose statements of Natex are so debateable as to border on being plain wrong. The so-called “business case” is said to be significant and no doubt Natex would be inclined to write off DB as being stuck in the slow lane, exhibiting the hallmarks of the corporate state.
Not on this one my friends.
Natex is in the middle of introducing ATGs at stations on the East Coast Main Line, a franchise of which they have temporary custody. They claim that their locally contentious plans for York and Newcastle are franchise commitments placed upon them by the DfT.  In fact the plans were incorporated in their own franchise bid and because this was accepted, they became a commitment.
I ran the East Coast Main Line when ticket collection at stations was abolished. I was in charge at Network South East when the open stations policy was implemented there. In the case of East Coast the policy was accompanied by the appointment of senior conductors whose principal role was customer service – including ticket examination – requiring a whole new standard of personnel selection compared with the “guards” who they replaced. There was a “business case” because it reduced overall costs, enhanced the travelling environment and the revenues collected. It worked well providing a significant boost to revenues whilst vastly improving the ambience of stations. Ease of access to platforms and trains was seen as a huge customer benefit, as it still is in Germany.
The implementation of “open stations” in the London area was more controversial. This was less to do with removing ticket collectors and more about the simultaneous implementation of the Penalty Fares Scheme, enabled by Act of Parliament. Yet this too was judged a success and additional revenues were written into budgets (and achieved). Costs were substantially reduced whilst the travelling environment was massively enhanced. There was the added benefit of hiring out newly released space in and around the platform ends of station concourses to retailers from whom the railways took a significant rent or profit share.
Assessing the impact of revenue protection measures of whatever kind has always been difficult. Ticket office or on-train receipts are not necessarily the best measurements as there are many other factors that can impact on the level of takings. Isolating cause and effect is problematical. A better way is to measure the proportion of passengers travelling without tickets by route section. This gives a good indication of where fare evasion is occurring. In the South East, the introduction of Penalty Fares reduced ticketless travel to below 2% overall but was concentrated on stations away from the main flows so the revenue at risk was actually less.
Nevertheless the almost universal implementation of ATGs in the London area is justified on a number of counts.  First of all equipment costs can be depreciated over the lifetime of the assets making the annual charges affordable in comparison with the alternative human resources during the period of a franchise. Second, the gates themselves do make it very much more difficult for devoted cheats to evade revenue capture. Third, the introduction of smart card technology is made much easier. Lastly they can cope with large volumes of mainly regular peak hour passengers.
On longer distance routes the case is doubtful. It has disadvantages. Firstly the numbers of regular travellers are far fewer. Most passengers are making a once or twice a year journey. Many are unfamiliar with the railway and carry more luggage. A physical barrier is unwelcome and difficult to negotiate. Some are intimidated. The elderly and families with small children find accessing platforms much more difficult. Overall added time has to be allowed to get to and from the train. End to end journey times are extended reducing the competitiveness of rail. Print at home ticketing is made more difficult when it needs to be encouraged. At many locations toilets and cafeterias will be barred to station users. “Meeters and greeters” will be allowed inside the barriers at the discretion of a member of staff – a recipe for confrontation if ever there was one. Retail revenues will suffer. 
Go to Hannover, Cologne or Dusseldorf and marvel at what the Germans do. There you will see stations that are bustling thoroughfares, connecting districts of cities divided by the tracks whilst offering easy access to all parts of the public transport system. They are magnets for entire urban populations which are brought into daily contact with the railways. What a marketing tool!
Then go to Sheffield and York and see what similar opportunities our long distance operators will destroy.
One must hope that the Planning Committees of York and Newcastle won’t be taken in and if they are that English Heritage intervenes.

This article appeared in Transit Magazine edition No.359 on 3rd April 2009.