My friend M. down at the station thinks this has been in the offing for years, “We’re closing,” he said in a resigned way when the news first came out, though he has since become more defiant. His impression was that the Government is moving to implement a long-held ambition (and it does seem to be the Government, the Department for Transport, which wants this change, rather than the railway companies).
And the scale of the proposed cuts is breath-taking: they want to leave only a handful of ticket offices in the larger stations. It is Beeching all over again. Only 12% of tickets are sold by ticket clerks, goes the claim, and so at my local station and thousands of others ‘it is proposed that all ticket office windows […] will close, with staff moving to other areas of the station, where there is customer demand’.
This slippery language makes my blood boil. Customer demand is directed precisely to the ticket office, the accepted place for buying tickets and obtaining information. This is decline, but worse than decline; decline with a smirk on its face, the brazen cheek to speak of a ‘change’ to the ticket office when what is intended is its outright elimination. So might Henry VIII have spoken of his ‘change’ to the monasteries, or Brutus of his ‘change’ to Caesar’s abdomen.
The difficulties of financing the railways are not trivial. Passenger numbers are currently somewhere between 94–100% of pre-pandemic figures, but, because the recovery has been stronger in cheaper off-peak leisure travel than in the traditional backbone of passenger railways’ finances, namely commuter traffic, overall revenue is not. Even so, the answer is surely to grow that revenue, not, as here, to cut off streams of revenue merely because they seem to be less efficient.
But a broader point is to be made beyond the merely financial. One of the great strengths of the railways is that they are able to say to the passenger, ‘We can look after you’. The network is complicated; ticketing as presently arranged is confusing; plenty of people lack confidence in travelling. The ticket clerk can offer passengers something intangible yet incredibly valuable — peace of mind. And this extends to the atmosphere of the station — the sense of emptiness and alienation resulting from the decline, in recent decades and across all sorts of public realms, of staff ‘keeping a general eye on things’ should already have taught us this lesson.
 |
| The 0927 to Horsham draws into Ockley station in Surrey, 14th May 2018. |
This development is poor reward for the sterling work M. and his colleagues have done over the years. He told me yesterday that he isn’t interested in standing about in the wind and the rain; it isn’t worth risking his health and he will probably give up if the plans go ahead. Another friendly face lost, and we will all be the poorer for it.
What does give me a degree of hope is that the response to the consultation — which which can be answered here until Friday 1st September — seems to have been pretty robust. Let’s hope it is enough to persuade the Department for Transport to change its mind. Here is my own response:
Dear Sir / Madam,
I am writing in answer to the consultation on the proposed general closure of railway station ticket offices. I am afraid I must express my strong opposition to these plans. Of the many reasons for my opposition, I would like to emphasise three in particular.
The first is that this decision, if implemented, will result in discrimination against passengers unable to buy tickets via machine or online. Not everybody owns a computer or smartphone; not everybody has Internet access; not everybody is able to use a ticket machine. We would not withdraw assistance for disabled passengers on the grounds that only a minority uses a wheelchair; surely the same logic applies here.
The second is that the decision is simply impractical. I cannot see how it would be easier, let alone more economical, to sell tickets in ‘other areas of the station’ as the consultation poster puts it — anywhere other than in a ticket office. How would cash be handled? How would tickets be printed? How could anything work in bad weather? Has the safety of railway staff been taken into account? The current proposals leave the practicalities entirely unexplained.
The third reason has to do with the common good. One tremendous advantage of the railways is that they can undertake to look after their passengers, including those less confident in travelling. The railway can say, ‘We can look after you.’ The reassuring and knowledgeable presence of the ticket clerk, in an accepted location, is a vital part of this. It seems unbelievable that this should be dismissed so lightly. Removing ticket offices will make the station environment far less welcoming, lower the confidence of travellers, and ultimately harm the railway’s prospects.
I am a strong supporter of the railways and use them more or less daily both for work and leisure. I understand that growth in revenue is an urgent priority and am sympathetic to the railways’ efforts to balance the books. However, I am astonished and dismayed by the severity of these proposals, which risk doing deep and lasting damage. Other measures, such as increasing ticket inspections, should be tried first (on the Sutton loop in south London, in spite of travelling more or less daily, I have had my ticket checked only once in the past two years). Indeed, the railways should be making ticket offices more efficient by expanding the number of services they offer, such as by equipping them to sell advance fares, which are currently only available online.
I would be grateful if you would pass these points on to Govia Thameslink Railway and to urge them in the strongest terms to reconsider their plans.
Yours faithfully, &c.
Updated 26th July 2023 in the light of the extension of the consultation deadline from 26th July to 1st September.
