Fare evasion on tram networks: A growing challenge or a structural issue?
Fare evasion is a longstanding challenge across the entire spectrum of public transport, but not all networks are created equal. Research shows that the tram network often records significantly higher rates of fare evasion than rail.
As the rail industry moves toward public ownership, we believe there is a real opportunity to drive greater integration and bring more consistency to revenue protection across the UK transport network. But there are some significant challenges to overcome.
Hiding in plain sight
According to statistics from London Assembly Transport Committee, currently, fare evasion across London’s transport network alone sits at around 3.5% of all journeys, which equates to roughly £130 million in lost revenue each year.
But this figure masks a more complex situation.
When broken down by mode of transport, tram fare evasion has reached as high as 7.8%, while the Docklands Light Railway, which is a largely open, hybrid system with some gated stations, sits at approximately 5.4%. In comparison, the London Underground, which operates a fully gated, barrier-controlled network, averages closer to 4.8%.
In other words, tram fare evasion can be nearly double the network average.
And this trend is not unique to London. In Greater Manchester, fare evasion on Metrolink exceeded 16% in mid-2023 before targeted enforcement brought it down to 8.6%.
So, why are trams different?
We believe the answer to this question lies in system design.
Most tram networks in the UK operate as open systems, meaning there are no physical barriers at stops and passengers are expected to validate tickets through a proof-of-payment model. Enforcement is typically carried out through random inspections rather than continuous control.
By contrast, heavy rail networks tend to rely on gated entry points, which increase both the perceived and actual likelihood of tickets being checked. This creates a more controlled environment where compliance is structurally reinforced.
As a result, on tram systems the decision to pay can become a risk-based calculation, shaped by how likely passengers believe they are to face a ticket inspection. Where enforcement is infrequent or not visible, fare evasion becomes easier and, in some cases, normalised.
Harder to police, or just policed differently?
It would be easy to conclude that the reason ticket fraud is so much higher is that tram systems are harder to police. We believe the reality is more nuanced.
The open design nature of light rail networks makes them more complex to police. With multiple access points and no single point of control, enforcement becomes more resource-dependent, relying on human inspection teams, rather than fixed infrastructure. At the same time, factors such as short journey lengths, high passenger turnover, and variable crowding can reduce the effectiveness of inspection-led approaches.
This means that, traditional enforcement approaches, which work well in gated environments, tend to be less effective on the tram network.
However, where tram operators have invested in more targeted, data-led approaches, the impact has been clear. In Manchester, increasing inspection activity to around five million checks per year, alongside expanding frontline teams, has led to a significant reduction in fare evasion.
This suggests that tram systems are not inherently unmanageable, but they do require a different, more adaptive approach to the rail network.
The wider impact of fare evasion on the tram network
Fare evasion is often framed as a financial issue, but its impact is much broader. Ultimately, it reduces the ability to reinvest in services and infrastructure across the network, creates inconsistency for passengers, and undermines perceptions of fairness.
There is also a clear link to frontline experience, with fare disputes contributing to a significant number of incidents involving staff.
Perhaps most importantly, it affects passenger behaviour. When people believe that others are not paying, compliance begins to break down.
Network ownership challenges
While the rail industry is moving towards renationalisation, the situation with the tram network is more complex. Most tram networks are already under local government or Mayoral control, operated at a regional level.
As a result, there is no single, joined up revenue protection approach, which makes it very difficult to adopt a consistent RP strategy or capture best practice across the tram network.
A once-in-a-generation opportunity
We believe that the rail industry moving toward public ownership creates an opportunity to rethink revenue protection across all transport networks.
For tram operators, this means moving beyond reactive enforcement and towards more proactive, data-driven strategies. It also means improving consistency between rail and light rail systems and using better insight to utilise human resources where they can have the greatest impact.
At Raspberry Software, we bring over 20 years of experience in revenue protection and rail data intelligence to transport operators. Our focus is on turning fragmented, often underused data into actionable insight, which in turn supports more targeted enforcement, improved collaboration between operators, and more consistent decision-making across networks.
While evidence suggests that fare evasion is higher on trams than on other transport networks, the real challenge lies in system design, data visibility, and enforcement models that have not evolved at the same pace as the networks themselves.
Tackling this will require a shift in approach, one that reflects the realities of open networks, rather than relying on models designed for closed ones. We believe there is much that other transport network operators can learn from the process the rail industry is currently undergoing. Increasing best practice sharing between operators and using data more effectively will help create more consistent and robust revenue protection approaches. This is explored further in our latest whitepaper, which you can download here.
