Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Sometimes it's easier to just have a rule that covers all areas, rather than have multiple of exceptions for a million different scenarios and locations.
I believe that is legal, and that it's (technically) illegal to sell to sell alcohol to someone who's drunk. Technically of course, as otherwise all supermarket and pub staff would have been prosecuted. The other way around, pretty much everyone in the country would have too.
I can understand the reason for dry trains in certain circumstances (the football trains mentioned upthread!) but it does seem a bit OTT to have a blanket ban. Especially at a time when passengers are being encouraged to return to the railway. Part of the reason people travel by train rather than drive is so they can indulge in a few drinks.
I agree as well - the blanket ban is a bit OTT but I wouldn't let it completely change my plans so I can take LNER, XC or the car. Extortiate ticket prices and the HST/170/158 lottery already do that well enough!
Licenced premises won't serve you if you're drunk.
Really?
No, pre-covid we had that. Dry trains for sports events worked for years.
They didn't did they
That's called the Scottish Government.
Which makes a mockery of having hard and fast rules.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
What hard and fast rule? Don't come on the train still drinking if you are pissed. You can take drink on the train, you can be drunk before getting on. It's not hard is it really.
I believe that is legal, and that it's (technically) illegal to sell to sell alcohol to someone who's drunk. Technically of course, as otherwise all supermarket and pub staff would have been prosecuted. The other way around, pretty much everyone in the country would have too.
You can be prosecuted for being drunk in a public place. Of course like every rule it's it's at the discretion and common sense of who's enforcing it.
Jobsworths are the extreme who'd crack down on every minute little detail and enjoy ruining others day(generally a lone passenger that won't put up a fight).
Then there is the coward who'll hide away, say nothing and let all hell break loose and leave the passenger to deal with it when it'd be better to deal with it earlier.
The best staff use common sense and will not confiscate your Christmas shopping.
I do wonder when the question '' How do you react to a situation'' some public facing staff may have lied on their answer.
Most places sell alcohol to make profit. Scotrail seem to have forgotten they are actually a business that needs to make money.
Equality, diversity and policies like this are far more important. Seems to be the Scottish government pushing this to all it's quangos and arms length organisations.
Also funny that Scotrail were constantly pushing the green agenda for months and as soon as COP26 was over it was dropped like a hot potato
Concentrating on running the rail service and making money should be their core function.
Most places sell alcohol to make profit. Scotrail seem to have forgotten they are actually a business that needs to make money.
Equality, diversity and policies like this are far more important. Seems to be the Scottish government pushing this to all it's quangos and arms length organisations.
Also funny that Scotrail were constantly pushing the green agenda for months and as soon as COP26 was over it was dropped like a hot potato
Concentrating on running the rail service and making money should be their core function.
Have absolutely no comprehension on what this has to do with the topic.
Scotrail are there to run trains not profit from alcohol, although they will be a beneficiary for those who want to drink and not drive. Also by considering the majority of passengers, banning drunk people drinking more is sensible as it provides a better environment and will encourage more timid members of public to travel.
Which makes a mockery of having hard and fast rules.
What hard and fast rule? Don't come on the train still drinking if you are pissed. You can take drink on the train, you can be drunk before getting on. It's not hard is it really.
The hard no consumption of booze on ScotRail rule. There's no exemptions. That's a pretty hard rule.
The implementation of it and discretion is a completely different matter.
Ask a licencee that. Like one of my relations was for more than 20 years.
Plenty times folk have been told you've had enough, away home.
They didn't what? Exist, or work?
They definitely existed.
The hard no consumption of booze on ScotRail rule. There's no exemptions. That's a pretty hard rule. The implementation of it and discretion is a completely different matter.
As you've been told umpteen times their isn't a hard rule it's discretion. If it was you would not be allowed any alcohol on trains which included your shopping
You telling me not one drunk person was served by your relation in 20 years, you realise three pints or more could be considered drunk?
Dry trains didn't prevent supporters being pissed and causing trouble they might have eased it but they just went by coach instead.
Law abiding people don't want to rely on discretion - i.e. staff being prepared to ignore a rule though. The rule should only kick in when people are drunk/causing trouble
If a passenger had a contract to travel and was not given reasonable notice of any alcohol restriction, I don't see how a train company could refuse to allow the passenger to take home their shopping provided they were within the luggage limits (unless the train company made alternative arrangements for the luggage to be conveyed/delivered)
I don't know if such an incident has occurred and been tested in court, but you so need to bear in mind that train companies don't always take into account all areas of law and can get themselves into hot water when they refuse to apply common sense and take into account the big picture.
I have seen bag searches carried out at Manchester Piccadilly before boarding the 2143 Saturday service to Stoke-on-Trent. The information on the Northern website does suggest that this is commonly done:
The following services are designated dry trains:
Saturdays:
19:44 - Whitby – Middlesbrough (March – October)
19:23 - Newcastle – Carlisle (all year)
21:25 - Newcastle – Carlisle (all year)
19:09 - Carlisle – Whitehaven (all year)
20:00 - Carlisle – Whitehaven (all year)
21:06 - Carlisle – Whitehaven (all year)
21:49 - Carlisle – Whitehaven (all year)
21:43 - Manchester Piccadilly to Stoke-on-Trent (November – December).
We also reserve the right to operate the last services on those routes as dry services on Bank Holiday Sundays too.
If a passenger had a contract to travel and was not given reasonable notice of any alcohol restriction, I don't see how a train company could refuse to allow the passenger to take home their shopping provided they were within the luggage limits (unless the train company made alternative arrangements for the luggage to be conveyed/delivered)
You won’t necessarily be given any notice. Ultimately the railway is private property and having a contract to travel doesn’t trump railway bylaws, or the criminal law. If a member of staff asks you to leave railway premises, and you refuse to do so, you will be committing a criminal offence (you could of course bring a claim for breach of contract at a later date if you so wished).
Pre Covid passengers turning up to board designated dry trains were given a straight choice between throwing away their alcohol (including closed containers) or not travelling, enforced by the BTP.
I don’t personally agree with blanket bans, and of course this kind of heavy handed enforcement should be kept to a minimum, but I certainly wouldn’t advise arguing the toss and insisting on carrying alcohol simply on the basis that you have a ticket!
Law abiding people don't want to rely on discretion - i.e. staff being prepared to ignore a rule though. The rule should only kick in when people are drunk/causing trouble
The rule as it is means someone who necked a bottle of vodka in their home before going to the train and will potentially be drunk and disruptive on board isn't covered, yet the hardworking commuter who is having a small can of craft beer on their way home would be falling foul of it.
The rule is aimed at the former, but - when used to the letter - would only be implemented on the latter.
I don’t know Merseyrail but, looking at LU which has a similar ban, some of the journeys can be quite long, but a significant number of passengers will be on the network for only a few minutes. As such, are the anti social behaviour issues really caused by on board drinking, or do they stem from people entering the network already leathered/coked up/spiced up etc.? In which case they could (and should) be denied access to the network under existing bylaws. If enforcement is as lax as it is on LU the “ban” is a paper tiger anyway!
Outside of specific football trains, I simply can’t agree with bans of this type. It strikes me as to be restricting legitimate behaviour for the sake of a few bad apples.
If a passenger had a contract to travel and was not given reasonable notice of any alcohol restriction, I don't see how a train company could refuse to allow the passenger to take home their shopping provided they were within the luggage limits (unless the train company made alternative arrangements for the luggage to be conveyed/delivered)
I don't know if such an incident has occurred and been tested in court, but you so need to bear in mind that train companies don't always take into account all areas of law and can get themselves into hot water when they refuse to apply common sense and take into account the big picture.
As I said earlier you aren't getting your shopping searched and confiscated and you aren't being stopped travelling after you've been to the pub and as some here have said you aren't being stopped for having a small drink.
The idea is to stop someone piling on drunk with more beer who's gonna get worse. then they have the power of using the ban. Its seem it's a rule that is used with discretion and not to the exact letter.
There are a few posters here who think it means alcohol in all forms is banned from a Scotrail train even if you've consumed a bit earlier on for all sorts of reasons.
It's like the smoking ban its only enforced where it harms and bothers others. Nobody is scrolling CCTV to send an officer out to an unmanned station in the middle of nowhere if you are having a fag in the carpark.
Now here me out as you obviously have strong views on this! If I have the choice between paying £50 - £75 for an off peak return to take me away for the weekend (Let's say out Friday evening back Sunday) or driving, driving will probably win on cost grounds. However if I take the train I can have a couple of drinks after a hard day in the office on the Friday, chill out, and I can do the same on the way home. If I can't drink on the train at all, I might be swayed into driving.
Now here me out as you obviously have strong views on this! If I have the choice between paying £50 - £75 for an off peak return to take me away for the weekend (Let's say out Friday evening back Sunday) or driving, driving will probably win on cost grounds. However if I take the train I can have a couple of drinks after a hard day in the office on the Friday, chill out, and I can do the same on the way home. If I can't drink on the train at all, I might be swayed into driving.
Thats not whats it's about though, doing that will likely result in a blind eye being turned, it's specifically aimed at trouble and using a rule to prevent it escalating, where the rule doesn't exist it makes staffs work harder.
Surely you know the difference in taking off a paralytic drunks beer off him and giving him a chance to sober up on the way home or groups knowing the rule then topping up on the train possibly leading to aggro as they get more drunk and loud.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
It's not going to happen to everyday passengers going about their day which included a bag with majestic wine written on it.
If an officer or security guard has the power of a booze ban then when someone drunk and in danger to themselves or others and will get worse if they drink more then a check of their shopping may happen, just like if underage drinkers are caught in a park it's poured down the drain
The rule as it is means someone who necked a bottle of vodka in their home before going to the train and will potentially be drunk and disruptive on board isn't covered, yet the hardworking commuter who is having a small can of craft beer on their way home would be falling foul of it.
The rule is aimed at the former, but - when used to the letter - would only be implemented on the latter.
Thats not whats it's about though, doing that will likely result in a blind eye being turned, it's specifically aimed at trouble and using a rule to prevent it escalating, where the rule doesn't exist it makes staffs work harder.
Surely you know the difference in taking off a paralytic drunks beer off him and giving him a chance to sober up on the way home or groups knowing the rule then topping up on the train possibly leading to aggro as they get more drunk and loud.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
It's not going to happen to everyday passengers going about their day which included a bag with majestic wine written on it.
If an officer or security guard has the power of a booze ban then when someone drunk and in danger to themselves or others and will get worse if they drink more then a check of their shopping may happen, just like if underage drinkers are caught in a park it's poured down the drain
As someone who holds a Personal License for sale of alcohol and who has worked in the night club industry I'm well aware of how differing groups or people react to alcohol.
My point was simply that someone deciding that an alcohol ban on the train means they'll drive doesn't have to point to the fact they have a problem with alcohol.
As someone who holds a Personal License for sale of alcohol and who has worked in the night club industry I'm well aware of how differing groups or people react to alcohol.
My point was simply that someone deciding that an alcohol ban on the train means they'll drive doesn't have to point to the fact they have a problem with alcohol.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
