New Railway Byelaws - "electronic cigarettes" purportedly banned

[soil]

The Railway Byelaws Amendment Order 2025

This Order amends the Railway Byelaws which were made by the Strategic Rail Authority in 2005 under section 219 of and Schedule 20 to the Transport Act 2000.

www.legislation.gov.uk

This consists of:
a) a series of bizarre and legally unnecessary find/replace changing "he/him" to "they/them"
b) a ban on "electronic cigarettes or other like device", which appears to be ultra vires the primary legislation which says "(c)prohibiting or restricting the smoking of tobacco in railway carriages and elsewhere," - electronic cigarettes are not tobacco, typically.
c) minor changes to parking rules
d) changing this piece of sloppy drafting

(1) Offence and level of fines
Any person who breaches any of these Byelaws commits an offence and, with the exception of Byelaw 17, may be liable for each such offence to a penalty not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

so that penalty is replaced with fine, which again isn't really necessary but they've done it anyway.

So basically currently vapes are not covered by the byelaws, but from 26 December they are (albeit that IMO this is not valid, and the primary legislation should be amended, probably via the Tobacco and Vapes Bill).

 

[Watershed]

The parking amendments appear to have the intention of making railway land no longer subject to "statutory control".

That means that the Schedule 4 provisions under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 now apply - i.e. registered keepers will be able to be held liable for contractual parking charges (aka PCNs).

At the moment Schedule 4 doesn't apply as railway land is under statutory control via the Byelaws. So only the "owner" of a vehicle can be held liable based on the wording the Byelaws - and as there is no national database of car owners (the registered keeper won't be the owner if it's a leased car, for example) there are several ways that liability can be avoided.

So it's not a change I agree with - it also allows vehicles to be removed simply to allow for the "efficient" running of the railways, regardless of whether they are properly parked or not. But it's at least somewhat understandable.

It's much more disappointing that the DfT haven't taken this chance to restore Byelaw 18 to the list of offences for which there is no fine. Byelaws 18 was sneakily removed from that list when the Byelaws were changed in 2005, despite this ostensibly only being a "consolidating" exercise.

If the DfT restored the pre-2005 position, a large proportion of the current sharp practices by TOCs - accusing people who have simply misunderstood their ticket validity, or accidentally jumped on an earlier delayed train on an Advance etc. - would disappear at a stroke. It just goes to show where the DfT's priorities lie...

 

[Kite159]

Banning someone from vaping is one thing. Being able to enforce the ban with punishment is another thing. Especially with kids

 

[Gaelan]

a) a series of bizarre and legally unnecessary find/replace changing "he/him" to "they/them"

Bizarre how?

 

[johnjdc]

Legally unnecessary as there was already a law passed in 1978 to say that laws written in reference to the masculine or feminine gender are applicable to all persons unless they specifically say otherwise. Not sure if that counts as bizarre but it's probably busywork.

 

[soil]

Bizarre how?

Because it was unnecessary.

Prior to 2007 it was customary to use "he" in legislation, and that is (as per the Interpretation Act 1978) also read to mean "she".

That was changed by Jack Straw, so if you were passing new byelaws today you would use "they" and "them" or "a person". However, this is purely an amending set of regulations, where they've got two substantive changes, parking and vapes, and for some reason have decided to go in and change other things that didn't need changing.

It's usual to track changes to legislation (the Byelaws are not currently on Legislation.gov.uk, but the 2011, 2013 and 2025 amending orders are, and in due course I'd expect the byelaws themselves to be published ), so you will have a bunch of unnecessary changes noted, which are entirely for stylistic reasons and will both give the false impression of change where there is none, and which require civil servants to spend time adding footnotes for all the changes.

 

[Krokodil]

It's much more disappointing that the DfT haven't taken this chance to restore Byelaw 18 to the list of offences for which there is no fine. Byelaws 18 was sneakily removed from that list when the Byelaws were changed in 2005, despite this ostensibly only being a "consolidating" exercise.

What were the changes?

Banning someone from vaping is one thing. Being able to enforce the ban with punishment is another thing. Especially with kids

At least having a rule that can be enforced is a start though. Anything to cut down on this antisocial activity.

 

[Watershed]

What were the changes?

Initially after privatisation, each train company and infrastructure owner had its own set of Byelaws - generally copied from the old BRB Byelaws. These were consolidated back into one set of National Rail Byelaws in 2005. That in itself was a sensible change.

But where Byelaws 17 and 18 were previously both offences for which there was no penalty (i.e. the only penalty under the Byelaws was that you could be removed from the railway), the wording was changed so that Byelaw 18 now became an offence you could be fined for.

That made it worthwhile for TOCs to start prosecuting Byelaws 18 offences en-masse. The underhanded part is that the opportunity was taken to sneakily introduce this change under the guise of "consolidation"/simplification.

At least having a rule that can be enforced is a start though. Anything to cut down on this antisocial activity.

Agreed.

 

[styles]

The Railway Byelaws Amendment Order 2025

This Order amends the Railway Byelaws which were made by the Strategic Rail Authority in 2005 under section 219 of and Schedule 20 to the Transport Act 2000.

www.legislation.gov.uk

This consists of:
a) a series of bizarre and legally unnecessary find/replace changing "he/him" to "they/them"

Hardly bizarre. There's recognition that gender neutral language makes more sense than having all laws written as he/him. They're updating the legislation anyway, so for a tiny bit of extra effort they can do a little tidying. Hardly bizarre.

b) a ban on "electronic cigarettes or other like device", which appears to be ultra vires the primary legislation which says "(c)prohibiting or restricting the smoking of tobacco in railway carriages and elsewhere," - electronic cigarettes are not tobacco, typically.

That's not what ultra vires means. The current smoking and tobacco legislation doesn't prohibit people from also banning e-cigs. If the legislation did prohibit such a ban then yes it wouldn't be valid, but there isn't, so it's fine. In the same way there isn't legislation prohibiting the banning of cycling on private land (bar the 'right to roam in Scotland which wouldn't cover railway stations anyway), but the railways do that.

c) minor changes to parking rules

I haven't read them, so can't really comment on this.

d) changing this piece of sloppy drafting

(1) Offence and level of fines
Any person who breaches any of these Byelaws commits an offence and, with the exception of Byelaw 17, may be liable for each such offence to a penalty not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

so that penalty is replaced with fine, which again isn't really necessary but they've done it anyway.

The footnotes explain why they've done this - to make clear that it is a criminal penalty, not a contractual one.

So basically currently vapes are not covered by the byelaws, but from 26 December they are (albeit that IMO this is not valid, and the primary legislation should be amended, probably via the Tobacco and Vapes Bill).

That would have the effect of banning vapes in the venues where tobacco smoking is banned. At the moment it is up to premises owners to decide if they want to ban vapes, and many workplaces and pubs do just that. Now the railways are also making it enforceable. Even if the tobacco bill was revoked entirely, the railway would still be able to enforce a no smoking bylaw.

 

[Starmill]

At least having a rule that can be enforced is a start though. Anything to cut down on this antisocial activity.

Hypothetically it was already the policy among train companies that smoking and vaping were not permitted anyway, regardless of the Bylaws making tobacco smoking an offence. Of course it's basically impossible to enforce that via refusing someone travel, which was the only option previously if they weren't technically committing the offence. Now the train companies will be able to argue that vaping is an offence, which may shift the needle in terms of being able to post notices to that effect, although the current notices seem to achieve absolutely nothing anyway.

I hope it will improve behaviour too. However...

 

[Krokodil]

Hypothetically it was already the policy among train companies that smoking and vaping were not permitted anyway, regardless of the Bylaws making tobacco smoking an offence. Of course it's basically impossible to enforce that via refusing someone travel, which was the only option previously if they weren't technically committing the offence. Now the train companies will be able to argue that vaping is an offence, which may shift the needle in terms of being able to post notices to that effect, although the current notices seem to achieve absolutely nothing anyway.

Having something in writing helps with certain individuals. I (as a uniformed member of staff) asked someone to put some headphones in a few weeks ago and he went from 0-60 in two seconds, "where's the sign", etc. I did point out to him the relevant byelaw though he was still ranting at the station staff as he left.

 

[styles]

Having something in writing helps with certain individuals. I (as a uniformed member of staff) asked someone to put some headphones in a few weeks ago and he went from 0-60 in two seconds, "where's the sign", etc. I did point out to him the relevant byelaw though he was still ranting at the station staff as he left.

Ridiculous that people behave in this way. Even if there wasn't a bylaw or an operator policy, not playing music on loudspeaker is just basic civility. Kicking off when asked to turn it down or put headphones on is just a strange level of entitlement.

 

[greatkingrat]

b) a ban on "electronic cigarettes or other like device", which appears to be ultra vires the primary legislation which says "(c)prohibiting or restricting the smoking of tobacco in railway carriages and elsewhere," - electronic cigarettes are not tobacco, typically.

I think you are looking at section 219 of the Transport Act 2000, which is no longer in force. The correct legislation is section 46 of the Railways Act 2005.

This says:
Those bye-laws may include, in particular—
(d)bye-laws prohibiting or restricting smoking in railway carriages and elsewhere;
(e)bye-laws for the prevention of nuisance;

It now just refers to "smoking" with no mention of tobacco, so this could cover e-cigarettes. You could probably justify it under "prevention of nuisance" as well.

 

[soil]

I think you are looking at section 219 of the Transport Act 2000, which is no longer in force. The correct legislation is section 46 of the Railways Act 2005.

This says:
Those bye-laws may include, in particular—
(d)bye-laws prohibiting or restricting smoking in railway carriages and elsewhere;
(e)bye-laws for the prevention of nuisance;

It now just refers to "smoking" with no mention of tobacco, so this could cover e-cigarettes. You could probably justify it under "prevention of nuisance" as well.

The Tobacco and Vapes Bill will modify the Health Act 2006 (which created the smoking ban) to allow smoke-free places to also be designated as "vape-free", and also as "heated tobacco-free", and an offence to vape in a no vaping area.

"Smoking" clearly therefore does not encompass vaping.

Given that there are signs up on the railways, generally, about not "smoking", it seems a bit off to redefine "no smoking" and to criminalise vaping on the railways only, without I'm sure any proper publicity about the change, and certainly no attempt to align the change with the national one.

 

[Krokodil]

Ridiculous that people behave in this way. Even if there wasn't a bylaw or an operator policy, not playing music on loudspeaker is just basic civility. Kicking off when asked to turn it down or put headphones on is just a strange level of entitlement.

In this case he was using Youtube Kids as a babysitter. The worst kick-offs I've had when asking someone to be considerate have been parents.

Given that there are signs up on the railways, generally, about not "smoking", it seems a bit off to redefine "no smoking" and to criminalise vaping on the railways only, without I'm sure any proper publicity about the change, and certainly no attempt to align the change with the national one.

197 auto-announcements were recorded as "smoking or vaping..." from day 1, and many signs now in use have both a cigarette and a vape in the crossed red circle. Besides, only an anti-social moron would cause such emissions in a confined space. Sadly people of that description make up a decent chunk of the population.

 

[soil]

Besides, only an anti-social moron would cause such emissions in a confined space.

Aren't many of the signs on uncovered platforms?

 

[island]

I think you are looking at section 219 of the Transport Act 2000, which is no longer in force. The correct legislation is section 46 of the Railways Act 2005.

This says:
Those bye-laws may include, in particular—
(d)bye-laws prohibiting or restricting smoking in railway carriages and elsewhere;
(e)bye-laws for the prevention of nuisance;

It now just refers to "smoking" with no mention of tobacco, so this could cover e-cigarettes. You could probably justify it under "prevention of nuisance" as well.

The section about what the bye-laws "may include in particular" does not exclude things not listed.

 

[Krokodil]

Aren't many of the signs on uncovered platforms?

A significant number of vapers do it on trains

 

[Starmill]

The signs in Sainsbury's used to make me smile. They said something like "It is against the law to smoke in this shop. It is Sainsbury's policy that vaping is forbidden." which is of course exactly what the position has been on trains too for many years.

 

[saismee]

A significant number of vapers do it on trains

I've seen it in busy (borderline dangerously overcrowded) station buildings before.

 

[BazingaTribe]

Having something in writing helps with certain individuals. I (as a uniformed member of staff) asked someone to put some headphones in a few weeks ago and he went from 0-60 in two seconds, "where's the sign", etc. I did point out to him the relevant byelaw though he was still ranting at the station staff as he left.

Just come back from Germany and the Belgian trains to and from the Eurostar had signs up asking people to use headphones. Didn't see or hear anyone who wasn't using them, but it was definitely part of the polite notices they had up.

 

[notmyrealname]

I once got some French people told off by a TGV ticket inspector for using a mobile phone in a 'quiet' carriage. They told me that the picture of a phone with its eyes shut didn't mean they couldn't use the phone because there was no diagonal red line through the picture. They really weren't happy with me because I wasn't even French, lol.

I imagine Quiet also means no music these days.

 

[AlterEgo]

I once got some French people told off by a TGV ticket inspector for using a mobile phone in a 'quiet' carriage. They told me that the picture of a phone with its eyes shut didn't mean they couldn't use the phone because there was no diagonal red line through the picture. They really weren't happy with me because I wasn't even French, lol.

I imagine Quiet also means no music these days.

You can't play music out loud on the trains here anyway, regardless of where you are. It has been a Bylaw 7 offence for years.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So it's not a change I agree with - it also allows vehicles to be removed simply to allow for the "efficient" running of the railways, regardless of whether they are properly parked or not.

This is presumably to allow for things like vehicles left in place which need to be removed to allow car parks to be used for building works, rail replacement etc where the driver has parked them despite warnings that areas of the car park would be out of use?

 

[Fawkes Cat]

This is presumably to allow for things like vehicles left in place which need to be removed to allow car parks to be used for building works, rail replacement etc where the driver has parked them despite warnings that areas of the car park would be out of use?

I was thinking of someone who might have legitimately parked up for a weekend away only for works of the type you suggest to start on (maybe) the Sunday.

Whatever, it's entirely possible for a parked car to be fine when it was parked but not when it's still parked.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I was thinking of someone who might have legitimately parked up for a weekend away only for works of the type you suggest to start on (maybe) the Sunday.

Whatever, it's entirely possible for a parked car to be fine when it was parked but not when it's still parked.

The classic example of double yellow lines painted around a car spring to mind

Presumably the intention is not to punish any driver who parked legitimately but for an extended period without being aware of planned works but simply provide for a legal means to relocate the vehicle safely using an appropriate means if it has been parked when works were planned. I can see why this is needed, and like many provisions of this kind I expect it will be used very sparingly.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The parking amendments appear to have the intention of making railway land no longer subject to "statutory control".

That means that the Schedule 4 provisions under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 now apply - i.e. registered keepers will be able to be held liable for contractual parking charges (aka PCNs).

That is a good thing. If a car park is under statutory control then the operator of the car park can clamp a vehicle.

There was a consumer article in The Guardian a few weeks ago about Nottingham Tramlink clamping cars because their land is under statutory control. £140 release fee, compared to a usual PCN of £50. Not subject to the usual appeals procedures either. The government's guidance is that they shouldn't behave like this. But they do because they can.

So bringing the railway car parks under the Protection of Freedoms Act is overall a win, as it means they can no longer clamp vehicles. Hopefully the Government force the others down the same route.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Dec 2025 ==

So basically currently vapes are not covered by the byelaws, but from 26 December they are (albeit that IMO this is not valid, and the primary legislation should be amended, probably via the Tobacco and Vapes Bill).

It is perfectly valid.

The Byelaws can ban things on the relevant land that are otherwise lawful, and vaping is an example of that. It isn't unlawful and it isn't ultra vires to ban vaping on railway land.

If the railways wanted to specifically ban playing the kazoo whilst riding a unicycle they could.

 

[soil]

It is perfectly valid.

The Byelaws can ban things on the relevant land that are otherwise lawful, and vaping is an example of that. It isn't unlawful and it isn't ultra vires to ban vaping on railway land.

If the railways wanted to specifically ban playing the kazoo whilst riding a unicycle they could.

The byelaws are subject to a reasonableness test and must be within the powers in the enabling act.

It is therefore not in fact possible for them to make arbitrary bans on the basis that it's "r land", particularly given that this creates a criminal offence.

The Act allows the railways to ban "smoking". Vaping is not smoking.

The principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius applies, which suggests that the ban is ultra vires, given that the Act expressly permits railways to regulate smoking, and not "smoking and vaping".

In addition, the idea that this vaping falls within general "nuisance", is weak, because the Byelaw is expressly regulating (banning) "smoking" - it's being asserted that vaping is smoking, which it very clearly is not, and moreover vapes are not "electronic cigarettes" - they are nicotine delivery devices with fruity flavours and many people have never smoked but do "vape".

 

[Fawkes Cat]

In addition, the idea that this vaping falls within general "nuisance", is weak, because the Byelaw is expressly regulating (banning) "smoking" - it's being asserted that vaping is smoking, which it very clearly is not, and moreover vapes are not "electronic cigarettes" - they are nicotine delivery devices with fruity flavours and many people have never smoked but do "vape".

Have these points been tested in court - either at a level that sets precedent, or sufficiently often to show that lower courts share your view?

 

[Tetchytyke]

In addition, the idea that this vaping falls within general "nuisance", is weak, because the Byelaw is expressly regulating (banning) "smoking" - it's being asserted that vaping is smoking, which it very clearly is not, and moreover vapes are not "electronic cigarettes" - they are nicotine delivery devices with fruity flavours and many people have never smoked but do "vape".

Vapes do not contain tobacco therefore they don't fall under the laws from pre-vaping which related specifically to the use of devices which heat tobacco. Whilst vapes heat the liquid, it is not a tobacco liquid. This is why they're not subject to the current smoking ban as set out in the Health Act 2006.

As you say, vaping is not smoking. But the prohibition of smoking is not the only reason why a Byelaw may be issued.

Vaping very clearly is a nuisance- it is annoying, it causes inconvenience to others, and there is growing evidence that it causes harm to others too.