CrossCountry charging tickets for luggage on seats

[superalbs]

And indeed on my last TGV journey, I was given a strap for my suitcase. IIRC it is only required for luggage in the area at the front/end of the coach, not overhead.

It's not required for luggage "within reach", whatever that means.

 

[CharlieSpotted]

I do it to send a signal that I don't want to be sat next to, so you can choose any of the other available seats.

I thank you for "saying the quiet part out loud" but it's this that's the problem... when did it become ok to, on public transport, say "I don't want another member of the public to sit next to me" ?

Of course you might prefer that they didn't, but it's part of the deal of getting on a train or bus, isn't it?

If you didn't want anyone sitting next to you maybe you should be in your own private car. Although, of course, single occupancy in cars is also something we really ought to be discouraging, especially in the cities.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's not required for luggage "within reach", whatever that means.

Given that it's about knowing whose it is (either to see if it's abandoned as a potential terror risk, or if it's somehow noncompliant and so due a fee, as SNCF are now I believe quite strict about), I suspect it means that you're in a position that if the guard asks "whose is this" and points at it you can immediately answer that it's yours before it's removed.

Even so it's not a bad plan to have some sort of identification on your luggage, because in the event of an evacuation where it wasn't practical to take it with you it massively eases getting it returned afterwards.

 

[35B]

I thank you for "saying the quiet part out loud" but it's this that's the problem... when did it become ok to, on public transport, say "I don't want another member of the public to sit next to me" ?

Of course you might prefer that they didn't, but it's part of the deal of getting on a train or bus, isn't it?

It has always been something that people have done, more or less subtly. And, on a not too full train, it's frankly not a big deal - so long as, once the train fills up, the barriers come down and people who would otherwise stand are given a chance to sit.

If you didn't want anyone sitting next to you maybe you should be in your own private car. Although, of course, single occupancy in cars is also something we really ought to be discouraging, especially in the cities.

The counter question to this is why the mere act of travelling on public transport should mean that you have to have people crowding you, regardless of how busy it is.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The counter question to this is why the mere act of travelling on public transport should mean that you have to have people crowding you, regardless of how busy it is.

I'd say in a fairly empty train (assuming it's not the person's reserved seat) sitting next to someone is a bit freaky unless the seat is particularly desirable or needed for some reason e.g. a priority seat or the only table with a seat at it. Particularly if it's a man who plonked himself next to a woman on a nearly empty train.

 

[35B]

I'd say in a fairly empty train (assuming it's not the person's reserved seat) sitting next to someone is a bit freaky unless the seat is particularly desirable or needed for some reason e.g. a priority seat or the only table with a seat at it. Particularly if it's a man who plonked himself next to a woman on a nearly empty train.

And, without going to that extreme (on which I agree), there's the simple reality of modern trains having limited enough space so why wouldn't you want a little bit more space around you if it were feasible?

 

[CharlieSpotted]

It has always been something that people have done, more or less subtly. And, on a not too full train, it's frankly not a big deal - so long as, once the train fills up, the barriers come down and people who would otherwise stand are given a chance to sit.

The counter question to this is why the mere act of travelling on public transport should mean that you have to have people crowding you, regardless of how busy it is.

I would say that someone sitting on the seat next to you shouldn't be "crowding" you, the train has two seats side-by-side because the intention is that two people should be able to comfortably sit side-by-side. Now, of course, the design of some of the trains means that "comfortably" has been seriously compromised, and perhaps that's part of the problem ...

... as well as, obviously, people taking giant, wheeled, rigid suitcases everywhere they go, and we come full circle.

 

[Bletchleyite]

... as well as, obviously, people taking giant, wheeled, rigid suitcases everywhere they go, and we come full circle.

Which most people really aren't doing in my experience. It's a problem on 22x because the overheads are uselessly small so the smaller cases end up on the stack, it's largely not a problem on anything else bar units that have no stacks at all e.g. 444s.

I do suspect those who work trains in places like North Wales and to Southampton see a disproportionate amount of such luggage compared to the rest of the network where smaller, more hand luggage sized cases appear to me to be common. Probably also Cornwall in summer, but I've done that a fair bit myself and it's never seemed *that* bad.

 

[MartinC]

Good. Put your luggage in the rack or don't bring it.

Why, WHY, can't people travel light? You see people with cases the size of a planet all the time.

I can go away for a week with a small laptop sized bag. Why can't you?

Edit: you and in people not you as in the OP!

Or use advance luggage services for the heavy stuff, several to choose from.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Or use advance luggage services for the heavy stuff, several to choose from.

Excuse me while I laugh my head off. Entrust a courier (all of which are rubbish) to deliver my bags on time and not leave them dumped in the street? Absolutely no chance whatsoever. Only possible way I'd trust that service was if the railway operated it directly, but that's not likely to happen.

In reality the solution for large amounts of luggage is to go by car, but a medium trolley case/large rucksack and a personal item like a laptop bag isn't "a large amount of luggage" by any sensible definition and the railway really needs to be providing for that with sufficient stacks and decent sized overheads for hand luggage type bags. It's one reason the Voyager is, and always has been, utterly unfit for purpose.

 

[Russel]

I thank you for "saying the quiet part out loud" but it's this that's the problem... when did it become ok to, on public transport, say "I don't want another member of the public to sit next to me" ?

Of course you might prefer that they didn't, but it's part of the deal of getting on a train or bus, isn't it?

If you didn't want anyone sitting next to you maybe you should be in your own private car. Although, of course, single occupancy in cars is also something we really ought to be discouraging, especially in the cities.

If there are plenty of available seats, there really is no need to sit next to someone else!

 

[Tetchytyke]

The issue with the Voyagers are the useless overhead racks. I have a small cabin bag sized to fit in the teeny-tiny overhead lockers of an ATR72 aircraft. Even that doesn't fit in a Voyager overhead rack.

As for people sitting next to me, of course I'd prefer that people didn't. It's why, when travelling first class, I always try to book the seats on the single-seat side of the aisle. But I accept that they will sit next to me on busy trains.

 

[ChrisC]

Good. Put your luggage in the rack or don't bring it.

Why, WHY, can't people travel light? You see people with cases the size of a planet all the time.

I can go away for a week with a small laptop sized bag. Why can't you?

Edit: you and in people not you as in the OP!

I always try to pack everything into the smallest case possible when travelling by train. I also try to buy cases which are not too deep so that they will fit on overhead racks on most trains, but of course that doesn’t work on Voyagers. Although I try to keep the amount I pack to a minimum I could not manage to go away for a week without a case. I like to have plenty of changes of clothes, especially shirts in summer, just in case I get hot and sweaty.

Many years ago now, I was travelling with friends on the WCML from Glasgow down to Crewe and when we went to get our luggage from the racks at the end of the carriage, my case was there but their’s had been stolen and was missing. From that day, I have never stored my case on a rack that cannot see. If it won’t fit on the overhead rack or I can’t get a seat facing and in sight of the end of carriage rack I keep it with me. I would never place it on a seat on a busy train and have been known to have the occasional very uncomfortable journeys with my case between my legs or even on my knees. That’s why I try to avoid XC even if it means a longer and slower journey.

For the attention of TT-ONR-NRN. In summer, when it’s hopefully warm weather I don’t take my North Face jacket away with me. However, in winter I am usually wearing it, so it doesn’t need to take up space in my case.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

If you didn't want anyone sitting next to you maybe you should be in your own private car. Although, of course, single occupancy in cars is also something we really ought to be discouraging, especially in the cities.

The train I usually get for my commute has just enough space for everyone to have an area (pair of seats or table) to ourselves, guess where literally everyone's bag goes? The seat next to us.

When it's short formed most of us get the deal and put our bags on our laps.

 

[Archvile]

I thank you for "saying the quiet part out loud" but it's this that's the problem... when did it become ok to, on public transport, say "I don't want another member of the public to sit next to me" ?

Of course you might prefer that they didn't, but it's part of the deal of getting on a train or bus, isn't it?

If you didn't want anyone sitting next to you maybe you should be in your own private car. Although, of course, single occupancy in cars is also something we really ought to be discouraging, especially in the cities.

I mean, if there's plenty of empty double seats, it's just weird and socially unacceptable to sit next to somebody in my opinion.

I'm not skirting the question though... Even if we're down to new passengers  having to sit next to someone, I still don't like it enough that I'll leave my bag there to encourage them to sit elsewhere.

When it fills up, however, that's when the 'public transport' element kicks in for me and I'll move it.

 

[llewjones]

One of the issues is that many trains are fulfilling a variety of purposes, i.e. both people movers (where seats rather than luggage is key), whilst at other points in the day leisure travel.

This can be particularly acute on some operators, for example TPE, where there may be a train originating/terminating from/at Manchester Airport where a large amount of large luggage will be expected, which might also be rammed between Leeds, Huddersfield and Manchester (or vice versa) by commuters.

Perhaps accentuated on the 5 car Hitachi units where for example there is no 1st class luggage stack. (albeit they don't often run on airport services).

Long term solution is trains as long as the infrastructure allows with adequate luggage stacks (and suitably sized overheads) in each carriage.

Separate luggage areas are all very well, but at the same time we are being exhorted to keep all personal belongings in sight.

 

[35B]

I would say that someone sitting on the seat next to you shouldn't be "crowding" you, the train has two seats side-by-side because the intention is that two people should be able to comfortably sit side-by-side. Now, of course, the design of some of the trains means that "comfortably" has been seriously compromised, and perhaps that's part of the problem ...

... as well as, obviously, people taking giant, wheeled, rigid suitcases everywhere they go, and we come full circle.

Crowding is not just about expanding into personal space. If I'm on a near empty train, and someone sits at the same table as me, I find that intensely annoying - and that's when they're not in my personal space at all.

The resolution comes down to people behaving reasonably, and accepting that different people have different preferences. Which includes accepting that people will sometimes travel with large cases and are entitled to do so (and, yes, I have had to manage a large, heavy, case on a train with inadequate luggage capacity before now).

 

[Bletchleyite]

As for people sitting next to me, of course I'd prefer that people didn't. It's why, when travelling first class, I always try to book the seats on the single-seat side of the aisle. But I accept that they will sit next to me on busy trains.

I also think it's reasonable for someone to want to sit in their reserved seat even if it's next to someone else on a fairly quiet train. If the occupier of the other seat isn't happy with that, then it's on them to move to an unreserved seat if there is one. I tend to avoid this by always picking a pair of unreserved seats if that option is available rather than sitting next to one showing reserved.

 

[35B]

I also think it's reasonable for someone to want to sit in their reserved seat even if it's next to someone else on a fairly quiet train. If the occupier of the other seat isn't happy with that, then it's on them to move to an unreserved seat if there is one. I tend to avoid this by always picking a pair of unreserved seats if that option is available rather than sitting next to one showing reserved.

But that isn't about the choice of the individual so much as a consequence of something out of their control.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Crowding is not just about expanding into personal space. If I'm on a near empty train, and someone sits at the same table as me, I find that intensely annoying - and that's when they're not in my personal space at all.

Table seats are of course more desirable than their provision, so their action is reasonable.

If you want to minimise the chance of having someone next to you and that is high priority, the best plan is to pick a very *undesirable* seat. Which I guess would be airline style, backwards facing, non-priority and against a blank wall. Though you don't have to pick all of those - often backwards facing is enough on its own, and I do sometimes do that on commuter trains where I expect there'll only be a few spare seats so that the one next to me is the least desirable of the available options.

The resolution comes down to people behaving reasonably, and accepting that different people have different preferences. Which includes accepting that people will sometimes travel with large cases and are entitled to do so (and, yes, I have had to manage a large, heavy, case on a train with inadequate luggage capacity before now).

This is indeed true.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jan 2026 ==

But that isn't about the choice of the individual so much as a consequence of something out of their control.

Well, there is the choice to ignore your reservation if other seats are available. But people can't be expected to do that.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jan 2026 ==

One of the issues is that many trains are fulfilling a variety of purposes, i.e. both people movers (where seats rather than luggage is key), whilst at other points in the day leisure travel.

This can be particularly acute on some operators, for example TPE, where there may be a train originating/terminating from/at Manchester Airport where a large amount of large luggage will be expected, which might also be rammed between Leeds, Huddersfield and Manchester (or vice versa) by commuters.

Perhaps accentuated on the 5 car Hitachi units where for example there is no 1st class luggage stack. (albeit they don't often run on airport services).

Long term solution is trains as long as the infrastructure allows with adequate luggage stacks (and suitably sized overheads) in each carriage.

Separate luggage areas are all very well, but at the same time we are being exhorted to keep all personal belongings in sight.

You can (and do) also have areas with multiple purposes. Obviously the wheelchair space is only for that purpose, but there's nothing stopping you having other multipurpose spaces such as the stand backs on Class 195s, which can be occupied by a seated passenger, a couple of standing passengers or a pile of luggage depending on what the demands are on that specific service. There is a similar arrangement on Thameslink Class 700s which have to deal with both airport passengers with lots of bags and commuters where seats are a priority.

This all really comes down to that the Voyagers are unfit for the purpose of operating on a TOC with very mixed demands from passengers. There's not enough space for bags (especially smaller ones as the overheads barely take a coat), there's not enough standing space for when they're very busy, there aren't enough seats due to the space wasted in the vehicle length, boarding/alighting is slow due to the single end doors and narrow corridors. Etc etc etc. While mechanically reliable, they are simply not very good at what they do. I went on one of the things yesterday and it was just a bad experience despite it not being overcrowded, just fairly well filled - there wasn't enough luggage space as even my rucksack which normally fits overheads had to go on the stack alongside a load of other fairly small bags which also wouldn't fit, even where there are back to back seats there are obstructions so you can't put a bag there, and everything is narrow, cramped and tight. And if there'd been a standing load on top it'd just have been utterly purgatory. Even given that it too is an end doored unit with even longer vehicles, an 80x, even a full and standing one, is a breeze in comparison.

I always hated going on 175s on the North Wales Coast at busy times for the exact same reasons. I've since been on a couple of full-and-standing-and-lots-of-bags 197s along there in summer, and found the experience far better - not fun, but far more practical. I find it interesting that the guard who has posted above about the same subject thinks the opposite.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jan 2026 ==

For the attention of TT-ONR-NRN. In summer, when it’s hopefully warm weather I don’t take my North Face jacket away with me. However, in winter I am usually wearing it, so it doesn’t need to take up space in my case.

Down jackets are in any case bulky when being worn, but like down sleeping bags (which are the exact same thing in a different shape) they compress down really well. If anyone is having trouble packing one, compression sacs can be had for next to nothing on Amazon.

 

[35B]

Table seats are of course more desirable than their provision, so their action is reasonable.

If you want to minimise the chance of having someone next to you and that is high priority, the best plan is to pick a very *undesirable* seat. Which I guess would be airline style, backwards facing, non-priority and against a blank wall. Though you don't have to pick all of those - often backwards facing is enough on its own, and I do sometimes do that on commuter trains where I expect there'll only be a few spare seats so that the one next to me is the least desirable of the available options.

The point is "near empty" and presumes that other tables are available - I freely acknowledge that if I sit in a desirable location, others are also likely to find it desirable. The point is about their choice when there are other similarly desirable locations

 

[Bletchleyite]

The point is "near empty" and presumes that other tables are available - I freely acknowledge that if I sit in a desirable location, others are also likely to find it desirable. The point is about their choice when there are other similarly desirable locations

Yes, I'd agree that's a bit odd, though often it's because something you may not care about is desirable to them. With regard to sitting on the other side of a table you're sitting at, it might be because it's nearer to the door, or because they are concerned (this often applies to women) about who might sit next to them but they've judged that they feel safe sitting near you*, or that they think they should take the other side of a table occupied by one person to keep the other tables free for families and groups.

* I've had women approach me before and say stuff like "can I just randomly talk to you because that guy over there is freaking me out"? I'm rubbish at small talk, but it's quite important that if that does happen those of us who can be trusted do help as much as we can.

 

[signed]

And indeed on my last TGV journey, I was given a strap for my suitcase. IIRC it is only required for luggage in the area at the front/end of the coach, not overhead.

It's required all the time, just barely to never enforced at all

 

[The exile]

That's just reminded me of a London Midland Trent Valley service I was on maybe 15 years ago, I have no idea how many people were involved but someone had decided to use the area between the front cab and first set of doors as a luggage compartment, bags and suitcases piled high on every seat, table and inch of floor space, including in front of the cab door!

Ironically, of course, that section on the 150s was intended to be used for exactly that purpose (well, as a lockable parcels area, which I know is not quite the same).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ironically, of course, that section on the 150s was intended to be used for exactly that purpose (well, as a lockable parcels area, which I know is not quite the same).

That to be fair is a very good example of a multipurpose area that can be used for any combination of standees, seated passengers, bicycles and luggage as appropriate to the needs on that specific service without impinging on wheelchair accommodation which I recall is now elsewhere.

Were it not also the wheelchair area the TPE "ballroom" would be similar though it suffers from being marooned away from the rest of Standard so many don't know it's there. A similar area exists on 397s that isn't hidden away, though.

 

[urbophile]

Of course, it’s always the customer’s fault that XC trains don’t have enough luggage space and are too short. How about a policy where you can pay extra to sit in the rear set of a double voyager where it is locked out for next to no valid reason? Or, if you can pay a second fare to have a bag on a seat, how about a policy where the guard comes down the train, refunding everyone that doesn’t have a seat?

On the few occasions when I have had to take a Cross-country train I have been surprised at how little space there is for luggage. Especially on routes that I guess will have a higher proportion of tourists or long-distance travellers who are not travelling light or returning the same day. It's the same with trains to Manchester airport, and doubtless others. Of course people shouldn't put luggage on seats but sometimes there is little alternative.

It's a similar dilemma to 'parking on pavements.' It shouldn't happen, but it does, often for obvious and understandable reasons.

 

[Ellwill]

And indeed on my last TGV journey, I was given a strap for my suitcase. IIRC it is only required for luggage in the area at the front/end of the coach, not overhead.

Can comfirm, when travelling on both E* & SNCF in August, onboard staff didn't bother me about my backpack stored overhead having no label attached.

 

[Krokodil]

If you didn't want anyone sitting next to you maybe you should be in your own private car.

Or one could pay for First Class.

Even if we're down to new passengers  having to sit next to someone, I still don't like it enough that I'll leave my bag there to encourage them to sit elsewhere.

This isn't really acceptable. Why are you any more deserving of a pair of seats to yourself than the other passengers in the carriage? Once there are not enough empty pairs available then bags should be removed from seats until everyone has had an opportunity to choose somewhere to sit down. If you want to sit alone, pay for First Class.

I find it interesting that the guard who has posted above about the same subject thinks the opposite.

The main issue the 197s suffer from is how unbalanced the provision is: seventy odd seats in one carriage, but only forty odd in the other, guess which carriage everyone packs out. I actually miss the 153s. But the best trains I ever worked were the Mk3 sets. Could absorb hundreds of people, unfolded pushchairs, wheelchairs, bikes and luggage in comfort, with no arguments.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The main issue the 197s suffer from is how unbalanced the provision is: seventy odd seats in one carriage, but only forty odd in the other, guess which carriage everyone packs out.

Certainly that stupid catering cupboard is an utter waste of space that could either be 6 seats or a decent luggage rack...I suppose they did at least convert a similarly pointless space (guard's office) on the 350/1s to luggage storage.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jan 2026 ==

The main issue the 197s suffer from is how unbalanced the provision is: seventy odd seats in one carriage, but only forty odd in the other, guess which carriage everyone packs out. I actually miss the 153s. But the best trains I ever worked were the Mk3 sets. Could absorb hundreds of people, unfolded pushchairs, wheelchairs, bikes and luggage in comfort, with no arguments.

A lot of the problem is 2-car trains on services which in summer could easily fill all the seats in 6. I guess that (plus the van area) is what solved it for the North Wales Coast, and for XC things would be a lot better if there weren't any single units. Even so, though, the useless overheads in Voyagers would remain a problem.

None of it is rocket science really, it just needs money. TPE used to have a massive overcrowding problem. Their fleet size was roughly doubled and now it doesn't. A bit of Papal Roman Catholicism going on there, or perhaps ursine forested defecation?

It is bizarre, really, that a number of regional operators have had money thrown at them to build their fleet, yet part of InterCity which formerly operated second-to-top flight services (i.e. IC but not London) has a problem, and yet nobody is willing to even pay for them to get a few spare Voyagers which are sitting gathering dust.

 

[Krokodil]

I guess that (plus the van area) is what solved it for the North Wales Coast

The Mk3s had gargantuan luggage stacks at both ends of every carriage, effectively the size of the toilets opposite them. You could tuck a pram in underneath the lower shelf if you wanted to, they were that capacious. The 70 seats were almost all arranged around tables (I recall there being just one airline row, plus those that adjoined the wheelchair spaces. The van did help, but I didn't often need to open it.

Whereas with a 197 there is one luggage stack per vehicle and it might not even be in sight (let alone reach) of whichever door you boarded at.