CrossCountry charging tickets for luggage on seats

[Jez]

I don't know if I've got the same train manager twice in a row, but the last two Fridays I've taken XC's 10:24 Manchester Picc - Bournemouth train from the origin to Reading, and on both last week's and today's trains there has been this announcement, while the train was still less than a third full, mind you:

"Please do not put your luggage on the seats, if myself or my revenue team see any luggage on a seat, we will charge the person next to it a second ticket for it."

Now I don't know if this is actually a new rule (and if they'd ever get away with enforcing it), or if it's the same train manager trying to be a comedian (and plenty do, I constantly get the same infuriating CSA on my Reading Manchester commute making the same jokes down the tannoy) - has anyone else heard this?

I used this particular service back in November on a busy Saturday morning and had the same type of announcement. The service was very busy however so I assumed it was for that reason.

I doubt they would ever enforce this and its probably said to make people think they had better move their luggage from seats or might risk an additional charge!

 

[rmHawk765]

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.

E* has not once enforced it when I've travelled with them - I don't actually think they operate such a scheme.

 

[Horizon22]

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.

See also Elizabeth line services from Heathrow which then service suburban London stations on the GWML.

On an aside, I am always surprised by how little storage our trains have compared to for example France. One reason is because of course double-decker trains are not a thing here, and lots of overhead racks on certain French stock can hold a coat and that's about it as a result, so they need copious ranks in the connecting coaches and often then they are overspilling on busy times of the year. Last Friday before Xmas, things are stacked literally anywhere both here and around the continent because simply put if everyone has got a mid to large-sized suitcase / large rucksack, and the train is fully loaded/reserved, there simply will not be enough room.

 

[Northern150]

But... I become irritated to oblivion with those who place their possessions on the window seat and then sit themselves on the aisle seat. There's just something that smacks of arrogance and entitlement about it. If folk don't want someone sat next to them, and I can sometimes understand why, they should pay for a First Class seat.

Is this valid to do when it is 3+2 seating and you are blocking the middle? Think it does a favour for everyone involved. It was also a Northern 150 with the war crime legroom

 

[Archvile]

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.

Framing it as whether I deserve it or not isn't really relevant.

I just play human psychology - people are free to do what they like, but putting as many metaphorical obstacles between them and that seat keeps them away, which is a preference of mine.

The price of guaranteeing my own space in 1st class isn't worth it when the law of averages provides me the same 99% of the time by choosing my travel times wisely, leaving my bag on the seat where appropriate, and generally wearing as unapproachable a face as possible - until everyone's seated

 

[styles]

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.

Just here to say that I'm kinda with you on this.

I almost always have a rucksack with me when travelling, often one which will just about fit overhead with a push, but in a way which makes people below feel uncomfortable when lifting it back down.

I've no qualms with having it next to me, happy to move it for anyone who asks, but when I can see plenty of empty seats I'm not in a rush to do it.

Obviously if the service fills up I'll proactively move it. But if I can see empty seats I don't feel particularly guilty about having it next to me.

 

[Llandudno]

It doesn't need to be every single passenger. It just needs to be more than three or four and suddenly you have cases that can't be properly accommodated on the one stack provided in each carriage. Luckily 197 vestibules are fairly spacious so some big cases end up getting tucked into the corners there. Otherwise the bike and wheelchair spaces quickly get filled up, which creates arguments for me when the rightful users turn up and I have to refuse to move the train until this is resolved. Some people try and put cases in behind the front cab door, or in front of the rear one; again the train will not be moving until both I and the driver could access the entire unit in an emergency.

You really need to turn up at Chester on a Monday/Friday/Saturday/Sunday in peak season to see what I mean.

Yes, TfW trains on the north Wales coast in the summer…
Dogs, Bicycles, push chairs, suitcases, holdalls, rucksacks, giant sports direct ‘carrier’ bags rammed full of food, massive bottles of fizzy drinks, cases/bottles of beer, wine and cider. Jumbo sized cuddly toys won on the grabbers or prize bingo, hot food from Greggs/KFC/McDonalds etc..


and then a 2 car set turns up - carnage!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jan 2026 ==

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).

If I travel alone I tend not to sit at a vacant table with 4 seats even if the train is fairly quiet (not that many trains I use are that quiet though!) but would rather find a pair of seats and sit next to the window.

 

[styles]

If I travel alone I tend not to sit at a vacant table with 4 seats even if the train is fairly quiet (not that many trains I use are that quiet though!) but would rather find a pair of seats and sit next to the window.

I often do sit at the 4-seat tables when travelling solo, but I also usually have a laptop with me and I use the space to get some work done. The fold-down tables on the backs of seats on some rolling stock is not quite sufficient for a modern laptop. Also I like to plug a mouse in, so the 'proper' table helps with that. Of course I bunch up if others are using the space, but often I find a lot of table users just have a can of drink and maybe a book on them.

 

[saismee]

Is this valid to do when it is 3+2 seating and you are blocking the middle? Think it does a favour for everyone involved. It was also a Northern 150 with the war crime legroom

3+2 trains just don't hold 3 people in a row of 3. They're bad enough for 3 in a bay of 6, especially on 720s. Being tall (not exceptionally but above average), sitting opposite someone on a 720 requires me to sit at an angle. Fitting 6 people in a bay is a ridiculous concept.

One time me and a friend (opposite) got boxed into a bay of 6 by two people with a lot of bags (not cases). They did not move their legs or bags to let us out because theres "enough space".

I find that when a train starts to fill up people will walk past plenty of open seats next to people and sit next to ME. I don't know if I look approachable or less intimidating than others, but it always seems to happen to me first. I'm not against it and always proactively move my bag, but I would personally rather stand than choose to sit in the aisle seat next to someone.

 

[styles]

3+2 trains just don't hold 3 people in a row of 3. They're bad enough for 3 in a bay of 6, especially on 720s. Being tall (not exceptionally but above average), sitting opposite someone on a 720 requires me to sit at an angle. Fitting 6 people in a bay is a ridiculous concept.

One time me and a friend (opposite) got boxed into a bay of 6 by two people with a lot of bags (not cases). They did not move their legs or bags to let us out because theres "enough space".

I find that when a train starts to fill up people will walk past plenty of open seats next to people and sit next to ME. I don't know if I look approachable or less intimidating than others, but it always seems to happen to me first. I'm not against it and always proactively move my bag, but I would personally rather stand than choose to sit in the aisle seat next to someone.

I'm not sure I agree. On some of the Glasgow commuter trains at rush hour, 6 people fit into the 6 seat spaces just fine.

Granted, the average person in the UK is larger now than when they were designed, so not everybody will fit, but plenty do.

 

[saismee]

On some of the Glasgow commuter trains at rush hour, 6 people fit into the 6 seat spaces just fine.

Which units are these? I find that Aventra seats are way too thin in general.

 

[35B]

I'm not sure I agree. On some of the Glasgow commuter trains at rush hour, 6 people fit into the 6 seat spaces just fine.

Granted, the average person in the UK is larger now than when they were designed, so not everybody will fit, but plenty do.

The 720s are especially tight

 

[styles]

Which units are these? I find that Aventra seats are way too thin in general.

I'm terrible at knowing rolling stock names and numbers.

But the services from Waverley to Glasgow Queen Street Low Level.

From some Googling, appears to be Class 320s?

I've got them at rush hour (morning) a few times now and always found the seats full no issue.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

But the services from Waverley to Glasgow Queen Street Low Level.

Looking at RTT, those are operated with Class 334s, but those are 2+2.

 

[blimmo]

I agree with @saismee sitting in one of the facing seats on a 720 my knees are always going to be over halfway to the edge of the other seat. Unless someone with very small legs sits opposite our knees would touch. Tbh I would much rather just not have facing seats.

 

[styles]

Looking at RTT, those are operated with Class 334s, but those are 2+2.

I made a mistake - the end destination was Hellensborough Central, so looking at RTT maybe they're Class 334s?

 

[Ellwill]

If I travel alone I tend not to sit at a vacant table with 4 seats even if the train is fairly quiet (not that many trains I use are that quiet though!) but would rather find a pair of seats and sit next to the window.

I tend to use the window side of an airline pair when slumming it in standard as a solo traveller, I only go for a table when it's particularly quiet or if it's declassified 1st (SE, Thameslink)

 

[WillC]

Probably the train manager has had enough of selfish buggers putting bags on seats next to them. It's common, and in most cases I suspect a clear message to people trying to find a seat - 'find somewhere else!'. It's deeply selfish, even more so on the invariably over-crowded XC services. While I would be happy to see train staff removing bags from seats, one might also ask why there is so little luggage space, why there are so few coaches (4 car units are common), why the seat reservation system is so poor (you have to walk down a carriage and attempt to interpret dozens of scrolling messages at the same time as 50 other people), why trains are so expensive etc. My recent trips from Leeds to Southampton have not been pleasant experiences. And this is before I consider the use of speakers by multiple inconsiderate passengers.

As a point of information, if I ask a passenger to remove a bag on a seat next to them and they refuse, can I remove it?

 

[duffield]

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.

Exactly. Similarly I've had the following happen recently. In an empty carriage with multiple bays of four, all free, this guy comes and sits right opposite me, saying "do you mind?". I smiled, said "no, that's fine, it's all yours" and moved to another bay of four. He seemed a bit put out.

The emptier a coach is, the weirder unnecessary proximity becomes. In a coach with only two people in it, why should I be watching where I put my feet because there's someone opposite me, and more to the point, what the hell is his motivation?

 

[Horizon22]

3+2 trains just don't hold 3 people in a row of 3. They're bad enough for 3 in a bay of 6, especially on 720s. Being tall (not exceptionally but above average), sitting opposite someone on a 720 requires me to sit at an angle. Fitting 6 people in a bay is a ridiculous concept.

It's also very rare to see all 6 taken, even in disruption in my experience. 5 maybe, but ultimately people prefer to stand than taking the 5th or 6th seat and then you get the 2nd negative which is that 3+2 limits standing capacity overall. 2+2 should have been the standard some time ago, and even new metro trains are on the whole binning of this concept.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jan 2026 ==

The 720s are especially tight

Yes they are but my experience of 465s in rush hour / disruption also sees it rare that both middle seats are taken. Also by the time someone is considering the middle seat it's normally standing room only otherwise and you had to do a very awkward shuffle down the aisle and then lunging over people's legs and backpacks to squeeze into so most don't bother, especially if it's a short (<25 min) journey or if it's a metro service with people getting on/off reasonably frequently - so long as the overwhelmingly majority of the train aren't all going to the associated London terminal (e.g Stratford, Lewisham, Clapham Junction).

 

[blimmo]

It's also very rare to see all 6 taken, even in disruption in my experience. 5 maybe, but ultimately people prefer to stand than taking the 5th or 6th seat and then you get the 2nd negative which is that 3+2 limits standing capacity overall. 2+2 should have been the standard some time ago, and even new metro trains are on the whole binning of this concept.

I think 3+2 might be more acceptable if the lines of 3 were airline and not facing. I've never seen this though: is there some problem I haven't thought of?

 

[Horizon22]

I think 3+2 might be more acceptable if the lines of 3 were airline and not facing. I've never seen this though: is there some problem I haven't thought of?

Considerable decrease in capacity, probably.

 

[blimmo]

Considerable decrease in capacity, probably.

Surely just turning seats around doesn't change capacity?

 

[pokemonsuper9]

I think 3+2 might be more acceptable if the lines of 3 were airline and not facing. I've never seen this though

This exists on the 150s.
There is no legroom.
At least on facing pairs you can arrange space with the person across from you.
On the airline seats you have to sit sideways

 

[mmh]

I think 3+2 might be more acceptable if the lines of 3 were airline and not facing. I've never seen this though: is there some problem I haven't thought of?

Some layouts on class 150s had some 3 abreast airline seating. It's awful, it makes it a struggle to get in and out.

 

[35B]

Yes they are but my experience of 465s in rush hour / disruption also sees it rare that both middle seats are taken. Also by the time someone is considering the middle seat it's normally standing room only otherwise and you had to do a very awkward shuffle down the aisle and then lunging over people's legs and backpacks to squeeze into so most don't bother, especially if it's a short (<25 min) journey or if it's a metro service with people getting on/off reasonably frequently - so long as the overwhelmingly majority of the train aren't all going to the associated London terminal (e.g Stratford, Lewisham, Clapham Junction).

It's 20 years since I was a regular on 465s and 466s; the few journeys I've made on 720s have made them look spacious.

Some layouts on class 150s had some 3 abreast airline seating. It's awful, it makes it a struggle to get in and out.

The original layout (150/2s in particular if I recall) was truly awful - at 6'6" I simply couldn't sit in them.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

Nothing wrong with putting luggage on the seat next to you if there are plenty of spare seats around.

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.

If it gets busy, I remove it.

It's not as bad as "accidentally" spilling your water bottle on the seat next to you then, when someone tries to sit there, saying "I wouldn't sit there mate, it's damp". You'd never catch me doing that.

 

[CharlieSpotted]

Probably the train manager has had enough of selfish buggers putting bags on seats next to them. It's common, and in most cases I suspect a clear message to people trying to find a seat - 'find somewhere else!'. It's deeply selfish, even more so on the invariably over-crowded XC services. While I would be happy to see train staff removing bags from seats...

Personally I'd end this with "... and throwing them out of an open door onto the platform" myself, but I realise that's an extreme view.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I think 3+2 might be more acceptable if the lines of 3 were airline and not facing.

150s have 3+2 in airline and, trust me, they are even more horrific than the facing bays.

 

[Port Road]

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.

You think that parking on pavements is somehow acceptable?