Allocating specific seats for luggage?

[Bletchleyite]

A couple of weeks ago travelling on a Class 444, which has remarkably poor luggage provision, it occurred to me - on this sort of commuter or commuter-ish train where hardly anyone has luggage during the week but most people do on weekends, should specific seats be allocated for luggage, with a protective bag placed over them to avoid damage/dirt and to avoid people getting into arguments about whether bums take precedence over bags?

I believe Lumo already does this with the unpopular blank wall seats, which allows them a "rack" without breaking their nominal 400 seat requirement.

 

[bramling]

A couple of weeks ago travelling on a Class 444, which has remarkably poor luggage provision, it occurred to me - on this sort of commuter or commuter-ish train where hardly anyone has luggage during the week but most people do on weekends, should specific seats be allocated for luggage, with a protective bag placed over them to avoid damage/dirt and to avoid people getting into arguments about whether bums take precedence over bags?

I believe Lumo already does this with the unpopular blank wall seats, which allows them a "rack" without breaking their nominal 400 seat requirement.

Doesn’t seem like a bad idea to me in principle providing it is seats which are generally undesirable - in other words those with no window view.

I’m not sure it would work in practice though, like with stuff like wheelchair spaces some clot would still decide to make a bee-line for the luggage seat and plonk themselves there.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I believe Lumo already does this with the unpopular blank wall seats, which allows them a "rack" without breaking their nominal 400 seat requirement.

As Lumo is an open-access operator, I assume this "nominal 400 seat requirement" is self-imposed for whatever reason?
I recall VTEC/LNER* doing something similar on their 80x sets, and later fitting proper racks in those spaces. I'd have thought a franchised (or Operator of Last Resort) operator would be more restricted in what it could do than an OA operator.

I recall reading that other operators had similar terms in their franchise agreements that restricted what changes could be made to rolling stock, for example not being able to remove 3+2 seating because this reduces the "on paper" seating capacity, even though the middle seats are only used in extremis.
It reminds of the the Blair-era promise that you'd never wait more than 48 hours for a doctor's appointment. Which was a great policy on paper, but resulted in people who needed to plan further ahead not being able to do so. If you wanted to see your GP but were fine with waiting three days because that's your rest day, tough luck because the surgery would fail to hit their target!

*= I forget the exact timeline of when the various stages of these changes happened.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As Lumo is an open-access operator, I assume this "nominal 400 seat requirement" is self-imposed for whatever reason?

I seem to recall it was a condition of their access agreement.

 

[TheBigD]

As Lumo is an open-access operator, I assume this "nominal 400 seat requirement" is self-imposed for whatever reason?

I seem to recall it was a condition of their access agreement.

I've asked previously and someone posted the relevant link to confirm the requirement.

The 400 seats is made up of...
394 normal seats
4 tip up seats
2 wheelchair spaces.

I seem to recall that Lumo were going to remove 8 seats and replace them with luggage racks but can't remember where I read it.