Dealing with antisocial behaviour on the railway - how can the issue be resolved?

[Bletchleyite]

As noted I've decided to pull this out into a new thread as it's a wider area of discussion than of reports of guards doing/not doing their job, particularly as there's a bit of debate as to what extent it is their job.

So, how can minor ASB be effectively dealt with on the railway? I'm very strongly of the view (and I think it was effectively proven by the 1990s/2000s zero tolerance approach on the New York Subway to be the case) that if minor ASB is allowed to take place unhindered, even if hindering it can be a bit inconvenient (e.g. in terms of causing delay to trains), it rapidly escalates to major ASB and also to some classes of more vulnerable passenger feeling they can no longer use the railway because they don't feel safe on it, particularly at night.

By minor ASB I'm referring to stuff like:

• Playing music out loud on mobile phones
• Feet (and potentially animals, though I've hardly ever seen it) being placed on seats
• Littering
• Vaping/smoking (though the latter is incredibly rare these days)

You can probably also include related things that affect the comfort or value proposition of/for other passengers such as:

• Sitting in reserved seats and refusing to move when asked to do so by the reserver
• Obvious unchallenged ticketless travel (e.g. pushing through gatelines)

I do recognise that some staff may, particularly when working alone, feel unsafe dealing with such matters. However as I report in this thread (https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...experiences-with-staff-on-the-railway.298699/) where this thread has spawned from, I note that there are staff who aren't hiding in the cab and who do challenge people on request, but who don't do it proactively, possibly for an easier life. The trouble here is that while some of us are happy to challenge ASB either directly or via staff, some people would feel they were putting themselves in danger simply speaking up, as it would be obvious who did and they may fear repercussions later on alighting or when the staff have gone elsewhere.

Thus, how do we deal with this?

With regard to guards, if we don't consider this part of the core role (is it part of the job description?) then we need to look to be recruiting people for whom it is to work alongside them on trains, particularly known problem ones (e.g. late evening) but also randomly through the day so any miscreants expect to be challenged and fear what will happen if they are (people who commit this sort of thing need fear to stop them doing it). I think it would be a good idea for GBR to set up an internally employed (NOT contracted) railway security force as an additional layer to the BTP, in a similar way to DB Sicherheit or whatever they're now called. These would effectively be security guards (but reasonably well paid and trained in railway specific matters) who also had RPI type training and duties and could deal with all of the above, and would be trained not only in avoiding and calming conflict but also specifically entering into it in the manner of nightclub bouncers, to remove passengers who are engaging in such behaviour from trains, using reasonable force if necessary, and to detain them pending BTP attendance if necessary. It would additionally be in their remit to write people up for prosecution on Bylaw matters.

Merseyrail do sort of have people like this though I believe they're contracted to Carlisle Security, not an organisation with the best of reputations across the railway. Elsewhere you do get "TravelSafe officers" but these don't quite seem to have the same remit to explicitly enter into conflict to challenge this behaviour either via removal or via prosecution writeup.

On a simpler level, we need to consider more signage. I do know some kids just don't realise playing their phone out loud isn't OK as it's something they do among their mates and at home. We used to have No Smoking signage, we now don't really need it as indoor smoking is now understood by most people not to be OK, and even vaping on trains seems rare. But we clearly do need signage clearly stating that playing devices out loud and feet on seats isn't OK - at least a simple challenge of "tap the sign" which does work with some people can then be an option! Similarly if we are going to have quiet coaches the signage needs to be on every window/pillar and clearly state what the rules actually are (personally I'd rename them to Silence Zones to make it clear, but we could also get rid because they create an idea that the rest of the train should be a noisy zone where anything goes!)

Anyway, to bring in replies more appropriate here from the other thread as I noted I would:

No, I’m saying that guards can and do make a difference by simply consistently setting the expectation of acceptable behaviour by enforcing the rules.

This.

With the greatest of due respect to @bb21, the view expressed in the longer post is essentially summed up as "I want to avoid conflict so I have an easy life", paraphrased.

Telling me to move coach would have resulted in a formal complaint against the guard for failure to enforce the commission of a criminal offence under Byelaw 7 unless it was an invitation to move to first class for free (which Northern obviously don't have, but where it does exist it's a wonderful passive aggressive solution to this sort of problem, people refusing to move out of reserved seats etc).

Frankly, if proactively dealing with ASB isn't part of the guard's role any more, and miscreants no longer need fear the guard, then it's time we follow Merseyrail throughout the network and recruit some staff whose job it is to challenge ASB, even very minor ASB, and prosecute on a zero tolerance, no warnings basis. Minor ASB leads to major ASB, and if passengers can't rely on traincrew to keep them safe and comfortable against miscreants then the railway has no real future for more vulnerable people such as lone females, and that is, bluntly, completely unacceptable

The upshot of that is simply that in the face of rapidly increasing petty crime and ASB that the railway ceases to be a safe environment. And that is not acceptable.

So guards either need to accept the risk involved in challenging ASB, or we need bouncers on trains like Merseyrail effectively have. It isn't OK for us to collectively sit back and let this happen, and it DEFINITELY isn't OK for staff to suggest, per the above post, that if they're not willing to deal with a situation where a criminal offence is being committed, however minor, that passengers may not do so either.

In short I will continue to verbally challenge ASB on trains I travel on, and if I receive resistance from staff about this they will be in receipt of a formal complaint (or if there's any suggestion I rather than the miscreant should leave the train, I will be texting 61016 myself), thought that is yet to actually happen.

This was maybe a bit strong (sorry, @bb21, reading it in retrospect I've been overly antagonistic here and I apologise for that) however I'll leave it intact as it's since been replied to (as if I edit it it will make some of the below not make sense) and I will reply to that reply below.

However I do think there's an element of truth in it even so. Passengers are entitled to feel a little aggrieved that staff won't fight their corner against miscreants to the extent of suggesting they should just put up with it or move themselves, allowing the behaviour to continue unchallenged (though I do love the passive aggressive challenge of moving the well behaved pax to First if it exists, and that's likely not only to leave the passengers happy but delighted, particularly if it's full service 1st). Indeed, I'd say that if that conversation where they say they won't deal with it is had in front of the miscreant then it actually reinforces acceptability of the behaviour - so it might actually even be better that a guard who wouldn't even attempt a challenge and push it a little bit at least just stays in the cab, as that's at least a neutral act that neither accepts nor challenges the behaviour.

Oh yes, don't get me wrong. I quite agree. Maybe I didn't explain myself well. Guards should make their presence known on the train and patrol their trains regularly where possible, both for passenger assurance and to provide customer service (incl revenue). I am sure most will challenge anti-social behaviour provided it can be done in a suitable way and not putting anyone in danger, whether directly witnessed or brought to their attention by another passenger.

Much of the anti-social behaviours we witness onboard are fairly minor ones, and challenging them as much as can be safely done consistently will no doubt contribute towards improving the onboard environment in the long run, but in practical terms there will always be differences in how each member of staff judges risks therefore what they intervene in. I'm sure there is a minority who prefer not to bother but the rest will try their best at it.

I agree with this, though I'm yet to see any member of staff proactively challenge a Byelaw 7 offence (playing devices out loud) even from people who are obviously not likely to get violent about it.

I do think (and have suggested to Northern where it seems a particularly bad problem - it's comparatively rare on the south WCML and Chiltern) that the railway should have a big campaign on this sort of issue (maybe once it's finished with removing our refund rights) with the hope of raising awareness that it's not acceptable, together with more forceful signage eg indicating what the maximum penalty is, like used to be found on no smoking signs on every window.

Looking round this 807 I'm on now I can't even see a no smoking sign, and it's not even needed as this particular type of ASB has more or
less totally died out. But other forms have replaced it, and only on Merseyrail (for feet on seats) and some buses is there even signage to suggest it's not acceptable.

I’m in several minds about all this.

I agree problem behaviours should ideally be pulled up, and ultimately the guard is better placed to do this than a passenger, as the guard at least has some options available to them if greeted with a “what are you going to do?”.

You may be well-built enough to feel confident challenging people, however there’s a few issues to consider with this. Firstly, no matter how well built you are, there’s little you can legally actually do, and people will know this. More of an issue now than perhaps a generation ago, as nowadays the train will likely have CCTV, and the miscreant (plus any other people around) will almost certainly have a camera phone. Woe betide if it gets physical and you’re railway staff. Then, remember the incident on the Guildford line, where a well-built guy pulled someone up for a behavioural issue, and, tragically, it didn’t end well for him.

There is the risk of knives being produced, sure, but that's rather endemic in certain parts of the country (most notably South London) and it isn't an overly high risk anywhere else, really. I doubt I would challenge a group of youths on a South London DOO train (though I might text 61016) but you're infinitesimally unlikely to have kids carrying large knives on the Chiltern Aylesbury branch - it's really almost exclusively a London (and maybe Manchester/Birmingham) thing. Additionally, because it's specifically associated with a particular subculture, certain things such as dress and demeanour/accent/language used are good clues to someone being a likely threat in this regard too.

It's not zero risk I accept, but I think anyone who is streetwise can have a decent clue as to whether an individual is likely to have a weapon or not.

You're right that staff have a better answer to "what are you going to do" than I do - the reality is indeed not very much, I'm certainly not going to get physical with a random stranger as throwing the first proverbial punch is just a route to an assault charge, though if they laid into me first that might be different, and had the miscreant noted in the other thread got violent with the guard I would probably have physically intervened then (but again not thrown a punch). However I don't feel particularly scared of a verbal challenge - a forceful one if necessary - and I will continue to do this where I think people are being particularly antisocial. My approach is usually a request to turn it down, not off, and if it's quiet enough that I can't hear it over my own headphones I probably won't even bother. But I have noted a few cases recently, including the one mentioned in the other thread, where it's been really antisocial e.g. so loud it hurts your ears (and it's amazing it doesn't hurt those of the listener!)

FWIW it really *does* hurt my ears - phone speakers are horribly tinny and high pitched. I'd actually be less annoyed were the sound coming from a boombox with a decent set of speakers and some proper bass!

If we’re saying that a guard has to be well built enough to be able to act as a kind of bouncer then this is unfortunately going to exclude a good proportion of the population from doing the role, which definitely isn’t a road I think any of us would want things to go down.

I do think there is a potential need for recruiting additional staff who are like that, though, to provide support where necessary and even more so for DOO trains. That is staff whose job description explicitly includes intervention including physically where necessary - basically nightclub bouncers but with more specific railway training (and probably dual-role as RPIs too).

I’m not overly keen on some of the security types we see around either, and in a lot of cases they’re a waste of space anyway. My experience on GN has been that there was a phase when they were “patrolling” trains (they don’t seem to be doing that now), and frankly it was a total waste of time. You’d have a pair of people huddled in a doorway somewhere, either chatting loudly between themselves, on the phone, or on some cases playing music - whilst at the same time ignoring stuff like feet on seats or passengers playing music out loud. So a total waste of space, and in fact better had they not been there at all.

The Merseyrail ones do seem a bit better than that despite being employed by Carlisle (who don't have the best of reputations) but that's why I propose that a GBR Security function should be internal, quite selective, fairly well paid and fairly well trained.

Which brings us back to BTP. They are the one group who *does* have the actual means to address most of these issues. There needs to be at least a credible chance that problem behaviour is going to result in meaningful BTP action. So “what are you going to do?” can be met with “I’m going to call the BTP”, and it actually has some change of happening.

Indeed, which (as with any policing in the UK which features the same issues) means we need to be funding policing properly, so a threat to call the BTP means their attendance is likely.

And we also need to be willing to delay trains over it. Such a delay is annoying, but in my view it's a lot less worse long term than allowing ASB to continue.

Apologies for deleting some of your post but not all needs quoting.

It’s all well and good saying this, but I would love to see you enforce everything to the letter after you’ve spent whole shifts on end getting screamed at, chastised for things completely out your control, and getting backlash for attempting to do things right (tickets, telling people to keep feet off seats, whatever).

I pride myself on being visible and doing full revenue inspections on trains some of my other colleagues wouldn’t (0015 off Man Vic on a Friday night hello!) and even I can only take being called a jobsworth little **** so many times before I retreat to the safety of my cab for the rest of my shift.

Your posts scream of someone who has never been a guard. Everyone starts out bushy-tailed and optimistic. Sadly it gets beaten out of a lot of people after their first Friday or Saturday late shift.

Try dealing with it day in day out and you learn that sometimes it’s easier to just let minor indiscretions (which being honest feet on seats and having TikTok on a little too loudly really are) fly and focus on dealing with bigger issues, such as blatant ticketless travel and other forms of fare evasion, or two drunk people about to swing for each other.

When you get no support if you do deal with things - BTP are often miles away or unable to help, and sometimes even get told off for intervening (for example, if I were to kick someone who was being a nuisance off a train of mine and they complained, I would get a serious talking to at a minimum), is it really surprising that many staff take a more relaxed approach?

Thanks for your reply. I indeed have never been a guard, to be fair to you. But clearly we need to give you the support so these things can be challenged - this thread is about how that could be achieved. I think it's fair to say the New York Subway succeeded through the zero tolerance policies in turning around a network that wasn't just subject to minor ASB (though it was) but also serious crime. Merseyrail has also been "cleaned up" a lot in behavioural terms since the 1990s, though that was more minor ASB and vandalism than anything that serious, the most illegal thing I probably witnessed on a Merseyrail train was a small group handing around a spliff, and (apart from the rancid smell) people who have smoked cannabis are unlikely to be a threat to anyone.

I do sympathise on the latter. I think in society generally we've gone too much on the side of the miscreant when a complaint is made. If staff actually swing at someone then that's one thing and I wouldn't support the staff in that case, but I would want to see management support staff for chucking people off trains even if that requires reasonable force should the staff feel that is the right thing to do, as to do otherwise by responding positively to such complaints is to support the miscreants. But sadly management want an easy life in a lot of cases.

See also teachers who no longer receive support to discipline pupils, and as a result behaviour in schools has deteriorated and anecdotally seems to be getting worse... again I'm not calling for the cane back, but just a presumption that it's likely the pupil is the one in the wrong unless there's compelling evidence to the contrary e.g. via CCTV.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Feb 2026 ==

Not at all. All I was trying to convey is that it is a dynamic situation and risk assessments are made in the moment. If the risk of escalation is deemed to be low then I, as well as others, will no doubt intervene and challenge, but if there is a good chance the miscreant can get violent or escalate, most staff will not choose to tackle it head on. This isn't about having an easy life, it is to protect everyone onboard. Railway carriages are confined spaces and have comparatively fewer options for safe space or escape routes if required, hence often it is better to prevent thing from escalating at all.

I agree here.

It is a standard approach to managing the safety of everyone, you either remove the risk/danger from people, or remove people from the risk/danger. Most of the time I would expect it to be the former, but the latter is a perfectly acceptable way to deal with a situation, and any worthwhile employer will back their staff up if that was deemed necessary. In your example the guard obviously decided that she could challenge it, but if she judged the risk to be too great then I would not expect her to do so. It is likely to be less applicable in a case of loud music but where there is visible danger to other passengers, the answer is often to move them to another coach.

I think if someone was swinging punches or vandalising the train I'd agree here. The only thing in the situation I was talking about that was a potential threat was that alcohol had been consumed by the miscreant (he had a bottle of something on the table), but he wasn't visibly drunk.

I understand where you're coming from, and the frustration over anti-social behaviours, which I am sure everyone can agree is a big problem at the moment, but I go back to the point that there is only a limited number of options open to a lone working member of staff. Most of the ASBs can be eliminated and contained by just having a presence, and some by a polite challenge, however there is a significant minority of situations the guard cannot really do much about without additional support. In problem spots we do need additional security presence and many places have them indeed. I am sure everyone working in a customer-facing role accepts a certain degree of risk however there is a limit to its extent. Conflict avoidance is a concept repeatedly drilled into staff's heads and we are required to remain vigilant and use professional judgement to risk assess at all times. An injured member of staff is no use to anyone.

I don't think anyone will stop you from challenging anti-social behaviour because it is your personal choice, and some people can be more effective at such challenges than others, which I think your fellow passengers will appreciate. It is however my own take that I prefer the average passenger not to do that themselves, as I have witnessed quite a few incidents where things quickly got out of hand and ended up in a nasty way for some involved, mostly starting from an innocent request at the start, but thankfully only in my capacity as a passenger, not the guard. I would rather everyone gets home safe and unscathed over and above anything else, but also in my observation requests from staff do tend to carry more weight than those from a fellow passenger so more likely to lead to compliance.

Absolutely agree here. I think one thing I would say is that some passengers may fear to challenge for fear of repercussions, hence why I think being proactive where feasible is really helpful. I'm not one of those passengers (I don't *like* getting a gobful of abuse, but I'm big enough that a violent response is unlikely) but they certainly exist and I don't like to see them put off travel.

I don't know if I wasn't explaining myself well initially and coming across wrongly. We agreed on many things over the years and I don't think this time is that different. I can't speak for others but personally I do challenge loud music in most cases, as I do with feet on seats, and people generally do comply. It is a shame ASBs are widespread but tackling this issue requires a whole-society multi-pronged approach including cultural shifts in what is considered unacceptable. The industry can definitely play our part to help, but cannot resolve these issues by ourselves.

Thank you for your well considered reply by the way.

 

[baz962]

Genuine question though. What are staff supposed to do if ignored or basically told where to go . Both other passengers and Toc's don't want to be delayed and I suspect BTP would either be too busy or too far away and perhaps rather be available for more serious stuff. I mean staff aren't really allowed to put hands on and I really believe that some people who misbehave , do so knowing that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

From past experience in my time as a Guard - and in more recent times witnessing/hearing from colleagues who are Guards - attempting to deal with the things you mention, it's sadly becoming more and more common to just get ignored/blanked, told to "eff off", or indeed get asked "Yeah, what you gonna do? Phone BTP? Hahaha". This last response actually raises a good question.

• BTP are almost certainly not going to come out for someone with their feet on the seats, vaping/smoking or playing music aloud, etc.
• Telling them to leave the train almost always sees them refuse, and traincrew are not allowed to physically manhandle people off trains.
• Refusing to move the train from the next station until they get off, or stop whatever behaviour has caused the situation, will generally see you getting phoned by Control to move the train, possibly followed up by your manager repeating this to you after the event. You also end up delaying a whole train load of customers.

So it's hard to really see what a Guard can do, should their request for someone to stop doing something be ignored. Even where someone does listen, I can't tell you how many times someone removed their feet off the opposite seat, only for me to walk back through once completing my ticket check to find they've put them back up again.

So a key part of the issue is management not taking things seriously enough? BTP shouldn't be needed for the actual ASB, but trespass (which is what refusal to leave when required to do so is) I would say should require attendance even if the reason they were requested to leave was minor.

As for delaying the train, I think that might be acceptable collateral damage, because not dealing with this is far worse long term. Though perhaps this too speaks to having specific staff who are tasked with getting forceful and indeed physical if necessary so they can be physically thrown off if necessary and avoid that delay. The thing is, some of these people only understand that language, which is why we have nightclub bouncers.

Delaying the train could of course cause a passenger to intervene. This is the classic "newspaper method" - this person is delaying your bus, just so you know, engine off and newspaper out, wait for a passenger to lose patience and throw them off. It's crude but it does work, though ASB on buses would be a thread in itself because it's far worse, particularly in London, than on trains, because people are less likely to intervene on children for a variety of reasons (from being labelled a child abuser to being knifed).

 

[Kite159]

There is the risk of knives being produced, sure, but that's rather endemic in certain parts of the country (most notably South London) and it isn't an overly high risk anywhere else

I never realised the Southampton suburbs/Eastleigh was classed as South London in terms of youngsters pretending to be gangsters safe in the knowledge the guard can't touch them. Can't throw them off the train under 'safeguarding' and they normally do a runner if security are floating around.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I never realised the Southampton suburbs/Eastleigh was classed as South London in terms of youngsters pretending to be gangsters safe in the knowledge the guard can't touch them. Can't throw them off the train under 'safeguarding' and they normally do a runner if security are floating around.

Kids are gobby anywhere, but the risk of them actually carrying a knife (rather than just acting like little gangsters) is I would say much higher in South London than elsewhere in the country. I would certainly be unlikely to ask kids on south London DOO services to behave but would have little fear of getting anything more than a foul mouth if I did on a Tring semifast.

Notably, though, the problems I've encountered on trains have mostly not been teenagers. It's more often been adults - often middle aged but also younger but rarely teens. They are probably most of the problem on buses though.

 

[Kite159]

The sort who either ignore you ("what are you going to do about it?") or will remove their feet as requested only for their feet to magically reappear on the seat within a minute after the guard disappears.

 

[LowLevel]

I think most staff will have a go though one thing that has been lacking on TOCs has been a clear line on what to do about things like playing things on phones out loud and it's almost started to become endemic amongst a few demographics - there have been posters starting to go up I've seen so hopefully things will start to change as it's one that drives me potty.

A lot of the problem is enforcement. BTP are a waste of time and I'd be a lot happier with a more continental system of better more professional railway security who can just be hands on and detain people if necessary and local police with perhaps a core of additional training in hubs roughly matching current BTP deployment to deal with things like fatalities.

Gangs of feral teenagers doing what they wish with very limited options for refusing service because "they're vulnerable" are the trickiest in my experience. A group of 10 14 year olds refusing to pay, threatening staff and passengers and trying to break the windows if challenged are not vulnerable and should be refused service consistently with extreme prejudice. But the justice system will just leave them to it to become the next generation of rubbish adults instead.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think most staff will have a go though one thing that has been lacking on TOCs has been a clear line on what to do about things like playing things on phones out loud and it's almost started to become endemic amongst a few demographics - there have been posters starting to go up I've seen so hopefully things will start to change as it's one that drives me potty.

Good. With very low level ASB I do think the ability to tap the sign (even as a passenger) would help a lot. Some people genuinely don't believe it's a problem, let alone that it's actually an offence.

I do find it interesting that smoking (rather than vaping) has been successfully stigmatised to such an extent that no smoking signs are no longer necessary (there were none I could see on the 807 I was on yesterday evening) - it's just understood that you don't, and nobody would suggest they didn't realise if challenged for it.

Similarly I think quiet zones, if we keep them, should have prominent signage explicitly stating what that means, as clear as "phones must be on mute, no telephone calls, whisper level conversations" or whatever it is decided to be. Though I do increasingly think their existence just means some think that means other coaches are noisy coaches, whereas in reality a less strict version of the quiet coach (normal human conversation at an indoor voice level is all that should be heard bar the odd crying baby) is what it should be like everywhere on the network.

A lot of the problem is enforcement. BTP are a waste of time and I'd be a lot happier with a more continental system of better more professional railway security who can just be hands on and detain people if necessary and local police with perhaps a core of additional training in hubs roughly matching current BTP deployment to deal with things like fatalities.

Completely agree with all of this. If only we could replicate lots of copies of you and put one on each train

Gangs of feral teenagers doing what they wish with very limited options for refusing service because "they're vulnerable" are the trickiest in my experience. A group of 10 14 year olds refusing to pay, threatening staff and passengers and trying to break the windows if challenged are not vulnerable and should be refused service consistently with extreme prejudice. But the justice system will just leave them to it to become the next generation of rubbish adults instead.

This is a big problem. It is right that actual safeguarding is now taken seriously and those who sexually abused children in the 80s and 90s are being taken to task. But the downside of this is that it has become largely impossible to give bad behaviour consequences across society. It needs to be possible to throw people off trains in the middle of nowhere if they are seriously misbehaving and continuing such behaviour when told to stop, and if that does mean they have a problem then that needs to be on them as it wouldn't have happened if they had done as they were told or paid their fare, and staff who do do that need to be supported, not told off.

The thing is there are different levels of vulnerability. 14 year olds do not have adult brains and so are vulnerable in the sense of being able to be manipulated and coerced into stuff like sexual activity by unscrupulous adults with power over them, and it is right they are safeguarded from that, and we do do that much better than we did. But an adult sized 14 year old lad (and the issue is basically all males) is not physically vulnerable - a middle aged man is probably far more so - and so chucking them off in some suburban dump with a very sparse service so they have to sit for an hour on a cold, wet platform at 10pm contemplating their actions should not be considered to be putting them in danger, except in extreme cases e.g. temperatures low enough to invoke homeless safety measures, and so employers, Courts and the Press should be siding with the staff in such cases rather than publishing "my diddums vulnerable cherub little thug was chucked off the train at Cheddington and had to wait an hour in the cold, woe be him" tripe when the chucking off was the least he deserved.

Though I do wonder if the latter is starting to turn - the comments sections on news articles about those kids who threw each other through bus windows do seem to now tend against the kids rather than against the bus companies, even if there actually are ways (horizontal window bars and bonded double glazing) to make bus windows not fall out if people fall against them.

 

[LowLevel]

This is the thing - BTP have additional training to deal with many things but effectively containing anti social behaviour is not something they do well and it falls through a gap of them not considering themselves to be railway security guards and the railway who funds their existence not catering for that either.

At the end of the day if I am working a train with an aggressive drunk causing trouble I don't need BTP with railway training to drive 50 miles to attend in 2 hours, I need a common or garden police officer to come and drag them off the train from the nearest town station.

I already have the legislative authority via the byelaws to direct the removal of for example inebriated people causing trouble, I just need an effective means of achieving it.

 

[trentside]

This is the thing - BTP have additional training to deal with many things but effectively containing anti social behaviour is not something they do well and it falls through a gap of them not considering themselves to be railway security guards and the railway who funds their existence not catering for that either.

At the end of the day if I am working a train with an aggressive drunk causing trouble I don't need BTP with railway training to drive 50 miles to attend in 2 hours, I need a common or garden police officer to come and drag them off the train from the nearest town station.

I already have the legislative authority via the byelaws to direct the removal of for example inebriated people causing trouble, I just need an effective means of achieving it.

Then there’s the issue of local police bringing drunk individuals to the railway station to get rid of them, expecting us to deal with them as the easy option.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Then there’s the issue of local police bringing drunk individuals to the railway station to get rid of them, expecting us to deal with them as the easy option.

It would be very interesting to see what would happen were they to do that on Merseyside given that Merseyrail have a long and well known history of refusing people access to the system if they are only a bit drunk, let alone inebriated. Would they refuse to the Police? I think the law would be on their side if they did.

 

[trentside]

It would be very interesting to see what would happen were they to do that on Merseyside given that Merseyrail have a long and well known history of refusing people access to the system if they are only a bit drunk, let alone inebriated. Would they refuse to the Police? I think the law would be on their side if they did.

Yes, I’ve known people do it including informing the local officers of the byelaws.

 

[bramling]

This is the thing - BTP have additional training to deal with many things but effectively containing anti social behaviour is not something they do well and it falls through a gap of them not considering themselves to be railway security guards and the railway who funds their existence not catering for that either.

At the end of the day if I am working a train with an aggressive drunk causing trouble I don't need BTP with railway training to drive 50 miles to attend in 2 hours, I need a common or garden police officer to come and drag them off the train from the nearest town station.

I already have the legislative authority via the byelaws to direct the removal of for example inebriated people causing trouble, I just need an effective means of achieving it.

I think this post probably hits the nail very much on the head of where the root of problems lies. As you say, even if we quadrupled the number of BTP officers on duty, they’re never going to be able to be everywhere. Whereas normal police should in theory be much more thickly spread, and be quite capable of removing an individual from the railway - and of course when that is common practice word gets round and behaviour should improve.

Unfortunately we seem to have reached a point in this country where, like many public institutions, the police aren’t particularly well regarded for being effective. Perhaps this is the real problem, not the specialist BTP, but the normal police not being fit for purpose.

Which unfortunately brings us to the position of this all being a wider societal problem, rather than specifically a railway one. QV the way the police are poorly regarded for tackling shoplifting, another thing which seems to have increased off the back of (the) Covid (response).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Unfortunately we seem to have reached a point in this country where, like many public institutions, the police aren’t particularly well regarded for being effective. Perhaps this is the real problem, not the specialist BTP, but the normal police not being fit for purpose.

Which unfortunately brings us to the position of this all being a wider societal problem, rather than specifically a railway one. QV the way the police are poorly regarded for tackling shoplifting, another thing which seems to have increased off the back of (the) Covid (response).

Certainly agree here. The regular Police are underfunded and can't deal with shoplifting etc so it might as well be legal.

 

[bramling]

Certainly agree here. The regular Police are underfunded and can't deal with shoplifting etc so it might as well be legal.

It isn’t just funding, the impression I’ve always had of the police is quite poor. Essentially not interested in certain things, which is a cultural / management / supervisory issue rather than just about funding.

As a lot of people will say, quite happy to sit in a van by the side of the road catching people speeding, not interested in the slightest if you’ve just been burgled.

 

[baz962]

Couple of years ago I was preparing to drive Nottingham to St Pancras on a 5 car 222. About 14 BTP on the platform and both Nottingham forest fans and fans of a London team. BTP just watching drunk fans being loud and really swearing aggressively at each other and a few walking around shoulder barging each other. Police tried to order me to open the locked train to let them all on together and get rid . My poor TM looked worried . In the end a couple of officers agreed to ride , but only to Leicester.

 

[dgl]

Arguably the only way to deal with antisocial behaviour is to stop the train at the next station and to not proceed until the troublemakers have departed.

That's what happened a month or so ago, though not only do I think one of the teenage group had tried to hit the guard, there were extra revenue protection on the train so there were official people to support the guard (admittedly I didn't find it funny that the train they'd decided to kick off on had extra staff, so it was never going to end well for them).

 

[bramling]

Arguably the only way to deal with antisocial behaviour is to stop the train at the next station and to not proceed until the troublemakers have departed.

That's what happened a month or so ago, though not only do I think one of the teenage group had tried to hit the guard, there were extra revenue protection on the train so there were official people to support the guard (admittedly I didn't find it funny that the train they'd decided to kick off on had extra staff, so it was never going to end well for them).

The trouble is that doesn’t really work either, as if you get someone who just says “what are you going to do if I don’t get off?”, it’s then created a problem.

The guard can’t use force, so in the absence BTP (or equivalent) it’s essentially leading to a situation where someone on the train decides to use force. A generation ago this might have been viable, but now with CCTV and camera phones this is a problem.

 

[trentside]

Couple of years ago I was preparing to drive Nottingham to St Pancras on a 5 car 222. About 14 BTP on the platform and both Nottingham forest fans and fans of a London team. BTP just watching drunk fans being loud and really swearing aggressively at each other and a few walking around shoulder barging each other. Police tried to order me to open the locked train to let them all on together and get rid . My poor TM looked worried . In the end a couple of officers agreed to ride , but only to Leicester.

I had similar at Peterborough more recently. They were already fighting prior to getting on the train. I spoke with the officers and advised them that if the behaviour continued I’d be refusing to take the train out and they’d have to have them back. We ended up with officers riding and had no real issues bar a group rattling the ceiling panels behind my cab. An officer ended up standing over them to keep them quiet after that.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Feb 2026 ==

The trouble is that doesn’t really work either, as if you get someone who just says “what are you going to do if I don’t get off?”, it’s then created a problem.

The guard can’t use force, so in the absence BTP (or equivalent) it’s essentially leading to a situation where someone on the train decides to use force. A generation ago this might have been viable, but now with CCTV and camera phones this is a problem.

The risk here as well is other passengers intervening. It can be well intentioned, then you get situations like the ScotRail incident some years back where the conductor essentially condoned someone using excessive force against a scrote. While it was maybe a joy to watch it caused a storm of issues.

 

[JohnofWessex]

If we want to get people out of their cars and on to trains/buses/walking/cycling then 'public safety' is a major issue

I might start by tackling the drunk and disorderly, in particular taking a leaf out of Merseyrails book not allowing them on stations/bus's and perhaps have drunk tanks so they can sober up before being allowed home the following morning.

Suggested locations include Dovey Junction, Sugar Loaf Halt and Severn Beach.........

 

[Kite159]

A possible solution is for the industry to employ more security staff called something like 'bylaw enforcement officers' who have a zero tolerance for any anti social behaviour. Both visible and undercover.

Get caught with your feet on the seat opposite, on the spot £100 fine, get caught vaping on the train, £100 fine and/or forced eviction at the next station.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A possible solution is for the industry to employ more security staff called something like 'bylaw enforcement officers' who have a zero tolerance for any anti social behaviour. Both visible and undercover.

Get caught with your feet on the seat opposite, on the spot £100 fine, get caught vaping on the train, £100 fine and/or forced eviction at the next station.

This is what Merseyrail do and it does seem to work. It doesn't create a nice feel to the service particularly given the way they dress (stab vests are sadly necessary though as I note above I'm not sure army boots are, I think I'd rather they looked more like bouncers in a sharp suit than paramilitaries looking to go to war) but of late I feel it is probably necessary given the levels antisocial behaviour has reached on some parts of the network.

I do wonder if GBR should perhaps consider pushing for some legislation to enable them to apply a base PF (£100, discounted to £50 per the usual policy) for misdemeanours other than ticketing matters, not just ASB but also stuff like taking bicycles on trains where they aren't allowed, taking stupid amounts of luggage well above the allowances etc* **. This would make this sort of thing a lot easier - at present their only option is to threaten a Byelaw prosecution and offer a settlement as is done with some ticketing matters, and that's both very admin-heavy and doesn't in a way feel like "playing the game". On the other hand I do wonder if some actual prosecutions under Byelaw 7 (music out loud) would be a good thing particularly if publicised heavily, because "prosecution" carries a weight a 50 quid "fine" doesn't, even if in any practical sense (because Byelaw offences aren't recordable) they are the same thing.

* Having an expensive "price list" of what it would cost if you pulled the cord, smoked etc was an offputter to doing those things, I would say. In BR days all the "no X" signs had the fine printed on them.
** I don't think it would be sensible for the railway to turn into Ryanair over bags half a centimetre too large, though, it has enough bad publicity without going that way, as I seem to recall reading SNCF have.

 

[LowLevel]

Barry teens sentenced for racist murder of stranger delivering food to his mum

Kamran Aman was subjected to further racist abuse as he lay dying on the floor of a neighbour's house.

www.bbc.co.uk

I'd like to bring this one to the table where a pair of feral teenagers murdered someone in a racist attack while they were delivering food to their mother in South Wales. In the small print of the description of their activities before the event includes that they confronted a train conductor amongst other "low level" anti social issues.

I strongly believe we have passed the point where passive action is helpful to try and point these sort of people in the right direction and the priority must be to remove them to a position where they can't harm normal people going about their lives.

It's not acceptable to try and tinker around the edges leading them into doing the right thing. The failure of society to prevent them from continuing after their earlier misdeeds ultimately cost someone their life.