Dealing with the "luggage problem" - options

[Bletchleyite]

I can’t see people being allowed to buy tickets for luggage and thereby exclude people from seats (yes, that already happens to an extent with seats in cycle areas, but look at the issues it causes).

Lumo do it by putting protective fabric bags on the seats designated for luggage. They're the bad ones by the door pockets that nobody wants (that really should be luggage stacks).

As reservation-only travel* is likely to be the future of InterCity travel (on which this issue mostly occurs) then you don't get arguments on board about it anyway, it's just "sold out". Aside from the wheelchair space which needs to be kept for that, on regional trains you'd just have multipurpose seat-free spaces that can contain luggage, unfolded prams, bicycles or standees as appropriate to how busy things are - nothing to argue about. Tip up seats are a stupid idea and should not be used in any context ever, and all existing ones should be removed without exception.

* Or the LNER bodge approach, i.e. walk-up travel is so expensive hardly anyone will do it, which I'd bet a First Anytime Return from Manchester to London is likely to be what GBR does.

 

[43066]

As reservation-only travel* is likely to be the future of InterCity travel (on which this issue mostly occurs) then you don't get arguments on board about it anyway, it's just "sold out". Aside from the wheelchair space which needs to be kept for that, on regional trains you'd just have multipurpose seat-free spaces that can contain luggage, unfolded prams, bicycles or standees as appropriate to how busy things are - nothing to argue about. Tip up seats are a stupid idea and should not be used in any context ever, and all existing ones should be removed without exception.

I can’t see true reservation only travel as it will turn away revenue. Even if you had it you can imagine the scenario where, if those travelling on heavily booked services happened to have more luggage than the average, there may still be too much to be carried. At least a limit gives some level of predictability.

As things stand the default is piling it up in the wheelchair space which isn’t really acceptable, as you say.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I can’t see true reservation only travel as it will turn away revenue. Even if you had it you can imagine the scenario where, if those travelling on heavily booked services happened to have more luggage than the average, there may still be too much to be carried. At least a limit gives some level of predictability.

If an extra bag or large piece of sports equipment was something you booked in advance, you could control how many were offered. That's how the airlines do it. Do it right and it's a profit centre, not a cost centre. Bicycles are unlikely to be a profit centre as they take up a lot of space, but you can get 4-5 large bags on a pair of seats so it's quite possible you could charge more for the luggage than for two passengers. The IC railway already operates a "maximum yield" policy rather than a "maximum bums on seats" policy, so it's no different from that.

 

[Peter Sarf]

In practice it’s more likely that luggage will still be restricted, even if charged for, so that those who wish to travel with lots of it will need to use other means.

I can’t see people being allowed to buy tickets for luggage and thereby exclude people from seats (yes, that already happens to an extent with seats in cycle areas, but look at the issues it causes).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Oct 2024 ==

I do think, as you say, it is most likely that a simple approach will be resorted to.

Trouble is - again in the context of being stuck with short trains with a small loading gauge - there still has to be a hard limit. It’ll still be possible to fill the trains with people who don’t require large amounts of luggage.

Yes, I think vague restrictions are a problem. Otherwise it will leads to all sorts of arguments at the point of boarding. That is stress for the staff on the ground and the passenger.

If I was pushing my luck with luggage then it is a bit of a show stopper if I cannot actually travel on the day.

People will try it on but there is a difference between being turfed out of Standard Premium for example and not being able to travel because your luggage is getting left behind. So there does need to be standard, easy to understand and enforce rules.

Now I suspect there needs to be a route out of the problem on the day for those who did not read the small print. The same as being charged for excess baggage at the airport if too much has been packed. Being stung for not reading the small print is better than being refused access to the train you have booked.

 

[Bletchleyite]

People will try it on but there is a difference between being turfed out of Standard Premium for example and not being able to travel because your luggage is getting left behind. So there does need to be standard, easy to understand and enforce rules.

But those rules do need to be sensible and apply to the kinds of luggage being carried. 30cm depth rules out almost all large rucksacks and holdalls of the type anyone going camping by train will carry - it isn't fit for purpose. I do note in the other thread that the 90x70x30 measurement appears to date back a long way and indeed was removed fairly recently from the NRCoT presumably because it was unfit for purpose* - time the TOCs caught up. (90x70x50 would probably work for most purposes, though, and you would still want to provide for things like large musical instruments, though probably just by requiring an additional child fare to be paid for them and a seat taken up).

* Now I know it's old money, I suspect 90x70x30 was a fairly standard size for a large traditional (non wheeled) suitcase. Trolley cases tend to be taller and narrower, and rucksacks even more so - something like 90x35x35 is a typical size for a large camping rucksack.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I can’t see true reservation only travel as it will turn away revenue. Even if you had it you can imagine the scenario where, if those travelling on heavily booked services happened to have more luggage than the average, there may still be too much to be carried. At least a limit gives some level of predictability.

As things stand the default is piling it up in the wheelchair space which isn’t really acceptable, as you say.

My feeling is that by getting the price right for excess baggage you could limit the demand to a manageable level.

 

[Bletchleyite]

My feeling is that by getting the price right for excess baggage you could limit the demand to a manageable level.

That's my inclination. And on quiet trains make it cheap, it's money for old rope and there's tons of space.

Something like 1/4 to 1/3 of the fare booked per additional large bag would probably be a profitable level when you consider how many bags can be placed on a pair of airline seats. And if it's profitable, providing for it suddenly seems a better idea!

 

[Peter Sarf]

But those rules do need to be sensible and apply to the kinds of luggage being carried. 30cm depth rules out almost all large rucksacks and holdalls of the type anyone going camping by train will carry - it isn't fit for purpose. I do note in the other thread that the 90x70x30 measurement appears to date back a long way and indeed was removed fairly recently from the NRCoT presumably because it was unfit for purpose* - time the TOCs caught up.

* Now I know it's old money, I suspect 90x70x30 was a fairly standard size for a large traditional (non wheeled) suitcase. Trolley cases tend to be taller and narrower, and rucksacks even more so - something like 90x35x35 is a typical size for a large camping rucksack.

I agree the 30Cm depth is rather daft in this day and age.

Your 90 x 35 x 35 could go up to 90 x 60 x 35 and still be the same volume but I think 40 depth is better - 90 x 52.5 x 40 would be my compromise but a simpler 90 x 50 x 40 is only a little smaller on volume.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree the 30Cm depth is rather daft in this day and age.

Your 90 x 35 x 35 could go up to 90 x 60 x 35 and still be the same volume but I think 40 depth is better - 90 x 52.5 x 40 would be my compromise but a simpler 90 x 50 x 40 is only a little smaller on volume.

I wouldn't reduce the 70. 90x70x50 would encompass anything vaguely reasonable, and I think is what SNCF use (and now strictly enforce, with a EUR50 penalty for being caught not complying*). Hardly any bags actually take up all three of those dimensions, it's just about giving enough "give" in each direction for various styles of reasonable large bag to still fit. 100x70x50 would encompass everything on the market bar golf bags, I suspect.

* To do that here you'd need a legal change, say to allow a base Penalty Fare to be charged for any infringement of the NRCoT. Or you could just follow Merseyrail and prosecute it as the "interfering with the comfort of passengers" Byelaw they do for feet on seats and extort £50 as a settlement, but that's very admin-heavy and would be very unpopular.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I wouldn't reduce the 70. 90x70x50 would encompass anything vaguely reasonable, and I think is what SNCF use (and now strictly enforce, with a EUR50 penalty for being caught not complying*). Hardly any bags actually take up all three of those dimensions, it's just about giving enough "give" in each direction for various styles of reasonable large bag to still fit. 100x70x50 would encompass everything on the market bar golf bags, I suspect.

* To do that here you'd need a legal change, say to allow a base Penalty Fare to be charged for any infringement of the NRCoT. Or you could just follow Merseyrail and prosecute it as the "interfering with the comfort of passengers" Byelaw they do for feet on seats and extort £50 as a settlement, but that's very admin-heavy and would be very unpopular.

Interesting points / options.

Yes some sort of low-admin penalty charge that is not too draconian.

 

[etr221]

I happened to be looking at BA's luggage restrictions. All are allowed one 'Hand Bag' 40*30*15 cm (to go under seat) and one 'Cabin Bag' 56*45*25 cm (may need to go in hold) - both up to 23kg; also (depending on class) up to 0-2 for Economy variants (3 if First) 'Checked bag' 90*75*43 cm, each 23 or 32kg (again, class dependant). Max for an 'oversized bag' (for sports, &c equipment is 190 x 75 x 65 cm, requires advance notice.

Another operator I saw distinguished between 'smaller' 70*57*32 cm and 'larger' (about same as BA), with a special of 132*73*18 cm, bags (that would be checked if flying).

Those indicate what I would expect the railway to be able to cope with. And might - up to what I can manage - travel with.

 

[43066]

If an extra bag or large piece of sports equipment was something you booked in advance, you could control how many were offered. That's how the airlines do it. Do it right and it's a profit centre, not a cost centre.

So that’s a hard limit - book an extra bag for a fee, but if too many are booked you can’t take it. I agree that’s where we will end up.

Airlines also have hard limits (ultimately a function of maximum takeoff weight, fuel required, and the C of G needing to be within limits), but they have a lot more luggage space per passenger, so they aren’t encountered as often.

I happened to be looking at BA's luggage restrictions. All are allowed one 'Hand Bag' 40*30*15 cm (to go under seat) and one 'Cabin Bag' 56*45*25 cm (may need to go in hold) - both up to 23kg; also (depending on class) up to 0-2 for Economy variants (3 if First) 'Checked bag' 90*75*43 cm, each 23 or 32kg (again, class dependant). Max for an 'oversized bag' (for sports, &c equipment is 190 x 75 x 65 cm, requires advance notice.

Another operator I saw distinguished between 'smaller' 70*57*32 cm and 'larger' (about same as BA), with a special of 132*73*18 cm, bags (that would be checked if flying).

Those indicate what I would expect the railway to be able to cope with. And might - up to what I can manage - travel with.

The railway doesn’t operate A320s with huge luggage capacity for only a couple of hundred people carried; on the railway the luggage has to be carried in the cabin!

On a busy LNER service you’ll get easily three or four A320s’ worth of passengers with a fraction of the luggage space.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So that’s a hard limit - book an extra bag for a fee, but if too many are booked you can’t take it. I agree that’s where we will end up.

It's a different type of hard limit to turning up at your train and being turned away, though. "We might take it" is not a useful policy, as there's nothing you can actually do about it if you turn up and are refused - you're left with the option of not travelling and potentially losing a hefty fare.

I think what I would say is that if hard limits are necessary then exceptions should be bookable in advance in the manner of bicycles (though probably at a fee). I'm not sure they actually are, though, because most people don't bring much (most commonly something the size of an IATA hard sided carryon), so the odd person bringing more is no great issue. Trains that have problems tend to have problems with that basic amount because the provision of racks is grossly inadequate.

When a family turns up with four large cases on a trolley that might *look* a lot, but it's only one each. You very rarely see one person with more than one.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Oct 2024 ==

I happened to be looking at BA's luggage restrictions. All are allowed one 'Hand Bag' 40*30*15 cm (to go under seat) and one 'Cabin Bag' 56*45*25 cm (may need to go in hold) - both up to 23kg; also (depending on class) up to 0-2 for Economy variants (3 if First) 'Checked bag' 90*75*43 cm, each 23 or 32kg (again, class dependant). Max for an 'oversized bag' (for sports, &c equipment is 190 x 75 x 65 cm, requires advance notice.

That 43 dimension is a lot more useful than 30, and will encompass almost all rucksacks and similar. Though in practice if you're a bit over they'll still take it, you will just have to drag it to oversized. Presumably that slightly odd size is just based on what the automated belts at Terminal 5 can handle, as a lot of their operation is based around smooth processing there.

Easyjet don't from what I can see specify anything on hold bag size, just weight.

 

[43066]

It's a different type of hard limit to turning up at your train and being turned away, though. "We might take it" is not a useful policy, as there's nothing you can actually do about it if you turn up and are refused - you're left with the option of not travelling and potentially losing a hefty fare.

What I’m saying should be in place isn’t “we might take it”; it’s a charge for baggage, to encourage people to pack efficiently and to raise revenue, and a strict limit per passenger. That way there’s certainty over what can be carried and, if you can’t carry as much as you need, you simply don’t take the train.

At the moment “we might take it” is exactly what we have in place for bikes, for example, on services that don’t have cycle reservations; as a cyclist there’s a non negligible chance you’ll be turned away from trains on summer weekends due to demand.

I think what I would say is that if hard limits are necessary then exceptions should be bookable in advance in the manner of bicycles (though probably at a fee). I'm not sure they actually are, though, because most people don't bring much (most commonly something the size of an IATA hard sided carryon), so the odd person bringing more is no great issue. Trains that have problems tend to have problems with that basic amount because the provision of racks is grossly inadequate.

It’s going to become a bigger problem in future as numbers rise - keeping in mind the intercity fleet we have in this country isn’t going to get much bigger over the next 30 years, and is already very crowded. Hence Lumo’s approach is probably trail blazing. There is already scope for baggage restrictions in the NRCoT, so they could easily be made more widespread.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What I’m saying should be in place isn’t “we might take it”; it’s a charge for baggage, to encourage people to pack efficiently and to raise revenue, and a strict limit per passenger. That way there’s certainty over what can be carried and, if you can’t carry as much as you want, you simply don’t take the train.

The problem with this is that it defines the train as a simple adjunct to car ownership, which isn't a policy I could support. With the higher cost of cars and insurance, we need to be pushing towards a combination of public transport and cycling being a replacement for the car. Thus, it needs to be possible, for instance for students going back to campus a few times a year, to pay to carry more luggage.

I don't see much need for a hard limit as there's a practical limit to what one person can carry, which is probably around 2 big bags and one small one on your back*, maybe plus incidentals like a handbag which don't really make much difference. I did move to Hamburg for a year with two cases which were probably the full NR size - 90x70x30 - and very heavy - and I could barely manage them, and I'm a very big guy. But hardly anyone brings that.

* Which is more than LNER nominally allows, but Avanti appears to allow that.

At the moment “we might take it” is exactly what we have in place for bikes, for example, on services that don’t have cycle reservations; as a cyclist there’s a non negligible chance you’ll be turned away from trains on summer weekends due to demand.

My personal view is that aside from stuff like Merseyrail where you'll be waiting 15 minutes at most and cycles by the doors are tolerated, cycle reservation should, for that exact reason, be mandatory on all trains.

It’s going to become a bigger problem in future as numbers rise - keeping in mind the intercity fleet we have in this country isn’t going to get much bigger over the next 30 years, and is already very crowded. Hence Lumo’s approach is probably trail blazing. There is already scope for baggage restrictions in the NRCoT, so they could easily be made more widespread.

I'm not sure it is, because with people getting bigger I don't think you're physically going to get many more seats in the existing trains - for instance 3+2 on UK intercity trains is just not viable. A luggage rack that will take maybe 8 large bags is only two seats. If anything regional trains will end up with more standee space (so will look more like Japanese trains or London Overground, i.e. fewer seats, probably narrow 2+2 or longitudinal, and lots of standing room), and all that open space makes luggage easier, not harder. If anything the trend seems to be to lower density seated interiors like the Class 195 or 397 but with more standing room.

 

[AHBD]

BUT. If one whole coach is turned over to luggage then that is a whole coach load of passengers, with not much luggage, who will have to travel by a less ecological mode.

It is the same old problem. Once any transport mode is running at capacity then the tendency is for it not to cater for unusual cases. Cram the seats in closer is what we have.

You either disadvantage a minority or a majority - I know in this day and age "minority" tends to infer rights over the majority.

In the end capacity will be realised if people are willing to pay for it. So if someone wants to take a large amount of luggage then they need to pay for the valuable space that someone else could have bought a ticket for and used. Of course HS2 would bring improved capacity but people (those holding the purse strings) are not willing to pay for its construction (to put it simply).

Your idea of convertible seating areas would work if we can organise those wanting to take a large amount of luggage so that they only travel off-peak. But I am not sure there is a decent stretch of peak time on longer distance services. But I would not bother wasting time and resources on convertible seating anyway. Most of the luggage will fit on seats - could have areas near vestibules with perch/folding seats like many EMUs already have. Train Operating Companies could manage the luggage with reservations (for the seat with bags on) and a charge. Then pricing luggage onto the quieter services just the way passenger fares are priced according to demand.

Back in the day we could have used older coaches with a loco on the front and run it as an overnight service (that's me wanting cheap overnight services back).

If pesky passengers with too much luggage or touring cyclists are to be driven onto coaches rather than facilitated on trains., then shouldn,t the national rail planner link to suitable coaches: finding coach or bus routes on line seems rather less easy than that journey planner,or requires local knowledge? Plus coaches often seem slower than one would expect.

 

[Dr Hoo]

If pesky passengers with too much luggage or touring cyclists are to be driven onto coaches rather than facilitated on trains., then shouldn,t the national rail planner link to suitable coaches: finding coach or bus routes on line seems rather less easy than that journey planner,or requires local knowledge? Plus coaches often seem slower than one would expect.

Well, an ‘all modes’ journey planner would be a very useful contributor to integrated transport anyway. But it would require prospective passengers to self-declare their intention to travel with ‘awkward’ types or quantities of luggage.

 

[Peter Sarf]

If pesky passengers with too much luggage or touring cyclists are to be driven onto coaches rather than facilitated on trains., then shouldn,t the national rail planner link to suitable coaches: finding coach or bus routes on line seems rather less easy than that journey planner,or requires local knowledge? Plus coaches often seem slower than one would expect.

With railways we still have a single point of enquiry left over from the pre privatisation days. Otherwise it would be anarchy.

It would be really nice to have a single planning tool for all public transport journeys. Do we want to even include air ?. Certainly ferries, coaches and bus with rail.

I am not sure how likely coaches are to be physically able to carry cycles even if charged ?.

Well, an ‘all modes’ journey planner would be a very useful contributor to integrated transport anyway. But it would require prospective passengers to self-declare their intention to travel with ‘awkward’ types or quantities of luggage.

Beat me to it on the integrated transport subject. YES.

You do raise a valid concern. How many people are going to turn up at the platform with a valid ticket BUT too much luggage - either due to ignorance or just chancing it. For them it just means they have to pay for their ignorance or gambling. But that depends on capacity being there so the penalties will have to be enough to put people off repeatedly chancing it and certainly stop too many people chancing it.

It would be nice to keep penalty luggage charges as less draconian than penalty fares policy is getting nowadays. That is beginning to make me feel less confident about train travel even though I probably know what I am doing and usually have a specific train booked. Coaches just seem more friendly.

Obviously issuing a penalty excess luggage charge (my term) only works if there is somehow capacity to carry the excess luggage.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Obviously issuing a penalty excess luggage charge (my term) only works if there is somehow capacity to carry the excess luggage.

Aside from Lumo I wonder how many "AAA" (Accompanied Animals and Articles) tickets for excess luggage are issued? I bet the number is tiny, my guess would be low double figures nationally per year. I've never heard of or seen one issued.

Aside from finiticky arguments over the 30cm dimension which is a bit small for non-trolley luggage which tends to be of a square profile (but upping that to 40 would encompass basically all of it), 90x70x30 is really quite a big bag - it's the huge size of trolley you see the likes of cruise passengers with. Hardly anyone will be over, and you almost never see someone with more than one large bag on a train.

The most common size you see on trains seems to be airline cabin luggage, and that only causes problems because some people are too bone idle to put it in the overheads and instead think it's OK to put it on seats or blocking the aisle. Yes, there'd be a problem if everyone brought two large bags, but they don't.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Aside from Lumo I wonder how many "AAA" (Accompanied Animals and Articles) tickets for excess luggage are issued? I bet the number is tiny, my guess would be low double figures nationally per year. I've never heard of or seen one issued.

Aside from finiticky arguments over the 30cm dimension which is a bit small for non-trolley luggage which tends to be of a square profile (but upping that to 40 would encompass basically all of it), 90x70x30 is really quite a big bag - it's the huge size of trolley you see the likes of cruise passengers with. Hardly anyone will be over, and you almost never see someone with more than one large bag on a train.

The most common size you see on trains seems to be airline cabin luggage, and that only causes problems because some people are too bone idle to put it in the overheads and instead think it's OK to put it on seats or blocking the aisle. Yes, there'd be a problem if everyone brought two large bags, but they don't.

It has just occurred to me where I see an unmanageable number of people with excess luggage on trains. The trains from East Croydon to London (more Victoria than Thameslink). I seem to travel at the right time to encounter coaches impassible due to the filling up at Gatwick Airport. This is probably around midday from East Croydon. I see it less on the trains from London but then that is probably due to time of travel and/or the fact that I walk to the front of the train along the platform before departure from Victoria BUT in the up direction I am getting on at the rear and then walking forwards within the train when going to London.

Ah - now I see why see have a dedicated service called Gatwick Express !.
But then there seems to be no track capacity for these trains for luggage heavy passengers nowadays - let alone within the train itself !.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It has just occurred to me where I see an unmanageable number of people with excess luggage on trains. The trains from East Croydon to London (more Victoria than Thameslink). I seem to travel at the right time to encounter coaches impassible due to the filling up at Gatwick Airport. This is probably around midday from East Croydon. I see it less on the trains from London but then that is probably due to time of travel and/or the fact that I walk to the front of the train along the platform before departure from Victoria BUT in the up direction I am getting on at the rear and then walking forwards within the train when going to London.

Ah - now I see why see have a dedicated service called Gatwick Express !.
But then there seems to be no track capacity for these trains for luggage heavy passengers nowadays - let alone within the train itself !.

The problem there is 100% caused by the fact that a price premium applies* to using Gatwick Express (the trains for which do have decent luggage rack provision) and so people with lots of bags are priced onto trains that have little or no** provision to store them. If this premium was removed, the problem would resolve itself as soon as word got around that it had been.

* Yes, I know there are legal issues with that premium, but that's how it's marketed and so that's what people will do.
** Depending which layout of Electrostar shows up, some have racks in the middle coaches, some I think have none at all.

 

[bramling]

One thing that can be done (as Lumo do) is putting marked bags over selected unpopular seats (e.g. ones with no window) indicating that they are temporarily to be used as luggage storage. This might be a good plan during "students moving back" time.

One solution is simply to make the railway function as advertised. On the rare occasions I bring stuff with me (vary occasionally I take a non-folding bike) then I can normally plan to avoid services where I know there’s likely to be problems. But this can be shot to pieces if things don’t go to plan, for example the service is short-formed, the one in front is cancelled, that sort of thing. Then there’s events, but I tend to take a “tough luck” line with that - if people want to all turn up at the same time and crowd out an established service than don’t expect regular users to work around you.

For one-off peaks in demand for example student time then agree that siphoning off selected unpopular seats is a great idea.

Otherwise, longer trains, which is normally the answer to a whole range of issues.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Oct 2024 ==

Are you kidding? Surely anyone who hasn’t been living under a rock knows that bike use is up massively post pandemic, and correspondingly far more are now being carried by train. The issue is the stock not having enough space to safely accommodate them. Given limited capacity there is a debate over how much space should/can be given to cycles versus passenger sitting/standing space, but nobody remotely knowledgeable about the issues would be in denial of the fact that demand to carry bikes on the railway is through the roof.

Must admit I’m not really seeing this on the services I use (mainly local commuter services). I wouldn’t say there’s any more bikes than in the past. Obviously things may be different elsewhere.

Indeed the new fad for stuff like Lime bikes may well be causing a reduction in the need for people to take bikes to London, though whether that’s a good thing is a matter for debate as these hire cycles seem to cause all manner of other problems.

 

[Peter Sarf]

The problem there is 100% caused by the fact that a price premium applies* to using Gatwick Express (the trains for which do have decent luggage rack provision) and so people with lots of bags are priced onto trains that have little or no** provision to store them. If this premium was removed, the problem would resolve itself as soon as word got around that it had been.

* Yes, I know there are legal issues with that premium, but that's how it's marketed and so that's what people will do.
** Depending which layout of Electrostar shows up, some have racks in the middle coaches, some I think have none at all.

Charging passengers for blocking the gangways on the cheaper services would help them understand the value of the Gatwick Express.

One solution is simply to make the railway function as advertised. On the rare occasions I bring stuff with me (vary occasionally I take a non-folding bike) then I can normally plan to avoid services where I know there’s likely to be problems. But this can be shot to pieces if things don’t go to plan, for example the service is short-formed, the one in front is cancelled, that sort of thing. Then there’s events, but I tend to take a “tough luck” line with that - if people want to all turn up at the same time and crowd out an established service than don’t expect regular users to work around you.

For one-off peaks in demand for example student time then agree that siphoning off selected unpopular seats is a great idea.

Otherwise, longer trains, which is normally the answer to a whole range of issues.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Oct 2024 ==



Must admit I’m not really seeing this on the services I use (mainly local commuter services). I wouldn’t say there’s any more bikes than in the past. Obviously things may be different elsewhere.

Indeed the new fad for stuff like Lime bikes may well be causing a reduction in the need for people to take bikes to London, though whether that’s a good thing is a matter for debate as these hire cycles seem to cause all manner of other problems.

I agree, reliability - sometimes I feel the railway does not have a leg to stand on.

I do not see many non-folding bikes. Main one is Deliveroo riders going home at the end of their day on fairly quiet trains (but then I am usually at or near the front). Next worst is on the East Croydon to Victoria route where there is a 50% chance the cyclist chooses to stick their bike in the wrong side of the door area for letting people on/off at Clapham Junction. I usually remind them that Clapham Junction is always opening on the left side for GTR (so ignoring SWR fasts and LO).

 

[AHBD]

...I am not sure how likely coaches are to be physically able to carry cycles even if charged ?....

But proper single deck coaches have a big separate luggage area under the seating area usually?

...maybe if the Uk had eschewed raised railway platforms from the start, trains could have done the same before dmus

 

[Meerkat]

you almost never see someone with more than one large bag on a train.

Might not be frequent but definitely more than ‘almost never’, particularly on long distance services.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Might not be frequent but definitely more than ‘almost never’, particularly on long distance services.

Ever since this thread came up I've been observing things during various long distance journeys on GWR, Avanti and WMT (mostly) more than I had previously, and I would indeed say "almost never". The most common bag size is an airline sized carry on, with bigger trolleys also featuring less commonly and my large rucksack very often remarked upon, particularly if I stick it in the overhead. Perhaps those long distance services that serve airports are different, though. I don't think I've seen a single passenger with two, except where there were a family and they had say three cases between them and one adult was handling them all - but in that case that's still less than one each!

 

[Indigo Soup]

But in my experience people *don't* put their bags in the overheads on trains even where they would fit - it is the complete opposite culture!

By way of example - I was on a long distance LNER journey the other day; my suitcase was the only one in the vehicle end racks. There were plenty of similar-sized, or larger, bags in the overhead racks - and one person wandering the train with a bag of golf clubs, I'm not sure they ever found somewhere they were happy to put them!

Two weeks prior, my wife and I made the same journey; three students on their way to an OTC camp each boarded with large holdalls, which did indeed go into the overhead racks. I doubt those were within the 90x70x30 limit, but being soft sided didn't pose too many problems.

 

[Bletchleyite]

By way of example - I was on a long distance LNER journey the other day; my suitcase was the only one in the vehicle end racks. There were plenty of similar-sized, or larger, bags in the overhead racks - and one person wandering the train with a bag of golf clubs, I'm not sure they ever found somewhere they were happy to put them!

Aside from the golf clubs that sounds like it all working fine to me! Space in the end racks for those who want/need it and stuff in the overheads where it fits.

The luggage racks on 80x are about 30cm deep (I've never measured one, but they are roughly that based on the bags I have that I know do and don't fit up there) so if bags squash down there's no reason to be finiticky about that dimension unless you want the railway to start being more Ryanair and penalising people just because they can (i.e. not penalising people for reasons of safety/consideration, but rather simply treating penalties as a profit centre as Ryanair openly admits that it does). I really don't want to see that - the railway has a bad enough reputation as it is.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Aside from the golf clubs that sounds like it all working fine to me! Space in the end racks for those who want/need it and stuff in the overheads where it fits.

The luggage racks on 80x are about 30cm deep (I've never measured one, but they are roughly that based on the bags I have that I know do and don't fit up there) so if bags squash down there's no reason to be finiticky about that dimension unless you want the railway to start being more Ryanair and penalising people just because they can (i.e. not penalising people for reasons of safety/consideration, but rather simply treating penalties as a profit centre as Ryanair openly admits that it does). I really don't want to see that - the railway has a bad enough reputation as it is.

This is very true. The railways need to be careful in the way they handle the problem of oversized or too-much luggage. It is already getting unnerving the way they deal with ticketing problems. Reliability is not something to be proud of either.

 

[Meerkat]

This is very true. The railways need to be careful in the way they handle the problem of oversized or too-much luggage. It is already getting unnerving the way they deal with ticketing problems. Reliability is not something to be proud of either.

Just wait until Euston call the train late and then insist on all luggage going through the sizer at the top of the ramp....