Dry trains

[PR1Berske]

Regarding how many pints you can consume before travelling, providing you can board the train unaided and you are not behaving in an unpleasant or offensive manner, then the sky is the limit.

Which highlights just how difficult it is to police.

A 30-something on mixers all night will hold themselves very differently to a 50-something on Greene King. A hen party will have amongst their number the entire spectrum of drunk that's possible to record, from tipsy to barely awake!

 

[DarloRich]

Which highlights just how difficult it is to police.

A 30-something on mixers all night will hold themselves very differently to a 50-something on Greene King. A hen party will have amongst their number the entire spectrum of drunk that's possible to record, from tipsy to barely awake!

I agree - however there are usual social norms that could assist. However we each have our own tolerance for "behaviour". Comparing mine to others here I think mine is quite high!

 

[skyhigh]

A preposterous idea and a complete waste of BTP resources. Your view seems to be: Take an evening out, commit the heinous RUK crime of having a couple of pints with mates, and be subject to vast breaches of civil liberates? You want to search your bag because I have had a pint or two? I don't think so. I have committed no crime, despite what many here think of people who dare to drink an alcohol. Can you just clarify how many pints I may consume before I am prevented form travelling?

I could never see the BTP doing widespread bag searches. For 'security purposes' but actually looking for alcohol? No chance. How could that be described as proportionate or necessary?

Besides, there is nothing like the number of resources available to do that routinely.

 

[PR1Berske]

I agree - however there are usual social norms that could assist. However we each have our own tolerance for "behaviour". Comparing mine to others here I think mine is quite high!

Oh I'm definitely not on the RailUK Puritan Wing, Darlo!

You're right that the measure should always be how a person is behaving, not what they've consumed. I'm quite a sleepy drunk, just put me on a TPE table seat so I can charge my tablet while I snooze and recharge my own batteries!

 

[DarloRich]

I could never see the BTP doing widespread bag searches. For 'security purposes' but actually looking for alcohol? No chance. How could that be described as proportionate or necessary?

Besides, there is nothing like the number of resources available to do that routinely.

exactly - they are stretchered and have better things to do. Lets be honest: Despite what many posters here think most people can go out for a couple of drinks and use public transport without issue, even when drunk! Clearly some people are prats. But then so are many sober people.

 

[Polarbear]

For me, the problem is not carrying alcohol on board trains, but certain elements of the British culture and drinking.

I like a drink. In fact, I like more than one drink on occasion. However, I like to think I know my own limits, know when to quit, have something to eat and/or go home. Unfortunately, there seems to be a small, but growing proportion of the UK populace who don't seem to know these norms, drink way too much, and cause trouble as they lose control of their faculties.

In today's society though, it's the poor souls who run public transport who often have to pick up the pieces & shoulder the brunt of the anti-social behaviour that is a result of the excesses of those who can't control themselves.

As for me when I've had a skinful, I normally fall asleep on the bus/train home....

 

[roversfan2001]

Unfortunately, there seems to be a small, but growing proportion of the UK populace who don't seem to know these norms, drink way too much, and cause trouble as they lose control of their faculties.

I think people know their limits still, there are just more people making the conscious decision to surpass those limits.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

A preposterous idea and a complete waste of BTP resources. Your view seems to be: Take an evening out, commit the heinous RUK crime of having a couple of pints with mates, and be subject to vast breaches of civil liberates? You want to search your bag because I have had a pint or two? I don't think so. I have committed no crime, despite what many here think of people who dare to drink an alcohol. Can you just clarify how many pints I may consume before I am prevented form travelling?

Think about it, if someone falls between the train and the platform as their too intoxicated results as a hazard in my view, as they're unable to stand up unaided because they've downed a few too many. I'd rather have the drunkards kept on the platform so that they can sober up before they can board and by having dry trains, there's less chance of anything kicking off as booze isn't involved. When it comes to booze, everyone has their limits but others will chance it and drink more then that is when you have problems.

Put it this way, would you rather have bags searched and alcohol revoked at Picc or would you rather see someone seriously injured or even killed as they've fallen between the train and platform, as the drunk has smashed their head on the line / snapped their ankle on the ballast?
I know what I'd rather have.

I once went to an event in Nottingham Castle and my bag was searched, no booze was on me just a bottle of lemonade and a packet of biscuits which was permitted inside the event - I didn't feel that had my civil liberates breached, I just thought of public safety reasons.

 

[takno]

Put it this way, would you rather have bags searched and alcohol revoked at Picc or would you rather see someone seriously injured or even killed as they've fallen between the train and platform, as the drunk has smashed their head on the line / snapped their ankle on the ballast?
I know what I'd rather have.

Sounds like a rather hefty straw man argument. I don't want someone searching my bags for any reason. An active terrorist threat or intelligence-based search for weapons might be acceptable reasons to override that. A fishing expedition for alcohol based on what somebody who was almost certainly already drunk when they arrived on the railway might and might not end up doing to themselves definitely isn't.

 

[DarloRich]

I think people know their limits still, there are just more people making the conscious decision to surpass those limits.

most of us in the adult world have exceeded our limits form time to time. I know i have.

Think about it, if someone falls between the train and the platform as their too intoxicated results as a hazard in my view, as they're unable to stand up unaided because they've downed a few too many. I'd rather have the drunkards kept on the platform so that they can sober up before they can board and by having dry trains, there's less chance of anything kicking off as booze isn't involved. When it comes to booze, everyone has their limits but others will chance it and drink more then that is when you have problems.

Put it this way, would you rather have bags searched and alcohol revoked at Picc or would you rather see someone seriously injured or even killed as they've fallen between the train and platform, as the drunk has smashed their head on the line / snapped their ankle on the ballast?
I know what I'd rather have.

I once went to an event in Nottingham Castle and my bag was searched, no booze was on me just a bottle of lemonade and a packet of biscuits which was permitted inside the event - I didn't feel that had my civil liberates breached, I just thought of public safety reasons.

I find this post quite hard to follow due to the straw men getting on the way. Put it this way: I would rather BTP spent their limited resources on dealing with actual criminals rather than people having a drink or then trying to criminalise those who do dare to have a drink.

 

[221129]

Think about it, if someone falls between the train and the platform as their too intoxicated results as a hazard in my view, as they're unable to stand up unaided because they've downed a few too many. I'd rather have the drunkards kept on the platform so that they can sober up before they can board and by having dry trains, there's less chance of anything kicking off as booze isn't involved. When it comes to booze, everyone has their limits but others will chance it and drink more then that is when you have problems.

Put it this way, would you rather have bags searched and alcohol revoked at Picc or would you rather see someone seriously injured or even killed as they've fallen between the train and platform, as the drunk has smashed their head on the line / snapped their ankle on the ballast?
I know what I'd rather have.

I once went to an event in Nottingham Castle and my bag was searched, no booze was on me just a bottle of lemonade and a packet of biscuits which was permitted inside the event - I didn't feel that had my civil liberates breached, I just thought of public safety reasons.

If they are that drunk then they are a bigger risk on the platform than they are in the train....

 

[PR1Berske]

Sounds like a rather hefty straw man argument. I don't want someone searching my bags for any reason. An active terrorist threat or intelligence-based search for weapons might be acceptable reasons to override that. A fishing expedition for alcohol based on what somebody who was almost certainly already drunk when they arrived on the railway might and might not end up doing to themselves definitely isn't.

You could just as easily ask "Would you rather have BTP bag checking for cans, while a fight at the station entrance is turning nasty with no officers immediately free to act?"

I do understand that there's an issue to be tackled but going too far into "guilty before proven innocent" is not the way to tackle anything.

 

[skyhigh]

If they are that drunk then they are a bigger risk on the platform than they are in the train....

Indeed - and that's the balancing act that BTP/rail staff have to deal with. Technically, according to byelaw 4:

(1) No person shall enter or remain on the railway where such person is unfit to enter or remain on the railway as a result of being in a state of intoxication.
(2) Where reasonable notice is, or has been, given prohibiting intoxicating liquor on any train service, no person shall have any intoxicating liquor with him on it, or attempt to enter such a train with intoxicating liquor with him.
(3) Where an authorised person reasonably believes that any person is unfit to enter or remain on the railway, or has with him intoxicating liquor contrary to Byelaw 4(2), an authorised person may:
(i) require him to leave the railway; and (ii) prevent him entering or remaining on the railway until an authorised person is satisfied that he has no intoxicating liquor with him and/or is no longer in an unfit condition.

So several options are available. The person can be removed from the railway and left to make their own way home - but if they have no cash and are seriously drunk, you might be putting them at greater risk of harm, so that doesn't always work. They can be prevented from travelling until they are sober enough - but that might well cause more issues on the platform/in the station than letting them travel. If they're reasonably well behaved letting them travel might be the best option. There's no perfect answer in many cases.

Obviously if they're causing issues with their behaviour that'll change the outcome - but the BTP doesn't have anywhere near enough resources to fully enforce the byelaw and stop everyone who's drunk from travelling.

Edit - I can't actually think of any legislation and powers that officers would actually have to conduct routine bag searches. Fair enough if there's a ban on carrying alcohol and you can see people carrying cans, but otherwise? Stop and search can be applied in specific situations, which this would in no way cover. Entry to venues etc is a different case, private property where searches can be a condition to entry.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

civil liberates?

... he may have been quite amenable in his ivory tinkling days

 

[coppercapped]

Regarding how many pints you can consume before travelling, providing you can board the train unaided and you are not behaving in an unpleasant or offensive manner, then the sky is the limit.

Quite. The National Rail Conditions of Travel (October 2016) state:

19. Showing consideration for other passengers
19.1 You should show consideration for other passengers, so that everyone is able to have an enjoyable travel experience on the National Rail Network. Anti-social and criminal behaviour, in particular, affects other passengers and can prevent them from enjoying their journey.
19.2 This behaviour is covered by the Railway Byelaws, which apply to anyone on railway property, regardless of whether they have a Ticket or not.

And the bye-law is quoted in a post above.

 

[roversfan2001]

most of us in the adult world have exceeded our limits form time to time. I know i have.

A few of us in the not-so-adult world have too

 

[Norther Monkey]

I'd ban the consumption of alcohol on all forms of public transport. On too many occasions travel is spoilt by noise, boorish behaviour and all too often a threatening atmosphere.

Staff, as often described here, are put in an unenviable and potentially dangerous position. Having to balance taking action against unnacceptable behaviour and their own personal safety often in remote locations with no help immediately available.

Looking back I now recognise that my younger self was probably responsible for drunken behaviour that probably spoilt other people's journeys, had drinking on board not been allowed that probably wouldn't have happened.

 

[SwindonBert]

There's 2 issues here, consumption of alcohol on trains & people who are intoxicated traveling on trains.

I am ambivalent about banning people consuming on trains, but would be against the carriage of sealed containers (to allow someone to take their shopping home)

On transporting those who have had a few is trickier, I can understand the issues some staff can have - I've seen it! But, a lot of people use public transport to get home after a few to avoid driving, a good thing for society.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

I'd ban the consumption of alcohol on all forms of public transport. On too many occasions travel is spoilt by noise, boorish behaviour and all too often a threatening atmosphere.

I quite agree. While we're at it I'd ban talking on trains, listening to music, singing football fans, screaming kids, snoring pensioners and anyone who behaves in a way I disapprove of.

 

[yorksrob]

I quite agree. While we're at it I'd ban talking on trains, listening to music, singing football fans, screaming kids, snoring pensioners and anyone who behaves in a way I disapprove of.

Whilst you're at it, please ban those dreadful cream cheese and chive pringles that make me feel ill every time someone opens a carton.

 

[Bromley boy]

I'd ban the consumption of alcohol on all forms of public transport. On too many occasions travel is spoilt by noise, boorish behaviour and all too often a threatening atmosphere.

But it seems rather draconian and disproportionate to punish the majority of perfectly reasonable and well behaved drinkers for the antics of a few.

Plus, as has been repeatedly stated above, a ban is only as good as its enforcement. This is something you’ll have realised if you’ve travelled on London Underground since the alcohol ban and seen people openly drinking.

I agree with the current approach. Dry trains, effectively enforced by BTP, for specific high risk situations such as football matches, but I don’t think there’s any justification (or any effective method) for expanding them beyond this.

 

[sefton]

This happened in Cumbria a few months ago: http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/C...ggage-9ef9328d-71d2-4c96-81bc-b710fea0c27d-ds

That would seem to be contrary to the information on their website which says alcohol is permitted on all their trains unless you are intoxicated (which she was not) - https://www.northernrailway.co.uk/f...-can-i-drink-alcohol-on-trains-or-at-stations

Could she claim Delay Repay for being delayed in her journey? (although I did notice in the article they did apologise for their behaviour and give her some vouchers).

 

[Nev20]

Trains from Kings Cross to the North East are usually dry after a football match on a Saturday involving Newcastle or Sunderland. BTP do enforce this although common sense does avail regarding non football supporters simply taking unopened alcohol home. Football supporters are not allowed to take alcohol on the train, even unopened. BTP are nearly always on these trains for the whole of the journey back to the North East to stop unpleasant behaviour.

To treat people that went to Football different to others, is of course nonsense.

 

[al78]

I quite agree. While we're at it I'd ban talking on trains, listening to music, singing football fans, screaming kids, snoring pensioners and anyone who behaves in a way I disapprove of.

 

[Norther Monkey]

I quite agree. While we're at it I'd ban talking on trains, listening to music, singing football fans, screaming kids, snoring pensioners and anyone who behaves in a way I disapprove of.

The difference is that those behaviours, whilst annoying, rarely feel threatening (except perhaps the football fans who are often fuelled by drink). A threatening atmosphere is much less tolerable than an annoying one.

Scotland's trains are, in my opinion, a much more pleasant place since the alcohol ban. But daytime drunkenness can still make journeys pretty intolerable.

As I've said I enjoy a drink, but would be willing to forego the dubious pleasure of plastic cups of warm beer in a cramped seat to reduce drunken behaviour on trains.

 

[takno]

The difference is that those behaviours, whilst annoying, rarely feel threatening (except perhaps the football fans who are often fuelled by drink). A threatening atmosphere is much less tolerable than an annoying one.

Scotland's trains are, in my opinion, a much more pleasant place since the alcohol ban. But daytime drunkenness can still make journeys pretty intolerable.

As I've said I enjoy a drink, but would be willing to forego the dubious pleasure of plastic cups of warm beer in a cramped seat to reduce drunken behaviour on trains.

At the end of the day I often have a drink on evening trains in Scotland (before 9). I'm always well mannered, as are the vast majority of people I see drinking on trains. Meanwhile there are plenty of rude aggressive people who haven't touched a drop. Have you considered that you may have developed an out of proportion fear of alcohol, and that it may be better for you to address that than for me to substantially curtail my enjoyment of the journey?

 

[Llanigraham]

Edit - I can't actually think of any legislation and powers that officers would actually have to conduct routine bag searches. Fair enough if there's a ban on carrying alcohol and you can see people carrying cans, but otherwise? Stop and search can be applied in specific situations, which this would in no way cover. Entry to venues etc is a different case, private property where searches can be a condition to entry.

I would suggest that 4 (3) (ii) does exactly that:

4. Intoxication and possession of intoxicating liquor said:

(1) No person shall enter or remain on the railway where such person is unfit to enter or remain on the railway as a result of being in a state of intoxication.
(2) Where reasonable notice is, or has been, given prohibiting intoxicating liquor on any train service, no person shall have any intoxicating liquor with him on it, or attempt to enter such a train with intoxicating liquor with him.
(3) Where an authorised person reasonably believes that any person is unfit to enter or remain on the railway, or has with him intoxicating liquor contrary to Byelaw 4(2), an authorised person may:
(i) require him to leave the railway; and (ii) prevent him entering or remaining on the railway until an authorised person is satisfied that he has no intoxicating liquor with him and/or is no longer in an unfit condition.

(From the quote in your post)

 

[Stampy]

Trains from Kings Cross to the North East are usually dry after a football match on a Saturday involving Newcastle or Sunderland. BTP do enforce this although common sense does avail regarding non football supporters simply taking unopened alcohol home. Football supporters are not allowed to take alcohol on the train, even unopened. BTP are nearly always on these trains for the whole of the journey back to the North East to stop unpleasant behaviour.

True, but I have turned up at King's Cross once with a bottle of drink (a present I was taking back home after meeting up with a relative in London) - and on arrival found that the train I was travelling on, was a "dry train".

All I did was hand over the bottle to the Guard, and collected it again when I got off at Peterborough!

 

[Norther Monkey]

At the end of the day I often have a drink on evening trains in Scotland (before 9). I'm always well mannered, as are the vast majority of people I see drinking on trains. Meanwhile there are plenty of rude aggressive people who haven't touched a drop. Have you considered that you may have developed an out of proportion fear of alcohol, and that it may be better for you to address that than for me to substantially curtail my enjoyment of the journey?

No, I don't think I 'have developed an out of proportion fear of alcohol' I enjoy a drink and pubs regularly, and recognise that on those occasions I have chosen to be in a place where people will be drinking/drunk and behaving accordingly. Importantly, everyone in those establishments has chosen to be around alcohol and its effects.

The railways are primarily a means of transport and, too many times, I have had journeys spoilt by drunken behaviour which I have not chosen to be a part of and from which there is often little option of removing myself. We accept alcohol restrictions in many other public spaces and - personally - I would happily add public transport to that list.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

... he may have been quite amenable in his ivory tinkling days

With a hideous candelabra ..

(you have to be of a certain age to understand this quip at a passed on pianist..)