Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
I'm guessing that OP has in mind the rowdy sports fans and groups who treat the trains like a (rather cramped) party bus. I too would find train travel more pleasant if some people were more respectful of the space and other passengers through not being enabled by alcohol to be noisy or messy. But, as seen by the replies in this thread, it is not popular, enforceable, nor fair on passengers who only lightly drink alcohol.
I'm not a teetotaler, and people are entitled to have a fun time with pals on their train journey. My problem is mostly the litter that the groups leave behind which stinks up the carriage. Such is the nature of any public space though.
Quite frequently on this forum, I have seen posts and threads dedicated to overcrowding incidents caused by special events, mostly sporting events and concerts. However, during these times, Train Operating Companies don’t usually increase the service provision to match the increased demand, as...
If 1% of people with a mobile are playing music or videos out loud, are you advocating for a policy of no mobile phones on board as well?
I travel to non league football with a group of heavy drinkers, and we all have a bottle or can for the way home. The worst that might happen is the chat gets a bit loud. Not screaming, shouting or chanting, or harassing other passengers. Even within the generalised group you've singled out, it's still only the tiny minority that cause trouble.
So a tiny minority of a tiny minority - and the solution is an outright ban? Babies and bath water spring to mind.
Doesn't matter when you ban it, it will still spoil the innocent enjoyment of non-troublemakers while the troublemakers will firstly already be drunk and troublesome when they board and then will not take any notice of being told to stop anyhow, and guards alone will not be able to enforce it against such people.
What you really need is significantly more roving BTP squads, focusing on people who cause trouble and abuse others, drunk or not, by targeting specific days, times, and services, so people who actually break the law (damage to trains, abusing other passengers, swearing in public etc. - all potentially criminal offences) get arrested and charged.
Spilling drinks, leaving tons of litter, getting loud and excitable as they share their drinks around - drinkers can be right pains in the backside on trains. Even if already drunk, better they start sobering up rather than have their inebriation levels topped up in a confined space with other unwilling passengers
Spilling drinks, leaving tons of litter, getting loud and excitable as they share their drinks around - drinkers can be right pains in the backside on trains. Even if already drunk, better they start sobering up rather than have their inebriation levels topped up in a confined space with other unwilling passengers
Fully agree, drinkers don't realize how loud and insufferable they are after a couple of drinks...
The litter part really annoys me, catch any Crosscountry Birmingham - Nottingham 170 operated service on a Saturday and by about 1pm you'll struggle to get to a seat without having to wade through a sea of empty cans and bottles.
Oh, and by the way, I have a small bet with a fellow traveller on how many posts it will take before a specific type of traveller (of which we both are) are subject to generalisation in a reply
As another member of this much-maligned group, nobody to my knowledge ever bothered declaring a train dry just because it was expected to have Maidenhead United fans on it, but we have in the past found ourselves on the same train as West Ham or Milwall fans, so I'm well aware that targeted, intelligence-led alcohol bans are possible. I've been loosely associated with a group that had booze confiscated as a condition of being allowed into York station. I was allowed to walk in with a bag and wasn't asked to consent to a search.
What I'm getting at is it should be possible to do things to curb excesses of drunkenness, nuisance and disorder without the sledgehammer of a blanket ban. Most instances of drinking on trains are unproblematic.
As an aside - the main complaint about drunks is usually that they're loud. Have we got the balance right between quiet and non-quiet carriages? Most people on trains make very little if any noise and would prefer it if others would do likewise. Shouldn't it be the loud people who have to go to the back of the train and squeeze into a single carriage?
Fully agree, drinkers don't realize how loud and insufferable they are after a couple of drinks...
The litter part really annoys me, catch any Crosscountry Birmingham - Nottingham 170 operated service on a Saturday and by about 1pm you'll struggle to get to a seat without having to wade through a sea of empty cans and bottles.
I've been loosely associated with a group that had booze confiscated as a condition of being allowed into York station. I was allowed to walk in with a bag and wasn't asked to consent to a search
The bag searches for booze at York confuses the hell out of me at times. A few weeks ago I was changing at York for a Hull train after returning from a Newcastle-Amsterdam minicruise that was many hours late getting onto the berth. With an hour to wait, I decided to go to the Sainsbury's for a meal deal and walked through the roped off area easily and got what I wanted. When trying to get back onto the platforms, however, they wouldn't let me through as "the entire station was dry, mate" and it took some arguing and a friendly BTP officer to get through
And my train wasn't even dry anyway as it was quite... lubricated... on its way to Hull
I'm not, speaking as someone who has had issues with it in the past having to dispose of alcoholic gifts bought in London when East Coast (as was) decided at the last minute to make a train dry. Luckily they weren't particularly expensive.
The issue isn't alcohol on the train, the issue is people being allowed to board trains when they're already hammered. The ASB is because they're hammered and the ASB happens irrespective of whether its a dry train or not.
We see that at York, especially on race weekend. The people coming back from the Ebor are absolutely paralytic and they cause problems because of that. Taking a bottle of wine away from a sensible, sober passenger and letting those sloshed halfwits get on the train really is putting the cart before the horse. They're still smoking and swearing and fighting and puking. I'd need a stiff drink to deal with them but I'm not allowed. Ironic, really.
Rather than seizing booze, the BTP should be telling the drunkards to go away and come back when they're in a fit state to travel.
Same thing with the issues on some holiday flights. The issue is that gate staff won't deny boarding to people who are off their faces.
I'm not, speaking as someone who has had issues with it in the past having to dispose of alcoholic gifts bought in London when East Coast (as was) decided at the last minute to make a train dry. Luckily they weren't particularly expensive.
Go where? Once people are that drunk they'll be a nuisance until they sober up. Perhaps they could be contained in certain carriages? I'd happily take a breathalyser test in order to get into a part of the train reserved for people who are less than 5 times over the drink drive limit...
I could see where they were coming from- individual bottles of real ale and miniatures of posh gin are exactly the sort of thing you'd also buy to consume on the train. Still peed me off though as it was a last minute change and it was a couple of weeks before Christmas.
What annoys me is that those who are determined to get booze on dry trains will manage. Big show of searching my rucksack at Kings Cross on one dry train then ended up sharing a bottle of gin with three Spurs fans sitting at my table. They were Spurs fans heading home to Newcastle, they needed a drink bless them.
I'm not, speaking as someone who has had issues with it in the past having to dispose of alcoholic gifts bought in London when East Coast (as was) decided at the last minute to make a train dry. Luckily they weren't particularly expensive.
The issue isn't alcohol on the train, the issue is people being allowed to board trains when they're already hammered. The ASB is because they're hammered and the ASB happens irrespective of whether its a dry train or not.
We see that at York, especially on race weekend. The people coming back from the Ebor are absolutely paralytic and they cause problems because of that. Taking a bottle of wine away from a sensible, sober passenger and letting those sloshed halfwits get on the train really is putting the cart before the horse. They're still smoking and swearing and fighting and puking. I'd need a stiff drink to deal with them but I'm not allowed. Ironic, really.
Rather than seizing booze, the BTP should be telling the drunkards to go away and come back when they're in a fit state to travel.
Same thing with the issues on some holiday flights. The issue is that gate staff won't deny boarding to people who are off their faces.
Yes, I think if the powers that be decide to implement a dry train, the ban should be on open containers, rather than rifling through peoples shopping.
On a point of order, do the private security firms that man "barriers" on dry stations have the legal right to search through private property where no offence has been committed? Seems to me thats a job for BTP
On a point of order, do the private security firms that man "barriers" on dry stations have the legal right to search through private property where no offence has been committed? Seems to me thats a job for BTP
Private security can't search your property without consent. However, I don't think there's anything that means they can't refuse you access to the station until you give your consent to be searched.
On a point of order, do the private security firms that man "barriers" on dry stations have the legal right to search through private property where no offence has been committed? Seems to me thats a job for BTP
If they are working on behalf of the railway, then I'd suggest as much right as the stewards have at football grounds and concert halls. Trains are not public places, but places to which the public are admitted as long as they follow the relevant by-laws and conditions of travel.
Not sure it would be unenforceable, at the moment anti social behaviour is pretty difficult evidence and thus combat, whereas some people drinking and being anti-social is pretty easy to evidence. Someone complains, BTP turn up the the next station stop, they are ejected from the train.
Doing this would also send a signal that drinking and being loud and drunk on trains is not socially acceptable, over time I would expect to seen instances of anti-social behaviour go down.
A reasonable compromise might be have some "drinking" carriages on trains, only bookable in advance and with photo ID, anti-social behaviour results in a multi-year ban.
For the OP question, ‘What makes a train dry’ in my time as a TOC’s liaison with BTP, it was invariably a police request associated with football. On the day, a serial (Sargeant plus 2) would usually monitor departures and then travel with the last pre-match service.
On a point of order, do the private security firms that man "barriers" on dry stations have the legal right to search through private property where no offence has been committed? Seems to me thats a job for BTP
It's a Byelaws offence to have alcohol on a dry train (Byelaw 4.2).
If an authorised person reasonably believes that someone has alcohol in their possession they can require them to leave unless they can prove they don't have alcohol in their possession (Byelaw 4.3).
So they don't have the right to forcefully search you. But if you don't voluntarily subject yourself to a search then they could (and probably would) reasonably assume it is because you have booze on you. And they can deny you travel on that basis.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
ot sure it would be unenforceable, at the moment anti social behaviour is pretty difficult evidence and thus combat, whereas some people drinking and being anti-social is pretty easy to evidence. Someone complains, BTP turn up the the next station stop, they are ejected from the train.
Doing this would also send a signal that drinking and being loud and drunk on trains is not socially acceptable, over time I would expect to seen instances of anti-social behaviour go down.
The drinking bit is largely unenforceable. If someone sneaks a bottle on board and drinks it discreetly, nobody will notice. The issue only arises if they're openly drinking and, even then, staff will usually turn a blind eye to groups of people openly drinking.
The real issue is the anti-social behaviour, not the alcohol. But the BTP don't get involved in that unless the behaviour is particularly abusive and the BTP are available to meet the train. Otherwise the police take the view that its better to let these people go to where they're going, where they become someone else's problem.
We see that most clearly at places like York after the horse racing. The police and railway staff at the station don't deny boarding to people who are paralytic. If they deny boarding then the drunks are their problem, but if they let them catch their train then the drunks become someone else's problem.
Of course, the real issue after big horse racing meetings- the Grand National is another one- isn't the alcohol. It's the other substances that people have dabbled with during the day. The cokeheads are the real issue.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The drinking bit is largely unenforceable. If someone sneaks a bottle on board and drinks it discreetly, nobody will notice. The issue only arises if they're openly drinking and, even then, staff will usually turn a blind eye to groups of people openly drinking.
The real issue is the anti-social behaviour, not the alcohol. But the BTP don't get involved in that unless the behaviour is particularly abusive and the BTP are available to meet the train. Otherwise the police take the view that its better to let these people go to where they're going, where they become someone else's problem.
We see that most clearly at places like York after the horse racing. The police and railway staff at the station don't deny boarding to people who are paralytic. If they deny boarding then the drunks are their problem, but if they let them catch their train then the drunks become someone else's problem.
Of course, the real issue after big horse racing meetings- the Grand National is another one- isn't the alcohol. It's the other substances that people have dabbled with during the day. The cokeheads are the real issue.
This is reminisant of the speech in The Wire about the police letting people get away with public drinking so long as the put the alcohol in a brown paper bag. People who are concealing their drinking are unlikely to be much of a problem.
The most basic argument in favour is that they banned drinking on the tube in 2008 and it has mostly worked despite there not being aggressive enforcement. It rapidly becomes a social norm, once not drinking on the train becomes a social norm not being drunk on the train also becomes a social norm. The people may still be drunk but alcohol is not a psychedelic drug it does not make you behave in any particular manner. People behave "drunk" and rowdy for social and societal reasons, you can actually do placebo tests where you get people roaring drunk of alcohol free beer. Thus if you ban alcohol consumption on the train it is likely that over time it will vastly calm down anti-social behaviour.
This is reminisant of the speech in The Wire about the police letting people get away with public drinking so long as the put the alcohol in a brown paper bag. People who are concealing their drinking are unlikely to be much of a problem.
The most basic argument in favour is that they banned drinking on the tube in 2008 and it has mostly worked despite there not being aggressive enforcement. It rapidly becomes a social norm, once not drinking on the train becomes a social norm not being drunk on the train also becomes a social norm. The people may still be drunk but alcohol is not a psychedelic drug it does not make you behave in any particular manner. People behave "drunk" and rowdy for social and societal reasons, you can actually do placebo tests where you get people roaring drunk of alcohol free beer. Thus if you ban alcohol consumption on the train it is likely that over time it will vastly calm down anti-social behaviour.
The most basic argument in favour is that they banned drinking on the tube in 2008 and it has mostly worked despite there not being aggressive enforcement.
...
It's a whole different category, banning drinking on a 20 minute tube journey, compared to not being able to have a few beers on a train from London to Penzance at the start of your holiday. Most people who enjoy a drink would agree that one of these is reasonable and the other one not so much.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
