Passenger removal

[railrambler]

This afternoon I boarded an Avanti train at Penrith, to Carlisle.

A few seats away was a Scottish gentleman who was making phone calls and his language was slightly “choice” if one knows what I mean, but not OTT. I’ve heard much worse!

What happened prior to me boarding the train I don’t know. But on arrival at Carlisle three police officers were awaiting, and on the instruction of, I assume the train manager, told the police “I don’t want this man on my train”.

The police went into the carriage and escorted him off the train. The guy appeared worse for wear with drink but was not aggressive and indeed one of the offices shook his hand as his train departed.

So my question is “what is the criteria used for evicting a passenger off a train?”

 

[Toby268]

This afternoon I bordered an Avanti train at Penrith to Carlisle. A few seats away was a Scottish gentleman who was making phone calls and his language was slightly “choice” if one knows what I mean, but not OTT. I’ve heard much worse! What happened prior to me boarding the train I don’t know. But on arrival at Carlisle three police officers were
awaiting, and on the instruction of, I assume the train manager, told the police “I don’t want this man on my train”.
The police went into the carriage and escorted him off the train. The guy appeared worse for wear with drink but was not aggressive and indeed one of the offices shook his hand as his train departed.
So my question is “what is the criteria used for evicting a passenger off a train?”

Obviously something that warranted him being removed had happened prior to you boarding at Penrith, for the Train manager to have got BTP to remove him from the train.

They may have had No valid ticket with no intention of buying one or could’ve been causing a nuisance or being abusive to staff or passengers before you boarded. It could also be a welfare issue due to the state the passenger may have been in. I doubt they’d be removed from the train purely for being on the phone.

 

[Mike_0ne]

Under the railway byelaws, almost anything can get you removed; Byelaw 6: Unacceptable Behaviour, with no definition of what constitutes such behaviour, means if the railway is fed up with you, you can be removed; with reasonable force if required. Alas, very few people on the railway still have that authority anymore; other than BTP, Land-sheriffs and 'hands on' security (night-time).

 

[FrontSideBus]

Surely anything worthy of being ejected from the train would also warrant an arrest and or fine?

 

[AlterEgo]

Surely anything worthy of being ejected from the train would also warrant an arrest and or fine?

Not necessarily.

 

[The exile]

Surely anything worthy of being ejected from the train would also warrant an arrest and or fine?

Burden of proof is in theory a lot lower.

 

[45Fox]

Alas, very few people on the railway still have that authority anymore; other than BTP, Land-sheriffs and 'hands on' security (night-time).

Land-sheriffs? I'm not familiar with the term.

 

[saismee]

Land-sheriffs? I'm not familiar with the term.

They're private security used in the Anglia region.

 

[Mike_0ne]

Land-sheriffs? I'm not familiar with the term.

As mentioned, private security for large private land - they have a few more powers than your usual security and often patrol areas of networks/large yards.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Mar 2026 ==

Surely anything worthy of being ejected from the train would also warrant an arrest and or fine?

Sometimes not, sometimes an ejection is all that's needed; often that is deemed 'enough' by the railway, its a useful tool to simply get those causing a nuisance off our network/trains without recourse to slow (and 90% of the time, fruitless) legal proceeding/investigation.

 

[dk1]

They're private security used in the Anglia region.

Yes they were often used around our network. As an ex-driver if somebody had caused a serious issue to my train or if my conductor wanted them ejected the regardless of what anybody tried to say the wheels of my train would not be turning until our wish was executed.

 

[John Luxton]

This afternoon I boarded an Avanti train at Penrith, to Carlisle.

A few seats away was a Scottish gentleman who was making phone calls and his language was slightly “choice” if one knows what I mean, but not OTT. I’ve heard much worse!

What happened prior to me boarding the train I don’t know. But on arrival at Carlisle three police officers were awaiting, and on the instruction of, I assume the train manager, told the police “I don’t want this man on my train”.

The police went into the carriage and escorted him off the train. The guy appeared worse for wear with drink but was not aggressive and indeed one of the offices shook his hand as his train departed.

So my question is “what is the criteria used for evicting a passenger off a train?”

To be honest I wouldn't be bothered about someone like that being removed ensures everyone else has a pleasant journey.

Even your comments about his language suggests he wasn't behaving normally. Encounters with people like this can make trips uncomforable.

A couple of years ago I was on an evening TfW Chester to Liverpool Lime Street service.

There was a group of four men aged around 25 to 50 who were being loud and coarse.

They may well have had a bit too much already and were probably avoiding Merseyrail and its stricter rules on not being under the influcence.

When the train arrived at Frodsham the guard came along and told them in no uncertain terms the train would not be going anywhere and she would have them put off which obviously would have required some sort of call for assistance.

She may have been calling their bluff but they were still quiet when I alighted at South Parkway!

 

[saismee]

Yes they were often used around our network. As an ex-driver if somebody had caused a serious issue to my train or if my conductor wanted them ejected the regardless of what anybody tried to say the wheels of my train would not be turning until our wish was executed.

They excel at de-escalation, but it's always cathartic to see them get a bit more physical with the abusive ones. I think they're most useful when dealing with vulnerable people, and I know of a few cases where they've been more helpful than BTP (primarily due to their closer proximity).

I would never request a train be delayed to get boot a fare dodger out (I'm station staff), even if they were mildly abusive to me, but I will let a conductor know if they have a "character" on their train. One time a conductor refused to move until one of these characters (homophobic teenager who threatened my life) left the station or bought a ticket... that certainly improved my day!

I wish our society had a more strict zero-tolerance policy for these kinds of things. In my opinion, if a known abusive/non-paying passenger boards a train then it shouldn't move until they are removed. The 3-12 coaches of grumpy passengers might be enough to get the person off ...

 

[dk1]

They excel at de-escalation, but it's always cathartic to see them get a bit more physical with the abusive ones. I think they're most useful when dealing with vulnerable people, and I know of a few cases where they've been more helpful than BTP (primarily due to their closer proximity).

I would never request a train be delayed to get boot a fare dodger out (I'm station staff), even if they were mildly abusive to me, but I will let a conductor know if they have a "character" on their train. One time a conductor refused to move until one of these characters (homophobic teenager who threatened my life) left the station or bought a ticket... that certainly improved my day!

I wish our society had a more strict zero-tolerance policy for these kinds of things. In my opinion, if a known abusive/non-paying passenger boards a train then it shouldn't move until they are removed. The 3-12 coaches of grumpy passengers might be enough to get the person off ...

It’s always good to get the rest of the carriage on your side but even if not it’s not nice to be in the middle of nowhere if they kick off again with little chance of assistance.

 

[357]

I had to check it wasn't April 1st when I read that BTP actually attended.

 

[45Fox]

They're private security used in the Anglia region.

As mentioned, private security for large private land - they have a few more powers than your usual security and often patrol areas of networks/large yards.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Mar 2026 ==

Many thanks both.

 

[Edsmith]

This afternoon I boarded an Avanti train at Penrith, to Carlisle.

A few seats away was a Scottish gentleman who was making phone calls and his language was slightly “choice” if one knows what I mean, but not OTT. I’ve heard much worse!

What happened prior to me boarding the train I don’t know. But on arrival at Carlisle three police officers were awaiting, and on the instruction of, I assume the train manager, told the police “I don’t want this man on my train”.

The police went into the carriage and escorted him off the train. The guy appeared worse for wear with drink but was not aggressive and indeed one of the offices shook his hand as his train departed.

So my question is “what is the criteria used for evicting a passenger off a train?”

I don't know anything about this particular incident but I have seen instances of staff over reacting to such matters.

 

[The exile]

I don't know anything about this particular incident but I have seen instances of staff over reacting to such matters.

“Overreacting” is a) highly subjective and b) easy to say in hindsight.

 

[Meole]

Individual may have tourettes which is an acceptable reason

 

[The exile]

Individual may have tourettes which is an acceptable reason

Doesn't stop others genuinely feeling (or indeed being) threatened - which just goes to show what a minefield this is.

 

[WTT Gremlin]

So my question is “what is the criteria used for evicting a passenger off a train?”

Much like “what is the criteria used for asking someone to leave a pub (or coffee shop)?” - scenarios picked based on my own professional experience. The answer depends on the judgement of the specific individual either asking the person to leave/arranging for their departure.

Of note, though they can all be considered to be ‘public places’, that does not mean a right to be there, and it is surprisingly rare that violence or being overly inebriated was the reason for people to be informed that they were no longer welcome.

 

[JohnofWessex]

My personal view is that the obviously intoxicated or abusive should not be allowed on public transport, and at periods when there are likley to be a lot around there should be either BTP at stations or the normal police at busy bus stops/stations to enforce it.

Obviously they cant be everywhere or all the time

 

[andy33gmail]

My personal view is that the obviously intoxicated or abusive should not be allowed on public transport, and at periods when there are likley to be a lot around there should be either BTP at stations or the normal police at busy bus stops/stations to enforce it.

Obviously they cant be everywhere or all the time

Careful what you wish for. Would you prefer for them to drive?

 

[WTT Gremlin]

My personal view is that the obviously intoxicated or abusive should not be allowed on public transport, and at periods when there are likley to be a lot around there should be either BTP at stations or the normal police at busy bus stops/stations to enforce it.

Obviously they cant be everywhere or all the time

How someone appears is so unreliable an indication of level of intoxication to be worse than useless (though probably a good measure of one’s own implicit biases).

However, someone who has consumed enough to be dangerously impaired, but may not look “obviously intoxicated” will in my experience be more likely to consider themselves fit to drive, whilst people are less likely to call them out. Additionally, I have received far more abuse from sober people than inebriated people, and a sober person is more likely to connect , and with more power due to not having their coordination impacted.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

My personal view is that the obviously intoxicated or abusive should not be allowed on public transport...

The first point, some people can hide that they're heavily intoxicated.

You could have four people doing an ale trail, between them they've each downed around three pints of ale after doing six pubs (half a pint at each pub). All four are quiet, considerate and are not upsetting anyone but are rather enjoying their afternoon, someone gets on at the next station and complains to the guard that the four people are obviously intoxicated and should not travel. The four would be disapointed and would feel ejected just because they're obviously intoxicated but aren't causing a scene and aren't being abusive but reasonable by saying "we're sorry that you feel that way".

This to me would be causing needless friction between the four people enjoying themselves and the "karen" sticking their oar in just to get a reaction.


Second point, some people can't and if illicite drugs have been used then it's even more dangerous.

You could have some 6ft meat headed larger lout who was topless, appeared to be on steroids (so potentially unstable) and was publically abusing his (more than likely blonde) 5ft lady friend before taking his anger out on nearby passengers who are trying to intervene - in this case and by all means, the lad shouldn't be travelling in such a state and the lass shouldn't be with someone who cannot control or conduct themselves properly in public.

This would require the lad being removed. (However in the intrests of fairness and if it was the other way round, the lass would be removed)

... at periods when there are likley to be a lot around there should be either BTP at stations or the normal police at busy bus stops/stations to enforce it.

Obviously they cant be everywhere or all the time

The main issue is finite resources and the funds that come with it.

 

[Harpo]

I had to check it wasn't April 1st when I read that BTP actually attended.

I had to check it wasn’t April 1st when I read there were three of them.

 

[Falcon1200]

All four are quiet, considerate and are not upsetting anyone but are rather enjoying their afternoon, someone gets on at the next station and complains to the guard that the four people are obviously intoxicated and should not travel.

In this scenario, what are the four doing to lead another person to immediately consider them intoxicated, to the point of effectively demanding their removal? One person's 'obvious enjoyment' could be extremely worrying to another.

In the case being discussed here, as the OP says we have no idea what occurred before the OP boarded the train, and again, is the 'choice' language described in Post #1 really acceptable in a public place? Perhaps some such language had been directed at the Train Manager, or other passengers.

 

[BeijingDave]

To be honest I wouldn't be bothered about someone like that being removed ensures everyone else has a pleasant journey.

Even your comments about his language suggests he wasn't behaving normally. Encounters with people like this can make trips uncomforable.

A couple of years ago I was on an evening TfW Chester to Liverpool Lime Street service.

There was a group of four men aged around 25 to 50 who were being loud and coarse.

They may well have had a bit too much already and were probably avoiding Merseyrail and its stricter rules on not being under the influcence.

When the train arrived at Frodsham the guard came along and told them in no uncertain terms the train would not be going anywhere and she would have them put off which obviously would have required some sort of call for assistance.

She may have been calling their bluff but they were still quiet when I alighted at South Parkway!

I totally support

 

[Bletchleyite]

My personal view is that the obviously intoxicated or abusive should not be allowed on public transport, and at periods when there are likley to be a lot around there should be either BTP at stations or the normal police at busy bus stops/stations to enforce it.

Obviously they cant be everywhere or all the time

Merseyrail is stricter than most on this, but the problem with it is that they have refused people with coordination disabilities in error before, which could hit them hard in terms of legal action - certainly were I in that position I would sue over such a thing without any question.

However in a country where drinking alcohol is perfectly legal, being as strict as e.g. the drink drive limit would be a bit much.

As for "abusive" it depends what you mean by that. We have legislation regarding "drunk and disorderly" - if people are acting in this sort of way ideally BTP should attend and arrest, not just chuck them off. But equally I have observed staff in several industries who think a robustly made (assertive but not personal nor rude) complaint is abuse, when it really isn't. And people have wildly different standards on swearing. To me "you are an effing idiot" is clearly abuse whether with the "effing" or not, but "this is just not effing good enough" isn't really, as it's complaining about a situation, not abusing the individual. To me a good judgement as to whether something is actually abusive or not involving swearing is if you remove the swear word then judge what remains - an attack on an individual, however mild, is abusive, whereas a complaint about a situation pretty much never is. Obviously the latter can escalate into the former then it becomes abuse. Though one exception would be racist/sexist/homophobic language which is always abusive used in public regardless of context.

 

[Haywain]

You could have four people doing an ale trail, between them they've each downed around three pints of ale after doing six pubs (half a pint at each pub). All four are quiet, considerate and are not upsetting anyone

That's because, after 3 pints, they are highly unlikely to be obviously inebriated. In any event, there is no problem with inebriation, the problem is the behaviour that goes with it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's because, after 3 pints, they are highly unlikely to be obviously inebriated. In any event, there is no problem with inebriation, the problem is the behaviour that goes with it.

It can be. I've had a seriously drunk person fall down a Tube escalator onto me, I picked him up and he wobbled off, but if I wasn't basically a human brick wall it could have resulted in serious injury or death. Mind you I've also had a perfectly sober person drop a suitcase down an escalator which hit me with some force and could have had the same effect.

The threshold for that level of "inebriated" is pretty high though, it certainly isn't anywhere near the drink drive limit or similar. I personally find I'm unable to reach it drinking normal strength beer/cider before I just don't want any more due to the volume of liquid consumed, and it requires spirits or the very quick consumption of wine to have any chance of getting to that level of drunk, and it's probably as a result only happened low tens of times in my entire life.