Train guards threaten fine for bag on seat
GWR says on-board staff are ‘empowered’ to act as strict approach earns welcome from passengers
TRAIN guards have resorted to issuing empty threats of fines to passengers who put their luggage on seats.
Rail operators say their staff are “empowered” to ask people to remove luggage from seats, with some guards telling passengers they will issue fines if they refuse – even though train firms do not routinely enforce such fees.
Rail firms have powers to restrict passengers to three pieces of luggage under the National Rail Conditions of Travel, which all train companies operate under. Guidelines state rail operators can also levy an additional luggage charge on people who bring more than three pieces on board or if excess bags occupy seats which are needed for passenger use.
However, some rail firms find that the threat of a fine is enough to deter passengers. Some guards have issued warnings to passengers using an extra seat for luggage, while Great Western Railway (GWR) said its guards are known for using humour to drive home serious points.
A GWR spokesman said: “There’s no such thing as a fine for bags on seats. Train managers tend to find a bit of light humour is a pretty effective way of highlighting the issue and encouraging people to stow luggage thoughtfully.”
They added: “[While] there’s no ban on bags on seats, in terms of busy services, our on-board staff are empowered to manage their train safely and efficiently. This may include asking people to pay due regard for their fellow passengers and remove any luggage from seats to allow others to sit.”
Passengers on GWR have reported hearing the announcements being issued by guards and managers.
Laura Mittens, from Wiltshire, said on X, formerly Twitter: “Good on GWR for announcing that they’d charge anyone the price of an extra seat for putting luggage or coats/bags on seats whilst there are lots of people left standing on this five-carriage train to Penzance! Pity the guy opposite me completely ignored that! Some people eh?!” GWR replied: “Seats are for bums.” Lynne Golding reported a similar situation to South Western Railway, saying: “Boarded train at Basingstoke for London. Train is busy but so many seats are being used by people storing their baggage – people, including elderly, are having to stand. Surely if this happens the bag owners should be charged for another ticket!!!”
The operator replied: “Are you able to ask them to move their bags? If not, are you able to liaise with the guard?” She said: “Lady [asked] the chap to move his bag several times but got nowhere. He point-blank refused. Have seen no sight of the guard.”
Govia Thameslink Railway said it encouraged passengers not to take up room “by unnecessarily blocking seats and other spaces with luggage”.
Southeastern, which runs some of the country’s busiest commuter lines into London, said: “Customers are encouraged to use or luggage racks.”
What could be more selfish than a sturdy man sitting in a train with his luggage on the seat next to him while the less sturdy and the old have to stand? Passengers report that train staff announce that anyone with luggage on a seat must pay an extra charge. But imagine that you are a passenger with a couple of suitcases. The racks for heavy cases at the end of the carriage are full; the rack above the seat will not accommodate a suitcase. What are you to do? You can’t put a case in the gangway, as it blocks a hoped-for tea trolley, and constitutes a safety risk. Companies such as LNER boldly declare that passengers are limited to three items: a biggish case, a bag and a handbag. It’s like being on an aeroplane. Yet trains do not fall off the tracks if loaded with luggage. There should be room for it. Whatever happened to guards’ vans?