Hull trains becoming more like Lumo?

[generalnerd]

It’s been discussed before with trains ran by class 803’s, but I was at hull interchange yesterday and saw that hull trains had introduced baggage allowances!

I was naturally quite shocked by this as they have been pretty open to more than one suitcase per person.

Is this a sign of negative things to come or a positive sign that journeys are so busy they have to introduce baggage limits?

 

[43066]

No great surprise. Like Lumo they have a small fleet offering limited space and, as passenger numbers continue to rise, will no doubt be having similar issues with people carrying unrealistic amounts of luggage.

I think we can expect to see this kind of thing increasingly rolling out across the network.

 

[35B]

Not to mention that LNER now assert them too - which is a reminder that they’ve always existed. The problem is now that train lengths and capacities are so constrained as airline seats have spread and removed luggage space.

 

[LowLevel]

I think all TOCs are at least now looking at it, the CCTV of things flying around with during the Lumo overspending incident at Peterborough has concentrated minds a bit.

 

[dan4291]

LNER have also advertised at stations about luggage so this is not just the smaller operators.

It can be a big struggle if you get a lot of big suitcases on a service all at once.

Really there needs to be more luggage racks or even an area for big items of luggage akin to the old parcels or guards vans.

I know Lumo's luggage policy doesn't allow non-folding bikes or sports equipment, they regularly refuse travel for anyone with golf clubs or skis and people with full size bikes.

To give Lumo credit they do advertise this on their website, however most people buy tickets through Trainline and I'm not sure it's well advertised on that platform or other third party ticket sellers.

 

[generalnerd]

LNER have also advertised at stations about luggage so this is not just the smaller operators. It can be a big struggle if you get a lot of big suitcases on a service all at once. Really there needs to be more luggage racks or even an area for big items of luggage akin to the old parcels or guards vans. I know Lumo's luggage policy doesn't allow non-folding bikes or sports equipment, they regularly refuse travel for anyone with golf clubs or skis and people with full size bikes. To give Lumo credit they do advertise this on their website, however most people buy tickets through Trainline and I'm not sure it's well advertised on that platform or other third party ticket sellers.

Yeah, rail operators should re-introduce luggage vans, like seen in DVT’s

 

[43066]

Really there needs to be more luggage racks or even an area for big items of luggage akin to the old parcels or guards vans.

This isn’t going to happen, and is going to be physically impossible given the rolling stock fleets acquired in recent years, which we are now stuck with for the next few decades. More luggage racks means less space for seats or standing passengers.

So, quite simply, the solution is for people to be encouraged/cajoled/forced into carrying less luggage.

 

[43096]

So, quite simply, the solution is for people to be encouraged/cajoled/forced into carrying less luggage.

Which is a good thing. The amount of utter junk people take with them is unbelievable - you’d think they were going away for a month! It’s the scourge of the wheeled suitcase meaning people bring loads because the wheels make it easier and then find they can’t lift it onto a luggage stack.

Really simple rule: if you can’t carry it, don’t take it!

 

[Bletchleyite]

It’s been discussed before with trains ran by class 803’s, but I was at hull interchange yesterday and saw that hull trains had introduced baggage allowances! I was naturally quite shocked by this as they have been pretty open to more than one suitcase per person. Is this a sign of negative things to come or a positive sign that journeys are so busy they have to introduce baggage limits?

All ECML 80x operators (and Grand Central) I think publicise the same, aside from Lumo. This isn't new, I've seen it in a few places e.g. Kings X. LNER have done it for a very long time.

What they do need to do is stop saying "under your seat" and start saying "under the seat in front of you". Taking someone else's legroom with your bag is utterly unacceptable.

 

[43066]

All ECML 80x operators (and Grand Central) I think publicise the same, aside from Lumo. This isn't new, I've seen it in a few places e.g. Kings X. LNER have done it for a very long time.

Probably fair to say the scale of the problems caused by baggage is now at an all time high, though. Hence there’s a new focus on bringing in these restrictions, even though they’ve always been theoretically possible.

 

[transportphoto]

I’ve seen people refused travel on other operators before due to excessive luggage and finite space - EMR 158s spring to mind as units with next to no luggage space.

National Rail Conditions of Travel set out a variety of conditions when it comes to being able to travel with luggage, and allows the operator a notable flexibility to refuse travel in many circumstances.

 

[styles]

I've seen people refused on other operators but only they're they're really taking liberties, like trying to transport TVs, furniture, etc. Worst I saw was someone trying to take a fully assembled wardrobe on the Overground.

I'm not convinced we'll end up with widespread luggage checks. Lumo/Hull routinely do it because they're services are incredibly popular for luggage travellers. LNER might do it sparingly on especially busy services but I doubt they're going to roll it out across the board. Even then, it's only really feasible at certain points of the journey - if you pull into a station with a 1 minute dwelling time, unless you have your own staff at the station, you're not going to be able to check everybody's luggage before they board.

 

[Towers]

I think all TOCs are at least now looking at it, the CCTV of things flying around with during the Lumo overspending incident at Peterborough has concentrated minds a bit.

I hardly think a major operating incident is reason to question how much luggage people bring! Safely stowed suitcases being thrown out of luggage racks due to a massive overspeed incident is hardly relevant, surely?!

 

[mpthomson]

I hardly think a major operating incident is reason to question how much luggage people bring! Safely stowed suitcases being thrown out of luggage racks due to a massive overspeed incident is hardly relevant, surely?!

Why wouldn't it be relevant?

 

[Failed Unit]

It is striking the balance, the size of the suitcases you see around Kings Cross is amazing. It may be the reason they chose the train over flying as if they had turned up to an airport with some of the ones I see the airline would be very happily charging them a fortune. What rail does lack is a mechanism of dealing with booked in advance oversize baggage, in the same way it is possible to book a bike in advance.

 

[LowLevel]

I hardly think a major operating incident is reason to question how much luggage people bring! Safely stowed suitcases being thrown out of luggage racks due to a massive overspeed incident is hardly relevant, surely?!

Of course it is. Whether it can housed safely to avoid becoming a missile in the event of an incident is very important.

 

[43066]

It is striking the balance, the size of the suitcases you see around Kings Cross is amazing. It may be the reason they chose the train over flying as if they had turned up to an airport with some of the ones I see the airline would be very happily charging them a fortune. What rail does lack is a mechanism of dealing with booked in advance oversize baggage, in the same way it is possible to book a bike in advance.

Indeed. And of course trains are actually a lot more space constrained than aircraft, with no belly to carry luggage/cargo, and loading gauge restrictions. The only thing that can be varied is length, and that is maxed out in many cases. Then any increase will (rightly) be expected to be devoted to more passenger accommodation rather than additional luggage space.

There have been some very questionable rolling stock decisions - GWR’s IET kitchens being a good example - but we are where we are, unfortunately.

 

[driverd]

Why wouldn't it be relevant?

Well it's like saying Carmont would make an operator think twice about service tea, or Ladbroke Grove would put operators off allowing bikes.

If you covey unrestrained large and bulky items of luggage, a major incident (which is what Peterborough was, and ofcoure those above), is going to see these moved about. The focus of the industry is all about preventing those incidents, not changing service standards or baggage rules, just incase.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The focus of the industry is all about preventing those incidents, not changing service standards or baggage rules, just incase.

If the baggage is bigger than that which can or should be safely stored in the overhead luggage racks yet people are using them anyway, then the railways do need to look at luggage rules.

The real issue on the IETs is the lack of luggage space though. The LNER ones are better since they took out the seats behind the door pockets and replaced them with luggage racks, but even so.

 

[ChrisC]

I mostly travel with a small case which can safely be stored on the overhead rack on most trains.

Even on a 158 or a 170 I have no problems storing my small case on the overhead rack.

The problem comes on trains like a Voyager or Meridian where the overhead luggage space is so small that even my small case will not fit.

There‘s so little space between the seats and the trains are often so overcrowded that there’s not even space, although not ideal and uncomfortable, to keep my small case between my knees.

Therefore, people even with small cases on these trains have no alternative but to take up valuable space in the end of carriage luggage racks resulting in less space for larger cases.

 

[YorksLad12]

If the baggage is bigger than that which can or should be safely stored in the overhead luggage racks yet people are using them anyway, then the railways do need to look at luggage rules.

The real issue on the IETs is the lack of luggage space though. The LNER ones are better since they took out the seats behind the door pockets and replaced them with luggage racks, but even so.

Perhaps, we need a size that says "suitable for trains" in the same way we have for bags that people might want to take on trains? There does seem to be this idea that the large boxes on wheels that would be in the hold of an aircraft and in which you could transport a small body are suitable for a train.

I usually travel for an overnight stay, so my bag fits (just) in the space in front of my seat in Standard, more awkwardly in First because of the table leg. But I've also seen my fair share of bags dangling precariously off the overhead racks.

I do remember being on an MML set from Sheffield once, in First; someone wheeled a 'regular' size suitcase down to the luggage rack in the centre of the carriage... and found it was too tall for the lower section. Suitcases grew between the 1970s and 2010s It's a variation on Parkinson's Generalised Law, which states that everything expands to fill the space available to it. Prams are the same; they were all slim buggies until buses were made low-floor and accessible, so they expanded to fill the space available.

 

[james_the_xv]

Rather than convert half of the DPTS vehicle on 80xs to carry luggage, would it not be better for the TOCs to have an associated service to send larger baggage onto your final destination from the origin station within 24hrs for a fee? Seems the most logical and realistic solution to me.

 

[dk1]

Rather than convert half of the DPTS vehicle on 80xs to carry luggage, would it not be better for the TOCs to have an associated service to send larger baggage onto your final destination from the origin station within 24hrs for a fee? Seems the most logical and realistic solution to me.

Think that’s been done a few times in the past. Never really caught on and soon the option was withdrawn.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Rather than convert half of the DPTS vehicle on 80xs to carry luggage, would it not be better for the TOCs to have an associated service to send larger baggage onto your final destination from the origin station within 24hrs for a fee? Seems the most logical and realistic solution to me.

These exist, but I wouldn't trust any courier with a time critical luggage shipment as far as I could physically throw the bag.

Perhaps, we need a size that says "suitable for trains" in the same way we have for bags that people might want to take on trains?

There is one - 90x70x30cm. Though as on another thread recently I think the 30 should probably be 40 because almost no expedition/camping rucksacks (which have a squareish profile) are 30 deep, more like 35.

Trouble is luggage rack sizes vary. A bag of that size easily fits overhead on CAF stock, just about on 80x but not at all on a Voyager.

 

[Steddenm]

Rather than convert half of the DPTS vehicle on 80xs to carry luggage, would it not be better for the TOCs to have an associated service to send larger baggage onto your final destination from the origin station within 24hrs for a fee? Seems the most logical and realistic solution to me.

Didn't Virgin have this for a while? And I think Lum° have this as well.

 

[HullRailMan]

This is nothing new. HT have charged for excess baggage for a long time. Some people really do take the proverbial and think a train tickets comes with a free house moving service.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is nothing new. HT have charged for excess baggage for a long time. Some people really do take the proverbial and think a train tickets comes with a free house moving service.

To an extent they do - students moving between uni and home. I don't see a charge as unreasonable for this, though.

That said, piece concepts make little sense for trains, two smaller bags are easier to stow than one larger one.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Is not a lot of this simply enforcing the already existing terms and conditions of travel...?

 

[43066]

To an extent they do - students moving between uni and home. I don't see a charge as unreasonable for this, though.

That said, piece concepts make little sense for trains, two smaller bags are easier to stow than one larger one.

You might travel between home town and uni town by train, but nobody sensible thinks they can take an estate car’s worth of clutter by train. Unfortunately an increasing number of people aren’t sensible!

 

[Bletchleyite]

You might travel between home town and uni town by train, but nobody sensible thinks they can take an estate car’s worth of clutter by train. Unfortunately an increasing number of people aren’t sensible!

That much stuff no, but two large wheeled suitcases are probably reasonable for that. That's what I took when I went to Germany for the year. As things stand that's allowed on Avanti but not LNER/Hull/GC.

(Lumo is different and my views on that have been expressed before - in short they're missing out on business by not allowing a limited number of bigger bags for a fairly hefty fee! But then again they're also missing out on other upsells like paid seat selection, so I guess First just don't wholly get Ryanair's business model).