Not allowed to board Lumo service because of oversized backpack

[Mainline421]

Is there actually a significant issue with luggage on Lumo trains? Haven't used them since 2021, but I didn't observe any problems on that well loaded train. Seems odd to deny someone entry to a train because of a backpack, particularly since it's common to see Interrailers with oversized backpacks on trains throughout Europe. Would have thought backpackers are part of the demographic Lumo targets in their marketing too.

Wouldn't surprise me if the majority of Lumo's passengers have never visited their website.

 

[Watershed]

To be fair they were made available on both the operator’s website

Which the average person would not have any reason to check. Do you check the website of every TOC you travel with, just in case they've banned bringing anything that doesn't fit into your pockets?

and on the booking site the OP used

The Trainline, which the OP used, do nothing more than to link to the NRCoT. In turn, you have to read through 15 pages of legalese to discover that you have to refer to your operator's website (which isn't even cited in the NRCoT) to find out whether or not there are additional luggage restrictions.

I'm struggling to see how that meets the requirement of 'made available', let alone the consumer contract requirement of due prominence.

As I pointed out above, even in the context of consumer contracts, it’s common for the “tick the box to confirm you accept the Ts and Cs” method to be used to incorporate terms into the contract. That, in itself, isn’t something anyone should be surprised by.

You are quite right in principle, and there wouldn't be an issue if the restriction were so trifling that it wouldn't affect most people, such as saying that bikes have to be reserved.

But the vast majority of people who travel on a Lumo service are likely to take luggage, and the restrictions are far more onerous than the average person would expect for travelling by train. So it is something that can't just be hidden in the small print, in the same way you couldn't hide a requirement to pay an extra £10 for a seat reservation to use the train you've selected.

Are these restrictions onerous? Well, luggage restrictions in the context of a travel contract are hardly unusual. Okay, hitherto we haven’t normally experienced actually reaching such limitations in the context of train travel, but the NRCoT itself has limits on what you can carry, so theoretical restrictions are already present.

They're not unusual in the context of travel in general, but they're unheard of in terms of train travel. There aren't even such luggage limits on the Tube! The fact that the NRCoT envisage the possibility of such restrictions in no way changes the fact that they're onerous by the standards of an average person.

Unless I’m missing something, there is no “penalty for non-compliance” and certainly no “forfeiture of any right to travel” stated within the Ts and Cs; you are simply advised that certain items of luggage may not be permitted. Therefore the OP theoretically could have discarded the disallowed item and still been permitted to travel.

On the signage posted above, it is claimed that there may be excess charges. As for the suggestion that you're not forfeiting the right to travel, you know perfectly well that this is ludicrous - try leaving your luggage unattended at Kings Cross!

I don’t want to be accused of being “anti customer” here, which I’m not, but I am surprised at the level of outrage towards a low cost rail operator who are merely doing what many low cost airlines have been doing for decades.

I don't think you're being "anti customer" - for once, I do agree with the principle behind these restrictions (and would indeed support rolling them out further) because some people really do take the mickey with the amount and size of luggage they bring. But it has to be adequately communicated when the customer buys their ticket. The airlines do this very clearly (not wanting to pass up any opportunity to flog their extra services!) which is why their policies are acceptable, even if harsh.

 

[43066]

Of course they are unusual - no other train operator in the UK has anything like this. Being turned away from a UK train because you have a large rucksack is completely unprecedented.

A prospective traveller really has no good reason to think they need to check the T&Cs for onerous baggage restrictions. Do you examine all the T&Cs each time you buy a train ticket, just in case something has changed since the last time you bought a ticket, something unexpected that has never ocurred in years/decades of prior rail travel?

Comparisons to airlines are irrelevant because trains aren't aeroplanes.

“A prospective traveller has no good reason to think they need to check the Ts and Cs for onerous baggage restrictions”.

Really? For a traveller, surely that statement is contradictory? I assume you’ve flown with Low cost airlines before?

I can only repeat what I’ve said above: If you buy a ticket, subject to terms and conditions, you will almost certainly be bound by them. It’s a fairly fundamental principle of UK contract law.

It has been suggested above (mostly based on Wikipedia articles) that Lumo’s Ts and Cs are somehow too onerous to be compliant. I suggest that is almost certainly nonsense: A specific exclusion regarding baggage dimensions is standard boilerplate stuff (see the existing NRCoT limits on the size of furniture you can carry). It isn’t signing up for a different mortgage or agreeing to donate a kidney, because you’ve shipped a bigger bag…

Furthermore, are you seriously suggesting that a) it's reasonable to expect a passenger to abandon their luggage because of something hidden in the small print,

Yes absolutely, because it isn’t hidden - the “small print” is something they’ve expressly agreed to when they bought the ticket. That’s how UK contract law generally works, I’m afraid.

that in today's security climate a passenger discarding a rucksack at a London terminus would be allowed to continue their journey unimpeded? (Yes, there is a left luggage service, but that's not something you can necessarily sort out in a few minutes before the train leaves).

That’s a rather different point?

If I turn up at Stanstead with a bag I can’t take onto a Ryanair aircraft, what exactly do you think will happen? I’ll be invited to either get rid of it, or not travel.

How I get rid of it will be no concern of Ryanair’s, will it?

Which the average person would not have any reason to check. Do you check the website of every TOC you travel with, just in case they've banned bringing anything that doesn't fit into your pockets?

No, I don’t (that is a ridiculously extreme example). Ultimately if I agree to some Ts and Cs but am too lazy to read them, whose fault is that really? Similarly if I turn up at Kings + with a mobility scooter, an e scooter, a canoe or some golf clubs I might not be allowed to transport those either. Restrictions on what people can carry are hardly unprecedented on the railway.

On the signage posted above, it is claimed that there may be excess charges. As for the suggestion that you're not forfeiting the right to travel, you know perfectly well that this is ludicrous - try leaving your luggage unattended at Kings Cross!

Ludicrous?! On the contrary, there is an easy way of doing exactly that:

Train Station Luggage Storage - Kings Cross

www.left-baggage.co.uk

Located on the main concourse, our Kings Cross luggage storage outlet is open seven days a week between 8am and 9pm. If you don’t want the hassle of carrying your cases around London or as you travel further afield, our storage services offer the ideal solution. Simply bring your bags to our manned outlet and we’ll take care of the rest.

 

[py_megapixel]

Out of interest, what are the luggage policies of the budget rail operators in Europe (e.g. Ouigo and Flixtrain)?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Out of interest, what are the luggage policies of the budget rail operators in Europe (e.g. Ouigo and Flixtrain)?

Ouigo is more airline like, i.e. you have to pay to take more/larger but there is no ban other than silly stuff. I don't overly like that policy either, but it is better than Lumo's.

I find hardly anyone takes the mick on luggage on trains. It's mostly small to medium trolleys. The TOCs take the mick in inadequately providing space for it.

 

[BRX]

"A prospective traveller has no good reason to think they need to check the Ts and Cs for onerous baggage restrictions”.

Really? For a traveller, surely that statement is contradictory? I assume you’ve flown with Low cost airlines before?

We're not talking about travelling on easyjet with a double bass. We're talking about travelling on a domestic train service with a normal sized rucksack. I've done that for thirty plus years without any problem. Why would I check T&Cs to see if it's still ok?

I think you must be on a wind-up given you are also discussing the possibility of leaving a rucksack of camping gear in left luggage while going on a camping trip.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We're not talking about travelling on easyjet with a double bass. We're talking about travelling on a domestic train service with a normal sized rucksack. I've done that for thirty plus years without any problem. Why would I check T&Cs to see if it's still ok?

I think you must be on a wind-up given you are also discussing the possibility of leaving a rucksack of camping gear in left luggage while going on a camping trip.

I think it's just that poster always defends the railway regardless of how unreasonable they're being. They have always done so.

 

[BRX]

Ouigo is more airline like, i.e. you have to pay to take more/larger but there is no ban other than silly stuff. I don't overly like that policy either, but it is better than Lumo's.

I used ouigo last year and seem to recall the baggage limits being made very explicit during the booking purchase.

 

[43066]

We're not talking about travelling on easyjet with a double bass. We're talking about travelling on a domestic train service with a normal sized rucksack. I've done that for thirty plus years without any problem. Why would I check T&Cs to see if it's still ok?

I think you must be on a wind-up given you are also discussing the possibility of leaving a rucksack of camping gear in left luggage while going on a camping trip.

Where does it say you can’t carry a “normal sized” rucksack on Lumo? If it fits under the seat you’ll be fine! 65 litres is far bigger than my idea of a normal rucksack.

What is being carried is neither here nor there, I was simply making the point that nobody is having their right to travel denied.

I think it's just that poster always defends the railway regardless of how unreasonable they're being. They have always done so.

This isn’t true at all, and we aren’t talking about “the railway”, we’re talking about one operator.

You’ll note I’ve not actually given an opinion on whether I agree with the restrictions or not, I’m merely responding to the suggestions on here that this policy must be unenforceable just because people don’t like it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Where does it say you can’t carry a “normal sized” rucksack on Lumo? If it fits under the seat you’ll be fine! 65 litres is far bigger than my idea of a normal rucksack.

I guess you don't do outdoor pursuits? 65 is quite small for a camper. 75 is more common, sometimes you get bigger. My 120 is large. A 75 is roughly equivalent in capacity to a medium sized trolley bag which many will have.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Mar 2023 ==

I used ouigo last year and seem to recall the baggage limits being made very explicit during the booking purchase.

With Lumo running different policies from National Rail I'm surprised they have taken part in interavailable ticketing, and in many ways it would be much better if they didn't.

 

[43066]

I guess you don't do outdoor pursuits?

Absolutely not !!!

What I will say, for balance, is that it seems rather pedantic not to allow someone carrying a large rucksack to count that as their suitcase, if that’s all they’re carrying.

 

[BRX]

I regularly travel with a 75L rucksack, in varying levels of fullness, whether for outdoor pursuits or just general travel. Loads of people travel with that sort of size backpack. It's really not abnormal in the slightest.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Mar 2023 ==

You’ll note I’ve not actually given an opinion on whether I agree with the restrictions or not, I’m merely responding to the suggestions on here that this policy must be unenforceable just because people don’t like it.

That's not the argument. The argument is that it may be unenforceable because it's unreasonable or unfair in its expectations of what people should check in the small print. Which is supported by plenty of consumer law.

 

[43066]

The argument is that it may be unenforceable because it's unreasonable or unfair in its expectations of what people should check in the small print. Which is supported by plenty of consumer law.

If you read the relevant legislation and guidance, it’s pretty clear what kind of terms the law will regard as unfair, which are a long way from what we are discussing here. The following is a good starting point:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/450440/Unfair_Terms_Main_Guidance.pdf#page9

In particular “The Grey List”:

5. The Grey List and other potentially unfair terms and notices
Introduction
5.1.1 Unfairness for the purposes of the Act can take many different forms. This part of the guidance sets out the various ways in which the CMA considers that terms used in consumer contracts by traders, and their consumer notices, can be potentially unfair under the Act, together with the reasons for considering them potentially unfair. This part of the guidance is divided into two sections.

Remember we are talking here about a train ticket including restrictions on baggage size. Nobody can give a definitive view on this particular term, but I suggest it’s highly unlikely that will be regarded as unfair when similar terms are already widely used throughout the transport industry, and indeed have long been included in the NRCoT in relation to certain items.

I’ll leave it there!

 

[ASharpe]

Remember we are talking here about a train ticket including restrictions on baggage size.

If a passenger has a "ticket" then does it not still say in the back "Issued subject to the national rail conditions of carriage" or words to that effect?

How is someone with a ticket bought from a TVM to know the restrictions? Or is their recourse to travel on a franchised service.

 

[BRX]

If you read the relevant legislation and guidance, it’s pretty clear what kind of terms the law will regard as unfair, which are a long way from what we are discussing here. The following is a good starting point:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/450440/Unfair_Terms_Main_Guidance.pdf#page9

In particular “The Grey List”:



Remember we are talking here about a train ticket including restrictions on baggage size. Nobody can give a definitive view on this particular term, but I suggest it’s highly unlikely that will be regarded as unfair when similar terms are already widely used throughout the transport industry, and indeed have long been included in the NRCoT in relation to certain items.

I’ll leave it there!

I already linked to that same document up the thread, here.

I highlighted the bit about realistic expectations about consumers reading T&Cs.

You keep talking about luggage restrictions in the "transport industry" and ignoring the fact that they are not normal in the UK rail industry.

When I buy tickets I have certain expectations based on the mode of transport. If I get a london bus I don't expect there to be a toilet and refreshments service on board, just because that would be normal on an intercity train.

 

[43066]

I already linked to that same document up the thread, here.

I highlighted the bit about realistic expectations about consumers reading T&Cs.

Sorry I missed that. It’s perfectly realistic to imagine that any contract for travel will involve limits on what can be carried.

Contrast with terms purporting to limit liability for breach or contract, or terms which bind a consumer but enable non performance of the contract etc.

You keep talking about luggage restrictions in the "transport industry" and ignoring the fact that they are not normal in the UK rail industry.

Except that luggage restrictions are perfectly normal in the UK rail industry, and the standard NRCoT contains various restrictions and exclusions on what can be carried.

Presumably you think those are unfair and unenforceable, too?

When I buy tickets I have certain expectations based on the mode of transport. If I get a london bus I don't expect there to be a toilet and refreshments service on board, just because that would be normal on an intercity train.

When you enter into any contract, it will be based on the terms you’re deemed to have accepted, rather than your expectations, so it’s worth reading the small print!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Luggage restrictions in the NRCoT are basically "don't be silly" as they are so generous, outliers like surfboards and bikes aside. It's more based on what a person can reasonably handle without delaying trains.

 

[43066]

Luggage restrictions in the NRCoT are basically "don't be silly" as they are so generous, outliers like surfboards and bikes aside.

Perhaps that needs to change as the railway gets busier (and trains seemingly get ever shorter)? Reference the new thread on Scotrail banning snow sports equipment, and the recent thread discussing a ban on bikes by GA during a cycling event.

 

[TPO]

Lumo is an abomination. If they can't meet the standard conditions of carriage elsewhere on the railway, then IMHO their services should be excluded from general tickets sales. Lumo tickets should be limited solely to the Lumo app to prevent people falling victim to their service. To the OP I would recommend formally complaining to Trainline.

No, it's just using a different business model to the publicly-subsidized model.

High standard of service? <smirk>

It's Ryanair on rails. Setting a luggage policy that will catch people out so you can turn them away without refund (a 65l rucksack is small, my daysac is 50l) is just one of that airline's dirty practices.

A lot of people use Ryanair, people who could otherwise not afford to fly. (Whether that is a good or bad thing is a different matter). Airline cabin luggage sizes have always varied too, FlyBe being known for a much smaller carry-on bag size (some of their routes used small turbo-prop planes) and less baggage allowance.

To be fair they were made available on both the operator’s website, and on the booking site the OP used. As I pointed out above, even in the context of consumer contracts, it’s common for the “tick the box to confirm you accept the Ts and Cs” method to be used to incorporate terms into the contract. That, in itself, isn’t something anyone should be surprised by.

Are these restrictions onerous? Well, luggage restrictions in the context of a travel contract are hardly unusual. Okay, hitherto we haven’t normally experienced actually reaching such limitations in the context of train travel, but the NRCoT itself has limits on what you can carry, so theoretical restrictions are already present.



Unless I’m missing something, there is no “penalty for non-compliance” and certainly no “forfeiture of any right to travel” stated within the Ts and Cs; you are simply advised that certain items of luggage may not be permitted. Therefore the OP theoretically could have discarded the disallowed item and still been permitted to travel.



I bet you a tenner there isn’t .

If I was the OP, I’d be going down the road of chalking this one up to experience, and perhaps asking for a goodwill payment if I felt like chancing my arm.

I don’t want to be accused of being “anti customer” here, which I’m not, but I am surprised at the level of outrage towards a low cost rail operator who are merely doing what many low cost airlines have been doing for decades.

Agree.

It's not like Lumo are the only trains on ECML, quite the opposite, you've got LNER, Lumo and Grand Central (and XC on some stretches). You're spoilt for choice compared to other long-distance lines (GWML for example......). You pays your money and takes your choice of service options. If you don't like any of them you can look at National Express coaches, Megabus or an internal flight Newcastle-London or perhaps hire a car/van. Some of those options are more available than others, but they are all options.

This does feel to me a bit like a "first world problem" TBH.

TPO

 

[mrmartin]

I do see this from Lumo's side - many trains are absolutely mobbed with luggage and hard to move through, and it is a low cost operator, so less luggage space = more space for passengers.

What isn't good is no ability to pay to take it with you on the day. This seems really stupid to me, ryanair et al do allow you (albeit at a significant cost). Ouigo in France does for 5eur an item. Even a small fee will put most off carrying loads and loads of luggage, which I assume is what they are wanting to avoid.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Perhaps that needs to change as the railway gets busier (and trains seemingly get ever shorter)? Reference the new thread on Scotrail banning snow sports equipment, and the recent thread discussing a ban on bikes by GA during a cycling event.

Bikes are handled specifically.

The railway just needs to provide enough space. Avanti have taken the sensible line of increasing capacity. In the case of 80x a rack in all four door pockets is plenty.

People are generally not silly about it, as bringing more than you can reasonably carry is awkward anyway. You do rarely get silly stuff like furniture in places with low car ownership like London Overground, but the main luggage issues I see are just piles of sensible roller cases, rucksacks and holdalls that the railway just can't be bothered properly providing for.

 

[43066]

The railway just needs to provide enough space. Avanti have taken the sensible line of increasing capacity.

But there’s a (small!) loading gauge limitation. Increasing capacity for luggage ultimately means reducing seating capacity, as we have discussed before.

People are generally not silly about it,

Some people are very silly and selfish about it. I’m coming around to the view that Lumo’s approach to luggage should be adopted industry wide.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Mar 2023 ==

No, it's just using a different business model to the publicly-subsidized model.



A lot of people use Ryanair, people who could otherwise not afford to fly. (Whether that is a good or bad thing is a different matter). Airline cabin luggage sizes have always varied too, FlyBe being known for a much smaller carry-on bag size (some of their routes used small turbo-prop planes) and less baggage allowance.



Agree.

It's not like Lumo are the only trains on ECML, quite the opposite, you've got LNER, Lumo and Grand Central (and XC on some stretches). You're spoilt for choice compared to other long-distance lines (GWML for example......). You pays your money and takes your choice of service options. If you don't like any of them you can look at National Express coaches, Megabus or an internal flight Newcastle-London or perhaps hire a car/van. Some of those options are more available than others, but they are all options.

This does feel to me a bit like a "first world problem" TBH.

TPO

A (characteristically) eminently sensible posting.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And for those who ARE silly, there's the NRCoT limit on both size and three pieces.

I couldn't oppose this policy more. Banning me from taking an eminently reasonable amount of luggage - one large checked bag, one IATA hand luggage - would just mean I would fly or drive.

Public transport has to provide for what the public want to do within reason. This policy doesn't, not even at a fee.

And no, entrusting your bag to the likes of Hermes doesn't count.

 

[py_megapixel]

Perhaps that needs to change as the railway gets busier (and trains seemingly get ever shorter)?

I think what actually needs to change is the utterly perverse practice of making the trains ever shorter as the railway gets busier.

 

[43066]

I couldn't oppose this policy more. Banning me from taking an eminently reasonable amount of luggage - one large checked bag, one IATA hand luggage - would just mean I would fly or drive.

In which case, simply don’t use Lumo!

You and I have both said we don’t use Ryanair, for similar reasons. That is a choice we can exercise. That doesn’t mean I don’t respect Ryanair as a highly successful business, or believe the choice of using them should be denied to others.

Public transport has to provide for what the public want to do within reason. This policy doesn't, not even at a fee.

With all due respect, Lumo aren’t there to address your highfalutin ideas about transport policy and modal shift. They’re there to make cold hard cash….

 

[alxndr]

No, I don’t (that is a ridiculously extreme example).

Because you assume the items in your pocket are OK. Likewise it wouldn’t be outrageous for someone who has been taking large rucksacks on trains for years, sometimes with other luggage, and never had an issue to assume that they can continue doing so.

People on this forum might recognise lumo as a open access budget operator, most other people will just think of it as a different coloured train.

 

[TPO]

And for those who ARE silly, there's the NRCoT limit on both size and three pieces.

I couldn't oppose this policy more. Banning me from taking an eminently reasonable amount of luggage - one large checked bag, one IATA hand luggage - would just mean I would fly or drive.

Public transport has to provide for what the public want to do within reason. This policy doesn't, not even at a fee.

And no, entrusting your bag to the likes of Hermes doesn't count.

But Lumo is NOT a publicly-subsidised operator. They ARE providing what a proportion of "the public" want- otherwise Lumo would go bust (quickly- running a train service is a very expensive business with a lot of fixed costs, just the mandatory insurance alone is eye-watering even before you get your Track Access contract, lease trains and hire the highly skilled staff required). Unlike the majority of train services, they stand or fall by whether or not people use them.

If you don't like their policies, don't use them.

"Public Transport" is in fact a misnomer: it's "transport available to the public for a cost and with some restrictions" and is subject to a lot of constraints. It includes local buses, long-distance coaches, taxis (minicab and hackney cab), trains and planes. You might be surprised at the restrictions on some local bus services, e.g. some won't let you carry a tin of paint thinners or even paint. So best not take the bus to the DIY centre (or put the thinners/paint in a bag and don't drop it ). If I want to take my recumbent trike somewhere then it's car, van or advance courier.

The difficulty with "what the public want within reason" is that it would in practice end up as "anything I fancy" whether that be a wind-surfer or (on the theme of types of cycles) an upright adult size trike, cargo bike or a tandem trike etc etc etc. as views of what is "reasonable" would invariably end up being informed by "what do I like to take with me?" Even (especially?) if many cars and all buses and planes would not carry the same item.

To remove such constraints across the board would be costly. Who is paying? It could be argued that a main factor in the dearth of railways was the Common Carrier obligation- the railway had to carry everything, at a published cost.

I also believe that the concept of "sensible sized luggage" has changed dramatically since the advent of cheap wheeled suitcases plus a car to the door of the station. In previous times, luggage was only what we now regard as "hand luggage" (just look at the old suitcases displayed on Heritage railways and in films), and a family going on holiday on the train sent their "trunk" on in advance. That was how it was managed pragmatically in the days when the public had little choice but to use railways for long trips and needed stuff at the other end.

In a world with fewer cars, there will be less travel- and on trains you'll be traveling lighter/more locally/less often. The concepts behind net zero are not that we do the same as now but without ICE cars, rather it only works if we all do less of stuff like travel- and do that in a different way. (It's a mindset thing- and has many advantages).

TPO

 

[alistairlees]

I believe lumo introduced this policy after some customers brought very large amounts of luggage with them that took up other seats and caused a lot of issues for other customers. Provided it’s communicated clearly when a customer is buying a ticket then I don’t see an issue. They didn’t exist a few years ago but have been very successful in winning new customers to rail and causing modal shift from air. The same LNER services, with the same luggage restrictions as before, still exist. You can still use them, it’s ok.

 

[JamieL]

But Lumo is NOT a publicly-subsidised operator.

They are running on the same publically-subsidised track and out of the same railway stations. They are also selling their tickets through third-party retailers without the appropriate caveats and limitations defining their luggage limit. I hope someone sues as a result. If Lumo are unable or unwilling to carry luggage, they should be compelled to courier it seperately at their expense to arrive at the same time as the train.

If their is appetite for services like this then fine, but they should be required to build a new railway to run it on!

 

[Starmill]

Lumo's baggage restrictions have been in place since day one.

Are you mistaken here or deliberately trying to mislead people?