Police called as commuter sits in empty first class zone on packed rush-hour train

[Adlington]

Police escorted a commuter from a packed rush hour train after he sat in a near-deserted first class area when there were no standard seats.

Edward White said he was "humiliated" to be met at by British Transport Police officers - who had been alerted to a potential case of fare evasion - at Birmingham New Street after he refused to move.
The 26-year-old - who pays £142 for a monthly pass - said there were no seats or safe standing space in the standard area but there were only four other passengers in first class when he sat down.

Mr White told the train manager he would not be returning to the "unsafe" zones, but ended up paying the £16 single first class charge for his CrossCountry trains journey from Wilnecote in Tamworth at New Street.

He said: "I was mortified. The embarrassment of being questioned by police officers for something so trivial was ridiculous. It was made all the worse by the conduct of the train manager. They were quite abrasive. I politely said to the train manager that I felt it was unsafe in the crowded standard area, that I had a valid standard ticket and wanted to use one of the vacant seats. The train manager then entered the secure area at the front of the carriage for the remainder of the journey to Birmingham New Street."

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/police-called-commuter-sits-empty-16058507

What does he mean by "unsafe in the crowded standard area"? And what is "the secure area at the front of the carriage"?

 

[Spartacus]

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/police-called-commuter-sits-empty-16058507

What does he mean by "unsafe in the crowded standard area"? And what is "the secure area at the front of the carriage"?

Heaven only knows about the unsafe standing bit, there's bound to be at least a dozen different opinions, it was a pair of 2 car 170s as booked though. The secure area's bound to be the cab though, by saying secure I wonder if he actually attempted to enter himself? Even if he didn't, if a passenger hasn't the correct ticket and refuses to pay for one, while also refusing to leave the train or move to a suitable portion of the train he shouldn't be surprised if the BTP are called when the next stop's a major station with BTP presence. Bet he only changed his tune about paying when he saw the BTP were there too.

"Edward said he and other passengers had previously sat in first class when all other seats were taken and had never experienced any problems." Makes me wonder if he regularly does this and is more annoyed that he's been caught out by a guard/RPI being in the front portion of the train than anything?

 

[Journeyman]

No sympathy for him here. A ticket doesn't guarantee you a seat, and it never has done. As far as standing on a crowded train goes, there's this idea that it is, for some reason, "unsafe", but it isn't, so I'm not buying that excuse, however much he might bleat. No sympathy for him going to the press either.

 

[Stigy]

So he’s complaining about the “emergency services” being called to a matter such as this? Unfortunately it naturally becomes a police matter if he refused to move from that section or pay to use it. Can’t believe this is even worthy of reporting on to be honest. He was only made to pay for the service he used after all!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm suspecting the "attitude test" was in some way involved here...

 

[Journeyman]

I'm suspecting the "attitude test" was in some way involved here...

As in the police were called because he was being an obnoxious arse, but may not have been if he'd been politer?

 

[Bletchleyite]

As in the police were called because he was being an obnoxious arse, but may not have been if he'd been politer?

Yes, that kind of thing.

 

[Mag_seven]

The first class has been described as "near deserted", but with four people sitting in it. If it was a Class 170 which has 9 first class seats, then that can hardly be described as "near deserted".

 

[Y Ddraig Coch]

No sympathy for him here. A ticket doesn't guarantee you a seat, and it never has done. As far as standing on a crowded train goes, there's this idea that it is, for some reason, "unsafe", but it isn't, so I'm not buying that excuse, however much he might bleat. No sympathy for him going to the press either.

Have to disagree with the above, having been on a train that has hit the buffers at quite a low speed on a very busy train with a lot of people standing, there were quite a few injuries ( all very minor granted ) to standing people who ended up in a pile on the floor, no injuries to anyone seated.

So the chances of that happening or a crash of any sort are extremely rare, standing certainly is more dangerous than sitting.

 

[Journeyman]

So the chances of that happening or a crash of any sort are extremely rare, standing certainly is more dangerous than sitting.

Agreed, but plenty of risk assessment has been done, and TPWS/AWS and a whole slew of safety improvements have very, very significantly reduced the chances of any sort of collision on the railway. So standing might be fractionally less safe, but that's not the same as "unsafe", which implies an immediate danger.

 

[pompeyfan]

Also worth pointing out that standing passengers between stations would be bracing themselves, hopefully with 3 points of contact, where as arriving at a terminus station the majority of passengers would have nothing to hold onto. If standing was dangerous, guards and RPIs wouldn’t be permitted to patrol the train and you wouldn’t be able to spend a penny.

 

[Clip]

Have to disagree with the above, having been on a train that has hit the buffers at quite a low speed on a very busy train with a lot of people standing, there were quite a few injuries ( all very minor granted ) to standing people who ended up in a pile on the floor, no injuries to anyone seated.

So the chances of that happening or a crash of any sort are extremely rare, standing certainly is more dangerous than sitting.

Not quite because extensive crash modelling has shown that at speed you are safer when stood up crush loaded than you are when sat down as those sat have more room for their bodies to be flung around the carriage whereas those standing do not so are safer

 

[38Cto15E]

IMHO The First Class in a Cross Country 170 is no better than standard anyway.

 

[Journeyman]

IMHO The First Class in a Cross Country 170 is no better than standard anyway.

That's a little besides the point. He didn't have the right ticket to be there, so shouldn't have been.

 

[jon0844]

I'm suspecting the "attitude test" was in some way involved here...

I think that's a pretty safe bet!

 

[philthetube]

or the guard recognised him as a regular who has been told before.

 

[GodAtum]

I think it's a 2 hour journey so god knows why he thinks it's OK not to pay for that distance. He should have just paid up.

 

[Antman]

I'm suspecting the "attitude test" was in some way involved here...

The attitude of who? The passenger or the TM? And if the latter was "openly smirking" it does suggest a less than professional attitude but without being there it's rather difficult to pass judgment.

 

[221129]

The attitude of who? The passenger or the TM? And if the latter was "openly smirking" it does suggest a less than professional attitude but without being there it's rather difficult to pass judgment.

The passenger. For BTP to have attended the passenger would have to have gone through the 3 fails...

 

[Antman]

The passenger. For BTP to have attended the passenger would have to have gone through the 3 fails...

Not necessarily, I've been on a train that was delayed because BTP were called after the guard was allegedly assaulted but other passengers told a different story and no action was taken.

Like I said I wasn't there so I'm in no position to pass judgment on this particular incident but I'm not going to jump to conclusions like others on here appear to have done, unless of course they were there?

 

[popmonkey]

I think it's a 2 hour journey so god knows why he thinks it's OK not to pay for that distance. He should have just paid up.

It mentions in the story his commute is from Wilnecote to Birmingham New Street. This is only a 20 minute journey but is usually very busy, and the serving pattern isn't great.

I still don't think it's worthy of a news story

 

[Deepgreen]

It mentions in the story his commute is from Wilnecote to Birmingham New Street. This is only a 20 minute journey but is usually very busy, and the serving pattern isn't great.

I still don't think it's worthy of a news story

Except possibly as a warning to other 'entitled' parasites.

 

[al78]

"Mr White said he and other passengers had previously sat in first class when all other seats were taken and had never experienced any problems."

This is part of the issue I think. Often, when someone gets away repeatedly with doing something they shouldn't, they develop an entitlement to continue doing it. When their number comes up and they get caught, the entitlement comes out in the form of a poor attitude, and consequences happen, then they bleat about how outrageous it is that they should have to obey the rules, because they have managed it until now.

 

[221129]

Not necessarily, I've been on a train that was delayed because BTP were called after the guard was allegedly assaulted but other passengers told a different story and no action was taken.

Like I said I wasn't there so I'm in no position to pass judgment on this particular incident but I'm not going to jump to conclusions like others on here appear to have done, unless of course they were there?

An assault alleged or otherwise is completely different so obviously BTP would attend. BTP would only have attended a travel irregularity if the 3 fails had been met unless there were aggravating circumstances.

The person themself said they had been doing it often. The passenger is 100% in the wrong here, you don't have to be there to be able to see that...

 

[Deepgreen]

"Mr White said he and other passengers had previously sat in first class when all other seats were taken and had never experienced any problems."

This is part of the issue I think. Often, when someone gets away repeatedly with doing something they shouldn't, they develop an entitlement to continue doing it. When their number comes up and they get caught, the entitlement comes out in the form of a poor attitude, and consequences happen, then they bleat about how outrageous it is that they should have to obey the rules, because they have managed it until now.

Yes - the speeding driver mentality - 'it's so unfair that I was caught'!

 

[Antman]

An assault alleged or otherwise is completely different so obviously BTP would attend. BTP would only have attended a travel irregularity if the 3 fails had been met unless there were aggravating circumstances.

The person themself said they had been doing it often. The passenger is 100% in the wrong here, you don't have to be there to be able to see that...

What? To quote you.........."the person themself said they had been doing it often". Could you elaborate on that?

If I'm understanding this correctly the train arrived at Birmingham New Street, wouldn't there normally be a BTP presence there?

I'm just amazed at how you can conclude that the passenger was "100% in the wrong"!

 

[scosutsut]

He could of course opted to stand in the 'deserted' first class section and been perfectly within rights, no?

 

[Spartacus]

What? To quote you.........."the person themself said they had been doing it often". Could you elaborate on that?

If I'm understanding this correctly the train arrived at Birmingham New Street, wouldn't there normally be a BTP presence there?

I'm just amazed at how you can conclude that the passenger was "100% in the wrong"!

He's admitted to travelling in 1st class without a 1st class ticket, and not being prepared to pay for one on the train, and that he's done it plenty of times before. How is he possibly right?

It's like admitting speeding, not even attempting to slow down when caught, and use the fact you do it all the time as an excuse, then expecting to get let off.....

 

[swt_passenger]

He could of course opted to stand in the 'deserted' first class section and been perfectly within rights, no?

No, you cannot stand or ‘remain’ in a first class area at any time. You can however pass through from one part of a train to another.

“Conditions of travel
15.2. Unless Train Company staff, or notices on the train give you specific permission, you cannot travel in first class accommodation (including standing in corridors or passageways) with a standard class Ticket. This applies even if there are no vacant seats in standard class.”

 

[221129]

He could of course opted to stand in the 'deserted' first class section and been perfectly within rights, no?

No...