Lumo to increase luggage space on board their trains?

[JamieL]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/lumo-overspeed-incident-at-peterborough-17-04-2022.230537

Noting the recommendations, I trust Lumo is now taking steps to normalise its luggage spaces inline with what one can can expect on comparable services.

 

[Taunton]

Noting the recommendations, I trust Lumo is now taking steps to normalise its luggage spaces inline with what one can can expect on comparable services.

They can't, or are at least between a rock and a hard place. They already squeezed their accommodation at the design stage to have minimum pitch seating and no luggage space so they can comply with the minimum 400 seats now required of open access operators, while only having bought 5-car formation. There is no floorspace for ground level luggage stacks to be installed - something which is only too apparent from the interior photographs in the report.

 

[TheBigD]

Is there a minimum 400 seat requirement for open access operators? I've not seen either the Stirling or Carmathen open access proposals mention it.

I know that First have consistantly said 400 seat trains from when East Coast Trains Ltd, now Lumo, was being planned, but I don't recall that being a condition of the access agreement etc.

Happy to be proved wrong by the way!

The 400 seat for Lumo is comprised of...
394 std seats
4 tip up seats
2 wheelchair spaces.

Luggage space is limited to 1 luggage stack in the centre vehicles (none in the driving vehicles), and the 2 former bike areas in 2 of the centre vehicles.

I think (is there a photo online anywhere/press release etc?) that there are now some seats next to the windowless door pockets that have covers over them and are used for luggage, similar to what LNER did before the the seats were removed and extra luggage stacks were added to the 9 car Azumas

 

[alistairlees]

The 400 seats minimum requirement is specified in Lumo's Track Access Contract (see page 1):

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2023-03/east-coast-trains-consolidated-agreement.pdf

 

[800001]

They can't, or are at least between a rock and a hard place. They already squeezed their accommodation at the design stage to have minimum pitch seating and no luggage space so they can comply with the minimum 400 seats now required of open access operators, while only having bought 5-car formation. There is no floorspace for ground level luggage stacks to be installed - something which is only too apparent from the interior photographs in the report.

Minimum pitch seating? I’m 6ft 4” and there is till an inch or 2 leg room for me, hardly call that squeezing seats in.

 

[TheBigD]

The 400 seats minimum requirement is specified in Lumo's Track Access Contract (see page 1):

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2023-03/east-coast-trains-consolidated-agreement.pdf

Cheers!

 

[JamieL]

They can't, or are at least between a rock and a hard place. They already squeezed their accommodation at the design stage to have minimum pitch seating and no luggage space so they can comply with the minimum 400 seats now required of open access operators, while only having bought 5-car formation. There is no floorspace for ground level luggage stacks to be installed - something which is only too apparent from the interior photographs in the report.

Well, perhaps they should get longer trains. Or even better take their service off the railway altogether.

 

[dk1]

Well, perhaps they should get longer trains. Or even better take their service off the railway altogether.

Procuring additional rolling stock takes years.

 

[Clarence Yard]

It isn’t a minimum seat requirement for Open Access Operators, it’s a requirement for Lumo only. It was done by the ORR so that the capacity would match up with what the business plan said.

Lumo has been waiting for the publication of the report (can’t pre-empt the RAIB) to press the button on the mods to put in more luggage stacks. The Form P and Section 22 amendment to the TAA have been ready for weeks and will be on their way to NR tomorrow. The ORR has already had a meeting with Lumo to discuss it and the loss of seats isn’t material to the business plan so the ORR should approve it fairly rapidly after NR give the s.22 the nod.

The cost of additional cars is prohibitive at the moment. Current financing costs is one issue, current Hitachi depot capacity is another.

 

[takno]

Noting the recommendations, I trust Lumo is now taking steps to normalise its luggage spaces inline with what one can can expect on comparable services.

They've added some extra by getting rid of the bike spaces, and taken more action to ensure that passengers know that there are tighter limits on luggage than you have on other trains. That's likely to be sufficient I would have thought

 

[TheBigD]

It isn’t a minimum seat requirement for Open Access Operators, it’s a requirement for Lumo only. It was done by the ORR so that the capacity would match up with what the business plan said.

Lumo has been waiting for the publication of the report (can’t pre-empt the RAIB) to press the button on the mods to put in more luggage stacks. The Form P and Section 22 amendment to the TAA have been ready for weeks and will be on their way to NR tomorrow. The ORR has already had a meeting with Lumo to discuss it and the loss of seats isn’t material to the business plan so the ORR should approve it fairly rapidly after NR give the s.22 the nod.

The cost of additional cars is prohibitive at the moment. Current financing costs is one issue, current Hitachi depot capacity is another.

Are you able say how many seats/which seats will be removed?

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Well, perhaps they should get longer trains. Or even better take their service off the railway altogether.

Why would you want to see their services taken off the railway?

 

[JamieL]

Why would you want to see their services taken off the railway?

The service is awful. No first class, users packed in like sardines and luggage restrictions quite different from other operators. Moreover, they are competing with and undercutting a far superior service run by LNER.

 

[cactustwirly]

The service is awful. No first class, users packed in like sardines and luggage restrictions quite different from other operators. Moreover, they are competing with and undercutting a far superior service run by LNER.

Well you don't have to use them...

Competition is good, the airline industry has changed massively since Ryanair and easyJet started.

 

[HST43257]

The service is awful. No first class, users packed in like sardines and luggage restrictions quite different from other operators. Moreover, they are competing with and undercutting a far superior service run by LNER.

Haven’t LNER’s passenger levels increased whilst Lumo (also doing well I think) has been around? ”Rail is the winner“ seemingly given how the market has increased.

 

[Blindtraveler]

I'm with the OP here in as far as lumo really is awful. I wouldn't necessarily agree that the service is they are undercutting are "far superior", that particular USP went as far as I was concerned a few years back with the abolition of restaurant cars and decent and I mean really decent first class seats as well as proper intercity trains not the plastics smarty tubes we now are squeezed into, but back on topic, the smarty tube experience is designed for Smarties who are an average eight stone and size six if you are a passenger on lumo for stop trying to be the Ryanair of the railway is never a concept I was over keen on and whilst this service might be budget conscious you absolutely do get what you pay for and every journey that I reluctantly make is faced with a certain amount of dread and usually are not in a significant quantity of alcohol either on board or afterwards, more recently it's been afterwards as my last three trips I haven't been able to get near my reserved seat never mind sitting it because the trains are too short and seem absolutely packed to the rafters with American tour groups with about five suitcases
I wonder if it's anything to do with the American tour groups and their travel agents paying the full bang walk up return fare rather than the cut price bargained basement advances?

They will need to do something very radical in terms of luggage stacks to make this and even vaguely acceptable traveling experience and whilst this is out with their control, longer boarding times at king's cross would be also very very useful however I know that that's a problem that's not going to be sold quickly or easily or ever

 

[dosxuk]

The service is awful. No first class, users packed in like sardines and luggage restrictions quite different from other operators. Moreover, they are competing with and undercutting a far superior service run by LNER.

So you're complaining that passengers have the choice between a cheaper service with less frills and a more expensive but more comfortable service?

Really struggling to see what the issue is

 

[JamieL]

Competition is good, the airline industry has changed massively since Ryanair and easyJet started.

Not necessarily for the better!

The danger of Lumo is people will use it and think 'that is what it is like travelling by train' without realise that better services are available elsewhere. Moreover, this incident has to lead to questions over safety - the luggage arrangements were singled out for criticism and that is a Lumo cost cutting measure.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not necessarily for the better!

The danger of Lumo is people will use it and think 'that is what it is like travelling by train' without realise that better services are available elsewhere. Moreover, this incident has to lead to questions over safety - the luggage arrangements were singled out for criticism and that is a Lumo cost cutting measure.

I wouldn't say Lumo is great and I doubt I will use it again (mainly because if going that distance I want bigger luggage than they allow), but it's more likely people will be disappointed by LNER 80x than Lumo ones - at least they have better seats and the ambiance isn't bad. Few tables, sure, but most people don't get a table anyway.

Not necessarily for the better!

The danger of Lumo is people will use it and think 'that is what it is like travelling by train' without realise that better services are available elsewhere. Moreover, this incident has to lead to questions over safety - the luggage arrangements were singled out for criticism and that is a Lumo cost cutting measure.

It's as bad on LNR and SWR longer distance operations. I wonder if it will mean these two retrofit some floor level racks too? LNR did split the racks from the /4s with the /1s but I think they really need more. The report does suggest that other TOCs also need to consider that part of the recommendation.

 

[takno]

Not necessarily for the better!

The danger of Lumo is people will use it and think 'that is what it is like travelling by train' without realise that better services are available elsewhere. Moreover, this incident has to lead to questions over safety - the luggage arrangements were singled out for criticism and that is a Lumo cost cutting measure.

Having overhead racks which can actually be used for real luggage was part of the design specification for the IETs. Seems harsh to criticise Lumo for basically doing what the dft recommended, just the same as all the other operators with the stock.

i personally find the much better choice of seats in Lumo much more important than luggage provision, and I'd far rather they invested in platform staff to enforce their sensible luggage rules than cut back on the space dedicated to people

 

[Bletchleyite]

Having overhead racks which can actually be used for real luggage was part of the design specification for the IETs. Seems harsh to criticise Lumo for basically doing what the dft recommended, just the same as all the other operators with the stock.

A minor redesign would help, putting a small lip of a few inches at the edge so lateral force doesn't cause stuff to fall off. Probably be quite easy to bolt something on. I do like that bigger stuff fits up there but it isn't well restrained.

i personally find the much better choice of seats in Lumo much more important than luggage provision, and I'd far rather they invested in platform staff to enforce their sensible luggage rules than cut back on the space dedicated to people

Sensible if you're going for a weekend city break or a two day business trip, useless otherwise (unless you're a super light packer). As a low-cost operator I'd consider it reasonable for them to charge for larger bags like airlines do, but they simply don't offer that service at all. The size is very slightly bigger than airline hand luggage, but it's not big enough for me (2XL size clothes) for a week, and is utterly useless for any kind of outdoor activity type trips unless you're one of those people so obsessed with small-and-light that you cut the handle off your toothbrush.

Twenty quid for a full size piece of hold luggage would motivate people not to take bigger bags while providing for people who need to. Though that said I suspect if the issue was it falling on people that hard-sided bags of whatever size were more of an issue than physical size, particularly as a lot of larger camping type stuff is quite light and soft, e.g. modern lightweight tentage and sleeping bags - being clouted round the head by a hand luggage sized metal sided flight case would be a lot more harmful than a soft but large camping rucksack. Hard-sided bags are also more likely to slide off - soft bags might be more "squashed in" if large.

(I wouldn't like to see that on the proper railway, though, they need to make proper provision as part of the deal)

 

[Bantamzen]

Not necessarily for the better!

The danger of Lumo is people will use it and think 'that is what it is like travelling by train' without realise that better services are available elsewhere. Moreover, this incident has to lead to questions over safety - the luggage arrangements were singled out for criticism and that is a Lumo cost cutting measure.

By the same token would you argue that Ryanair should be shut down in case it devalued the premium products offered by other airlines? Not sure that argument holds up, I'm sure most Lumo passengers understand that this is the budget end of the railways offerings.

 

[Bletchleyite]

By the same token would you argue that Ryanair should be shut down in case it devalued the premium products offered by other airlines? Not sure that argument holds up, I'm sure most Lumo passengers understand that this is the budget end of the railways offerings.

In some ways it'd be less of an issue if, as in Germany, you couldn't book or even see Lumo services in the main planners and had to do it on their website. "The railway" is kind of seen as one thing by some unlike airlines.

I doubt in Germany anyone confuses the execrable Flixtrain with an ICE.

 

[JamieL]

Exactly, if we must have Lumo, it shouldn't be part of the federated ticket system.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Exactly, if we must have Lumo, it shouldn't be part of the federated ticket system.

However it has to be due to our fares structure that was set up at privatisation which provides for inter-available tickets regardless of operator.

It would be illegal to not show all trains your ticket from London to Edinburgh is available on.

German has a different fares system is nothing to do with federated ticket systems is just we have inter-available fares in GB.

 

[E100]

I do find the luggage recommendation odd. As far as I'm aware there isn't a particular issue with luggage falling from the overhead racks outside of having an IET close to almost overturning, which is surely a pretty exceptional issue that shouldn't be expected at all, since people were also thrown from their seats in some cases. Provided that is solved there's no issue from what I can see.

I personally really like the different product they have brought to the market. I think there's plenty of space for Lumo and LNER to coexist. Just need TPE (cancellations) and XC (rolling stock) to up their game between York and Edinburgh IMO.

 

[Bantamzen]

In some ways it'd be less of an issue if, as in Germany, you couldn't book or even see Lumo services in the main planners and had to do it on their website. "The railway" is kind of seen as one thing by some unlike airlines.

I doubt in Germany anyone confuses the execrable Flixtrain with an ICE.

I'm not sure what they do in Germany feels like the right thing, certainly for here. The official planners at the very least should offer all available services so that people can match their journey as much as possible to their budget. If they didn't I'm sure others would, even though most would charge a commission for sales.

 

[yorkie]

Haven’t LNER’s passenger levels increased whilst Lumo (also doing well I think) has been around? ”Rail is the winner“ seemingly given how the market has increased.

That's exactly what has happened; all the InterCity operators running out of King's Cross (LNER, Lumo, Hull Trains & Grand Central) have had good passenger figures in the last year or two, bucking the overall trend.

 

[crablab]

Exactly, if we must have Lumo, it shouldn't be part of the federated ticket system.

That would be far more harmful to consumers surely? One of the good elements of privatisation (irrespective of one's opinion on the policy itself) was the requirement for all ticket retailers to sell all available fares and the provision for flows with multiple operators and tickets spanning multiple operators (through fares), with the accounting complexity abstracted away from consumers.

Undoing that integrated ticketing would be harmful. If Lumo fares were completely separate, a consumer buying a through ticket including a Lumo route would never be offered an itinerary with a Lumo advance (for example). They'd only see flows with LNER connections, reducing competition and raising prices.

 

[185]

Some like them, some hate them.

Competition is not good when one operator is the state. Lumo is just a poor quality, scrounging Firstgroup revenue raid taking the railway's richest pickings - pocketing money from the government and taxpayer.