Bike reservations

[krus_aragon]

Well, a paper card stuck in the cycle space showing it to be reserved from station A to station B would solve that problem in the same way that seat reservations are displayed.

But in my experience, whenever I've encountered another cyclist getting on when the cycle spaces are already occupied, it's something we cyclists sort out amongst ourselves. We ask each other how far we're going and the person going furthest puts their cycle at the back and the person getting off first puts theirs at the front.

I'd clean forgotten that. (My current commute doesn't involve a bike.) There's also the conversation among cyclists before boarding, such that the longer-distance traveller puts their bike in first, etc.

 

[Intermodal]

Cycles and pushchairs should be relegated to the guards compartment on intercity stock with cycles banned on non intercity stock (such as 168/170/172/323/350 stock)

Outrageous. Clearly a man who has never had the misfortune of not being able to afford a car AND needing a vehicle to get to work.

Bicycles are most needed on non-IC stock, again, for people who cannot afford a car and need to get to work - or - shock horror - want to protect the environment.

Your view is an incredibly short sighted one that makes no compromise at all for those in a different position to yourself. For many people taking their bike on the train is a necessity without which they will not be able to earn a wage. For others, it is a very respectable way to reduce their carbon footprint. The issue is not the cyclist, it is the TOCs not making adequete provisions for such. As pointed out above, other countries make excellent provision for this need in a modern society. The UK is way behind as always.

 

[voyagerdude220]

Many thanks for the many replies from everyone.

I personally think that bikes should be allowed on trains- Free of charge but compulsory to reserve in advance- subject to space and also maybe banned on certain routes/times where there are already problems with overcrowding.

 

[LowLevel]

Well, a paper card stuck in the cycle space showing it to be reserved from station A to station B would solve that problem in the same way that seat reservations are displayed.

But in my experience, whenever I've encountered another cyclist getting on when the cycle spaces are already occupied, it's something we cyclists sort out amongst ourselves. We ask each other how far we're going and the person going furthest puts their cycle at the back and the person getting off first puts theirs at the front. The idea that a cycle space is full if there are two bikes in it isn't really true; I've been on 158s on the Settle-Carlisle carrying 8 or 9 bikes before and people could still get past!

A 158/9 will carry more as it only has one toilet.

On ours 4 is the limit if you rack them up sensibly to avoid a) people/the trolley struggling to get by b) to not be able to open the emergency cupboard doors in a hurry which open outwards and are directly opposite and c) not impede a hasty movement of people to the other vehicle should situations require it (15x engine fires are not unknown).

Carriage of extra cycles should never impede other people's safety or comfort.

Our policy is to carry 2. We are encouraged to be sensible within reason. My hard limit if larger mountain bikes are involved is 4. Smaller road bikes you might squeeze 5.

 

[al78]

Outrageous. Clearly a man who has never had the misfortune of not being able to afford a car AND needing a vehicle to get to work.

Bicycles are most needed on non-IC stock, again, for people who cannot afford a car and need to get to work - or - shock horror - want to protect the environment.

Your view is an incredibly short sighted one that makes no compromise at all for those in a different position to yourself. For many people taking their bike on the train is a necessity without which they will not be able to earn a wage. For others, it is a very respectable way to reduce their carbon footprint. The issue is not the cyclist, it is the TOCs not making adequete provisions for such. As pointed out above, other countries make excellent provision for this need in a modern society. The UK is way behind as always.

For regular commuting by train a folding bike makes sense. At peak times, there really isn't the room for everyone who wished to take a standard bike on board a train. There are too many people wanting to travel to the same place at the same time, and have chosen jobs and homes 50 miles apart. No quick and easy way around this.

 

[bussnapperwm]

Outrageous. Clearly a man

I don't see what gender has to do with anything.

who has never had the misfortune of not being able to afford a car AND needing a vehicle to get to work.

Bicycles are most needed on non-IC stock, again, for people who cannot afford a car and need to get to work - or - shock horror - want to protect the environment.

I don't have a car, and despite taking driving lessons, I don't want to drive as I see myself as a danger, especially as I have Aspergers Syndrome.

Most non IC stock, such as 150/16x/17x stock or 323s for example, are intended to get passengers to and from. If the lycra brigade want to commute, they could peddle themselves, or move closer to their job.

Your view is an incredibly short sighted one that makes no compromise at all for those in a different position to yourself. For many people taking their bike on the train is a necessity without which they will not be able to earn a wage. For others, it is a very respectable way to reduce their carbon footprint. The issue is not the cyclist, it is the TOCs not making adequete provisions for such. As pointed out above, other countries make excellent provision for this need in a modern society. The UK is way behind as always.

No. Why should I travel on a commuter train and have to stand, just because the lycra brigade take half the available spaces for their tree hugging obsession.

They should either move closer to their work or cycle the whole way.

Either that or walk/get a bus from the station to their work.

 

[kristiang85]

I'm a big fan of the European model of mandatory reservations for bicycles - it means the passenger pays a little extra for the space they take up, but at the same time they know they will have facilities provided. And it will make on board staff's jobs a lot easier as the rules are clear.

On a couple of occasions I've seen seated passengers on the fold-down seats made to stand up to make room for a bike, and it really annoys me knowing that a person with a bike can essentially take up four/five seats without paying any extra to the service, and potentially passengers paying thousands per year are made to stand.

For commuter services, like some underground lines, folding bikes should be compulsory during peak hours. In the future more dedicated bike racks can be installed, funded by the charge.

 

[ooo]

I'm a big fan of the European model of mandatory reservations for bicycles

Where has this? In my experience local trains abroad typically require no reservation for bicycles and have lots of space although there is often a charge.

 

[Intermodal]

I don't see what gender has to do with anything.

I'm not going to justify this with a response.

No. Why should I travel on a commuter train and have to stand, just because the lycra brigade take half the available spaces for their tree hugging obsession.

I fail to see how cyclists are making you stand. Are they putting their bikes on seats? If anything they are lessening your space in which to stand...

Your references to 'lycra brigade' and 'tree hugging obsession' again show that you are very short sighted in reference to this issue. It is widely accepted that non-motorised transport is a key part of the future of our society and our planet, and research has shown that there are benefits across the board for encouraging the use of public transport in combination with human powered transport, such as bicycles. If you are just flatly in denial of this and have a deeply ingrained hatred of cyclists I don't see any point in continuing this conversation, I'm afraid. Your point of view is a very selfish one, frankly, and you appear to lack empathy regarding the reasons why someone might have to take their bicycle on a train. It's not just a case of 'moving there' or 'pedalling there', but it seems you wouldn't know.

 

[krus_aragon]

I fail to see how cyclists are making you stand. Are they putting their bikes on seats? If anything they are lessening your space in which to stand...

The OP may be referring to stock that has tip-up seats installed in the cycle storage area (e.g. class 175), or where an area with tip-up seats is designated as a non-ideal cycle storage area (e.g. ATW class 150).

 

[Intermodal]

The OP may be referring to stock that has tip-up seats installed in the cycle storage area (e.g. class 175), or where an area with tip-up seats is designated as a non-ideal cycle storage area (e.g. ATW class 150).

Thanks.

If I remember correctly there is one section of this kind on each unit you mentioned. Perhaps two on a 175? Either way - we are talking about four to six seats maximum here. Cyclists have a very rough time on public transport infrastructure in this country, and to propose that removing four to six seats from a unit with hundreds is "unfair" on the OP is frankly ludicrous when a cyclist can barely get a space for their bike even if they do reserve in advance. I point at this quote: (emphasis my own)

just because the lycra brigade take half the available spaces

Nonsense from someone with a gear to grind. I'm not sure what cyclists have done to Class 172 Fan, but I hope they find it within their heart to forgive them one day.

 

[marks87]

I don't see what gender has to do with anything.





I don't have a car, and despite taking driving lessons, I don't want to drive as I see myself as a danger, especially as I have Aspergers Syndrome.

Most non IC stock, such as 150/16x/17x stock or 323s for example, are intended to get passengers to and from. If the lycra brigade want to commute, they could peddle themselves, or move closer to their job.



No. Why should I travel on a commuter train and have to stand, just because the lycra brigade take half the available spaces for their tree hugging obsession.

They should either move closer to their work or cycle the whole way.

Either that or walk/get a bus from the station to their work.

Any chance of a response to my reply to your post? I brought up a scenario that's nothing to do with commuting.

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/bike-reservations.170184/#post-3652415

Oh, and FYI: I've never worn Lycra in my life, and have no desire to do so. As, I'm sure, do the vast majority of cyclists in this country. I'd therefore advise against the lazy stereotypes that are lifted straight from the Daily Mail comments section.

 

[WelshBluebird]

No. Why should I travel on a commuter train and have to stand, just because the lycra brigade take half the available spaces for their tree hugging obsession. They should either move closer to their work or cycle the whole way.

Maybe you should move closer to your work so other's don't have to stand just because you need to take up a space?
No different to what you are saying there.

 

[sprunt]

Maybe you should move closer to your work so other's don't have to stand just because you need to take up a space?
No different to what you are saying there.

Apart from the fact that he isn't bringing a machine that takes up the space of 4 to 6 people onto the train, it's absolutely identical.

 

[sprunt]

The issue is not the cyclist, it is the TOCs not making adequete provisions for such.

The entitlement of the cyclist in a sentence. "All must make way for us, for we are cyclists, and our virtues outweigh all others'."

 

[marks87]

Apart from the fact that he isn't bringing a machine that takes up the space of 4 to 6 people onto the train, it's absolutely identical.

What is this machine you speak of?

The entitlement of the cyclist in a sentence. "All must make way for us, for we are cyclists, and our virtues outweigh all others'."

Only someone with an enormous chip on their shoulder about cyclists could possibly read that into the post you quoted.

 

[krus_aragon]

Thanks.

If I remember correctly there is one section of this kind on each unit you mentioned. Perhaps two on a 175? Either way - we are talking about four to six seats maximum here. Cyclists have a very rough time on public transport infrastructure in this country, and to propose that removing four to six seats from a unit with hundreds is "unfair" on the OP is frankly ludicrous when a cyclist can barely get a space for their bike even if they do reserve in advance. I point at this quote: (emphasis my own)

Nonsense from someone with a gear to grind. I'm not sure what cyclists have done to Class 172 Fan, but I hope they find it within their heart to forgive them one day.

The 175s have one cycle space (for two bikes) per unit, which has two tip-up seats, but the area is very clearly denoted as a cycle area. ATW's 150s have a "corner" that has no more than three tip-up seats as I recall, and looks much like any other seating area. I don't know what stock Class 172 Fan has in mind.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Apart from the fact that he isn't bringing a machine that takes up the space of 4 to 6 people onto the train, it's absolutely identical.

I assume you don't share the same disdain for those in wheelchairs, or those with luggage, or those with prams?

The entitlement of the cyclist in a sentence. "All must make way for us, for we are cyclists, and our virtues outweigh all others'."

If the space on a train is a cycle space, then yes, there is entitlement there, because it is a cycle space! If people are sat / stood in that area, then to be blunt, tough!
In terms of generally who ToC's should make provisions for - a cyclist has as much right to travel by rail as anyone else. So why shouldn't ToC's make sensible provisions to carry some passengers?

 

[sprunt]

I assume you don't share the same disdain for those in wheelchairs, or those with luggage, or those with prams?

Your assumption is correct, well done! See if you can possibly work out what the difference is!

If the space on a train is a cycle space, then yes, there is entitlement there, because it is a cycle space!

Yes, if there is a cycle space. So what is the failing on the part of the TOC in that event?

a cyclist has as much right to travel by rail as anyone else.

Their bike doesn't though.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Your assumption is correct, well done! See if you can possibly work out what the difference is!

Your prejudice?

Yes, if there is a cycle space. So what is the failing on the part of the TOC in that event?

Lets work through the scenarios shall we? A cyclist boards a train with their bike to find one of the following:

1. Cycle space that is free - no issue!
2. Cycle space that is taken up by people who aren't cyclists - not directly the ToC's fault but cycle spaces can be designed to avoid this and there should be clear signage to say the cycles have priority in that space.
3. Cycle space that is shared with tip up seats / luggage storage - the ToC has directly put passengers and cyclists in conflict by not separating the areas out.
4. Cycle space that is already full and there is not another one space - the ToC clearly isn't catering for their customers, since there is more demand than what is available.
5. No cycle space - the ToC clearly isn't catering for their customers, since there is more demand than what is available.

And that doesn't even start to touch the practical and moral questions of encouraging greener and active transport - that actively catering for and encouraging cycling and similar modes of transport is a good thing!

Their bike doesn't though.

Why not?

 

[sprunt]

Why not?

Because trains are for moving people, not other modes of transport.

 

[marks87]

Because trains are for moving people,

What about animals? Do people need to leave pets at home if they're catching a train?

And luggage? Should everyone travel with only the clothes they are wearing, and whatever can fit in their pockets?

not other modes of transport.

Clearly not, since many TOCs do provide cycle spaces.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Because trains are for moving people, not other modes of transport.

And luggage, and pets, and prams, and shopping bags / trolleys etc, and other items including, shock horror, bikes.

As I said, encouraging cycling and other methods of active transport (walking etc) as part of a rail journey (so someone cycling to their local station instead of driving for example, or someone cycling for a bit, getting the train for a bit and then finishing their journey by bike again) is a good thing. It helps with the congestion, pollution and car parking issues we see in many places and keeps people active etc.

 

[sprunt]

What about animals? Do people need to leave pets at home if they're catching a train?

Ideally, yes. They certainly shouldn't be occupying space that could alternatively be occupied by people on overcrowded trains.

And luggage? Should everyone travel with only the clothes they are wearing, and whatever can fit in their pockets?

Of course not. Luggage is an obvious thing that people will carry with them when making a journey, as they have since time immemorial. Luggage and bicycles are not equivalent in this scenario.

Clearly not, since many TOCs do provide cycle spaces.

And if they are doing so on trains that don't otherwise have sufficient capacity for all who wish to travel, they shouldn't do.

 

[marks87]

Ideally, yes. They certainly shouldn't be occupying space that could alternatively be occupied by people on overcrowded trains.

Of course not. Luggage is an obvious thing that people will carry with them when making a journey, as they have since time immemorial. Luggage and bicycles are not equivalent in this scenario.

Why is a bike not equivalent to luggage? Can my bike not be considered my luggage? Would you object to its presence if I'd just bought it from a shop and it were in a box?

I travelled on a service recently where my bike was taking up less space than many individuals' respective luggage.

And if they are doing so on trains that don't otherwise have sufficient capacity for all who wish to travel, they shouldn't do.

In the same way that TOCs shouldn't give over space for luggage on trains that don't otherwise have sufficient capacity for all who wish to travel, yes?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I am in favour of compulsory reservations for cycles on all trains (even local ones) due to the limited resource that is available. However, I would make them available much more widely - so they would be available, independently of a travel ticket, at ticket offices, at TVMs and online via a dedicated website and app as well as compulsorily offered (and visible on the search if they are available or not, or via an option "only show me trains on which I can take my bicycle and space is presently available") when booking online at all booking sites.

I would charge a fee, but only a nominal reservation fee to discourage people from frivolously booking on all the trains they may want rather than the one they do (a bit like £0.05 for a PERTIS stops them all getting dumped on the floor by the local scallies). £2 to reserve but £1 refunded if cancelled/changed in advance of departure would seem a sensible sum and is the same as I support for seat reservations. After all, the cycle brings other (fares) income; there are few journeys where bringing the bike is an optional matter, mostly either a journey with a bike makes sense or it does not, and if it does make sense without one isn't a sensible option so the ticket income is lost.

Ideally, guards (where provided) would have an easy facility via their phone to release them if unclaimed from the specified departure station.

Because of the lack of need to mark them (as they are compulsory) they would be available, as they are on VTWC, near enough right up to departure. A long advance booking requirement like TPE's inadequate scheme is not acceptable nor necessary.

 

[JohnMcL7]

Great post Bletchleyite, sums up my thoughts exactly. Earlier this year I was wanting to travel to London via Virgin and the first problem I hit was that their site doesn't seem to show cycle availability at all so I had to contact them directly. No matter what journey I tried to book despite it being many months in advance. It's been a similar story when trying to get to Manchester so I have wondered if as you've mentioned people are booking multiple slots for flexibility then not using them so I wouldn't mind a small charge if it meant a better chance of getting a slot.

I do think it's reasonable requiring a reservation as the bike can really get in the way if there's no free bike slots and while it can be frustrating when I can't take the bike, I do appreciate space is limited.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Great post Bletchleyite, sums up my thoughts exactly. Earlier this year I was wanting to travel to London via Virgin and the first problem I hit was that their site doesn't seem to show cycle availability at all so I had to contact them directly. No matter what journey I tried to book despite it being many months in advance.

Use the TPE or GWR websites. Those sites let you reserve cycles online at the same time as you book your tickets.

It's been a similar story when trying to get to Manchester so I have wondered if as you've mentioned people are booking multiple slots for flexibility then not using them so I wouldn't mind a small charge if it meant a better chance of getting a slot.

For my part, when I'm travelling a long distance with my cycle, I usually reserve outward and return journeys at the time I book my ticket to make sure that I have a reservation - so I'm reassured that I won't discover too late that I won't be able to take my bike. But it's very common that the day before I return, I'll change my mind about which train I want to take, so I end up going to the ticket office to book my cycle onto a different train. I always feel somewhat bad about this, since it means I've potentially stopped another cyclist booking, but I don't see anything else I can sensibly do. Personally, I think it'd be much fairer to have a system similar to the one Bletcheyite suggested, where I pay a small fee to reserve, and it's possible to cancel with a refund (or at least a partial refund) of the fee.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Why is a bike not equivalent to luggage? Can my bike not be considered my luggage?

Perhaps, because it's a lot longer than almost any suitcase and so won't fit into most suitcase areas. It's a much more awkward shape and is prone to falling over. And it's also much harder than most suitcases, with quite a few sharp-ish projections. And lots of bikes tend to have exposed slightly oily areas. It seems obvious to me that in terms of awkwardness (and ability to cause problems to other passengers if you're not careful how you store it), a bicycle is hugely different from most luggage.

 

[marks87]

Perhaps, because it's a lot longer than almost any suitcase and so won't fit into most suitcase areas. It's a much more awkward shape and is prone to falling over. And it's also much harder than most suitcases, with quite a few sharp-ish projections. And lots of bikes tend to have exposed slightly oily areas. It seems obvious to me that in terms of awkwardness (and ability to cause problems to other passengers if you're not careful how you store it), a bicycle is hugely different from most luggage.

To which I say “so?”.

There’s plenty examples of non-standard luggage. I’ve seen people with large musical instruments, and even sets of skis.

It just seems that people are determined to demonise bicycles and those who ride them, despite them actually not being that difficult to transport, and not taking up as much room as is often made out.