Cycle spaces on trains

[DarloRich]

I vote no. Cyclists are a blight on civilsed train users. There is always one blocking the door way, I always catch my bag or trouser legs on the dirtiest part of the said contraption and the owners are often sweaty simpletons wearing some kind of kinky onsie without, really, the package to justify it.

You own a bike. Ride it to work. Leave the trains for those of us too lazy to cycle or walk.

Oh and people with folding bikes: Tory perverts.

 

[furnessvale]

I vote no. Cyclists are a blight on civilsed train users. There is always one blocking the door way, I always catch my bag or trouser legs on the dirtiest part of the said contraption and the owners are often sweaty simpletons wearing some kind of kinky onsie without, really, the package to justify it.

You own a bike. Ride it to work. Leave the trains for those of us too lazy to cycle or walk.

Oh and people with folding bikes: Tory perverts.

Stop pulling your punches..............say it as it really is!

 

[DarloRich]

OBVIOUSLY - trains should have spaces for bicycles because bicycling is an increasingly popular pastime, especially among the mainly male, middle aged, middle class group who form the core of any commuter gathering. People often cycle to the station and to their place of work and that should be encouraged however the problem is many of our trains don't have space to give over to bikes.

My friend who is a very keen cyclist has the solution to this problem. He owns a super duper carbon fibre thing for his own use at the weekend and two old clunkers he leaves tied up at the two stations he uses for his every day commute. He therefore doesn't need to put his bike on the train, although he does by his own omission look a bit odd in his kinky onsie on the train without a bike!

 

[ashkeba]

For example, where folded prams (As opposed to strollers) are supposed to go on GWR IETs without either occupying the wheelchair user space (which is in first class anyway), the nominal bike space, or blocking the aisles, in the quest to hem more seats in. Never mind if you want to keep it unfolded if your kid is sleeping.

I went for occupying the bike space as 'least worst' option.

Why did you not use the large luggage cupboard which GWR installed instead of the other bike cupboard?

On GTR 387s, I've kept an unfolded pram in the bit opposite the accessible loo. Cue cyclists then boarding looking lost as to where to place their bikes (it is not marked as any kind of designated space; the wheelchair user spaces are the opposite side of the vestibule/doorway).

I'm surprised that an unfolded pram fitted in that space without obstructing access to the accessible toilet. It is only possible to put bikes there if they do not have wide handlebars, are put with their fronts opposite and are strapped tightly to the railing.

The basic problem is placing those who aspire more space in direct conflict with each other for the same spaces.

I would agree with that. There is also no formal way to buy or allocate that "more space" to ensure fair loading between services, so you never know when you will have conflict.

 

[smsm1]

In answer to the original question, bikes should be allowed if we are to move to a world with more sustainable travel. Especially important for rural stations, where buses are not available, have short hours, or are infrequent. Cycle hire at all stations probably wouldn't work as there's issues around things like child seats when travelling with children, or other stranger bikes.

Don't I recall that the EU (should we remain in it) is going to mandate a minimum number of spaces? 4-5 per train would be a good start, more on scenic routes. It can always be used as standing space in the peaks.

It's 8 cycle spaces that the EU will require to be carried: https://ecf.com/news-and-events/news/european-parliament-backs-eight-spaces-bicycles-trains
This is should allow an average family of four to travel without being split up due to the space being used.

One thing that annoys me with LNER’s approach is that bicycle reservations are compulsory yet there isn’t a way of doing it on their website. This could be really discouraging because a cyclist would surely want to book a bike space when booking their ticket?

Predecessors to LNER used to have the cycle reservations as part of the WebTis system. I used to regularly book my bike on train, even for other operators through their site. Now GWR is one of the few sites left that allow cycle bookings with the tickets.

So presumably the argument about freeing up space for more passengers would apply to people with prams / pushchairs and naturally anyone with more than hand luggage, and I’ve not mentioned wheelchairs! What exactly is the purpose of a train then?

If there's not enough space for trains to have seats for most passengers, and a flexible space for cycles, pushchairs, and luggage, then we need to increase the capacity of the trains through various means such as longer and more frequent trains, extra tracks, signalling changes, etc.

It should look like this (same for wheelchair/pram areas):

Yes, the Danes have it right. Nice and clear, with a one way system to reduce dwell times. In one door and out another.

In the UK if there's a triangle beside the train number on the end of the train approaching you, then the cycle/accessible space is that end of the train. If it's missing then it's the other end of the train. Greater Anglia are doing a good job with the thick green stripe above the windows, though could miss it on the longer trains as it's approaching.

We're meant to book spaces, but no TOC to my knowledge lets you do that at the same time as booking a ticket (unless you ring them).

GWR have the facility to book cycle spaces for any train that requires cycle reservations across the UK.

 

[LowLevel]

Yes.
There is a move at least in Manchester and in Yorkshire towards promoting what is termed "active travel". This is where all or part of a journey is made using human power - walk, cycle, etc. It therefore includes a journey that is (say) (departure point) bike > train > bike (destination).

Active travel, if done properly and seriously
- improves the health of people by reducing obesity and increasing cardiovascular fitness, which in turn saves (health service) money
- reduces road congestion which improves the appeal of buses (quicker journeys), improves air quality which in turn improves health and saves (health service) money
and so on. It's all good.

What is NOT needed is suggestions that people should
- buy a special (folding) bike for this purpose when they already have a perfectly good one
- or have two bikes so they can keep one at home for the trip to the departure station and then another kept locked at destination for use there
- or use one of those wretched and expensive rental bikes at destination.
These are sure ways to keep people in their cars. It would me - and I want to be an active/public transport traveller. No hope for those wedded to cars.

What IS needed, quite simply, is trains that are fit for purpose. That means big enough for people and their luggage (which may include a full size bicycle). Yes, it will cost money, but it would be well spent, and offers a (health money) saving elsewhere in the longer term. The saving might very well exceed the expense........

Bikes on trains should be for leisure journeys only. The solution (as seen in Europe and elsewhere) should be mass cycle storage at stations and 2 bikes at either end for commuting.

 

[jfowkes]

My friend who is a very keen cyclist has the solution to this problem. He owns a super duper carbon fibre thing for his own use at the weekend and two old clunkers he leaves tied up at the two stations he uses for his every day commute. He therefore doesn't need to put his bike on the train, although he does by his own omission look a bit odd in his kinky onsie on the train without a bike!

If he's riding an old clunker, may as well do away with the lycra and just wear something light, comfortable and less revealing.

 

[Ianno87]

Why did you not use the large luggage cupboard which GWR installed instead of the other bike cupboard?

Because certain types of pram (e.g. doubles) don't fit? Or if they do fit, the are is fully occupied with luggage already?

I'm surprised that an unfolded pram fitted in that space without obstructing access to the accessible toilet. It is only possible to put bikes there if they do not have wide handlebars, are put with their fronts opposite and are strapped tightly to the railing.

Because prams are fitted with this amazing invention known as "The Wheel", so they can be moved out of the way quite easily on request (the area on 387s is pretty spacious).

 

[RLBH]

Bikes on trains should be for leisure journeys only. The solution (as seen in Europe and elsewhere) should be mass cycle storage at stations and 2 bikes at either end for commuting.

One bike, surely? The 'city' station ought to be within walking distance of the office, after all?

What IS needed, quite simply, is trains that are fit for purpose. That means big enough for people and their luggage (which may include a full size bicycle). Yes, it will cost money, but it would be well spent, and offers a (health money) saving elsewhere in the longer term. The saving might very well exceed the expense........

And 'full sized bicycle' needs to mean any bicycle - including recumbents, tandems, electric bicycles, and maybe even cargo bikes. Requiring bicycles to be hung from a wheel doesn't facilitate that.

Of course, such a space does need to be adaptable to carrying other kinds of large luggage, such as oversized suitcases, prams, skis, surfboards, dogs in travel crates... In general, the answer to 'should trains have Feature X?' where Feature X has been available on trains for the last century or so - buffets, van space, toilets, and so forth - is yes. Shortages of capacity need to be dealt with by finding ways to run either more trains or longer trains.

If we applied the rail design paradigm to the roads, we'd still be taking the A6 from London to Manchester, but would have contrived ever cleverer ways to get more people into cars by getting rid of the boot, having the driver sit on top of the engine, and so forth. Except that we don't do that, because people expect their travel experience to improve, not get worse.

 

[DarloRich]

If he's riding an old clunker, may as well do away with the lycra and just wear something light, comfortable and less revealing.

that goes for almost every cyclist. They love a bit of lycra.

 

[Ianno87]

One bike, surely? The 'city' station ought to be within walking distance of the office, after all?

Have you every been to London? Or (to use another example) Cambridge?

 

[jfowkes]

In the UK if there's a triangle beside the train number on the end of the train approaching you, then the cycle/accessible space is that end of the train. If it's missing then it's the other end of the train.

Can you provide a reference for that? I've never heard of that before.

GWR have the facility to book cycle spaces for any train that requires cycle reservations across the UK.

Ah, useful to know that at least one TOC still has that facility! Unfortunately doesn't work with East Midlands Trains as their bike reservations are (apparently) entirely separate from the national ticketing system and you have to email or ring them.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I agree with the premise, and personally I agree with having bike spaces on trains. But playing devil's advocate: if bikes weren't allow on trains, it would make space for more seats or standing room. If two cyclists are removed from a train (and start driving instead), but four extra walking passengers board (who were previously driving), the total number of cars on the road falls.

Amongst other problems, that argument only works if the train is so full that putting two cyclists on the train will actually deprive four other passengers of the ability to board. In practice, the vast majority of trains outside rush hour have enough spare seats that letting a couple of bikes on isn't going to stop anyone else getting on. And then the risk then goes the other way: That if you don't let the cyclists on, you lose passengers who might otherwise choose to drive, or put their bikes in their cars, etc. In fact, I can think of a few times when I've made quite long journeys on Virgin West Coast, paying over £100 for tickets, where I simply would not have made the journey at all if I wasn't permitted to take my bike with me.

 

[jfowkes]

Another thing: should number of bike spaces be proportional to train length/capacity? Seems a bit weird for a 2-car Sprinter to have the same number of spaces as a 7-car Meridian (picking examples out of the air).

 

[DynamicSpirit]

One thing that annoys me with LNER’s approach is that bicycle reservations are compulsory yet there isn’t a way of doing it on their website. This could be really discouraging because a cyclist would surely want to book a bike space when booking their ticket?

Yeah, it's annoying. Same thing on Virgin West Coast. But the solution is easy - you just use another TOC's website instead. GWR and TPE both allow this (although I have to say the UI on both websites isn't particularly friendly, and can be extremely confusing if you're trying to book a journey for which cycle reservations are only required/allowed for part of the journey).

 

[smsm1]

Can you provide a reference for that? I've never heard of that before.

I was involved with the cycle space design for the new Greater Anglia trains, and it was specifically requested as it existed elsewhere on the network.

According to this thread it means it's first class. https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/321-black-triangles.100082/
The GA 170s happen to have the first class and cycle carriage at the same end of the train.

This post in the above thread also mentions the cycle carriage: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/321-black-triangles.100082/#post-1783874

And another post saying it's the end that might have a brake van there: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/321-black-triangles.100082/#post-1785256

Seems the meaning has changed over time.

Unfortunately doesn't work with East Midlands Trains as their bike reservations are (apparently) entirely separate from the national ticketing system and you have to email or ring them.

Oh wow, I wasn't aware of that. Should be part of the national reservation system, so that then you can go to any station to make a reservation. These odd differences make travelling by train harder.

 

[jfowkes]

Oh wow, I wasn't aware of that. Should be part of the national reservation system, so that then you can go to any station to make a reservation. These odd differences make travelling by train harder.

It was at one stage, I have old orange bike reservation tickets to prove it! But sometime in the past few years it changed and now you just get emailed a PDF you have to print off.

 

[smsm1]

Another thing: should number of bike spaces be proportional to train length/capacity?

Hard one. Local trains tend to have more bikes, however longer intercities tend to have peaks of cycle carriage over the summer. Depending on where people are going alternative transport is probably available when doing longer journeys. Intercities tend to have reservations and are for longer journeys, so can plan ahead, whereas locals need more flexibility for the peaks in demand, especially when people are connecting to a reserved intercity.

 

[ashkeba]

OBVIOUSLY - trains should have spaces for bicycles because bicycling is an increasingly popular pastime, especially among the mainly male, middle aged, middle class group who form the core of any commuter gathering. People often cycle to the station and to their place of work and that should be encouraged however the problem is many of our trains don't have space to give over to bikes.

It is transport not only a pastime. Maybe peak time trains don't have space but there are plenty of off-peak trains moving around empty seats thoughtlessly left in the way of carrying bicycles, large luggage and so on.

My friend who is a very keen cyclist has the solution to this problem. He owns a super duper carbon fibre thing for his own use at the weekend and two old clunkers he leaves tied up at the two stations he uses for his every day commute. He therefore doesn't need to put his bike on the train, although he does by his own omission look a bit odd in his kinky onsie on the train without a bike!

Yes, to buy two extra bikes and wear a "kinky onsie" to overcome the problems with UK trains marks him out as "very keen". The UK will never be a healthy country if everyone except the "very keen" keeps on driving because it is made too difficult to combine bike and train - or anything else and train, for that matter, and then we may have no train service worth the name "service" and then the drivers will push for another wave of conversions to roads like parts of the A3088 and A16...

I think this sort of topic gets rail enthusiasts heated because it is an example of how the rail service is not really addressing these conflicts and ends up unthinkingly optimising everything for single light-luggage walk-on passengers instead of providing a broad range of service.

 

[Harpers Tate]

Bikes on trains should be for leisure journeys only. The solution (as seen in Europe and elsewhere) should be mass cycle storage at stations and 2 bikes at either end for commuting.

Disagree completely. That would continue to encourage driving, which is not (or ought not to be) the intended outcome of any change.

 

[jfowkes]

I was involved with the cycle space design for the new Greater Anglia trains, and it was specifically requested as it existed elsewhere on the network.

According to this thread it means it's first class. https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/321-black-triangles.100082/
The GA 170s happen to have the first class and cycle carriage at the same end of the train.

This post in the above thread also mentions the cycle carriage: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/321-black-triangles.100082/#post-1783874

And another post saying it's the end that might have a brake van there: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/321-black-triangles.100082/#post-1785256

Seems the meaning has changed over time.

This is interesting, thanks! Certainly haven't noticed that on any trains in my neck of the woods (Nottingham). EMT (EMR) 222s have a nice big bicycle symbol on the front which is nice. It probably wouldn't make sense on Sprinters or Turbostars because the bike spaces can seemingly be anywhere along the train. Sometimes I think they change mid-journey and I magically get moved to another carriage without noticing.

 

[Bromley boy]

Disagree completely. That would continue to encourage driving, which is not (or ought not to be) the intended outcome of any change.

Why? It strikes me as the perfect solution. Bike to/from the station and either tube in London or Boris bike.

Lots of London commuter stations already have bike storage. If anything improving that will be a lot easier (and cheaper) than increasing onboard cycle space.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Intercities tend to have reservations and are for longer journeys, so can plan ahead, whereas locals need more flexibility for the peaks in demand, especially when people are connecting to a reserved intercity.

I think it can be more complicated than that, because many 'intercity' trains become 'local' at some point in their journey. Think for example, Virgin West Coast trains that travel non-stop all the way from London to Warrington, and then pick up local commuters doing journeys like Warrington-Wigan or Preston-Lancaster.

Personally, I think the solution when numbers of cycle spaces are so limited is to require reservations AND provide an easy means to reserve (if spaces are available) up until the time the train departs each station. And also to charge a reasonable amount[*] for reservations - with the fee fully refundable if you cancel at least half an hour before the train leaves (to avoid people reserving then not showing up).

[*] I'd consider a reasonable amount to be something like 5% of the off-peak ticket price, with a minimum of £1.

 

[ashkeba]

Because certain types of pram (e.g. doubles) don't fit? Or if they do fit, the are is fully occupied with luggage already?

The large luggage cupboard is exactly the same size as the bike cupboard, as far as I could tell, so if it fits in one, it'll fit in the other. I can't really see any excuse for blocking the bike cupboard with that luggage.

Because prams are fitted with this amazing invention known as "The Wheel", so they can be moved out of the way quite easily on request (the area on 387s is pretty spacious).

Bicycles are also fitted with that invention, but I know the 387s too and the only direction you could move a pram to stop obstructing the doorway is towards the wheelchair spaces, which obviously doesn't help if you need to get out of the way of an approaching wheelchair... and I'm surprised if the rules don't require prams to be folded like pushchairs because they're wider than two bicycles side-by-side and you don't have the option of tying the two sides nose-tail.

 

[AM9]

I've voted for yes but accept a sort of halfway house, i.e. it's complicated. Firstly, even as a cyclist but not a commuter, I think that only folding cycles should be allowed on peak services into cities/large towns where there is a major commuter flow. Generally on routes with services to meet that kind of demand, there is a finite capacity determined by the trains and/or the infrastructure, and given that the level of cycling is on the increase, there is not much chance of the necessary capacity being available in time for that increase. Equally, push-chairs should also be foldable and folded in the peak because if there isn't room for cycles then there isn't for them either.
On regional, country, long-distance services and commuter trains between the peaks, provision for full sized solo cycles should be based on some measure of meeting the demand, but I imagine that it would take some time for provisioning to catch up with that, except of very high capacity commuter train designs such as class 700s and 345s.
In the case of conflicts, cyclists and non-folded push chairs should be able to buy tickets for their wheeled aids, and in that case, a ticket holder would have priority over a non-ticket holder. If both do (or both don't) hold tickets, then it's first come first served.

 

[LowLevel]

Disagree completely. That would continue to encourage driving, which is not (or ought not to be) the intended outcome of any change.

It works brilliantly. The bikes number their thousands in these parks.

Filling up trains with 10s of commuter bikes is a waste of time for short journeys.

 

[Harpers Tate]

Why? It strikes me as the perfect solution. Bike to/from the station and either tube in London or Boris bike.....

That's not the suggestion I'm disagreeing with - which was to own two bikes, one for use at each end of the train journey. Neither do I agree with renting an expensive and dreadful rent-a-bike at the far end. These "solutions", I repeat, would (IMO) only serve to perpetuate motoring commutes which, as I say is not (or ought not to be) the desired outcome of any change. What we need is trains fit for purpose, funded (to whatever extent it manifests) out of the future healthcare savings.

 

[ashkeba]

Bikes on trains should be for leisure journeys only. The solution (as seen in Europe and elsewhere) should be mass cycle storage at stations and 2 bikes at either end for commuting.

Where in Europe are you thinking of? The Netherlands has mass cycle storage at your home end and OV-Fiets that you rent with your Oyster-like card at the other (which is what Bike And Go is a poor clunky copy of). Bikes are allowed off-peak but costs money and there are not enough bike spaces on most trains but guards are usually lenient if you are sensible (same as the trains they run over here!). Belgian railways suggested restricting bike transport earlier this year and their MPs complained until they U-turned. French Railways has restrictions I do not understand but offered to book me a bike for free on an 8am Paris Intercity a couple of weeks ago - but I did not try because I did not take a bike that time thanks to Eurostar. As I understand it, Spanish Railways let you take bikes on local trains or bagged on high-speed ones.

So where is mad enough to be promoting "2 bikes at either end"? That sounds like it would be a bike thief's playground, pretty much advertising that all office-district stations would have loads of bikes unattended overnight every night and all weekend.

 

[broadgage]

I believe that almost all trains should have ample spaces for cycles. The only exception should be short urban routes where cycling for the whole journey is a realistic alternative to taking the cycle on the train.

Many modern trains are designed only with seating capacity in mind and should be longer and including a luggage area for prams, cycles, heavy luggage, surfboards, and larger dogs.

Trains exist to convey passengers, including their luggage, cycles, surfboards and within reason other bulky articles. Bring back the luggage van, AND the buffet. Both of which were routinely provided in years gone by and should still be provided today.

 

[Bantamzen]

That's not the suggestion I'm disagreeing with - which was to own two bikes, one for use at each end of the train journey. Neither do I agree with renting an expensive and dreadful rent-a-bike at the far end. These "solutions", I repeat, would (IMO) only serve to perpetuate motoring commutes which, as I say is not (or ought not to be) the desired outcome of any change. What we need is trains fit for purpose, funded (to whatever extent it manifests) out of the future healthcare savings.

I'm all for some provision for carrying bikes, however if they are to be used on commutes in any kind of numbers then obviously some other provision is going to be needed. For large numbers of cyclists better safe storage at their home stations is an obvious start, and where a bike is needed at the destination end then maybe an expansion of the shared bike schemes seen in some areas.

However if the thought for many is that they would not use such a scheme, but expect to have growing provision for their own bikes on trains then they are not going to change, and I suspect don't want to. The reality is that increasing capacity on trains costs money, increasing platform capacity costs money and time, and this may still not be enough. Imagine for example if even just 5 percent of commuters heading into London on a 12 car 700 decided to arrive expecting to carry on their bikes? Its simply not going to be practicable. Having two bikes, or using shared bikes at one end is far more favourable in the long run because it allows more capacity on trains for passengers.

Where in Europe are you thinking of? The Netherlands has mass cycle storage at your home end and OV-Fiets that you rent with your Oyster-like card at the other (which is what Bike And Go is a poor clunky copy of). Bikes are allowed off-peak but costs money and there are not enough bike spaces on most trains but guards are usually lenient if you are sensible (same as the trains they run over here!). Belgian railways suggested restricting bike transport earlier this year and their MPs complained until they U-turned. French Railways has restrictions I do not understand but offered to book me a bike for free on an 8am Paris Intercity a couple of weeks ago - but I did not try because I did not take a bike that time thanks to Eurostar. As I understand it, Spanish Railways let you take bikes on local trains or bagged on high-speed ones.

So where is mad enough to be promoting "2 bikes at either end"? That sounds like it would be a bike thief's playground, pretty much advertising that all office-district stations would have loads of bikes unattended overnight every night and all weekend.

There are already various schemes at some stations, indeed I walk past a load on my daily commute through Shipley. They seem to last fairly well there when properly secured.