• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Cycle spaces on trains

Should trains have bike spaces at all?

  • Yes

    Votes: 238 62.3%
  • No

    Votes: 74 19.4%
  • It's obviously complicated and context dependent

    Votes: 70 18.3%

  • Total voters
    382
Status
Not open for further replies.

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
They are an absolute menace, especially for pedestrians, and they need licensing with a proper competency test, as other road users have.

Given that competency tests are doing such a great job at ensuring that everyone merges in turn at road narrowing, adhering to speed limits, stopping at pedestrian crossings, stopping middle lane hoggers, etc. then I agree with you [/Sarcasm]

Whilst I agree that there's a need for better cycle training, it's mostly so that those who aren't cyclists, or don't have family who are confident cyclists, are able to learn the skills to cycle well. In doing so they they will be more inclined to cycle rather than drive.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
Surely if you can use your bike to commute you can go without using the train? If not, don't take the bike with you and walk to your destination.
Ban bikes on the services which are regularly busy, such as commuter services in the peaks. 100s of commuters trying to get to seats on the train won't want to be stuck behind a bike - advise those using bikes to travel in the off-peak.

-Peter

OK, here's a case study I once lived (4 miles) and worked (3 miles) from the two stations I traveled between. These two stations are about 15 miles apart with Home/Work being about 19 miles apart. There's no bus route parallel to the railway line, at the work end there's an hourly bus, which is timed badly for the hours I worked and isn't well timed with the trains. At the home end there's not a viable bus service unless I walk over a mile. The cycle storage provision at the work end (Rural) was limited.

Is it reasonable to expect me to cycle all the way? If not, other than driving, what other reliable option do I have? Bearing in mind that there's at least 3 other people traveling between the same two stations.

There are a lot of people who use trains which don't work in cities where taking a cycle on the train is a good option.

Before someone suggests charging £5 a day for cycle reservations, on the above it would double the cost of rail travel which would make driving a better option. Which is fine, but just don't complain when there's extra traffic congestion because more people are driving.

That last point is often missed a it comes to this debate, the numbers who would move to using cars may not be great. However, given the daily (term time) changes in traffic is <2% and we all know how much worse the traffic is when it's raining because of the few extra cars in the road, it doesn't take a lot of extra traffic to cause the roads to slow down further/stop.

In fact make it that 10% of people give up driving in the peaks and it would be like driving in the school holidays all year round!
 

Peter C

Established Member
Joined
13 Oct 2018
Messages
4,514
Location
GWR land
OK, here's a case study I once lived (4 miles) and worked (3 miles) from the two stations I traveled between. These two stations are about 15 miles apart with Home/Work being about 19 miles apart. There's no bus route parallel to the railway line, at the work end there's an hourly bus, which is timed badly for the hours I worked and isn't well timed with the trains. At the home end there's not a viable bus service unless I walk over a mile. The cycle storage provision at the work end (Rural) was limited.

Is it reasonable to expect me to cycle all the way? If not, other than driving, what other reliable option do I have? Bearing in mind that there's at least 3 other people traveling between the same two stations.

There are a lot of people who use trains which don't work in cities where taking a cycle on the train is a good option.

Before someone suggests charging £5 a day for cycle reservations, on the above it would double the cost of rail travel which would make driving a better option. Which is fine, but just don't complain when there's extra traffic congestion because more people are driving.

That last point is often missed a it comes to this debate, the numbers who would move to using cars may not be great. However, given the daily (term time) changes in traffic is <2% and we all know how much worse the traffic is when it's raining because of the few extra cars in the road, it doesn't take a lot of extra traffic to cause the roads to slow down further/stop.

In fact make it that 10% of people give up driving in the peaks and it would be like driving in the school holidays all year round!
Fair point - I apologise. I'll be honest - I didn't take into account those living miles from stations.

-Peter
 

Peter C

Established Member
Joined
13 Oct 2018
Messages
4,514
Location
GWR land
I'm unsure what you classify as "peak", but from York to London the trains that are not valid with an off peak ticket will have more spare seats and plenty of space in the DVT for bikes.

Why single out bikes? If you continue to allow large suitcases, that would mean anyone who simply puts their bike in a bike box would get around it. I am not sure you have a lot of real world experience and/or have really thought your proposals through. I would suggest that any radical proposals go in Speculative Ideas too.

Surely anyone should plan to do this, but whether it's fair to say that people with large luggage can no longer use a service as a 'turn up and go' service on that basis is questionable. But also few people commence their overall journeys at places like Paddington and often come from somewhere further afield. Delays to connecting services can occur.
"Peak" is a system-wide term:
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-off-peak-hours-for-National-Rail-in-the-UK said:
Off Peak is generally between 09:00 - 16:30 and after 18:30 on weekdays (outside the rush hours), although the time restrictions can vary slightly on various lines and/or with various railway companies.
Yes, it is a bit vague, but this is what 99% of people consider the "peak" and "off-peak" to mean.

Foldable bikes are allowed on things such as the London Underground already in the peak. I don't really understand what you mean by "anyone who simply puts their bike in a bike box would get around it".
I have had experience on the railway where someone with a bike trying to get on the train has delayed those boarding. Those with large luggage are normally better at being able to get around the train with large luggage: which is more difficult to get around the 90 degrees corner from the door to the rest of the train? A bike, which is long and can hardly get around the corner, or a large suitcase, which is thin but tall?
If someone is carrying a large amount of luggage with them and may end up delaying the train I should hope that they get to the station early, have planned what they are going to do, and board the train in such a manner that they cause minimum disruption to others.
If delays to connecting services occur, then I would be more lenient with my views - a passenger is not at fault when their train is delayed. However, I would expect that people plan enough connecting time into their journey - I do, and I am always there for my train. Planning the minimum 5 mins is not enough when going to London in most cases.

-Peter
 

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
In the 00s, a lot of Dutch people were taking folding bikes on the train and it was getting out of hand at peak times. But since the OV-Fiets bike hiring came in, most people have stopped taking folding bikes on train and prefer to hire one at the other end, easy enough as it uses the same OV-Chipkaart so all you have to do is pick up the bike and get the card swiped.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
Fair point - I apologise. I'll be honest - I didn't take into account those living miles from stations.

-Peter

No worries, unless you have done it or looked at doing it most people wouldn't consider what's required.
 

Peter C

Established Member
Joined
13 Oct 2018
Messages
4,514
Location
GWR land
No worries, unless you have done it or looked at doing it most people wouldn't consider what's required.
:)
I have never had to "commute" before really, so I don't know the ins-and-outs of everything! :)

-Peter
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,419
Bikes are way more inconvenient than large luggage. Various dirty bits and various sticking out bits (pedals are amazingly painful things), difficult to get round corners, you can’t just kick a bike into a space, you can’t sit on a bike as easily, you don’t want to lean against it.....

Should only provide bike space where it is revenue generating - chargeable and/or part of the tourist offering (ie WHL). Otherwise it is taking passenger revenue away. Yes I know ‘should have capacity’ but this is the real world and if there is cash crush loaded passengers are the priority.
And if the bike parking isn’t chargeable (surely there is a market for decent secure paid bike parking at bigger stations, maybe provided in combination with a bike shop and rental unit) then the councils need to chip in.
Carrying bikes without reservations (need a last minute ability) is a recipe for conflict and angst, especially in places with infrequent services.
 

Via Bank

Member
Joined
28 Mar 2010
Messages
669
Location
London
It's also worth noting, I think, that plenty of lower income and contract/freelance workers take bicycles on the train as a cost-saving measure. Many (not all, but some) disabled folk also find cycles useful mobility aids, and would struggle to walk on either end.

Of course, you could say "store a bike at either end," "make carriage chargeable," "buy a folding bike," etc. - but when you're already cycling to/from the station to save money, are you going to be able to afford to own two bicycles? What if one of them gets stolen? (Theft from suburban railway stations with less foot traffic during the day is pretty common.) And do you realise how much more expensive folding bikes are?

The extra costs associated with this could force people into giving up their jobs or commitments, or worse still, lock people into car dependency (where transport costs end up taking up even more of their income than they already do.)

What would really help is a comprehensive and reasonably-priced OV-fiets like service with cycle hire at every mainline station over a wide area. I'm aware NS/Abellio have tried to introduce Bike&Go, which is a start, but it's nowhere near comprehensive or frictionless enough.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
Bikes are way more inconvenient than large luggage. Various dirty bits and various sticking out bits (pedals are amazingly painful things), difficult to get round corners, you can’t just kick a bike into a space, you can’t sit on a bike as easily, you don’t want to lean against it.....

Should only provide bike space where it is revenue generating - chargeable and/or part of the tourist offering (ie WHL). Otherwise it is taking passenger revenue away. Yes I know ‘should have capacity’ but this is the real world and if there is cash crush loaded passengers are the priority.
And if the bike parking isn’t chargeable (surely there is a market for decent secure paid bike parking at bigger stations, maybe provided in combination with a bike shop and rental unit) then the councils need to chip in.
Carrying bikes without reservations (need a last minute ability) is a recipe for conflict and angst, especially in places with infrequent services.

The problem is that they very places with infrequent services are the very places which people are more likely to wish to cycle as either it's a leisure location and/or public transport for onwards travel is likely to be poor.

I would suggest that if a train is so well loaded that there's not space for there to be as many cycles as there are carriages then either the cyclists need to wait for the next train, or if the next train is also as busy then there's a need for more capacity.

45 fare paying passengers on a service each and every weekday paying £11 is enough to generate £125,000 a year which is likely to be the cost to lease an extra coach (it always used to be a rough full of thumb was £100,000 for an EMU coach and £110,000 for a DMU coach).

Even on a 2 coach train that's ~23 in each coach (assuming that they are all traveling at a single point asking the route), yes it's a fair amount of people but isn't so full that having a cycle area for two cycles is going to be a major problem.

Yes you will probably still need to have bans close into major cities, but we shouldn't be needing them about 50 miles out from London for rural stations where the nearby village had a population of <5,000 and there's poor public transport the nearly 2 miles to it.
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,419
We know there is a need for more capacity, but in the meantime it isn’t happening and we have to get the best out of what we have.
Even when there is space there is still the issue of increased dwell times.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
We know there is a need for more capacity, but in the meantime it isn’t happening and we have to get the best out of what we have.
Even when there is space there is still the issue of increased dwell times.

And we wonder why so many people carry on driving rather than using active travel options and/or rail.

The dwell times on a busy, but without too many people standing where the cycles are, service isn't really a problem.

I've once got off a train, unlocked my cycle from a platform bike stand and reboarded the same train without delaying the service (I was the first passenger off and was at the right point on the train for my bike). I wouldn't want to do it again, but loading/unloading a bike is easier than a buggy or a preschooler (or indeed both). Or are you going to suggest that children under 5 should be band from trains as they don't pay their way and it's possible for there to be enough of them with an adult to be taking up 2 or 3 seats.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,027
Location
SE London
Before someone suggests charging £5 a day for cycle reservations, on the above it would double the cost of rail travel which would make driving a better option. Which is fine, but just don't complain when there's extra traffic congestion because more people are driving.

Whether £5 is excessive probably depends on the length of the journey. Personally I'd go for charging something like 5% of the off-peak ticket price, minimum £1 - refundable if the reservation is cancelled at least a couple of hours before the journey is due to start. And the aim wouldn't really be to raise revenue - it would be to encourage cyclists who change their mind about travelling on a particular train to cancel their reservations, thus freeing up the space for someone else. Obviously you'd need a system in place to allow reservation cancellation - which is currently not possible.
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,419
but loading/unloading a bike is easier than a buggy or a preschooler (or indeed both)

The buggy or kid can go in any door. The bike has to go to the correct door or end up in a vestibule where they can add dwell time to stops the bike isn’t using.
And it’s only easy if bike numbers are limited to spaces. As soon as multiple bikes are on board things get very tricky.
 

Doctor Fegg

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2010
Messages
1,814
What would really help is a comprehensive and reasonably-priced OV-fiets like service with cycle hire at every mainline station over a wide area. I'm aware NS/Abellio have tried to introduce Bike&Go, which is a start, but it's nowhere near comprehensive or frictionless enough.

Funny you should mention it:

"BIKE & GO WILL NO LONGER BE OPERATING FROM 30 SEPTEMBER 2019. The scheme was launched in 2014 to provide seamless door-to-door solutions in the form of bike rental at selected railway stations across England and Scotland. Unfortunately the number of rentals and members meant that the scheme was not self-sufficient and the decision has been made to close Bike & Go across the UK."

https://www.bikeandgo.co.uk
 

Via Bank

Member
Joined
28 Mar 2010
Messages
669
Location
London
Funny you should mention it:

"BIKE & GO WILL NO LONGER BE OPERATING FROM 30 SEPTEMBER 2019. The scheme was launched in 2014 to provide seamless door-to-door solutions in the form of bike rental at selected railway stations across England and Scotland. Unfortunately the number of rentals and members meant that the scheme was not self-sufficient and the decision has been made to close Bike & Go across the UK."

https://www.bikeandgo.co.uk

sigh well, they tried…

It's just an embarrassment that we do this so badly in the UK. Broadly similar scheme as the successful one in the Netherlands, but with almost all the details and incidental factors wrong (awkward subscription system, lack of integration with other ticketing, no wide roll-out, cycle routes that are mostly not fit for purpose etc.)

And then we wonder why we have such an abysmal modal share for cycling, and why schemes like this fail.
 

Class83

Member
Joined
8 Jun 2012
Messages
494
sigh well, they tried…

It's just an embarrassment that we do this so badly in the UK. Broadly similar scheme as the successful one in the Netherlands, but with almost all the details and incidental factors wrong (awkward subscription system, lack of integration with other ticketing, no wide roll-out, cycle routes that are mostly not fit for purpose etc.)

And then we wonder why we have such an abysmal modal share for cycling, and why schemes like this fail.

It was a symptom of our disjointed transport system that it wasn't integrated with the local bike hire schemes in some cities where it operated, thus there was a bike hire point inside the station, and one 20m away outside operating off completely different systems, which required separate accounts.

Away from London, driving is an option, it is incumbent on the railway to make using the railway more convenient than driving, otherwise people will simply get in the car.
 

al78

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2013
Messages
2,400
Given that competency tests are doing such a great job at ensuring that everyone merges in turn at road narrowing, adhering to speed limits, stopping at pedestrian crossings, stopping middle lane hoggers, etc. then I agree with you [/Sarcasm]

Whilst I agree that there's a need for better cycle training, it's mostly so that those who aren't cyclists, or don't have family who are confident cyclists, are able to learn the skills to cycle well. In doing so they they will be more inclined to cycle rather than drive.

Anyone who trots out the silly attitude that cyclists are a major problem on the road should get back to reality and look at the real world evidence, not a Daily Mail wet dream.

https://www.regtransfers.co.uk/content/common-causes-for-road-accidents-in-britain/

It is drivers that are pimarily responsible for deaths and injuries on Britains roads, and that includes pedestrians. Even if you removed all cyclists from the road it would make a virtually unnoticeable difference. People who point the finger at cyclists just want to deflect responsibility, it is again another pathetic example of human in-out group tribal mentality.

I ride a bicycle occasionally, and I find cyclists who flouts the law irritating, but they are not the massive problem that certain irrational people try and make out.
 

ashkeba

Established Member
Joined
13 May 2019
Messages
2,171
Funny you should mention it:

"BIKE & GO WILL NO LONGER BE OPERATING FROM 30 SEPTEMBER 2019. The scheme was launched in 2014 to provide seamless door-to-door solutions in the form of bike rental at selected railway stations across England and Scotland. Unfortunately the number of rentals and members meant that the scheme was not self-sufficient and the decision has been made to close Bike & Go across the UK."

https://www.bikeandgo.co.uk
It was just a way to win franchises, wasn't it? It was clearly never going to be self sufficient because there was no through ticketing, there was no contactless or smartcard to release bikes (go to ticket office, which meant limited opening times and grief for the hassle of doing an unusual thing) and it was not at key stations like both Cambridges.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,027
Location
SE London
Anyone who trots out the silly attitude that cyclists are a major problem on the road should get back to reality and look at the real world evidence, not a Daily Mail wet dream.

https://www.regtransfers.co.uk/content/common-causes-for-road-accidents-in-britain/

It is drivers that are pimarily responsible for deaths and injuries on Britains roads, and that includes pedestrians. Even if you removed all cyclists from the road it would make a virtually unnoticeable difference. People who point the finger at cyclists just want to deflect responsibility, it is again another pathetic example of human in-out group tribal mentality.

I ride a bicycle occasionally, and I find cyclists who flouts the law irritating, but they are not the massive problem that certain irrational people try and make out.

The figures in that report take no account of that many more journeys are made by car than by bicycle. So while they may be accurate in terms of raw numbers of accidents, they give no idea of the relative likelihood of a cyclist vs a motorist causing an accident per mile travelled (or, if you prefer, per minute spent travelling). (Of course, on the other hand, those figures also don't take into account deaths caused by pollution - which exclusively results from motorised vehicles).

It may well be that motorists are more of a problem than cyclists in terms of causing problems on the road, relative to the numbers of people driving or cycling. But you certainly can't deduce that from those figures alone.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
The figures in that report take no account of that many more journeys are made by car than by bicycle. So while they may be accurate in terms of raw numbers of accidents, they give no idea of the relative likelihood of a cyclist vs a motorist causing an accident per mile travelled (or, if you prefer, per minute spent travelling). (Of course, on the other hand, those figures also don't take into account deaths caused by pollution - which exclusively results from motorised vehicles).

It may well be that motorists are more of a problem than cyclists in terms of causing problems on the road, relative to the numbers of people driving or cycling. But you certainly can't deduce that from those figures alone.

Per 1 billion miles cycled the Killed/serious injury rate by Cyclists is 32 whilst cyclists surfer 31 deaths per billion miles cycled.

As such if I were to cycle for 31,000 miles I would be as likely to cause serious injury or death to someone else than I was to die myself.

I would suggest that this would mean that cyclists do less harm than they receive and so isn't the problem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top