Are bike spaces a legal requirement?

jfowkes · 26 May 2025

I was asked this question be a family member the other day and I didn't know the answer.

As per the title, is bike space provision legally mandated in any sense? Like, could the DfT or a TOC say "actually, this class doesn't need them"? I think all current passenger stock (except the class 139) in the UK has them(?), but I don't know if this is just because it's expected or because it's required.

Mods: feel free to move to traction and rolling stock if you feel appropriate.

RailUK Forums

Bletchleyite · 26 May 2025

Lumo don't carry non folding bikes.

It's mandated by EU law but we left before this law took effect.

bunnahabhain · 26 May 2025

I don't see why they would be a legal requirement to provide bike spaces, it isn't the same as a wheelchair space. Bikes are generally a special item of luggage and for long distance trains are usually reservation compulsory, and for local trains first come first served. Truth be told, I'd rather we follow sensible biking countries like the Netherlands and charge for bikes onboard trains, but also provide quality facilities at stations so that people don't need to bring them onboard.

Bletchleyite · 26 May 2025

Main reason TOCs don't charge is that it creates a contract to carry.

zwk500 · 26 May 2025

bunnahabhain said:
Truth be told, I'd rather we follow sensible biking countries like the Netherlands and charge for bikes onboard trains, but also provide quality facilities at stations so that people don't need to bring them onboard.

An important part of the Netherlands's ability to leave the bike at origin is not just the excellent covered and supervised parking but the ability to hire a bike at your destination easily and cheaply.

Ashley Hill · 26 May 2025

bunnahabhain said:
like the Netherlands and charge for bikes onboard trains,

Many years ago a flat fee of £3 was introduced for bikes irrespective of distance. You try getting someone going short distance to pay. Most travelled daily and would happily tell you to shove off. If you refused them travel they would just force the bike on or threaten you.

Harpers Tate · 26 May 2025

Even more years ago, I commuted 1.5 miles from home to the station; 9 miles by train, and then 1.5 miles to my place of work. I used my own bike at both ends; could do so reliably able to place it on the train - typically with maybe 10 others. Mixed travel such as this is better for one's physical health, better for road congestion, and better for the environment, than what I'd pretty much have to do today, which is drive (or take 20+ minutes longer by walking at one end). There is no chance on earth I'd either own two bikes, or hire (twice daily) one of those wretched things that are at certain stations.

So: legal requirement - perhaps not. But perhaps that's one thing the EU has called right. In any case, it (IMO) should be part of the offering. And, no, not at extra cost nor compulsory reservation. Fares are already high enough and pre-booking implies lack of flexibility, and we're back to driving again.

Ashley Hill · 26 May 2025

Harpers Tate said:
In any case, it (IMO) should be part of the offering. And, no, not at extra cost nor compulsory reservation

And then when the available bike spaces are already full before a cyclist joins? It’s not unusual to have 2 families with 8 bikes trying to join a train. Bikes are a minefield on the railways, if it were to be made a legal requirement then more space on trains must be allocated. The trouble with doing that though is doing away with seats and upsetting others.

DelW · 26 May 2025

Harpers Tate said:
Even more years ago, I commuted 1.5 miles from home to the station; 9 miles by train, and then 1.5 miles to my place of work. I used my own bike at both ends; could do so reliably able to place it on the train - typically with maybe 10 others. Mixed travel such as this is better for one's physical health, better for road congestion, and better for the environment, than what I'd pretty much have to do today, which is drive (or take 20+ minutes longer by walking at one end). There is no chance on earth I'd either own two bikes, or hire (twice daily) one of those wretched things that are at certain stations.

I'd suggest a Brompton (other folding bikes are available) would be a suitable solution for that need. Obviously a cost involved, but if it's spread over a period (and/or you have other uses for it), it can make sense.

JohnRegular · 26 May 2025

jfowkes said:
I think all current passenger stock (except the class 139) in the UK has them(?), but I don't know if this is just because it's expected or because it's required.

The 3-car Class 165 units have no cycle spaces.

They operate GWR routes around Bristol along with 3 car 166s (two cycle spaces) and 2 car 165s (four cycle spaces), so one can turn up expecting cycle spaces and either have to put one's cycle in the wheelchair space (which has strongly worded signage prohibiting doing so, although in my experience guards are understanding), put it in a vestibule or elsewhere it doesn't belong, or wait for the next train (if there is one - and if you're headed to/from Weymouth enjoy the two hour wait).

I have no idea why the Turbos have their cycle spaces provided like this, but there is now the quite silly situation where a 4 car train with eight cycle spaces, or a 3 car train with zero spaces, could turn up.

zwk500 · 26 May 2025

Ashley Hill said:
And then when the available bike spaces are already full before a cyclist joins? It’s not unusual to have 2 families with 8 bikes trying to join a train. Bikes are a minefield on the railways, if it were to be made a legal requirement then more space on trains must be allocated. The trouble with doing that though is doing away with seats and upsetting others.

On routes with lots of bikes (which do tend to be fairly predictable) more space should be provided to meet this demand. There's enough short trains being run that could be given an appreciable percentage capacity increase with just 1 extra car. Get some OLE up and some 4- and 5-car BEMUs out, and then we could even follow the Italians and have e-bike charging on-board from the wires!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 May 2025 ==

JohnRegular said:
The 3-car Class 165 units have no cycle spaces.

They operate GWR routes around Bristol along with 3 car 166s (two cycle spaces) and 2 car 165s (four cycle spaces), so one can turn up expecting cycle spaces and either have to put one's cycle in the wheelchair space (which has strongly worded signage prohibiting doing so, although in my experience guards are understanding), put it in a vestibule or elsewhere it doesn't belong, or wait for the next train (if there is one - and if you're headed to/from Weymouth enjoy the two hour wait).

I have no idea why the Turbos have their cycle spaces provided like this, but there is now the quite silly situation where a 4 car train with eight cycle spaces, or a 3 car train with zero spaces, could turn up.

The turbos that do have a cycle space also often have a ridiculously narrow entryway from the vestibule into the portion of the saloon with the cycle spaces, massively slowing down dwell times as people negotiate their bikes round the corners. And the racks are low to the handlebars so if you have 2 bikes next to each other you have to rack them in station order or further slow down the dwell times.

Ashley Hill · 26 May 2025

zwk500 said:
There's enough short trains being run that could be given an appreciable percentage capacity increase with just 1 extra car.

But with the one extra coach will they fit on the smaller stations? Not all units have SDO.

zwk500 · 26 May 2025

Ashley Hill said:
But with the one extra coach will they fit on the smaller stations? Not all units have SDO.

Either get a unit that does have SDO or (preferably) extend the station platforms.

To take Severn Beach/Filton Abbey Wood to Weston-Super-Mare as an example (because the units are currently mainly diagrammed to interwork the services):

Severn Beach - 86m
St Andrews Road - 77m
Avonmouth - 83/92m
Portway Park & Ride - 126m
Shirehampton - 128m
Sea Mills - 118m
Clifton Down - 106/108m
Redland - 120m
Montpelier - 132m
Filton Abbey Wood - 117/126m
Ashley Down - 126m
Stapleton Road - 211/216m (this is possibly a typo for 111/116m in the SA)
Lawrence Hill - 114/116m
Bristol - P1 (bay, which these trains do use) - 96m
Bedminster - 93/104m
Parson Street - 92/93m
Nailsea and Backwell - 121/122m
Yatton - 121/162m
Worle - 100m
Weston Milton - 184m
Weston-super-Mare - 210/312m

Of the 21 stations served by this 'Bristol Local' circuit, only 1 platform is too short for a 4x20m unit, and then by 3 meters. A further 2 other platforms would not be long enough for a 4x23m unit, with a further 3 more either precisely as long or only 1m longer.
100m platforms should really be simple enough to provide at an overwhelming majority of stations on the national rail network. Notably the 2 newest stations on this line have 126m platforms (long enough for 5-cars) so the strategic intent is there.

Ashley Hill · 26 May 2025

zwk500 said:
Either get a unit that does have SDO or (preferably) extend the station platforms.

And who would pay for this? Look at the farce of Bedminster. On Castle sets only the front 2 coaches could be released even though 3 fitted, this was due to how the SDO worked, this resulted in the TGS being off the platform so any bikes for here (or PSN) had to be stowed in coach C. Yet, both here and Parson Street have very long but mostly unused platforms. When Bedminster was used as a terminus a couple of years ago magically part of the oou bit of platform could be used so the whole Castle set could be accommodated, even tactile paving was added. When the engineering work finished the platform was reduced back to its original length reverting to front 2 coaches only again.

zwk500 · 26 May 2025

Ashley Hill said:
And who would pay for this?

As I mentioned, to achieve a 4x20m unit on the Severn Beach-Weston-Filton circuit, only 1 platform has to be extended 3m. If we can't find the money for that then we truly are lost. but stations are modified *all* the time new rolling stock is introduced. This would be part of a fleet replacement programme and providing 100m platforms across the Bristol area should not be a completely ridiculous goal for the railway to fund, especially in partnership with local authorities who have objectives to improve active travel use in their areas.
The Bristol suburban services are very busy at peak times and are verging on justifying 4 cars regardless of bikes at times. The normal business processes for providing appropriate length stock are all in play here. This doesn't need some politician's special pet fund or bright idea, it just needs the railway to be left to get on with running it's usual business to extend platforms out to 4- or 5-coach lengths. As I've mentioned, 5 coaches has been the standard length for Portway P&R, and Ashley Down and also it was (still is?) the intended length for Portishead's platform if that happens. So evidently the case for a 5-car platform has been made successfully.

Ashley Hill said:
Look at the farce of Bedminster. On Castle sets only the front 2 coaches could be released even though 3 fitted, this was due to how the SDO worked, this resulted in the TGS being off the platform so any bikes for here (or PSN) had to be stowed in coach C. Yet, both here and Parson Street have very long but mostly unused platforms. When Bedminster was used as a terminus a couple of years ago magically part of the oou bit of platform could be used so the whole Castle set could be accommodated, even tactile paving was added. When the engineering work finished the platform was reduced back to its original length reverting to front 2 coaches only again.

The face at Bedminster is exactly that - although as noted according to the Sectional Appendix it can accommodate a 4x23m unit even within the reduced length. The castle sets are a bodge that should never have been bothered with, proper regional rolling stock should have been ordered and stations upgraded to match.

Ashley Hill · 26 May 2025

For years 4 car sets on the Exmouth branch kept guards on their toes due to local door working at short platforms such as St James Park or Lympstone Commando. As you may imagine this would be great fun on match days or Friday nights especially with pacers and their half local door was used. Squeezing a bike through it was very awkward let alone footie fans or drunk marines.
I fear we are verging off topic with this discussion about platform lengths. Bring back guards vans, plenty of bike space then!

zwk500 · 26 May 2025

Ashley Hill said:
For years 4 car sets on the Exmouth branch kept guards on their toes due to local door working at short platforms such as St James Park or Lympstone Commando. As you may imagine this would be great fun on match days or Friday nights especially with pacers and their half local door was used. Squeezing a bike through it was very awkward let alone footie fans or drunk marines.

I can well imagine!

Ashley Hill said:
I fear we are verging off topic with this discussion about platform lengths. Bring back guards vans, plenty of bike space then!

Platform lengths are intrinsically related to bike space provision - after all, a bike can't board at one door and then easily wander down the train into a section that wasn't properly platformed! Drawing up is possible but would take time and depends on how busy locations are and local signalling arrangements.
Ultimately, SDO should be seen as a fallback and we should be looking to get as many trains as possible opening all doors at stations. It's just better for everybody involved.

Ashley Hill · 26 May 2025

zwk500 said:
Ultimately, SDO should be seen as a fallback and we should be looking to get as many trains as possible opening all doors at stations. It's just better for everybody involved.

Totally agree.

bramling · 26 May 2025

jfowkes said:
I was asked this question be a family member the other day and I didn't know the answer.

As per the title, is bike space provision legally mandated in any sense? Like, could the DfT or a TOC say "actually, this class doesn't need them"? I think all current passenger stock (except the class 139) in the UK has them(?), but I don't know if this is just because it's expected or because it's required.

Mods: feel free to move to traction and rolling stock if you feel appropriate.

An associated question to this is the position on bicycles being stored in doorways. Going back to the 90s it was official practice to store bikes in doorways - and a lot of the time this could be achieved without causing any issues especially on routes where most platforms are on one side.

However it is sometimes claimed that this is obstructing an emergency exit, though personally this isn’t something that would particularly bother me especially as there’s trains in the UK where side doors cannot be opened in emergency.

Bletchleyite · 26 May 2025

zwk500 said:
Ultimately, SDO should be seen as a fallback and we should be looking to get as many trains as possible opening all doors at stations. It's just better for everybody involved.

Ideally. But if the choice is between funding much longer or more frequent trains and funding platform extensions at quieter stations, the capacity wins every time. Problems are avoided by having both bike and wheelchair spaces (separate of course, and NO tip up seating in either) towards the centre of the train which except in extreme cases e.g. Beauly will be platformed everywhere.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 May 2025 ==

bramling said:
However it is sometimes claimed that this is obstructing an emergency exit, though personally this isn’t something that would particularly bother me especially as there’s trains in the UK where side doors cannot be opened in emergency.

Because the priority on trains is almost never a fast exit (unlike planes fire is unlikely, particularly in an EMU and if people exit quickly in panic they often walk under other trains or fall off viaducts or embankments) I don't personally consider it a huge issue. It would also be fairly easy to push a bike or pile of bags out after pulling the egress. It isn't ideal on lines where platforms aren't all the same side, though.

Which UK trains don't have an egress at side doors? London Underground are the only ones I can think of, though some classes don't have one at every door I think.

bramling · 26 May 2025

Bletchleyite said:
Ideally. But if the choice is between funding much longer or more frequent trains and funding platform extensions at quieter stations, the capacity wins every time. Problems are avoided by having both bike and wheelchair spaces (separate of course, and NO tip up seating in either) towards the centre of the train which except in extreme cases e.g. Beauly will be platformed everywhere.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 May 2025 ==

Because the priority on trains is almost never a fast exit (unlike planes fire is unlikely, particularly in an EMU and if people exit quickly in panic they often walk under other trains or fall off viaducts or embankments) I don't personally consider it a huge issue. It would also be fairly easy to push a bike or pile of bags out after pulling the egress. It isn't ideal on lines where platforms aren't all the same side, though.

Which UK trains don't have an egress at side doors? London Underground are the only ones I can think of, though some classes don't have one at every door I think.

I was thinking of LU. No LU trains have an egress.

As an aside, from memory I think the official guidance given out on my local route going back to the 90s was only one bike per vestibule. This would presumably get round the issue of exits, as you’d always have one side available.

I agree with your points on quick egress not really being desirable.

duffield · 26 May 2025

jfowkes said:
I was asked this question be a family member the other day and I didn't know the answer.

As per the title, is bike space provision legally mandated in any sense? Like, could the DfT or a TOC say "actually, this class doesn't need them"? I think all current passenger stock (except the class 139) in the UK has them(?), but I don't know if this is just because it's expected or because it's required.

Mods: feel free to move to traction and rolling stock if you feel appropriate.

Maybe I've just never noticed (I've never needed to look for it) but I don't feel as if London Overground stock has dedicated bike spaces.

Bletchleyite · 26 May 2025

duffield said:
Maybe I've just never noticed (I've never needed to look for it) but I don't feel as if London Overground stock has dedicated bike spaces.

I don't know if they do or not either, but with longitudinal seating they can go more or less anywhere anyway.

jfowkes · 27 May 2025

duffield said:
Maybe I've just never noticed (I've never needed to look for it) but I don't feel as if London Overground stock has dedicated bike spaces.

Good point, and I'm guessing crossrail stock doesn't either.

zwk500 · 27 May 2025

Bletchleyite said:
Ideally. But if the choice is between funding much longer or more frequent trains and funding platform extensions at quieter stations, the capacity wins every time. Problems are avoided by having both bike and wheelchair spaces (separate of course, and NO tip up seating in either) towards the centre of the train which except in extreme cases e.g. Beauly will be platformed everywhere.

If stations aren't busy enough to justify platform extensions then the cycle issue is likely similarly less intense anyway. I recognise of course that it's not practical for every country halt to have extended platforms, but in the case of a suburban commuter rail service such as Severn Beach/Filton-Bristol Temple Meads-Weston Super Mare even the quieter stations are still fairly busy.

Spartacus · 28 May 2025

Not sure how it works with Lumo but I’m sure bikes in a bag or box are classed as luggage anyway.

Bletchleyite · 28 May 2025

Spartacus said:
Not sure how it works with Lumo but I’m sure bikes in a bag or box are classed as luggage anyway.

A fully encased folding cycle is luggage, though most folders would be too big for Lumo's rather diminutive bag size (a Brompton is too big in the width dimension and only just fits in the depth one, and Bromptons are generally seen to be the smallest folders). However they don't seem to require it to be encased and don't seem to stipulate a size limit, just saying:

Lumo do not accept non-foldable bicycles as we do not have enough space for them on board, however we have partnered with FIRSTLUGGAGE to transport your bicycles anywhere you need them – for a quote to transport your bicycle to your destination please visit LumoLuggage.

Folding bikes are welcomed onboard Lumo and will not be subject to prebooking requirements. Just pack your bike up before boarding the train and store it in the luggage stacks.

Lumo don't carry non-folding bikes.

Customer Support | Help, Support & FAQs | Lumo

From delay repay and answers to your questions, to changing your journey - take a look at all our help and support options.

www.lumo.co.uk

Indigo Soup · 29 May 2025

Bletchleyite said:
Lumo don't carry non-folding bikes.

The pedant in me wants to find a very small bike that fits within the allowable luggage dimensions (such things do exist!) and see what happens if I take it on a Lumo service.

scotraildriver · 29 May 2025

The Scottish Government have spent £6m converting 153s to bike carriages and extending a large number of platforms on the West Highland Line. It's been a complete waste of money. Despite all the noise about cycle provision on trains in reality very few bikes are actually carried. Bank holiday Friday last week, 7 car train fully booked, 38 bike spaces, 4 bikes. Same on Monday and that's a busy day. Most of the time the 153s carry nothing but fresh air.

Bletchleyite · 29 May 2025

scotraildriver said:
The Scottish Government have spent £6m converting 153s to bike carriages and extending a large number of platforms on the West Highland Line. It's been a complete waste of money. Despite all the noise about cycle provision on trains in reality very few bikes are actually carried. Bank holiday Friday last week, 7 car train fully booked, 38 bike spaces, 4 bikes. Same on Monday and that's a busy day. Most of the time the 153s carry nothing but fresh air.

Replied here to start a thread on what should be done with these given the above.

ScotRail active travel 153s - what to do with them?

The Scottish Government have spent £6m converting 153s to bike carriages and extending a large number of platforms on the West Highland Line. It's been a complete waste of money. Despite all the noise about cycle provision on trains in reality very few bikes are actually carried. Bank holiday...

www.railforums.co.uk

Are bike spaces a legal requirement?

Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member