Bikes on trains again (and other inconsiderate annoyances)

[Bletchleyite]

The scene, a late evening LNR train out of Euston.

Two, completely independent, people boarded there with bikes, and despite me pointing out where the bike space is before either of them even stepped through the door, about 50m along, one of the bikes blocked the left hand door (which opens at every station on the train's run to Northampton) and the other blocking the aisle on the centre section.

While I'm in support of cycle carriage on trains, is it perhaps time this kind of abject laziness was made a Byelaw offence and some prosecutions carried out "pour encourager les autres"? I'm not worried about safety per-se (if we had to evacuate, I'd pull the egress and chuck it out onto the ballast out of the way), but if I wanted to use the bog I'd have to climb over.

I really cannot think of any valid excuse for this lazy and inconsiderate behaviour.

 

[ashkeba]

You'd need some staff on the trains to enforce it but if there were guards, they could already direct the bikes to be put somewhere. No need for a new law.

What type of train is it, what's the bike space like and are there any staff on it?

 

[Bletchleyite]

It was a 350/2. There was a large bike space in one of the middle coaches which I pointed out to both of them. There was a guard who jumped over it going back to the cab and did nothing about it.

You couldn't make it up.

 

[ashkeba]

I think it's up to the guard. On some routes, bikes have to travel in doorways anyway so it almost sure is not a safety problem.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think it's up to the guard. On some routes, bikes have to travel in doorways anyway so it almost sure is not a safety problem.

It's not a safety risk particularly but it's downright inconsiderate. I could not go to the loo or alight without moving one of them.

 

[ashkeba]

It's not a safety risk particularly but it's downright inconsiderate. I cannot go to the loo or alight without moving one of them.

You could ask them to move. But still we come to the mountain: if the guard does not enforce current rules to your liking, who will enforce your new rule to drive customers away?

 

[Bletchleyite]

You could ask them to move. But still we come to the mountain: if the guard does not enforce current rules to your liking, who will enforce your new rule to drive customers away?

Such customers need to be driven away.

EDITED

The bike blocking the door was moved for me to alight when I got up in a fairly noisy manner so as to "passively" wake its owner up and made a comment along the lines of "are you going to move it or am I?"

I spoke to the guard on alighting (in a non-confrontational manner and standing a fair way away from him, something like "isn't that a safety issue the bikes blocking the aisle there?") and it seems he had had a troublesome shift already with the pulling of passcoms and egresses including by a drunken party near the front. For that reason I'm going to remove the time of the train so as not to single him out, and a complaint will not be made.

However, I do find (and am disappointed to find) generally that many staff are reluctant to enforce matters for passenger comfort - most notably the playing out loud of electronic devices. Tolerance of such misbehaviour doesn't just cause issues for other passengers, but promotes a feeling that it's somehow OK and so it continues. I could understand the guard feeling threatened (particularly as he said he thought it was my bike and I am not a small person) but a PA being made would at least have made it clear it wasn't OK, even if it hadn't been moved at that point.

 

[stut]

And it spoils it for the rest of us bike users who follow the rules!

Inconsistency doesn't help - how to know in advance if there are dedicated bike spaces, whether they are going to be vacant or filled with whatever else, how to know where the bike spaces will be on an intermediate stop...

On routes where vestibule storage is the norm, announcements/signs telling you the side the doors will open at the next stop are extremely helpful too.

 

[nottsnurse]

It's always a little odd when intolerant people speak of "tolerance".

 

[ashkeba]

The bike blocking the door was moved for me to alight when I got up in a fairly noisy manner so as to "passively" wake its owner up and made a comment along the lines of "are you going to move it or am I?"

If that is an example of how politely you were "pointing out where the bike space is before either of them even stepped through the door" then I would not be surprised if they avoided it to "passively" spite you, especially if they are on their way to/from a late work shift, possibly partly because chronic UK railway underprovision has already meant they have to travel off-peak.

Does anyone have pictures of the 350/2 bike space? I do not remember it but I have only used those with a stick not bike (which is my preferred walking aid!), maybe because I was going through London at peak, which I try to avoid but XC Cambridge-Birmingham direct is often like a bad joke.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And it spoils it for the rest of us bike users who follow the rules!

Inconsistency doesn't help - how to know in advance if there are dedicated bike spaces, whether they are going to be vacant or filled with whatever else, how to know where the bike spaces will be on an intermediate stop...

On routes where vestibule storage is the norm, announcements/signs telling you the side the doors will open at the next stop are extremely helpful too.

The thing I found funny was that I told both of them (politely) where the bike space was and pointed to it (and there was plenty of time to go there), and both disregarded this and boarded anyway. So they had no excuse to claim they did not know.

I'm not that fussy about bikes in the doorway on the south WCML generally because with only a couple of exceptions (none until Northampton on that train, and possibly not even there depending which platform it terminated in) the platforms are all on the same side...but if they're going to sleep, the cyclist really should put the effort into finding out which side it is e.g. by asking someone. But blocking the corridor is inexcusable. That one was an old and dirty bike, too, so no doubt will have got oil on the seats.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If that is an example of how politely you were "pointing out where the bike space is before either of them even stepped through the door" then I would not be surprised if they avoided it to "passively" spite you, especially if they are on their way to/from a late work shift, possibly partly because chronic UK railway underprovision has already meant they have to travel off-peak.

No, I only get "passive aggressive" when the infringement against my convenience had already been committed. I do have a "helpful" mode to start with. It was probably something along the lines of "Do you know there's a proper bike space about 2 coaches along with tons of room for bikes?" and pointing at it.

Your latter comment is misplaced on the south WCML which, except for some problem trains, getting a seat in the peak is easy enough.

Does anyone have pictures of the 350/2 bike space? I do not remember it but I have only used those with a stick not bike (which is my preferred walking aid!), maybe because I was going through London at peak, which I try to avoid but XC Cambridge-Birmingham direct is often like a bad joke.

It's a multipurpose space with side-facing tip-up seats next to the disabled bog in one of the middle coaches. If not required by a wheelchair user (it wasn't) there is room for something like 5-6 bikes there without causing obstruction. There was no wheelchair user on board.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's always a little odd when intolerant people speak of "tolerance".

I don't think there is any need to tolerate people breaking the rules, least of all when there is no excuse to do so because the bike space was available and not full of other bikes or wheelchair users. That's rather different than tolerating (which is a bit weak) e.g. people of a different culture, where neither is legally considered to be superior.

I am not tolerant of rule-breaking that causes me or others inconvenience or cost. I am not tolerant of laziness where that has an adverse impact on others (filling luggage stacks up with small bags that fit on the overheads is a classic example of this selfish laziness which causes everyone trouble as we end up with large bags blocking doorways). And I am proud that I am not tolerant of these things. We have these rules and conventions, like say the rules of the road, to allow us to coexist in a civilised society.

That doesn't go to say I'm "zero tolerance". If the area normally used for bikes was full of wheelchair users or other bikes, I wouldn't say the two cyclists shouldn't travel - but they should have put the effort into placing their bike so it didn't block anyone's access, and proactively, without having to be asked, moving it when it was found to be in the way. I have myself done this in the past on trains with no specific bike space, when I've done it and it was going to be in the way I've got up and moved it to the other side *before* anyone was obstructed by it.

I don't give a stuff as to the religion, culture or sexuality of the bloke over the road - it has no impact on me or anyone else. That's the kind of "tolerance" we should be promoting, not tolerance of people who are simply selfish and lazy.

 

[ashkeba]

Your latter comment is misplaced on the south WCML which, except for some problem trains, getting a seat in the peak is easy enough.

I do not see how it is misplaced. Bikes are banned on any train that is at Euston at peak and unspecified other "certain peak time trains". Even if the trains are quiet then that is still underprovision.

It's a multipurpose space with side-facing tip-up seats next to the disabled bog in one of the middle coaches. If not required by a wheelchair user (it wasn't) there is room for something like 5-6 bikes there without causing obstruction. There was no wheelchair user on board.

If bikes are disgracefully put in conflict with wheelchairs, they could not know no wheelchair was expected anywhere. Maybe they have travelled on Greater Anglia Cambridge-Norwich, where people get ordered off the train (not even asked to move to the bike spaces) for putting a bike in the wheelchair space even when it is not used the whole journey.

I agree with @stut - inconsistency and lack of advice on PA or signs helps create these conflicts.

 

[ashkeba]

I don't think there is any need to tolerate people breaking the rules,

LNR's rule is "the Senior Conductor may allow more bikes on". It seems to annoy you that those people broke no rules other than an imaginary new one you suggested, which that guard would probably not have wanted to enforce anyway, just like they didn't want to ask two people to move bikes.

If I remember correctly, 350s are not through-gangway trains, so you wanted the guard to essentially demand people disembark, run 50m along the platform and then re-embark? As it was, the train was 10 Late at some locations, so how much more delay would you like the guard to insist upon?

I am intolerant of people complaining about others breaking rules that only exist in their heads!

 

[Bletchleyite]

LNR's rule is "the Senior Conductor may allow more bikes on". It seems to annoy you that those people broke no rules other than an imaginary new one you suggested, which that guard would probably not have wanted to enforce anyway, just like they didn't want to ask two people to move bikes.

The rules they broke was that it is not permitted to obstruct access to parts of the train using bicycles or luggage.

If I remember correctly, 350s are not through-gangway trains, so you wanted the guard to essentially demand people disembark, run 50m along the platform and then re-embark? As it was, the train was 10 Late at some locations, so how much more delay would you like the guard to insist upon?

350s do have through gangways. However, the cyclists both boarded at Euston with plenty of time before departure and could have chosen the correct location for their bicycles at that point.

I am intolerant of people complaining about others breaking rules that only exist in their heads!

Even if it is not a rule, causing an obstruction using a large piece of luggage of any kind (whether a bicycle or not) where there is a viable option not to cause one is inconsiderate, lazy and thoroughly objectionable. I am absolutely intolerant of such behaviour, and so should everyone be. People should not do things that cause inconvenience to others where there is a viable option to avoid doing so, in this case putting the bicycles in the correct location, or as a minimum enquiring as to which side of the train was best (in the gangway between seats absolutely was not).

 

[Ianno87]

LNR's rule is "the Senior Conductor may allow more bikes on". It seems to annoy you that those people broke no rules other than an imaginary new one you suggested, which that guard would probably not have wanted to enforce anyway, just like they didn't want to ask two people to move bikes.

If I remember correctly, 350s are not through-gangway trains, so you wanted the guard to essentially demand people disembark, run 50m along the platform and then re-embark? As it was, the train was 10 Late at some locations, so how much more delay would you like the guard to insist upon?

I am intolerant of people complaining about others breaking rules that only exist in their heads!

Furthermore, perhaps it's not unreasonable for the guard to simply expect the majority passengers to politely talk to each other, and move out of the way for each other on polite request, like grown adults, without needing to charge round rigidly enforcing rules of who should put what where.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Furthermore, perhaps it's not unreasonable for the guard to simply expect the majority passengers to politely talk to each other, and move out of the way for each other on polite request, like grown adults, without needing to charge round rigidly enforcing rules of who should put what where.

It's not unreasonable, also, that items should not be placed in obviously stupid places, such as bicycles actually in the seating area, if for no other reason than that on a 3+2 train that is going to result in chain oil on the seats.

 

[pompeyfan]

LNR's rule is "the Senior Conductor may allow more bikes on". It seems to annoy you that those people broke no rules other than an imaginary new one you suggested, which that guard would probably not have wanted to enforce anyway, just like they didn't want to ask two people to move bikes.

If I remember correctly, 350s are not through-gangway trains, so you wanted the guard to essentially demand people disembark, run 50m along the platform and then re-embark? As it was, the train was 10 Late at some locations, so how much more delay would you like the guard to insist upon?

I am intolerant of people complaining about others breaking rules that only exist in their heads!

you’re incorrect. 350s are gangway throughout.

I’ve seen a guard confront a passenger on a 450 who had placed their bike across the vestibule behind the leading cab, the guard politely advised the bike space was empty and that is where bikes should be placed. The passenger retorted that they would continue to place their bike there and would not be moving it as their previous bike had been damaged in the bike area. What realistically can the guard do with a stubborn passenger? Hold the train and face the wrath of management for the tin? Ring the BTP? Under what offence and would they be interested? I suspect all they could do was bite their tongue and walk away.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I’ve seen a guard confront a passenger on a 450 who had placed their bike across the vestibule behind the leading cab, the guard politely advised the bike space was empty and that is where bikes should be placed. The passenger retorted that they would continue to place their bike there and would not be moving it as their previous bike had been damaged in the bike area. What realistically can the guard do with a stubborn passenger? Hold the train and face the wrath of management for the tin? Ring the BTP? Under what offence and would they be interested? I suspect all they could do was bite their tongue and walk away.

Though in this case the guard did not even ask for it to be moved.

Go up to Scotland, and he'd probably have moved it himself onto the platform at the first stop - they are made of sterner stuff up there.

 

[pompeyfan]

Though in this case the guard did not even ask for it to be moved.

Go up to Scotland, and he'd probably have moved it himself onto the platform at the first stop - they are made of sterner stuff up there.

And had the passenger taken umbrage and assaulted the member of staff, management would send the guard on a conflict refresher.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And had the passenger taken umbrage and assaulted the member of staff, management would send the guard on a conflict refresher.

And that is what is wrong with the entire situation. Guards used to be there to ensure the safety and convenience of legitimate passengers as well as to operate the train. How did we lose that and change them into automatons that just press open, close and ding ding most of the time except if a serious operational incident occurs?

 

[pompeyfan]

And that is what is wrong with the entire situation. Guards used to be there to ensure the safety and convenience of legitimate passengers as well as to operate the train. How did we lose that and change them into automatons that just press open, close and ding ding most of the time except if a serious operational incident occurs?

It changed when the general public lost their respect for people in a position of authority, look at the rubbish that the police have to put up with from gobby people who think they know the law better from a 30 second Facebook video....

 

[ashkeba]

The rules they broke was that it is not permitted to obstruct access to parts of the train using bicycles or luggage.

The judge of that is the guard and they ruled differently in practice. I was not there so cannot say if you or he was right. I am sorry you disagree but I think it is misdirected to rant about all cyclists, as it would be about all guards.

350s do have through gangways. However, the cyclists both boarded at Euston with plenty of time before departure and could have chosen the correct location for their bicycles at that point.

Is that a recent change to 350s? The last time I used one, they only had small doors I would not be able to take a non-folding bike through. Maybe I express this badly. Through gangway is what class 345 or 755 have. It is good if they have been changed but I am surprised.

And if those trains are as it sounds, I think calling the already-small quarter-of-a-carriage wheelchair area a "correct location for their bicycles" is wrong, but that is a widespread train company (or DfT?) problem.

 

[Clip]

We all know this happens and we all know what should happen to people who do this but we also know that until they start hiring more staff to enforce such things that nothing will change.

The bike blocking the door was moved for me to alight when I got up in a fairly noisy manner so as to "passively" wake its owner up and made a comment along the lines of "are you going to move it or am I?"

And its this attitude that will one day get you put on your backside - and i dont care how big you claim you are, theres always someone who can throw a better punch to put you on your backside. As others have mentioned your arrogant attitude of 'im right and ill act in this way' is not any better than those who put their cycles in the wrong place

 

[Bletchleyite]

The judge of that is the guard and they ruled differently in practice. I was not there so cannot say if you or he was right. I am sorry you disagree but I think it is misdirected to rant about all cyclists, as it would be about all guards.

I'm not ranting about guards or cyclists generally. I'm a cyclist, on arrival I got off the train, walked to the bike racks, got my bike and cycled home. Had my bike been on the train it would have been in the space intended for the purpose, or at worst (were there wheelchair users on board, for instance) in the vestibule on the offside where there are no platforms all the way up to Northampton, not blocking the aisle nor the doors on the side they usually open.

Is that a recent change to 350s? The last time I used one, they only had small doors I would not be able to take a non-folding bike through. Maybe I express this badly. Through gangway is what class 345 or 755 have. It is good if they have been changed but I am surprised.

You'd get a road bike through but not a mountain bike, I think we differ in terms of what we mean by a through gangway. In any case with a 3+2 layout the seats would have been an obstruction. But none of that matters as it could have been done in less than a minute at a station.

And if those trains are as it sounds, I think calling the already-small quarter-of-a-carriage wheelchair area a "correct location for their bicycles" is wrong, but that is a widespread train company (or DfT?) problem.

It is the area where the TOC intend the bicycles to be stored absent a wheelchair user requiring it. The TOC does not intend them to be stored in a place where they are causing an obstruction of the aisle.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It changed when the general public lost their respect for people in a position of authority, look at the rubbish that the police have to put up with from gobby people who think they know the law better from a 30 second Facebook video....

Fair point. We do need that back, as it reduces the guard to someone cowering in the back cab from what was a once proud and authoritative role.

 

[underbank]

Don't go on the trains around Amsterdam then. They even cycle along the platforms and stay on the saddle as they feet-shuffle onto the trains and just stay sat on them in the vestibules and aisles. I've never actually seen anything quite like it. Absolutely no way that foot passengers can move from one carriage to another.

 

[underbank]

Fair point. We do need that back, as it reduces the guard to someone cowering in the back cab from what was a once proud and authoritative role.

But it needs the guard to be authoritative to get back to that. How else are you going to achieve it?

It reminds me of a football match a few years ago. The fire alarm went off during the game and basically everyone just sat there looking around waiting for someone else to move. The "steward" near us was mild-mannered looking young lad and just did a "Uncle Arthur" as he walked up the steps, quietly saying "please leave the stadium" but no one took any notice. Then along came a big burly bloke (probably 17 stone) and in a very loud voice said "get up and out NOW" and everyone did.

We need to get back to having "authoritative" people doing these jobs, not young, quiet, (dare I say) weak looking people. You need someone with a "presence" - the type of person that people will take notice of. I'm sorry if that isn't politically correct and no doubt against some discrimination rule, but it's the truth of what's needed.

 

[PeterC]

Too many vehicle operators (both powered and pedalled) have an excessive sense of entitlement from cars parked on private land to bikes chained to wheelchair lifts (both have been issues for me). I do sometimes rather wickedly hope that a bike left against the doors will fall onto a platform and not be noticed by the owner.