Suggestions for cycle provision on UK trains

[hkstudent]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/what-tech-is-used-to-work-out-ticket-prices.230778

Yesterday I booked a London to Glasgow service for 30th April, via Edinburgh due to the WCML blockades.

The service I wanted to book didn’t have a bike space, but by the time I had found that out because of the absolutely stupid procedure where you have to book a ticket then ask if there is a bike space, I had been into the LNER seat planner and the train was pretty much full, over a week out.

I then tried the next train. The advance was £12 more for a train that, when I went into the seat planner, was more than half empty at time of booking.

I can’t see how a logical system would allow this to happen.

First, if there is a blockade on one main line, surely the advances should be limited on the other to ensure capacity is available. The message the ticketing system should really be sending out is, this is not the weekend for a really cheap fare - it is a weekend to max out limited capacity.

Then there is allowing a train to be pretty much full on advances over a week out. Now anybody wanting that train and who might pay the full off peak fare is locked out, so revenue will be loads less than it could be.

Then there is the oddest bit. Why is the advance fare on a nearly fully allocated train less than the fare on the next, nowhere near as booked up train.

Are we sure they are using the right logic and tech to work all this stuff out? What I have described above feels like a lose lose for railway and passenger.

As a side point I would add that somebody seems to have out the seat allocation programming in backwards. The number of times I have not been allocated my choice of forward facing window table or airline only to find loads available using the seat planner. Why????

Pretty much the problem of travelling with bikes on intercity service is, there's no system to check bike availability before you book, which may cost people many wasted advance ticket in order to secure a space as unsure about which trains have bike space.

It is absurd, and it would be much better if a continental Europe system ( a small chargeable bike reservation fee, but easy to access) applies in the UK

 

[507020]

Pretty much the problem of travelling with bikes on intercity service is, there's no system to check bike availability before you book, which may cost people many wasted advance ticket in order to secure a space as unsure about which trains have bike space.

It is absurd, and it would be much better if a continental Europe system ( a small chargeable bike reservation fee, but easy to access) applies in the UK

I am constantly travelling with by bike on local ex-Regional Railways services but have never attempted it on an InterCity service because I don’t intend to negotiate the reservation system, but I don’t know if this is possible on all lines. Oxenholme - Carlisle might prove to be problematic. XC supposedly allows an unreserved bike.

I will admit bike provision is something Europe does better, with dedicated active travel carriages on many trains, which are not precluded by the smaller British loading gauge. All UK trains should be required to carry an unlimited number of bikes at all times for no additional cost. What annoys me is that this isn’t required by EU regulations while detrimental things are.

 

[hkstudent]

I will admit bike provision is something Europe does better, with dedicated active travel carriages on many trains, which are not precluded by the smaller British loading gauge. All UK trains should be required to carry an unlimited number of bikes at all times for no additional cost. What annoys me is that this isn’t required by EU regulations while detrimental things are.

There is a EU regulations set in 2018 requiring all new trains to have minimum of 8 bike soaces, but DfT opted out

 

[507020]

There is a EU regulations set in 2018 requiring all new trains to have minimum of 8 bike soaces, but DfT opted out

Why? That sounds problematic enough as it is? 8 doesn’t sound like anywhere near enough and why are all existing trains not required to be retrofitted with >8 bike spaces?

 

[Watershed]

Why? That sounds problematic enough as it is? 8 doesn’t sound like anywhere near enough and why are all existing trains not required to be retrofitted with >8 bike spaces?

Space, essentially. The length of trains on many routes is constrained by the length of platforms - yes, SDO exists but it isn't an ideal measure and ultimately the train needs to be long enough at the busiest stations, otherwise the extra coaches are virtually wasted.

And so within that limited length, unless there is unusable space for some reason (e.g. the former Shop area on XC Voyagers, where it would not be economic to retrofit windows to allow for extra seats), bikes take up space that could be used for seats. Seats generate revenue whilst bikes don't. Even if you started charging for the carriage of bikes, you'd never make up for the loss of revenue.

 

[507020]

Space, essentially. The length of trains on many routes is constrained by the length of platforms - yes, SDO exists but it isn't an ideal measure and ultimately the train needs to be long enough at the busiest stations, otherwise the extra coaches are virtually wasted.

And so within that limited length, unless there is unusable space for some reason (e.g. the former Shop area on XC Voyagers, where it would not be economic to retrofit windows to allow for extra seats), bikes take up space that could be used for seats. Seats generate revenue whilst bikes don't. Even if you started charging for the carriage of bikes, you'd never make up for the loss of revenue.

Bikes could quite easily be accommodated in an area overhanging the end of a platform, with a requirement to move forward with the bike to alight with it. Toilets, luggage spaces, vestibules and drivers cabs do not generate revenue either so should the space taken up by those be abolished? Has it been considered that demand is suppressed because passengers who would otherwise continue journeys on bikes but are unable to do so on foot are prevented from using the train? How would revenue be affected if the railway chose to alienate passengers with bladders, luggage or those who wish to be driven by a driver?

 

[Dai Corner]

Bikes could quite easily be accommodated in an area overhanging the end of a platform, with a requirement to move forward with the bike to alight with it. Toilets, luggage spaces, vestibules and drivers cabs do not generate revenue either so should the space taken up by those be abolished? Has it been considered that demand is suppressed because passengers who would otherwise continue journeys on bikes but are unable to do so on foot are prevented from using the train? How would revenue be affected if the railway chose to alienate passengers with bladders, luggage or those who wish to be driven by a driver?

Some trains don't have toilets or much luggage space, of course.

A bicycle space takes up roughly a seat which could be earning revenue. Why are they carried free of charge anyway?

 

[507020]

Some trains don't have toilets or much luggage space, of course.

A bicycle space takes up roughly a seat which could be earning revenue. Why are they carried free of charge anyway?

But those trains sans toilets/luggage racks tend to have adequate provision for bikes anyway. The issue is with InterCity stock which carries ample (some may say excessive) Toilet, luggage and first class provision, but is woefully inadequate for cyclists with bikes. 2 or 3 bikes carried vertically on a 9, 10 or 11 car InterCity train is simply a disgrace to this country whichever way you look at it.

Bikes are carried free of charge on trains for the benefit of passengers who otherwise would not travel without them, causing further loss of revenue. Even when I do not have my bike, I am much happier to see passengers able to bring bikes than not.

 

[Dai Corner]

But those trains sans toilets/luggage racks tend to have adequate provision for bikes anyway. The issue is with InterCity stock which carries ample (some may say excessive) Toilet, luggage and first class provision, but is woefully inadequate for cyclists with bikes. 2 or 3 bikes carried vertically on a 9, 10 or 11 car InterCity train is simply a disgrace to this country whichever way you look at it.

Bikes are carried free of charge on trains for the benefit of passengers who otherwise would not travel without them, causing further loss of revenue. Even when I do not have my bike, I am much happier to see passengers able to bring bikes than not.

Which brings in most revenue? A passenger with a bike or two passengers without?

 

[hkstudent]

Which brings in most revenue? A passenger with a bike or two passengers without?

That may not be a good comparison.
It maybe better said a potential passenger with bike choose to travel on rail versus two potential without.

But the issue is: the railway is not constantly full during off peak leisure times, if you can grab more potential passengers into the system, it will be much nicer.

I don't think most cyclists will be unhappy if they need to pay a cost to get a reserved bike space on regional or intercity services as they reflect the cost of provision, simialr to Europe.

For example, it is a disgrace with GWR for having 4 cycle space inbuilt per Class 800 trainset (which is inadequate already) opted to provide two only, and in many times, lock the other one.

 

[yorkie]

Which brings in most revenue? A passenger with a bike or two passengers without?

Is it a binary choice? Can passengers be accommodated where bikes are stored on some trains, such as Pendolinos etc?

 

[hkstudent]

Is it a binary choice? Can passengers be accommodated where bikes are stored on some trains, such as Pendolinos etc?

In some capacity maximists suggestions, those cabinets can be removed to provide more standing room when the train is very busy.
But don't think that's a good argument.

 

[Haywain]

Which brings in most revenue? A passenger with a bike or two passengers without?

That depends how often they travel and for how far.

 

[Dai Corner]

I don't think most cyclists will be unhappy if they need to pay a cost to get a reserved bike space on regional or intercity services as they reflect the cost of provision, simialr to Europe.

I'd argue that the cost of provision would be roughly the same as that of providing a seat.

Is it a binary choice? Can passengers be accommodated where bikes are stored on some trains, such as Pendolinos etc?

Surely fewer bike spaces = more seats? That's at the design stage.

That depends how often they travel and for how far.

I was assuming they were making the same journey


Have bikes always been carried free of charge? If not, why and when were the charges abolished?

 

[takno]

I've always been slightly mystified by the idea that bikes should go for free. Same with dogs and excessive luggage. It's not that I particularly object to any of those things being on trains, it's just that they aren't doing anybody any favours, and they use resources, so there's no reason why they shouldn't cost at least a child fare.

If that was established then it would be possible to have sensible layouts rather than endless fights about whether more seats could be crammed into a space.

 

[Speed43125]

I've always been slightly mystified by the idea that bikes should go for free. Same with dogs and excessive luggage. It's not that I particularly object to any of those things being on trains, it's just that they aren't doing anybody any favours, and they use resources, so there's no reason why they shouldn't cost at least a child fare.

If that was established then it would be possible to have sensible layouts rather than endless fights about whether more seats could be crammed into a space.

I think its a significant benefit to the railway on intercity flows when compared with Coach or Air which would not allow non-folding bikes nor large luggage as freely as the train.

I doubt there is an ability for the railway to expend resources on limiting bulky luggage. Ultimately as well, having to move such items is already disadvantageous compared to the relative convivence of going by car, further hinderance is probably not a useful spend of resources.

I speak as someone regularly-ish brings bulky luggage (and a bike occasionally) on certain XC, WCML and GWML services.

 

[507020]

Which brings in most revenue? A passenger with a bike or two passengers without?

That’s not a good comparison. A better one would be two passengers, one with a bike and one without, or only a single passenger without a bike, the one with the bike having been alienated by charges or restrictions on bringing a bike. The passenger with the bike may also have chosen to travel further than the one without.

 

[Dai Corner]

That’s not a good comparison. A better one would be two passengers, one with a bike and one without, or only a single passenger without a bike, the one with the bike having been alienated by charges or restrictions on bringing a bike. The passenger with the bike may also have chosen to travel further than the one without.

One passenger and a bike take up roughly the space of two passengers. Two passengers and a bike take up roughly the same space as three passengers so ought to pay 50% more to be revenue neutral assuming full trains.

I'll accept that if the train is nowhere near full then allowing passengers to bring along their bike for free is a useful marketing tool. Why not do the same for those who'd like to bring a friend? Oh, we do that by means of cheap Advance tickets. How about doing the same for bikes, with the fare varying between zero and the fare paid by the cyclist him/herself?

I'll ask again how bikes came to be carried free of charge.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In some capacity maximists suggestions, those cabinets can be removed to provide more standing room when the train is very busy.
But don't think that's a good argument.

Some bike space can be used as standing space when busy, it depends on the design.

The area in the front third of a Pendolino is not permitted for passenger use over 110mph. Or Voyager technically but it usually does seem to be left open... (I think the rule is that it isn't designated for passenger accommodation rather than that you have to prevent access).

I'll ask again how bikes came to be carried free of charge.

I suspect two reasons.

The good one: because of inclusivity. Allowing cycle carriage free enables some otherwise impossible journeys by public transport, and this is often by people who are less well off (often younger people) and can't afford cars nor to pay extra. You see this on lines like the Marston Vale. Public transport is not solely for profit, if it was child fares would not exist as a child takes up the same space (one seat) as an adult.

The less good one: because if there is no consideration paid there is no contract, so if things go wrong the railway can just shrug its shoulders.

 

[PeterC]

Have bikes always been carried free of charge? If not, why and when were the charges abolished?

No, my 1963 Eastern Region timetable contains a distance bases table of charges for dogs, bikes and prams. A hundred mile journey would cost 11 shillings. (For comparison my 3 mile commute to school cost a shilling a day at child rate)

Abolition must have been in the mid 70s as, early in our marriage, SWMBO and I certainly took bikes by train without paying when this was a new thing.

Space was not an issue then the bikes went in the guard,s van.

 

[Watershed]

Bikes could quite easily be accommodated in an area overhanging the end of a platform, with a requirement to move forward with the bike to alight with it.

Have you actually thought what that would mean in practice? It's hard enough walking through the aisles of most trains (especially 3+2 seated ones), let alone trying to drag a bike through! This would be a complete non-starter.

Toilets, luggage spaces, vestibules and drivers cabs do not generate revenue either so should the space taken up by those be abolished?

Driving cabs do generate revenue because without them, the train won't move an inch. The technology for driverless trains broadly exists, but it is not financially feasible (at current cost levels) to retrofit it to existing lines.

Vestibules are an unavoidable part of modern train design. Without them people couldn't get on the train. So again, they effectively do generate revenue.

Luggage spaces and toilets are optional, but are 'hygiene factors' which would put a significant proportion of people off taking the train if they didn't exist. Certainly a much larger proportion of passengers than those which may wish to take a bike with them.

Has it been considered that demand is suppressed because passengers who would otherwise continue journeys on bikes but are unable to do so on foot are prevented from using the train?

I'm not sure that the DfT or Treasury particularly care about such passengers, but if an assessment has been made, it would no doubt conclude that it is uneconomic to provide for any such suppressed demand.

How would revenue be affected if the railway chose to alienate passengers with bladders, luggage or those who wish to be driven by a driver?

Probably rather a lot more than it would be affected if the railway decided to outright ban bikes.

The less good one: because if there is no consideration paid there is no contract, so if things go wrong the railway can just shrug its shoulders.

That would be true if you didn't have to buy a ticket to travel. But obviously, you do - and part of what you are paying for is the right to bring a bike.

Saying the railway can shrug its shoulders is like saying that if you get free delivery on an online order, the trader can shrug their shoulders if the item doesn't get delivered to you.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Have you actually thought what that would mean in practice? It's hard enough walking through the aisles of most trains (especially 3+2 seated ones), let alone trying to drag a bike through! This would be a complete non-starter.

To be fair we were talking about Class 195s, on which due to the lack of gangway doors it's probably not that difficult, particularly if it's a narrow-barred road bike. 700s even easier, I've seen it a few times, the wide aisle is plenty wide enough to casually wheel a bike through.

Saying the railway can shrug its shoulders is like saying that if you get free delivery on an online order, the trader can shrug their shoulders if the item doesn't get delivered to you.

I doubt that is legally true, simply because the railway does shrug its shoulders at problems involving bikes. A consideration would associate a fee with the cycle carriage specifically, which would, as a minimum, have to be refunded. Seat reservation fees are similar.

 

[SteveM70]

Pretty much the problem of travelling with bikes on intercity service is, there's no system to check bike availability before you book, which may cost people many wasted advance ticket in order to secure a space as unsure about which trains have bike space

Why is this the case? Surely it can't be that difficult to set up the bike spaces as reservable and integrate it into the seat reservation step? I'm 99% sure Scotrail did this for the far north when I was up there with my bike. It would still be a bit of a faff, as you'd potentially have to retrace your steps and select a different service, but at least you'd not buy a ticket you couldn't then use

 

[Trainbike46]

The way I see it there are 2 types of bike provision on trains:

- Bike spaces where it would not be possible to put seats instead, think of situations where the bikes are in the guard van (HST, IC225) or in a cupboard on long-distance trains where you couldn't reasonably put seats (80x). In these cases the bike spaces have very little extra cost to the railway, so any extra revenue from people who would otherwise not travel is welcome.

- Bike spaces where you could potentially put seats. These seem to be more common on london commuter type services It would seem reasonable to limit the carriage of bikes at times when the trains are crush-loaded, for example at peak times.

It is also improtant that on some trains the bike spaces are used for other things as well, such as prams, very bulky luggage etc, so even if you banned bikes (and alienated at least some passengers), you might still not be able to put seats there as you may still need to provide the space for those other uses. Overall I think providing bike spaces is good for the railway, and I do think there should be somewhat more spaces than there currently are

 

[Bletchleyite]

- Bike spaces where you could potentially put seats. These seem to be more common on london commuter type services It would seem reasonable to limit the carriage of bikes at times when the trains are crush-loaded, for example at peak times.

In reality this is it. If the train is quiet enough that that space is not needed, there's no harm in bikes there. If it's packed, then it's needed as standing space for a crush-load. There is only a very narrow window of loading where having seats there is actually that beneficial. That's why I'm against tip-ups.

 

[Haywain]

Driving cabs do generate revenue because without them, the train won't move an inch. The technology for driverless trains broadly exists, but it is not financially feasible (at current cost levels) to retrofit it to existing lines.

I'd go further and say that driverless technology is pretty much untried outside of metro type operations, and even where new 'main' lines are being built around the world they are not being built for driverless operation.

 

[Watershed]

To be fair we were talking about Class 195s, on which due to the lack of gangway doors it's probably not that difficult, particularly if it's a narrow-barred road bike. 700s even easier, I've seen it a few times, the wide aisle is plenty wide enough to casually wheel a bike through.

Absolutely, but most trains are not like that. Try wheeling a bike along an 80x or Networker!

I doubt that is legally true, simply because the railway does shrug its shoulders at problems involving bikes. A consideration would associate a fee with the cycle carriage specifically, which would, as a minimum, have to be refunded. Seat reservation fees are similar.

There are a number of 'get out' clauses surrounding the right to bring bikes, much like the right to bring luggage. It clearly is not the essence of the contract (which is to transport you from A to B).

Nevertheless it is one of the obligations which the NRCoT contains, and as such it is no less unenforceable than a TOC could refuse to comply with a minor detail of its agreement with the DfT (e.g. cooperating for the running of the Royal Train).

 

[SynthD]

Cyclists are a benefit to other people in not driving, they are a public good to be encouraged.

If you wanted to promote taking cycling on trains is there a list of services one can point to? Eg I know the standard Chiltern trains to Birmingham don’t have a specific space but the loco hauled do. Better yet, how full do these get in the relevant peak times?

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Bikes could quite easily be accommodated in an area overhanging the end of a platform

Have you actually thought what that would mean in practice?

It used to happen very regularly on the Cotswold Line when HST drivers would overshoot the end of short platforms, so yes

 

[takno]

Cyclists are a benefit to other people in not driving, they are a public good to be encouraged.

If you wanted to promote taking cycling on trains is there a list of services one can point to? Eg I know the standard Chiltern trains to Birmingham don’t have a specific space but the loco hauled do. Better yet, how full do these get in the relevant peak times?

I hear that cyclists are doing the world a favour rather a lot, but they take up a lot more road space than people on buses do. More importantly, if they prevent other people from buying an affordable seat on the train, or prevent adequate luggage provision, or get in the way of prams, then they are likely to cause other people to drive. It's not a zero sum game, and these bike spaces can't be magicked up from nowhere without spending a huge amount of fare-payers or tax-payers money.