Suggestions for cycle provision on UK trains

[Magdalia]

I have double-checked pictures and the class 365s had two single flip-up seats facing each other next to the accessible toilet. Two bikes could go there without troubling anyone if the seats were flipped up. The wheelchair space was in front of the toilet and I never used it. I do not seem to have suitable pictures of modified 317s but I still do not think a wheelchair could fit beside the toilet and still have a clear aisle.

Be careful when looking at pictures of the class 365 accessible toilet area. The PRM modifications for class 365s were a mess, with at least 3 different versions, possibly more.

In the class 317s the whole area between the entrance doors and the end bulkhead contains the accessible toilet and just 2 seats. These are for companions of people of reduced mobility, not for cyclists watching over their bikes.

I have accompanied a person of reduced mobility and provision of seating for companions is an issue that is often overlooked by other passengers.

 

[Voyager48]

Some of the train operators' websites do allow you to make a bike reservation before buying the ticket. I always use the Transpennine site for that reason (you can use it to make a journey in any part of the country).

TfW allow bike reservations on some trains but even if you have made a reservation, the conductor can refuse to take your bike if the train is very busy (and due to continued restricted services, their trains almost always are). This, they inform me, is because they wish to be as flexible as possible regarding 'walkups'. So by the time the train reaches you, it may be too full to allow you to get on with your bike, reserved or not.

I was planning on taking my bike down to Shropshire to do a short tour, but have decided it's just not worth the hassle and uncertainty.

 

[hkstudent]

TfW allow bike reservations on some trains but even if you have made a reservation, the conductor can refuse to take your bike if the train is very busy (and due to continued restricted services, their trains almost always are). This, they inform me, is because they wish to be as flexible as possible regarding 'walkups'. So by the time the train reaches you, it may be too full to allow you to get on with your bike, reserved or not.

I was planning on taking my bike down to Shropshire to do a short tour, but have decided it's just not worth the hassle and uncertainty.

Same case would also be for some Northern trains, which there's no reservation system on their services and the conductors really have the discretion.

 

[Voyager48]

Same case would also be for some Northern trains, which there's no reservation system on their services and the conductors really have the discretion.

Yes, I can accept that where no reservation system exists (although it should!) but to face refusal to board with a bike when you *have* made a reservation seems all wrong to me.

 

[miklcct]

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

Hong Kong has already done that on the British-standard East Rail Line.

The first generation of trains had toilets, luggage spaces, and drivers cabs (not vestibules though), and all have been abolished in stages.

Just a few years after the trains went into operation, toilets where removed and passengers told to use station toilets.
There was a luggage car specifically for luggage consignment as the railway provided such service, where you can pay to deliver large items (such as furniture) between the border and the city. It is normally locked but in peak hours it is opened for passengers to stand inside.
There was driver cabs at the end of each 3- or 6-car units, which enabled operation in different train lengths like how the UK does now. They were removed when the trains were refurbished, leaving only the bare minimum needed (1 cab at each end of a 12-car train).

Furthermore, the freight operation has been shut as well as it was loss-making and took up valuable track space which can be used to enhance passenger service. The inter-city operation will follow suit as well although it was profit-making, but adding capacity into the local service is the top priority. The only measure which hasn't been taken to date is the removal of first class which acts as a cash cow.

Capacity maximization is how the railways in Hong Kong have been operated since the 1980s.

Therefore, I fully support this idea to be done on railways in the UK.

 

[507020]

Hong Kong has already done that on the British-standard East Rail Line.

The first generation of trains had toilets, luggage spaces, and drivers cabs (not vestibules though), and all have been abolished in stages.

Just a few years after the trains went into operation, toilets where removed and passengers told to use station toilets.
There was a luggage car specifically for luggage consignment as the railway provided such service, where you can pay to deliver large items (such as furniture) between the border and the city. It is normally locked but in peak hours it is opened for passengers to stand inside.
There was driver cabs at the end of each 3- or 6-car units, which enabled operation in different train lengths like how the UK does now. They were removed when the trains were refurbished, leaving only the bare minimum needed (1 cab at each end of a 12-car train).

Furthermore, the freight operation has been shut as well as it was loss-making and took up valuable track space which can be used to enhance passenger service. The inter-city operation will follow suit as well although it was profit-making, but adding capacity into the local service is the top priority. The only measure which hasn't been taken to date is the removal of first class which acts as a cash cow.

Capacity maximization is how the railways in Hong Kong have been operated since the 1980s.

Therefore, I fully support this idea to be done on railways in the UK.

But can you still take bikes on the trains in Hong Kong?

 

[miklcct]

But can you still take bikes on the trains in Hong Kong?

No. They are banned by the law. However the cycling groups have negotiated with the railway company and they are now allowed to take them by removing the wheels (or, in case of a folding bike, folded) in order to circumvent the law forbidding to take "bikes". (i.e. the law enforcement won't consider a disassembled bike a bike)

The cyclists are also advised, when taking bikes in this manner, they should use the ends of the train and avoid peak hour travel if possible (it's impossible anyway due to the crush loading).

The ferries (apart from Central - Tsim Sha Tsui line where bikes are banned) are the only public transport where one can legally take a complete bike to cross the harbour, and the above trick allows one to use the railway to get across the harbour as well (there are no pedestrian / cycle ways to get across the harbour).

 

[miklcct]

Meanwhile - this was what I encountered today.



The official number of bike spaces is 6 on a 12-car London-bound intercity train departing around 19 on a Sunday, which is said to be mandatory reservation but not enforced on the ground. I had a reservation and I was the 6th when got on at the terminal, and when I alighted at the penultimate station of the journey, I could only get free of my bike by lifting it up as the corridor was blocked already. I counted at least 11 bikes, probably more, while the train was pulling into the station I alighted.

 

[yorkie]

Provision is generally much better on the European continent, than it is in the UK (with a few exceptions)

 

[JohnRegular]

Provision is generally much better on the European continent, than it is in the UK (with a few exceptions)

Interestingly, despite the Netherlands having excellent rail and cycle infrastructure, bike provision on trains isn't really any better than we have here (in my experience, anyway). There is a blanket ban on carriage of bicycles in peak hours. It's not really an issue though, as commuters will often have a second bicycle at the destination end, and there is also a national hire bike scheme, OV fiets.

I suspect that a national hire bike scheme might be a good idea if implemented well, something not unlike plusbus available from major stations. This could reduce the number of people bringing their bikes on the train for travel purposes. To be really useful though, we'd need decent cycling infrastructure...

 

[mike57]

I suspect that a national hire bike scheme might be a good idea if implemented well, something not unlike plusbus available from major stations. This could reduce the number of people bringing their bikes on the train for travel purposes. To be really useful though, we'd need decent cycling infrastructure...

Any scheme would have to be properly provisioned, its no good turning up at your destination and finding no bikes.

I am a cyclist who uses the train, but I only occasionally take my bike on the train, its just too much trouble, some TOCs enforce reservations, some dont, what do you do if you cannot get on. My journeys tend to be to places where service is maybe hourly.

I think the cycle provision on trains either needs to be sorted properly with enough space to cover normal demand, or some other scheme such as a national hire scheme implemented and carriage of bikes by rail is severley restricted with enforced reservations, and perhaps with no reservations on journeys to stations with a cycle hire provision, or even just stop carrying bikes altogether.

At one point where my workplace was just over 2 miles from the station I used to have a station bike, it worked well, turned a 35+ minute walk into a 10 minute ride, I did it for about 3 years. The bike I left at the station overnight was a rusty hulk, fine for a 2 mile commute, but no good for a longer ride, and it was a small market town which is relatively crime free, so it never got nicked.

I actually think that Bike + Train opens a lot of travel possibilties, anything up to about 5 miles from the station is rideable on a regular basis by anyone who is of average fitness unless you are in a really hilly place. It could be a really effective way of reducing car use, but unless whatever system is applied is national, and reliable its never going to get people out of their cars.

 

[SynthD]

No, you must accommodate people who want their own, one, bike at their destination.

 

[Magdalia]

At one point where my workplace was just over 2 miles from the station I used to have a station bike, it worked well, turned a 35+ minute walk into a 10 minute ride, I did it for about 3 years. The bike I left at the station overnight was a rusty hulk, fine for a 2 mile commute, but no good for a longer ride, and it was a small market town which is relatively crime free, so it never got nicked.

No, you must accommodate people who want their own, one, bike at their destination.

A long time ago I used to do this at Cambridge. I gave up after 2 rusty hulks were nicked in less than a year.

It is very inefficient in two respects. One is that a lot more bikes are manufactured, and shipped halfway round the world, than is necessary. The other is storage space. Cambridge has a multi-storey bike park and I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of that very expensive space is taken up by bikes that live there and are only used infrequently.

A well developed and operated hire scheme eliminates both of these inefficiencies.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A well developed and operated hire scheme eliminates both of these inefficiencies.

For a small number of users. It simply isn't practical, if most people will be using a bike, to carry those bikes on the train or provide them by hire. TfL's scheme, arguably the best out there, is only feasible because it's used by a minority, and even then it's hard to get one by a main station in the morning/from the City in the evening.

Large bewaakte Fietsenstallingen, Dutch-style staffed cycle storage centres, at stations are the way to go, as you can then store a bike safely and all you need is a building with racks and 3 members of minimum wage security staff (one for each 8 hour shift round the clock).

Cycle carriage on trains will also only ever be a minority pursuit and only a leisure provision, not a commuter one. It does have value. Only thing I'd do is develop a decent app for booking reservations (also make TVMs and booking offices do them, plus a website) and make everything but metro-style services like Merseyrail compulsory reservation for cycles due to the limited resource (but bookable, if available, right up to departure). A small fee would be needed to avoid speculative bookings, but needn't be more than £1 or so. Perhaps, as I suggest for seats, £2 to reserve, £1 back if cancelled.

 

[Magdalia]

For a small number of users.

Actually, I wasn't thinking of the users. The excess manufacture of anything is a global issue: although marginal use of cycles is very environmentally friendly, their manufacture and initial distribution is not, especially if they are made in China. Manufacturing a lot more cycles than is necessary is bad for the planet. The same applies to the construction of a multi-storey bike park, with the added issue of the opportunity cost: the space taken up by the Cambridge multi-storey bike park could be used in other ways, probably much better uses than as a store for rusting hulks.

 

[crablab]

A well developed and operated hire scheme eliminates both of these inefficiencies.

Large bewaakte Fietsenstallingen, Dutch-style staffed cycle storage centres, at stations are the way to go,

Why not both, as is the case in the Netherlands?

It is quite convenient to be able to show up at a station with a Chipkaart and just rent a bike. Likewise, if you are often making that trip I can imagine that proper and extensive bike storage would be more useful than always renting.

 

[mike57]

One is that a lot more bikes are manufactured, and shipped halfway round the world, than is necessary.

The one I was using was only one step away from the scrapman, which is where it ended up when I had finished with it, so it didnt result in additional manufacturing, just delayed its entry into the recycling system (sorry, couldn't let that one pass )

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why not both, as is the case in the Netherlands?

It is quite convenient to be able to show up at a station with a Chipkaart and just rent a bike. Likewise, if you are often making that trip I can imagine that proper and extensive bike storage would be more useful than always renting.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for hire schemes, I think London's is particularly useful (much less useful in other cities as the centres are more walkable and compact, hence MK's not really working). The problem is that hire schemes pretty much by definition cannot handle pretty much everyone getting off a peak train and wanting a cycle daily. They are based on shared demand which only really works when that demand is spread through the day, and as such only really as a leisure or occasional business travel product.

This was actually designed into the London system - have you ever wondered why the docking stations aren't right outside mainline terminals but rather a short walk away? It's actually to discourage commuters who are better provided for in their massive numbers by the Tube.

If that doesn't seem obvious, go to London on a Tube strike day and witness the lack of taxis at peak times. While more polluting, they are a limited resource that is shared in the same sort of way and similarly don't handle peaky demand very well.

Cambridge is an odd one. If it was in Europe it'd have an electric tramway, and that'd be the main mode used to get into the centre from the stations. Cycles aren't really good as mass urban transport - they are private transport, just a mode that is more favoured due to its health benefits and lack of pollution.

Actually, I wasn't thinking of the users. The excess manufacture of anything is a global issue: although marginal use of cycles is very environmentally friendly, their manufacture and initial distribution is not, especially if they are made in China. Manufacturing a lot more cycles than is necessary is bad for the planet.

I think you missed my point a little - my point was that for a workable sharing scheme you'd need to manufacture just as many bicycles, and as shared bicycles tend to be more heavily constructed that may not work out quite how you think.

Also note that these "stored" bikes are often old, rusty ones that would otherwise be scrapped, so they may not actually lead to more manufacturing at all. Nobody is going to leave a brand new £5K road bike in the racks at Euston and expect it to be still there tomorrow.

The same applies to the construction of a multi-storey bike park, with the added issue of the opportunity cost: the space taken up by the Cambridge multi-storey bike park could be used in other ways, probably much better uses than as a store for rusting hulks.

That's simply untrue because you could just build on top of it if you wanted more office/residential accommodation.

Actually, not just "could", it's got an Ibis hotel on top of it! (I've stayed there, it's quite nice)

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.com

Google Streetview showing said cycle park with hotel on top

 

[JohnRegular]

Actually, I wasn't thinking of the users. The excess manufacture of anything is a global issue: although marginal use of cycles is very environmentally friendly, their manufacture and initial distribution is not, especially if they are made in China. Manufacturing a lot more cycles than is necessary is bad for the planet. The same applies to the construction of a multi-storey bike park, with the added issue of the opportunity cost: the space taken up by the Cambridge multi-storey bike park could be used in other ways, probably much better uses than as a store for rusting hulks.

You're absolutely right, but this also has to be viewed in the context of reducing car usage, particularly in urban centres. Maybe if more people are using bikes at the trip end, some of those people won't need to own a car (or a second/third car). How many bikes manufactured is 'equivalent' to car? I don't have an answer, but it is worth considering. Besides which, 'destination end' bikes tend to be old clunkers that aren't much good for anything else. When I kept a bike at Swindon station for this purpose, it was one I had purchased at a dump!

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for hire schemes, I think London's is particularly useful (much less useful in other cities as the centres are more walkable and compact, hence MK's not really working). The problem is that hire schemes pretty much by definition cannot handle pretty much everyone getting off a peak train and wanting a cycle daily. They are based on shared demand which only really works when that demand is spread through the day, and as such only really as a leisure or occasional business travel product.

I suppose the question becomes, what percentage of commuters using bicycles at the destination end would use their own bike stored at the station versus a hire bike. I imagine the numbers would be very different for non-commuters, who would also be more likely to bring their own bicycle on the train.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I suppose the question becomes, what percentage of commuters using bicycles at the destination end would use their own bike stored at the station versus a hire bike. I imagine the numbers would be very different for non-commuters, who would also be more likely to bring their own bicycle on the train.

You've basically got three main use cases.

1. Commuters into large cities. Better provided for by mass transport (Tube and electric bus) or on foot. Cycles an option, but the peakiness is hard for a hire scheme to provide for (they even have to drive the things round in vans, which damages the environmental credential) and so probably not to be pushed too hard. In essence "we'd rather you didn't cycle at your destination, just cycle to your origin station, but if you must you're best off keeping another at your destination or using a Brompton".

2. Leisure travellers in and around large cities. Hire schemes work well, peakiness less pronounced.

3. Leisure travellers going somewhere *for the purpose of cycling*. Going to want their own bike and won't be interested in hire. These are best provided for by on-train carriage; without this they'll put their bike in their car.

There's also a fourth - emergency recovery after mechanical failure. This does need to be provided for in some way (no good if the only way to recover a failed bike is a car), but obviously only fits (3). And a fifth in very rural areas - people who can't afford a car riding an old boneshaker either side of a train journey on a country branch line e.g. the Marston Vale - often young people, farmhands and the likes, so the provision is important for economic inclusivity as it might be the only feasible way for them to get to work.

 

[JohnRegular]

You've basically got three main use cases.

1. Commuters into large cities. Better provided for by mass transport (Tube and electric bus) or on foot. Cycles an option, but the peakiness is hard for a hire scheme to provide for (they even have to drive the things round in vans, which damages the environmental credential) and so probably not to be pushed too hard. In essence "we'd rather you didn't cycle at your destination, just cycle to your origin station, but if you must you're best off keeping another at your destination or using a Brompton".

2. Leisure travellers in and around large cities. Hire schemes work well, peakiness less pronounced.

3. Leisure travellers going somewhere *for the purpose of cycling*. Going to want their own bike and won't be interested in hire. These are best provided for by on-train carriage; without this they'll put their bike in their car.

There's also a fourth - emergency recovery after mechanical failure. This does need to be provided for in some way (no good if the only way to recover a failed bike is a car), but obviously only fits (3). And a fifth in very rural areas - people who can't afford a car riding an old boneshaker either side of a train journey on a country branch line e.g. the Marston Vale - often young people, farmhands and the likes, so the provision is important for economic inclusivity as it might be the only feasible way for them to get to work.

I think you're pretty much spot on. My suspicion is that not much will need to be done to discourage commuters using hire bikes if they become scarce at peak times, perhaps a warning to anyone purchasing a hypothetical hire bike supplement with their train ticket at peak times that it isn't guaranteed any will be available at the station. Otherwise I imagine commuters will find out quickly enough if they can't rely on hire bikes, and pursue an alternative option.

 

[miklcct]

This was actually designed into the London system - have you ever wondered why the docking stations aren't right outside mainline terminals but rather a short walk away? It's actually to discourage commuters who are better provided for in their massive numbers by the Tube.

The problem is that, for a significant amount of journeys, using private transport is faster than using public transport.

As cycling is normally cheaper than using public transport in London, it is a no brainer to ride as often as you can.

The only situation where using wholly public transport for a short distance local journey is faster than private transport is when there is a direct railway line.

For example, I now live at Cricklewood. I can cycle to Gospel Oak under 20 minutes on a cheap road bike which is unlikely to be beaten on public transport.

Even if I want to get to Paddington riding straight on the A5 is faster than going out of the way to Farringdon to change, and I can pass a few 332s on the way.

Note that I am not a competitive rider at all and I got the nearly last at a triathlon.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think you're pretty much spot on. My suspicion is that not much will need to be done to discourage commuters using hire bikes if they become scarce at peak times, perhaps a warning to anyone purchasing a hypothetical hire bike supplement with their train ticket at peak times that it isn't guaranteed any will be available at the station. Otherwise I imagine commuters will find out quickly enough if they can't rely on hire bikes, and pursue an alternative option.

What London did, namely hiding the docking stations a short way away from the main stations, seems to have worked. Anyone really wanting one will know where to look and they're not *far* away (e.g. the nearest one to Euston is closer than the entrance to Euston Square Tube) but they aren't in your face.

For Cambridge specifically where you have high demand over one specific corridor due to an out-of-town station (see also Chester) an electric bus or ideally tram is the way. Hire cycles don't do it well due to the directionality and high demand.

 

[Mogz]

What new long distance rolling stock 80x et al should have, and none do, is half a carriage right in the middle of the train, which is given over to open space that can be used for luggage, cycles, buggies etc, perhaps lined with tip-up longitudinal seating.

 

[Dai Corner]

What new long distance rolling stock 80x et al should have, and none do, is half a carriage right in the middle of the train, which is given over to open space that can be used for luggage, cycles, buggies etc, perhaps lined with tip-up longitudinal seating.

A BSO, as they used to be termed?

(Brake Second Open, for younger readers)

 

[Bletchleyite]

What new long distance rolling stock 80x et al should have, and none do, is half a carriage right in the middle of the train, which is given over to open space that can be used for luggage, cycles, buggies etc, perhaps lined with tip-up longitudinal seating.

Absolute no to tip-up seating. It creates pointless conflicts to add a very, very small number of quite uncomfortable seats.

If the train is utterly heaving, it's standing space. Otherwise it's better dedicated to the other uses.

FWIW I could certainly see the sense in dedicating specific 9-car 80x to the Cornish route, with a lower density of seating, a proper walk-up restaurant car for both classes and a large luggage area capable of taking surfboards and bikes, though I'd put it at one end. It's a very different route to the Bristols and Cardiffs which are basically medium distance semifasts mostly for day trippers with little luggage.

 

[BingMan]

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.

I remember paying to take my bike to Scotland to start a tour of the Highlands, returning from Inverness That was 1972 and the bike went in the guard's van

Why would you want to cycle on the motorway? I have cycled on the A5 dual carriageway and it was grim, wouldn't do it again. All motorways have parallel minor (or major) conventional roads.

My Father once went cycling on the A1(M). It was a splendid journey escorted as he was with a police car with blue flashing lights

 

[mike57]

Absolute no to tip-up seating. It creates pointless conflicts to add a very, very small number of quite uncomfortable seats.

If the train is utterly heaving, it's standing space. Otherwise it's better dedicated to the other uses.

Of course right up until the end of HST/DVTs on the ECML there was van space.

I have pushed the boundaries of 'luggage' a couple of times, on one memorable occasion a friend had liberated a large piece of mahogany which was destined for the skip at the office where he worked in London, we both used to travel home together on a Friday. He rang me about the wood and as a keen woodworker of course I wanted it. He said to come by on your way to Kings Cross and pick it up, his offices were near Old Street. It was about 5ft long, 8 inches wide and nearly 3 inches thick, and heavy, with even in its dusty state a rich red colour. He assembled a rope carrying handle and with him in front we negotiated the tube and got to Kings Cross for the train North to Harrogate. As I walked up the platform with it the guard said "Would you like to put that in here" (back van of the HST). I handed him the 'luggage' and he asked where it came from, and my mate helpfully adds that "and we got it here on the tube with no trouble" ignoring the fact that my knuckles were dragging on the ground by that time. He asked if there was any more, my mate didnt think there was. I collected it at Harrogate and manoeuvred it into my car. Those van areas on HSTs seemed to be able to swallow a large amount of bulky luggage and bikes

I think the current lack of provision is short sighted, people will have luggage, and having it strewn up the train in doorways and vestibules just doesnt make sense, and as for cycle provision, well on busy trains the areas frequently get taken over as luggage/buggy storage, so then conflict results. Its all very well cramming 80+ people into a 80x carriage but if they then have 60 suitcases between them which is not impossible at holiday times, then the result is chaos.

One of things that makes train travel attractive over flying is the ability to have more luggage, the last time we came back from France we had two suitcases each, packed with things we cant get at home as well as a weeks worth of clothes for two people, one of them female. Flying would have attracted a serious excess baggage charge.

 

[Dai Corner]

One of things that makes train travel attractive over flying is the ability to have more luggage, the last time we came back from France we had two suitcases each, packed with things we cant get at home as well as a weeks worth of clothes for two people,

Would people favour railways charging for luggage in the same way airlines do, and using the extra revenue to create space for it by removing seats or lengthening trains?

To get back on topic, should bicycles count as luggage for this purpose?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Would people favour railways charging for luggage in the same way airlines do, and using the extra revenue to create space for it by removing seats or lengthening trains?

No, I wouldn't favour charging for railway luggage. Provision should be made for it simply because it is a necessary part of travel.

I'm not in favour of the silly situation the airline industry has got itself into, either. A ticket should include hand and hold baggage up to sensible limits - two pieces of hand luggage, one trolley and one underseat, and up to 32kg of hold luggage. The EU could and should legislate to sort that nonsense out.

To get back on topic, should bicycles count as luggage for thus purpose?

I'm in favour of a bicycle reservation fee (as I am of a seat reservation fee) but more to ensure spaces are managed efficiently and to fund good mechanisms for doing that. It would be nominal - £2 to reserve, £1 back if you cancel.