Great Western Coffee Shop

Apologies if this has been covered before, but...

I usually leave my bike at Reading station on route to Bath (0727), but this morning I left my bike lock keys at home so had to take my bike on the train. Unfortunately, because there were already 6 bikes in the rack on the train, the guard said it was full so I would have to wait for the next train.

6 bikes between 8 carriages (IC125) - is this reasonable? Are there any plans to increase the IC125s' bike capacity?

Cheers
matt

Not that I'm aware of, but apparently there are plans afoot to make more bicycle parking available at stations - which seems eminently sensible to me.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6851682.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=1515793


The question however is, will they be charging cyclists for the privilege of leaving their bikes on station property? Personally, I don't see why not - but then, I'm probably in a minority of one in thinking bikes ought to be either road taxed (and the income used to build clycle lanes) or allowed to use the pavements....

I would be very surprised if thre were any plans to increase bike capacity on an HST. I'm suprised to hear there are still six!

Just to make you jealous DB IC DVTs have 30 plus reservable bike spaces per coach. And you can stand  behind the driver watching the line ahead. Fascinating weaving through a staion loop to overtake a freight train. Vr2 Hp2 signal sequence.

I usually park my bike at Reading (ie. when I remember to bring my bike lock keys) - it hasn't been a problem for me.

:'(

As far as I can tell, the TOC's do not want bikes on trains full stop and seem to be making it harder and harder for us poor cyclists.

I remember, before I got the folder, being told I had to make reservations for the bike but then the person on the phone got stroppy when I wanted to reserve the 1722, 1822 and 1922 every day for five days.  Apparently I could only have one per day - but as I explained, I cant possibly know what time I'll get out of the office each day with over running meetings etc and potential delays on the way in so I could be on any one of those three trains on any day.  Sadly I could be, but my bike could not

And you can't blame them. They take up space, cause delays and are carried free of charge. The TOC's will spin yarns about welcoming cycles on their trains but in reality they are nothing but a nuisance - especially on peak trains.

As Graham says, over the coming years, there will be more of a swing towards encouraging more people who commute with their bikes to have them left in secure storage at either their origin or destination station (depending where they do the cycling). The potential new facilities at Paddington discussed on here a couple of months ago are testament to that.

HST's can actually store 12 bikes, 6 in the TGS and 3 each in the power cars (in fact the power cars can store more in exceptional circumstances, though there are racks for 3). The power cars are not used in normal situations though as they are even more cumbersome to use than the TGS - but they can come in useful when a train is stopping at a short platform and the TGS isn't on the platform (Evesham for example), or when there is some kind of event on (the London to Oxford annual cycle ride for example).

I will be interested to see what provision is made on the IEP trains for cycle storage...

6 is more than adequate, XC voyagers only carry three now I believe?

And getting a normal sized bike in the rack is a task I hear!

its more than that mate, its a complete joke.....sorry but bikes on trains cause delays it as simple as that,

Yet DB ICE carry up to 20! (But then DB or SNCF or Renfe are all 'so much better' than our network. Nope, hang on I don't buy that arguement!) OK they charge approx ^7.50 for a reservation on DB. Why not introduce charging and utilise the TGS space on a HST. Nice extra revenue stream!

Because the revenue wouldn't cover the delays they would cause.

Of course I was forgetting that the once proud Inter-City 125 is nothing more now than a glorified commuter train. Sod anybody with a bike or a bit of luggage. I expect anti-cyclist sentiments from road users, however it seems as though there are just as many bike haters on our rail network.

Interestingly enough bikes do cause delays even on DB. On said IC Cologne Leipzig it was running wrong way round with DVT leading from Cologne instead of loco first. When we got to Hagen there was party of cyclists waitng at the rear of the platform. the driver waceved frantically at them to move up but they didn't twig so we left around 5 down.

It seems to me that the delay was caused by the train running the wrong way round, not by the cyclists. If there's a last minute platform alteration and the train has to wait for passengers to come from the other platform, does that count as a delay caused by the passengers?

I would be interested to see what percentage of delay minutes on our rail network are actually caused by cyclists.

I'm pretty sure it would be small in the grand scheme of things, but disproportionately large considering the number of delays that are due to passengers and the number of those that are travelling with bikes.

Storage would have to be pretty damn secure to even entice me to leave my bicycle at a station again!

My first one I left at Paddington - chained to the hilt, buried in the middle of the bike racks until one monday I came back to find it missing - both wheels, handlebars, seat - in fact the only thing left was a frame!

Never again.

Instead of providing bike spaces on trains, there should be more schemes such as the one in Bristol where you can use a bike that is already situated at the station for people to use. This is more beneficial than allowing bikes on the trains whilst you are safe in the knowledge that a bike is waiting for you when you get off the train. If I remember rightly, FGW are partners in this cheme so hopefull could trial it in other areas soon. This is a better idea than having bikes taking up valuable space in a train.

Yes I was one of those bad cyclists who delayed a train once. I was arguing with the guard, insisting that he let me put my bike on the train, on the grounds that I had a valid reservation which I had showed him, while he said he couldn't because he hadn't been told about my reservation and there were parcels in the bike section. After a few minutes he let me on and we left 3 or 4 minutes late. Clearly some of the people on the train saw the argument as I got a fair few dirty looks as I walked down the carriage -- being a cyclist I was obviously in the wrong. After a few experiences like that I got the message that we're more trouble than we're worth and haven't taken my bike on a train in over 10 years.
Having had two bikes stolen from in front of the so-called police station on Platform 4 at Temple Meads, I don't leave my bike at train stations any more either.

I like this idea. I'd definitely use this scheme if there was a reasonably priced bike available for hire at my destination, and they could also start charging a hefty fee for bike reservations on trains, to encourage people to hire them instead.

And as long as the bikes for hire were of reasonable quality - but you know what would happen - in six months they'd be beaten up, trashed and thats if they were decent spec in the first place.

I'm not 100% on this but ifI remember rightly the bike is free for the first 30mins and a ^1 for each hour after, but of course there is a registration fee of ^10 for your card enabling you to use the service.

The problem about the quality of the bikes may not be too great as apparently the bikes hold up well against vandalism as this system has been used around Europe for years.

Info available form https://www.hourbike.com/hourbike/home.do

The subject is also covered by the BBC, at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8278320.stm

21 speed, front and rear discs, front suspension?

Thats the min I'd want

If we're talking about commuters mostly cycling through the streets of London then for the majority there would be no need or desire for suspension, disc brakes, or 21 gears on the mostly flat streets. Indeed suspension and disc brakes are not even essential if you are a fairly serious cyclist - I cycled from Llanfairfechan to the base of Snowdon, then up to the summit overnight and back down again at sunrise when I was a keen cyclist myself and managed perfectly well with my trusty Marin MTB, without any of those luxury trimmings. I did however use all of the 21 gears!

In terms of storage, the proposed Paddington facilities would (as I understand it) be a secure boxed compound, which would be staffed, and allow storage in return for a small fee. The dingy facilities currently at Paddington are a criminals haven - so what may have happened in the past would not deter me from trying this new scheme out (if I was commuting myself with a bike). I'd certainly be happy to pay a reasonable fee in return for having no hassles or worries about whether I'd get my bike on the train I wanted each morning, whilst being safe in the knowledge that the storage is secure.

Just my comments...

1, I understand the arguements that bikes take up space that could be used for seats.  I would not therefore be surprised if new trains have few bike spaces.  HOWEVER, HSTs already have loads of space in the powercars.  Only carrying 6 bikes whether due to policy, a lack of a big enough rack or whatever, is rather stupid is it not? Surely more than 6 bikes could be fitted in an HST without sacrificing luggage space?  Willing to be shot down hear but there always seems to be plenty of space?

2, Better bike racks at stations is great and a sensble solution to carrying them on trains.  If however, you charge people to use a rack at a station but carry bikes free on trains you set up a perverse incentive do you not.  Charge ^5 or ^10 per jounrney for a bike.  Sure, it wouldn't cover the cost of carrying the bike, but it would at least incentivise people to leave bikes at stations and thereby lessen the number of folks wanting to travel with bikes.  You need a charge at a level which would deter commuters from taking their bikes by train in the peak every day (my making it cheaper for them to buy another bike to leave at the destination station) but not so high as to discourage the occasional traveller from taking their bike and thereby forcing another car onto the road.   

3, Bikes cause delays yes, but so do wheelchairs, luggage, pushchairs and passengers in general.  Manage them better (ie, tell people where to stand) and delays will fall. 

4, security needs to be improved, but if TOCs can do it for carparks they can do it for bike racks. 

5, being bike-friendly has benefits not captured by the farebox (healthier people, less congestion etc).  It is rather unrealistic to expect TOCs to be too bike friendly unless it is written into their franchise. 

Very true. For a great example watch Oxford station on summer Sunday late afternoon and early evening services to London. They're all HST's, only one an hour mind, and if no announcements are made by the station staff then the 200 or so people wanting to board (I kid you not, there are that many!), all wait under the canopy before all realise and then they all try to board via the first couple of standard class carriage doors. Because that's a narrow part of the platform anyone with bikes then can't get past for minutes to get to the rear of the train.

If announcements are made, a few foreigners don't understand, but the vast majority spread themselves evenly along the north end of the platform and things are much better organised.

I reckon at least 3 minutes boarding time can be saved when announcements are made. Sadly, they often aren't!

Hi,

Just wondering why FGW bother to have a "no bicycles" policy since they never bother to enforce it.

Many times I see people loading their bikes on a supposedly bike-free turbo at Reading in full view of platform staff who never say a word.

As far as I understand it bikes are not meant to be allowed on morning peak-time London-bound turbos for ANY stage of the journey, not just the arrival into Paddington. Would be nice to see it enforced (I'm fed up with trying to squeeze past them & bashing my leg on them.)

Personally I think we should just ban bikes 24/7. Far too much hassle and most bike passengers are rude and aggressive when you tell them there's no room for their bike, and to get on the next train.

"But cant you turn a blind eye this time"
"Like I said yesterday sir, NO"
"But there's plenty of room"
"No there's 6 bikes and thats all is allowed"
"Your an [insert verbal abuse as applicable]"
"Okay sir, thank you"

In peak hours they can be a nuisance.  Trouble is that with the Driver Only Operated trains that run between Reading and Paddington it's practically impossible to enforce the rules.  As you say, passengers joining a Turbo at Reading could be prevented from doing so by the station staff, but it rarely happens - the trouble is from Reading to say Twyford or Maidenhead a lot of the trains do have plenty of capacity even the barred trains.  It's beyond Slough where it can really get silly, but most of those stations are unstaffed or only have a skeleton staff, so it'd have be down to the driver.

I think the 'rules' are there to dissuade the majority of potential cycle users from joining the trains with a non-folding bike, as it would be pretty chaotic if all those who boarded with folding bikes suddenly turned up with normal ones, and it's a very difficult ruling to get just right unless you do ban them completely.  Perhaps FGW should purge Reading/Maidenhead/Slough and Paddington stations for a week or so and enforce the rule properly?

I enforce Condition 49 of the NRCoC very strongly. esp (b) and (c)
You don't like it, tough.

The other problem with bike users is that they are inconsiderate. They never check if the space they are dumping their ^1000 bike/brompton/fold up/specalised/etc bike is reserved or not.
Then they moan when you ask them to remove their bike because someone is reserved in that space.
"Well It was okay yesterday."
"No sir it wasn't because I was on this train yesterday and I asked you to move"
"Err Err"
"Remove your bike please sir"

Simple BAN THE ****ING lot
The majority ruin it for the monority!
6 in HSTs
2 or 3 in your average Sprinter.
If the train crew say so, then no.
Prams and disabled passengers can also claim the space.

Oh, by the way. Railway byelaws state lights to be switched off on platforms. I have every right to make an emergency brake appilication on seeing a red light. On a full and standing train, a lot of people can be hurt.
And 1 foot on a pedal whilst pushing with the other foot is also against the railway byelaws.

And whilst on stations, do not chain to railings, left luggage trolleys, posts holding SPTs (signal post telephones)

All very simple rules, which only the monority obey.

Been throwing bikes off trains for 15+ years, and will continue to do so for the next 15.

PS If you don't like it, complain to the police, tell the whole story though.
Riding my bike down the platform
Red light flashing
He refused me on the train.

STAFF, all we need to do is stick together!

The 06:53 Turbo from Twyford to Paddington on Monday had THREE full-size bikes in the vestibule nearest to where I was sitting and at Maidenhead someone attempted to add a fourth but was there really was no more room. My main concern is one of safety - what happens if there has to be an emergency evacuation and the doors are all blocked by bikes?  ???

Ask the cyclists?
What is said on a plane?
All doors to be kept clear!

PS Could a moderator delete my previous post?
Thanks, I can't see a "delete" button.

Done - no problem!  ;)

CfN.  ;D

It's all because that t**t from Henley is promoting bikes so much. Here's an idea boris, ask ur Tory chums to bring back brake vans. No? No money? Well shut up promoting bikes then.

Bikes are for riding not for putting on trains.

Driver I like ur idea, a few emergency stops (or just normal stops) when you see red lights would get the message across to management when they have to explain to NR what the f was going on.
Flashing red light little harder to explain, as I haven't found a bike light that flashes like a rear lamp.

BAN THE LOT OF THEM 24/7.

Phew! :o  Well, jane s is certainly getting some very forthright views from our staff members here on this subject!  ::)

Flashing red lights are actually quite easy to explain, SDS pad: I have two rear red lights on my bike, both of which have a selection of five different modes of illumination - from steady red, through intermittent flash, to full strobe effect.  Ever Ready, ^5.00 each!  ::)

(Obviously, though, I don't switch them on, on any railway platform. ;) )

I know it's generally pretty obvious what's a bike light and what's a hand signal, but it's always struck me that the green LED front lights that a lot of bikes seem to have are also potentially dangerous under the wrong circumstances.

Inspector, a red light is a stop light. Simple!
The modern lamps used by staff are LED but you also have the old Bardics. Cyclists use either LEDs or pathetic little bulbs.
I'm not being picky, BUT what if I thought it was a cycle but I really needed to be stopped?
In an emergency, what's the difference?
Railway byelaws are there for a reason!

Thank you Chris, you seem to be in the minority!

I'm with BBM - what happens if there has to be an emergency evacuation?

In The Netherlands everyone bicycles - but no-one is allowed to take a full-size bike on a train. Lots of people have two bikes, one at each end of their journey.

The Dutch has slackened, bikes used 100% banned on platforms, always chained up outside.
Inspector, I've never seen a green light on the front of a bike. Doesn't the highway code specify white?
If fitted, the green LED wouldn't confuse traincrew, too low.

PS SDS Pad, you are expecting too much reference your current signature!
Passengers able to read?
Understand?
Realise it apllies to them?
It's the same as the "quiet coach" syndrom.
That phone is important enough to p**s off every one who's sat in coach for peace and quiet, because I'm an important person who's above the rules!

MP maybe  ;D

The Highway Code (http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069837) does indeed specify a 'white' light to the front:

Explains the Multi story bike park outside Amsterdam central. You get lost in that place!! I did remember seeing a bike sign in the middle of a blue/yellow double decker train.

Why can't it be like that here. If I could give ^50 fines for riding on the platform, the government would solve the deficit overnight!

Quiet coach syndrome, yep that's why everyone flocks to coach A, past loads of empty seats and then moan why they can't find a seat. Duh.
I've threatened to throw a phone out the window, once before. Most annoying convo ever. Constantly going "oh I know, I know, ooh I know" SHUT UP GOD DAMMIT!!

I've dumped a mobile phone into a plastic glass of stella

After said passenger refused to comply with complaints from pax and the TM

In much the same way as cyclists apparently don't read the rules regarding carrying bikes on trains, I don't think a lot of them read the Highway Code either ;)


Yes, all fair enough - I'm was agreeing with you, that's why I said that a green light (there are plenty of them out there, trust me) is also potentially dangerous in the wrong situation ;)

Cyclists do selective reading!
We welcome your bike on the railway network is probably as far as they get  ;)

[management] welcome your bike on the railway. [the platform staff hate your guts and your pathetic piece of metal rust called a brompton].

Please add the driver that doesn't your bike leant accross his cab door. Many a disagreement on whether the train will be departing.
Funnily enough I won every time, can't imagine why ;)

Ok. I^m a cyclist and sometimes take my train on the bike on the train  class 165/66). Mostly I stand with it as I don^t wish it to get damaged and don^t wish to damage the train ether, and means I can move it if needed when people board. ( i=and i like living so don^t cycle on the platform) Sorry I^m rather annoyed at some of these sweeping comments. Also How about having bike racks on trains?! ( what not enough room? Again whose fault is that?!) My issue is the 3 car train I use from Reading to Newbury in the morning and evening is now always 2 car so is rammed. Whose fault is it? Mine or FGW for deciding to shorten the train? Interesting to see how some of the staff handle things. While some people are idiots ever thought of treating them like human beings sometimes? So far this year I^ve been sworn at twice for no reason by staff and lost count of staff being rude to passengers for no reason. Alongside that I no longer give eye contact or even speak to barrier staff at Reading as after two years of being ignored when I say ^ good morning^ as I show my ticket- they don^t even say a word along with mostly not even looking at the ticket when I pass through- means I^ve dropped to their level. Sorry for the rant but frankly complaints to FGW ( as shown in another thread by me) makes no difference. I^ve also put up with travelling in the dark two evenings as the lights failed. Agree some of this is not related to the tread as well sorry.

You must be in the minority hornbeam, a cyclist that actually speaks to us station staff! Never!
Remember some station staff (i.e. platform/service delivery/dispatchers or whatever were called this week) are a completely different bread to gateline staff.

Treat us how you want to be treated back (or in the case of gateline at RDG treat them how they treat you).

Most bike pax are rude and obnoxious and then they wonder why we do the bare minimum?

Driver:
I like it when you drivers refuse to take a train out when you have problematic pax, i.e. abusive, bicycles. Amazing how when NR order us to tell you move it, you hold tight! Amazing who always wins, cos it anit the pax

Hornbeam, you seem to one of the minority.
Please tell where we can put a bike rack on an 165?
How many less passengers can get on if your rack is installed?
And if a rack was installed, holding maybe 4 bikes, will the fifth person still force his/her self on board with a bike, therefore blocking an emergency exit? Most definately!
The old trains had plenty of room for bikes, but they have long gone. Sorry, we have a limit.
And blaming the staff for only a 2 car turbo  :o
May I ask how far you travel?
We have cyclists that go between Stapleton road and Montpelier, barely a mile!!! So why have a bike?

What a depressing thread. Sweeping generalisations about cyclists from staff who sadly seem to be living up the sterotype of customer-unfriendly railway workers...

Sadly, just as it is the unreasonable cyclist who gets noticed and makes you think are there in greater numbers than they actually are, it is the rude staff who harm the reputation of the rest.

Im not customer-unfriendly, I just hate bikes, and the attitude that normally comes with them. Behaviour breeds behaviour.
I have had several customer praise letters, so I must be doing something right, apparently.

May I suggest you spend some time at Bristol TM for example, in the rush hour, and watch the loading of trains, the bike riding along platform 4 near the racks? Watch how many doors are blocked by bikes.
Oh, and rudeness? I use those magic words, "Excuse me", "Please" and "Thank you"! Not many passengers do, SDS Padd and other front line staff will confirm this. And rudeness is a problem EVERYWHERE now a days. :'(

And I agree with you ref rude staff ;)

"Im not customer-unfriendly, I just hate bikes, and the attitude that normally comes with them. "

Er, sorry, but it is your customers that come with the bikes! You are a customer-facing member of staff, making some quite hostile and sweeping generalisations about a particular group of passengers. And on a public forum, which creates a very bad impression. 'Hate' is not really an acceptable word for a situation like this.

And I'd add that I have every sympathy for the difficulties faced by anyone in a customer-facing position, I know a lot of people can be very selfish. And I fully understand the practical difficulties the industry faces in finding room for bikes on busy services, given all the constraints of capacity and funding. That's why I use a folding bike, which I usually carry folded in the station and keep folded in the train, and do my best to keep it away from other people's clothes and suitcases.

But you also need to recognise that cycling to stations makes it possible for people to use rail who would otherwise have to drive; and also that at off-peak times the railway still needs more passengers and having space for bikes on those trains will help attract more users.

Would these be the cyclists who ride on pavements? Ignore no entry signs, ride along one way streets in the WRONG direction? ;)
No problems OFF-PEAK but cyclists hopefully should see other passengers wish to travel with luggage, prams etc. We are carry MORE passengers with less rolling stock compared to the early 90s.

I just can not see the need to take a bike to Padd anymore, lock the bike at your local station and use a Boris Bike in zone 1 simples

Bikes especially full frame ones do grate with me and really *iss's me off when I can not get on a train because someone wants to occupy more space than they are paying for simply passenger with bike = 2 fares

What's been bugging me lately has been where bikes are pushed through the narrow bit between the columns and the buffers at the end of platforms 11/12 at Paddington, rather than going round the wider bit. It's tight enough with people coming the other way without throwing a Brompton into the mix.

Mumble, mumble, grumble.

(Must remember to turn grumpy old man mode off when I get home on Friday :))

We did have that gap sorted and dumped a nice massive information board in the way. But it seems that NR wanted the board to advertise some tube strike.
It hasnt been moved back, plus we dont like walking under that bit because the pigeons above like to use it as a toilet.

Another silly generalisation. You might equally say that the people who drive to the station are the same drivers who jump red lights, park on the pavement, break the speed limit, use their phones while driving etc etc  ::)

Note that I've already acknowledged the constraints on capacity and space.

Thank you on the space, and I agree with you about car drivers and designer indicators ;)!
Thanks to Thatcher, the attitude is "I'm alright Jack, screw you!"

Ok I've stayed out of this but on behalf of cyclists can I say we are not all the same.

I have one of these


http://uk.dahon.com/bikes/2010/cadenza-p18

Folds in half - for years I travelled with it in the disabled space in g - and on two occasions ive ended up on a wind swept platform on the Cotswolds line in the dark when someone who needed to use the space boarded - and I'm fine with that - tis the gamble I took/take

I never

1. Disobey the highway code
2. Cycle on pavements
3. Jump red lights (apart from one near paddington where the light is half way up a hill and it's a t junction where the road is the straight one and if you come to a stOp getting going again is a mare but as q cyclist you don't interfere with the motor flow - you hav e to know the junction to know what I mean)

In Germany most local trains have a 'Mehrzweckbereich' which basically means a multi-use area. Here's an example from the Hamburg S-Bahn:

(http://www.lokrundschau.de/inhalt/Magazin/247/fotos/247_km_6.jpg)

The area is fitted with tip-up seats to allow room for bikes, buggies and wheelchairs. I think it's an excellent idea - I have no problems with bikes on trains as long as they don't block exits. However I suppose it would be too expensive for FGW to re-fit part of one coach on each Turbo set like that?

There already is some tip-up seats (admittedly only 3) and a general purpose area which can store at least two bikes in the centre carriage of a class 166.  So a class 166 can potentially store up to 4 bikes without blocking any doorways.

Tip-up seats to allow for bicycles are a fair solution when applied to off-peak travel, but I could envision some raised blood-pressure during peak commuting time - 2-3 seats tipped up out of use to accommodate a bicycle, while the cyclist is sat in another...

Ah, the joys of defining a one-size-fits-all carriage layout!

Agree wholeheartedly on both points but have you tried finding a working boris bike anywhere near Paddington in the morning peak? Many more bikes required - damn good system IMHO

On the basis that all peak non-HST services are full and standing all bikes should be banned.  At Paddington surely the gate staff could enforce this policy for the evening peak and impose an excess fare in the morning.  As you say..."simples"

I also agree with the other comments here about behaviour and attitude (of cyclists).  For some reason their journey is far more important than anyone else's.

While we're banning certain users, what about families using evening peak services during school holidays.  Have a meal in town early evening (the kids will love it) and travel later.  And for an insight into "bohemian" life travel back late at night - that's always an invigorating experience  ;)

Phew! Seems like I'm not the only one to have a problem with cyclists then!  :)

Put it this way, I'll stop hating cyclists when they stop trying to run me over when I'm crossing on a green man at pelican crossings. (If only the police would fine them a fixed penalty for every time this happened!)

Anyway, a couple of good bike-on-train stories for you:

1) A few months ago I had just got on the 07:43 SDO HST from Tilehurst when we were informed that we would be delayed while the train was moved forward a few yards and the doors re-opened because unfortunately there was a cyclist in one of the rear carriages who needed to get off, and the carriage in question was not currently on the platform. (Presumably resulting in one very red-faced cyclist!) Anyway for several weeks after that the indicators for that train had a specific "no bicycles" message.

2) One day I got on a turbo at Reading in the morning peak only to find that some ^%$%^ seemed to find it perfectly reasonable to park his bicycle along the aisle, blocking off several rows of empty seats. I said, none too politely, "Scuse me, how many seats do you need?", whereupon he did at least move it, but I'm still not sure he actually understood the problem he was causing.

All this in addition to "the Burnham problem" (i.e. the fact that the doors open on the "wrong side) and the number of times an almighty crash is heard coming from the vestible because a bike has fallen over (on to me on one occasion, resulting in a large bruise).

IMO there are only two options for bikes:

a) get a folding bike, or preferably
b) get two, one for each end of the journey.

Get two cheap and nasty bikes for each end.
That way they wont get nicked as much as an expensive flash looking nice one would.

Still think they should bring back the mandatory reservation charge for bikes ^5 each way, regardless of season ticket cost. No refunds, No exchanges for whatever reason, just like advance purchase tickets!
If you don't have a reservation, you get one chance and one chance only (and get charged a tenner). Next time your seen without a reservation you WILL be refused travel and told to politely b***er off to the booking office.

"But I cant get bike reservations where I buy my ticket."
"Tough find a booking office that does, all FGW ticket offices can do them, just some may not know how to."

Nice to see such an ethos of good customer service on the railways!  ::)

And Jane, I could equally say "I'll stop hating drivers when they stop passing too close/ chatting on their phones" etc etc, couldn't I, but that would be silly generalisation to make, wouldn't it? So why is it OK for everyone to pour out their silly prejudices against cyclists on this forum?

Nice try of change of subject. Drivers using mobiles while driving. I like it........
But of course that is illegal so you are entitled to hate them for it. Train Drivers are banned from using mobiles in a cab (except in an emergency or when the CSR/NRN fails).

...and nice continuation of the change of subject.

Can you tell me SDS pad how you go about telling a customer (you know - the people who you are providing a service for) "to politely b***er off to the booking office"?

Were you off sick when you were supposed to attend your employers "Putting Customers First" course?

I've been reading this debate with interest and am amazed by some of the really lazy generalisations being made by some.  It's like saying all Guards are 'jobsworths' or all BMW drivers are '**insert appropriate swearword**'. Its all just pretty silly and does you no favours what so ever.

To add to the debate, and I don't think I've heard anyone in disagreement here. Big bikes CAN be a nuisance on trains especially when it is busy, in a similar way in which pushchairs, prams, wheelchairs, massive handbags (added for lazy generalisation) can also be seen as a nuisance.  However, I really don't think people do it especially to make your journey a misery. 

One last point, and this is a genuine question and not fishing for an argument, but JaneS, how was the cyclist at fault for your scenario No.1?  Had the cyclist stored their bike in the wrong carriage and then couldn't get it out again, or was the Powercar with bike storage not aligned with the platform.  I'm struggling to see how this would happen.  Also, scenario 2, you asked the biker to move their bike and they did?

I'm sorry sir, but new company policy tells me that you must have a mandatory reservation to get on this train with your bike. You can get one from the booking office.
Why?
Because some bike passengers have been abusing the system, just like you did last week sir.

I was also told to not to accept verbal abuse off anyone whoever they were.

I wonder what problems the other long distance TOC's have with bikes?  I'm thinking specifically of Virgin, East Coast, East Midland Trains and NXEA - all of them seem to have a 'reservation compulsory' system (at all times) rather than in just the peak hours, but none of them mention barring totally on some long distance services, like FGW do.

I think there's much more that could be done to encourage cyclists to not travel with their bike on the train.  Facilities at stations need improving - schemes like the Leeds Cycle Point - http://cyclinginfo.co.uk/blog/cycling/cycle-point/ (http://cyclinginfo.co.uk/blog/cycling/cycle-point/) - should be considered for all of the large stations in London and some others.  With Paddington's ongoing Span 4 renovation it would be an ideal time to have set aside some space for one there.  Also, the TfL bike scheme is proving to be a great success, judging from the number of people I've seen on them in London and the lack of news stories about the scheme (a pointer that any new scheme is working well!), so an expansion of that to other cities would also be good.

You have totally missed the point, which is that Jane was hating "cyclists" in general, not just those who have personally caused her harm. I was pointing out that it is just as silly as to say you "hate" all drivers because some commit offences. Just as it would also be silly for me to say I hate railway staff because some are rude and unhelpful...

Well, a couple of recent posters displayed on Platform 3 at Bristol Temple Meads do seem to have been intended to 'discourage' any passengers from travelling with their bicycles, or indeed leaving their bicycle at the station:

(http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/551/picture048hzq.jpg)

Apart from the generally 'threatening' tone of this apparently 'official' poster, it is riddled with errors:

- 'abandoned' - amended with correcting fluid;

- 'illegaly' - incorrect spelling;

- 'cycles' or 'bike' - instead of 'bicycle' throughout;

- 'we will regularly check the cycle racks' - apart from the split infinitive, 'regularly' could mean 'once every millennium', rather than 'frequently' (as in, 'at least once every 24 hours').

See also the second cheery poster:

(http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/4391/sdc10066r.jpg) (http://img713.imageshack.us/i/sdc10066r.jpg/)

- 'Cycle racks are provided only for customers using the station' - well, yes: as they are on Platform 3, how else could anyone have gained access to them, what with the gateline and all?

- 'Cycles are not to be left for more than a 24 hour period' - erm, what about those wishing to travel to PAD on Monday morning and return on Friday evening, for example?

- 'Cycles parked in any other area Will be removed' - 'Will', you have been warned!!  ::)

- 'For station security purposes all cycle panniers must be removed' - for 'security reasons', surely?

While some of the above comments are perhaps a bit light-hearted, I think it still makes the point that any official notices have to be clear and precise, if they are to have any credibility whatever.

Chris.  :-X

Also, the first used that phrase that should never be used.....ever

ever

ever

under pain of death and prosecution by the english police.

".....daily basis...."

saw a very nice cyclist last night at BTM who in his infinite wisdom decided that he would switch his nice red light on on platform 11 for all to see...any Red Light means STOP as has been mentioned before....also White lights mean go and the intensity of some bike lights comming toward you on dimly light platforms are blinding especially when you are looking for the dispatcher....i know cyclists want to go home but please switch your lights on when you have left the platform...this is a serious safety concern

Chris, In reply to your last post, 2 "scum" chained their bikes to the column with the phone to contact the signaller next to the St Andrew's cross on platform 3/4!
The number of bikes that are removed from illegally parked places, well there's no room left to store them.
Just finished 5 days in work, and I'd say a good week generally. 85% accepted politely that the bike was not allowed on the train due to being at capacity. And I had a shock Wednesday at seeing a very, very rare sight!
A person pushing his bike at Filton Abbey Wood!!!!!!!!!!!!! ???
Only 8 signs stating "No riding"  ::)

Also, how are cyclists expected to know this beforehand? If they turn up at Temple Meads planning to leave it for several days, then read this sign, are they supposed to cancel their journey and the work or holiday at the other end of it, to comply with an unexpected regulation?

I don't know how long that rule has existed, but I would never again leave my bike overnight at Temple Meads as in my experience, it will probably get stolen, despite being right outside a so-called police station.

I have not seen a green light RECENTLY on the front of a cycle.
They used to be popular a few years ago, when the lower power use of LEDs was desireable, and white LEDs were not generaly available.

The highway code does indeed require white, but AFAIK is seldom enforced re cycles.

I would agree that these trains have been downgraded to commuter style.
The removal of tables and luggage space, the removal of catering vehicles, and the prevalence of bus style seating all suggest a commuter service and not inter city.

The next improvement/refresh/modernisation will probably include reducing cycle spaces, this is called progress.

After all new trains are allegedly being considered, and new trains dont have much cycle space, or restaurants, or tables, or luggage space.

The last refresh actually increased bicycle spaces on a HST from six to twelve as three hanging hooks were installed in each of the power cars.  The ones in the power cars are not used very often ever since the original SDO policy was abandoned only months after it was introduced, but they can be useful on occasions.

Interesting one that - there's a strong argument to be made the HSTs actually produced the current situation, since they were some of the very first trains that made relatively long-distance commuting viable. So the long-distance commuter, whom FGW find themselves in the awkward position of having to accommodate alongside longer distance travellers on the same services, was really a product of the HSTs themselves.

And it's not really "sod anyone with a bike" when there are 6 spaces per train, is it? Fair enough that there was a slight reduction in luggage space post-refurb, but that was just the gaps between some seat backs that were of limited use anyway, partly because very few people actually realized they were there. Luggage was always an issue on long-distance weekend trains to and from holiday areas beforehand and I don't think the refurb made it a great deal worse.


Oh dear, do we really have to flog this dead horse again. Yes there are fewer tables, and therefore from my point of view less opportunities to have to play footsie for legroom with someone you don't know, or watch them picking their nose. It's not an unequivocally bad thing, you know. Catering vehicles you will note have now all been reinstated, so that argument doesn't hold up. And if you think the FGW HST seating is bus-style you evidently haven't been on many buses recently. I can promise you from extensive experience using rail replacement coaches that the seats in those vehicles are far less comfortable. I know you like to say that FGW HST passengers have to sit with "theire knees behind there ears" but that's utter nonsense.


Based on what, other than your excessive and unsubstantiated negativity? Without significant and extensive structural alterations to TGS vehicles that would also have to include fitting secondary door locking to the guard's area (rest assured, that ain't happening), the bike storage area is of no use for anything else.


What on earth do you mean? What new trains? If you're talking about the IEP fleet suggested as an HST replacement then that's still at the stage of bickering about how the things are actually going to drag themselves along the rails. No-one's even got close to specifying the interior of said trains at the moment, as far as I'm aware. Would you like to back up that assertion that there won't be much cycle space, luggage space etc etc or is it just a spurious claim based on absolutely no evidence?

My remarks re the likelyhood of reduced cycle space, luggage space on a new train, is, I grant not based on hard evidence, but is based on other new trains.

New trains in general have fewer seats, spaced closer together, and less luggage/cycle space than those they replace.

Virgin Voyagers had fewer seats, and less luggage space than those they replaced.

The new DMUs introduced a few years ago on services to/from Loughborough were a significant backward step compared to the HSTs used previously.

A 5 car Adelante was a backward step compared to an HST.

It is of course possible that the proposed new trains will be longer than existing ones, with tables, luggage space, legroom, catering, cycle spaces etc.
As you point out, the mechanical design has yet to be decided, let alone the internal layout. However experience of other new trains suggests that any new trains will be a backward step, as is the norm.

Local services are not exempt from downgrading ! After years of disruption and the spending of many billions of public money, the East London Line has recently re-opened. The result is that 3 car trains have replaced 4 car ones, and with far fewer seats per vehicle. This is known as progress.

Whilst taking your point about Voyagers and some other comments you've made, there's plenty of counter-arguments that should be made.


In what respect?  6 cycle spaces matched the HST's of the time in a much shorter train.  Better acceleration, better braking, air-conditioning that on the whole worked better.  A better seating layout with seats that matched the windows as well as a HST's layout at the time did, but without those annoying fixed arm rests.  Automatic doors that helped reduce station dwell times. 

Sure, you could argue that they were shorter, but they were only designed to operate the quieter services on the hourly London to Cardiff trains and other more lightly loaded services - they ended up on the Cotswolds, where again they were much better suited on the majority of trains - just look at the Turbo's that have now been drafted in because the HST's aren't suitable!

You could also argue that the underfloor engines weren't as good as separate power cars, but it would make little sense on such a short train.


Not sure where you're getting that from.  All East London Line Class 378's are 4-car trains.  The 378's on the other Overground routes may have been delivered as 3-car trains, but are now being extended to 4-cars over the coming months.  Most of the trains they replaced were 3-car 313's anyway.  The seating layout is more than adequate off-peak and in the peak hours having much more standing space is a bonus on a very busy commuter route where passengers are taking short journeys and often fully expecting to stand.  The ride quality on a Class 378 is far better than on the old 'A' stock - due to better suspension and re-laid track, and air conditioning means that you're not sweltering in the tunnels in the summer. 

Also, with only seven trains in the fleet, any shortages impacted upon the old Underground service much more than it does today.  And of course rather than the very limited number of stations served on the old ELL, you can now make through journeys to many more useful destinations like West Croyden, Sydenham and Crystal Palace.  Early next year the extension to Canonbury and Highbury & Islington will open (offering a cross-platform change onto NLL services), and in 2012 Phase 2 should be open with direct trains to Peckham, Wandsworth and Clapham.  According to TfL they are expecting ridership on the line to go from 10m to 50m journeys a year as a result.  That is known as progress!

If you all think there are a lot of cycles on platform three, you should check out lost property.

More miserable bike passengers today because I refused to allow them travel on a turbo which had 2 bikes in each doorway.
Shame I have to always threaten BTP before they move, nice that another passenger 'helped' them off the train.

Hi All,

10 Points for anybody who can tell me from which country does this relate to in regards to bikes

"If you take a train, you choose one of the most environment friendly ways of transport. Perhaps only biking can beat it. And the two can be linked^

And what is more, if you take a train, you can plan your trip without constraint, without having to return to your destination where you drove.

You are awaited by several towns and regions even after you have got to know your immediate ^range^ and you want to boldly ride your bike where no one has ridden before. For this you do not have to bike through borders, our international trains offer not only to you, but to your bike too a comfortable and safe way to travel. Some of our trains feature all year round or only in the summer a car to transport bikes, in which ^ close to your bike ^ you can travel comfortably, and maybe spend the night in a fully made-up bed."

Basset

Hmm.  The translation into English seems slightly 'clunky'.  I'd suggest a Scandinavian country: Norway?

Hi Chris,

Sorry not correct

Basset

Hungary?

(Sorry, but I cheated!)

If that's the right answer - you're a complete and utter cad, bignosemac!  :o

Before someone cheated, I would have said the Netherlands, or a Scandinavian country.

Hi Bignosemac.

Yes Hungary

Basset

http://www.mav-start.hu/english/reisen/transporting_bicycles.php

I think you have issues.

Let's try and keep this civil and avoid dredging up old posts for the sake of personal attacks please.

tramway, put yourself in SDS pad's position for a moment. If you had to deal with verbal abuse from rude and entitled cyclists every day as part of your working life (regardless of whether or not they are a minority of cyclists) then ask yourself how you'd end up feeling about the issue. Unless you're a saint, I suspect you'd feel like SDS pad too. I've been witness to some absolutely appalling abuse (almost to the point of physical attack) directed from cyclists who assumed it was their god-given right to take their bike on a train towards railway staff who were in the unfortunate position of having to tell them that it wasn't. Most people can only shrug off that kind of behaviour for so long.

Inspector, many thanks.
The last few days I have found lot more cyclists are accepting the limits on the trains, but there will always be a few abusive ones >:(
As I said very early on, the majority ruin it for the minority.

My I take this opportunity to apologise most humbly and unreservedly for 'cheating' on basset44's poser. I succumbed to temptation and 'cut and pasted' the text he'd posted into Google, which gave up the answer immediately.

So yes, as CfN said, I'm a complete and utter cad (a three letter 'C' word used in place of the four letter one CfN was thinking of, no doubt.)

It's not much of a defence, but I was a little drunk at the time. Still, as a moderator I should know better.  :-[

I've slapped my own wrist.... hopefully that self-admonishment is enough......

There will be a Form 1 arriving on your desk shortly BNM!

Nah, straight to number 2 the punishment.
A week on WNXX should be enough ;D

Good God, no!  That's a punishment that should be banned under the Geneva Convention.

I've apologised, what more do you want?  :D

OK, apology accepted  ::)

Not too serious for a clause 9 me thinks.

Just to bring this back, a classic a few days ago at Cardiff. Full and standing 158 heading towards Maesteg. Cyclist turns up late, boards at the very front and leans his bike against the cab door!!! Unfortunately my colleague did nothing  >:(
PS SDS, have you noticed recently that people are buying full size BMXs which fold in half and then blocking a door because it's too big to go in a luggage rack?

Um My  Dahon does that BUT BUT BUT in my defence

I always put it in the disabled space in G AND more than once I've found myself on a deserted platform (at my own doing) in the middle of no where late at night because some one has actually needed the first class disabled space.

However I think its three times in 10 years and on one occasion the TM did put my bike in the shredder room!

so its twice - but I took/take that risk

Dont tar all big folder people with the same brush

 I have sympathy with cycle/train user's - no sympathy at all for the recent explosion of baby buggies.

 On a Newton Abbot - Totnes service when a mother was asked to move her pram from the
 disabled area for a wheelchair, her response ' but my baby just gone to sleep'.

 Perhaps my astonishment is a sign of my old age (and it could be me one day).

so what do you expect people with prams to do? a disabled person is far more likely to be able to sit in a normal seat than a baby. most new babys cant sit up, whereas many disabled people can. mums with babys have the same rights as a wheelchair user. babies cant walk or sit so need the pram to convey them from a 2 b via the train

Reading this thread with some interest, wondering where things stand wanting to take my bike to London one Saturday on a complimentary ticket.  I gather all the problems are with people taking bikes during peak times? (which I don't.)

Hmm.  ::)

On another of my recent train journeys, between Bristol and Nailsea, on a Saturday morning on a 158, I saw a young mother with her baby being repeatedly moved further down the train, to make room for the cyclists getting on at Bristol Temple Meads, Bedminster and Parson Street.

To be fair: the conductor was almost literally pulling his hair out, trying to get everyone (and their bikes!) on board, and the young mother was quite philosophical about the need for her baby's pushchair to be continually moved out of their way.

I had a brief chat with the proud mother: her baby was eight weeks old, and she was travelling to Highbridge. I wished her well on her journey, as I alighted at Nailsea, as beyond Weston (hopefully!) things might be a bit less hectic for her!  :P

 I did not say prams, I said 'baby buggies'.

 You know the 'fold up variety', like the 'fold-up bicycles' we were talking about earlier.

  So who takes priority wheelchairs, prams or bikes ?
 
 

Law states wheelchairs. Then depending on the type of train, we can will decide how many prams and bikes can be boarded safely, FGW cycling by train policy clearly states the number of bikes that can be carried.
Unfortunately staff all have different interpetations, which confuses passengers. But my problem is with those who can see they is no room and still deliberatley block a door, ie an emergency exit. And if needed, who gets the blame? I do!
PS Why do kids go round as a group of 6, and still try to force their way on to a full 2 car 158? And if going home, we can't throw them off because they are deemed as a minor! Damned if we do, and damned if we don't!

As Toiletdriver states, Wheelchairs take priority because the law obliges transport operators to make provision. Cycles are second in priority since most TOCs mark a designated area for cycles, often the wheelchair area. To my knowledge no TOC indicates that pushchairs have a dedicated space on their trains, and would expect them to folded as hand luggage. Not since Mark 1 rolling stock days when DMUs had guards/parcel areas have prams been fitted onto trains. Most Intercity stock doors are not wide enough anyway.
On IC stock cycles are carried in a non-passenger area of the train anyway (HSTs - in the TGS, and in Mark 4s in the DVT, Pendos and Voyagers have dedicated cycle areas too). If cycles are reserved on a particular train and the space is occupied by pushchairs, huge luggage etc you can see where conflict might arise, but common sense should solve most problems without expecting train crew to behave like Soloman!

Of course, courtesy to fellow passengers and train crew can solve most problems, and bikes and pushchairs can be accommodated, provided all are reasonable (which might mean waiting for the next service on a frequent service line).

prams/buggies etc are required to be collapsed (I believe its in the NRCoC), as for saying a baby can's sit up what tosh, a baby can be carried and held whereas a disabled adult cant!

I travel regularly with a bicycle on both the DMU and HST fleets. I do everything I can to 'not get in other people's way' but I find the lack of courtesy from other passengers extremely frustrating.
-On 158s, passengers standing in - and not moving out of - the bike storage area, despite ample free seats.
-On 150s, one one side you have the wheelchair space, the other the bicycle space. When I arrive there are too often buggies in both spaces and they never move from the bike area.
-Again on 150s, passengers sitting on the flip down seats in the bike storage area and not moving when asked - despite ample free seats.
-All the above resulting in me looking like the bad guy because I end up blocking doorways!
L