I think the HSTs▸ will be life expired ere too long, although I think they were/have been brilliant. But there's no reason decent size guard's vans (or equivalent) couldn't be built in. Trouble is nobody cares about cyclists and there's no mail/parcels to carry any more because it mostly goes by road/air. Mad......
I do not see why the HSTs should soon become life expired, the power cars have recently be re-engined, and the coaches are said to be in good condition, not just comesticly, but structurally.
I agree entirely that it is a mistake to build the new trains without decent sized gaurds vans.
Cycling is increasing as road fuel costs rise, congestion worsens, and the health benifits of cycling become known.
On commuter routes it is perhaps reasonable to suggest that commuters should keep a cycle at the station, or perhaps one at each end, or make use of a hired cycle.
On longer distance routes used by holidaymakers this is not feasible and more cyclists will wish to travell with their machines.
Providing space does cost money, and I dont see why cyclists should not pay for taking a cycle on a train.
Similar arguments apply to surfboards and other bulky articles.
IMHO▸ it is reasonable to charge for conveyance of such, but to effectively prohibit it is unreasonable.
Also due to rising road fuel costs, and enviromental concerns, it is probable that mail, light freight and parcells will return to the rails, during the life of the new trains.
This is also an argument for full length trains.
Providing a proper van on a 10 car train seems reasonable.
Providing 2 such on two 5 car units coupled together, not only wastes space but could result in time wasting confusion as to in which van articles have been/should be stowed.