Bicycles on trains - new policy from May?

[whole diary]

[IndustryInsider]

It's being done because the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) trains can only take x number of bikes and they *won't* be allowed in any vestibule.

How's that any different to HST^▸ (High Speed Train)'s and 180s and the policy that's existed for ages?

[ChrisB]

I've seen bikes in 180 vestibules....

[Bmblbzzz]

Right, Wikipedia has shown me what a 180 is. I'm not sure I've ever been on one. Where are bikes supposed to go on these trains: in a separate compartment like HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train)? In dangly spaces like Voyagers? In racks in the vestibule like those trains on the Cardiff to Portsmouth service? At flip-up seats like some others? Or somewhere else? The relevance is that only a separate compartment will innately prevent passengers leaving bikes in gangways if the official places are full. All the other storage methods require enforcement by train (or station) staff to prevent boarding when there is no space, or failing that to make sure bikes are put in the appropriate places.

Where demand exceeds supply, which is the root problem (demand and supply not just for bike spaces but for seats and luggage space), there will be overcrowding and possibly some disorder unless policies are consistently enforceable. There is always room for discretion ^ it would be silly to turn away an unbooked bike on an empty midnight service, for instance ^ but if whatever rules exist will be fairly useless without enforceability.

[The Tall Controller]

As Graham hints to, this policy removes the vast majority of contentious issues we currently get across the network where the number of bikes > number of spaces on board. If you don't make a reservation, you are not guaranteed travel.

I'll admit that when I first heard about this policy, I was sceptic. But I am convinced that this is a good policy to have and at the right time. Eventually we will go from 6 spaces on HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) to a minimum of 2 on IEPs^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.). In my opinion, this policy is a soft landing to get customers into the habit of booking in advance so that when IEPs come round, we hopefully won't have crowds of cyclists fighting over spaces.

[Richard Fairhurst]

Right, Wikipedia has shown me what a 180 is. I'm not sure I've ever been on one. Where are bikes supposed to go on these trains: in a separate compartment like HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train)? In dangly spaces like Voyagers?

If you don't travel on the Cotswold Line it's quite plausible you've never seen one!

There's three dangly spaces behind each cab. There's no public access to these areas: they have to be unlocked by train (or station) staff with a T-key. For that reason, I always load my bike into the space behind the front cab to minimise delays, because there's guaranteed to be a staff member in close proximity.

[IndustryInsider]

I've seen bikes in 180 vestibules....

I've also seen them in HST^▸ (High Speed Train) vestibules*.  No doubt I'll also see them in IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) vestibules in the future, despite the fact that apparently *won't* be allowed.

* In virtually all cases that is when either they've gotten on board with it and the TM^‡(resolve) hasn't noticed (usually unintentionally), or the TM has allowed it as it's a quiet train and they're only going a station or two, or they've had to put it in a vestibule (boarding at Worcester Foregate Street and alighting at Evesham on a HST is a good example of that).

Eventually we will go from 6 spaces on HSTs to a minimum of 2 on IEPs. In my opinion, this policy is a soft landing to get customers into the habit of booking in advance so that when IEPs come round, we hopefully won't have crowds of cyclists fighting over spaces.

Do we know what the various IEP's have in terms of spaces?  I believe the 5-car sets have 2 bike/bulk rooms, and the 9-car sets have 4 bike/bulk rooms, but I don't know how many bikes each room can take.  For example, on a Voyager two stowage spaces can accept three bikes - it would be four but an electrical equipment box is in the way.


I remain of the opinion that GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) wish to make it as awkward as possible for people to travel on long distance trains with their bikes, though if there's been clarification that the policy of compulsory reservations won't be enforced (as quoted in Richard Fairhurst's post below), then that climbdown is a welcome one - though in effect it means the new policy is pretty much going to be the old policy!

[Bmblbzzz]

I'm sure I've read it's going to be 4 bikes on the 5-car sets but 5 bikes on the 9-car sets, which implies that not all spaces are equal.

[ChrisB]

Bear in mind that the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) will likely have specified the number of spaces on these trains & GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) have to handle the fall out the best they can. To make it a very firm policy means that cyclists know exactly where they stand & won't get left on the platform (with possibly a very long cycle home)

[Bmblbzzz]

Apparently the 9-car IEPs^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) will have their dangly spaces distributed around the train, rather than all in one carriage as with the Voyagers (or indeed the HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train), not to mention smaller trains). So yes, being allocated a space will probably save running around the platform. I'm not quite sure of the purpose of not putting all the spaces together though.

[IndustryInsider]

Apparently the 9-car IEPs^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) will have their dangly spaces distributed around the train, rather than all in one carriage as with the Voyagers (or indeed the HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train), not to mention smaller trains). So yes, being allocated a space will probably save running around the platform. I'm not quite sure of the purpose of not putting all the spaces together though.

The initial draft layout had them positioned at the end of the sixth and beginning of the seventh vehicle, so whilst not in the same carriage, backing onto each other.  That may have changed of course!

[paul7575]

As said above the bike/bulk rooms are given a quantity of rooms rather than bikes, and in the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) draft layouts it is 2 on a 5 car and 4 on a 9 car; implying a double fit on the long train.  I'd assume that translates to 4 or 8 bikes, rather than 4 or 5 as suggested upthread.

Paul

[Bmblbzzz]

The expression "bike/bulk rooms" implies they're going to be even more cluttered with suitcases than on the Voyagers.

[TonyK]

*A friend once got a cab ride in a Pendolino because the driver was intrigued by her unusual bike.

Yeah, right. We all like a nice pair of wheels...

It will cause problems amongst those cyclists who assume it is their right to carry their bike on trains.

The Right to Bear Cycles is seen by some as an inviolable constitutional right, rather than a privilege. Cyclists are by no means the only group with some members willing to insist on their "rights" being interpreted as they think fit. I have seen members of the "Right to Travel without a Ticket" band dealt with to the amusement of other pax, and have even intervened personally in one case.

From this, and Holland, could there be a solution? The idea of having to have a ticket for one's bike, as opposed to a free reservation, could remove some of the potential problems. The ticket would cost a nominal sum - certainly no more than the cost of bike hire at the destination, and I'm thinking of around the ^3.00 mark. It would need an accompanying compulsory reservation. The cost would not put many noses out of joint, other than on points of perceived principle, because many would have paid a pretty penny to get to wherever, and will be saving their onward transport cost. The big advantage is that a ticket has more legal standing than a reservation, and is more readily enforceable. The travelling public at large knows that a ticket is always required, but a reservation is almost always optional.

I speak as an occasional cyclist who has yet to take a bike on a train, even as a joke. I am favoured by proximity to BRI^» (Bristol Temple Meads - next trains) - I can walk there in 35 minutes, or get the rather good bus service for ^1 if I can't be arsed am in a hurry.

[John R]

As I understand it the current franchise agreement requires GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) to carry bikes for free.  So there would have to be an element of public debate and persuading politicians that it is fair to charge before any change could be implemented.  I suspect this would be in the "too toxic" tray for our elected representatives, as the cyclist lobby group is fairly vociferous and those that think it reasonable would be unlikely to command the same attention.  So it's easier to retain the status quo and let the TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) sort out the issue on the ground.

 

[Bmblbzzz]

I speak as an occasional cyclist who has yet to take a bike on a train, even as a joke. I am favoured by proximity to BRI^» (Bristol Temple Meads - next trains) - I can walk there in 35 minutes, or get the rather good bus service for ^1 if I can't be arsed am in a hurry.

For just a second I was wondering what the relevance of the hospital was!

I think a small charge for bikes would be acceptable to most people who ever want to take a bike on a train. The difficulty, apart from the franchise agreement John R mentions, would still be space. Having paid for a ticket, you'd really expect to be able to take it on the train with you. I hesitate to say you'd actually have a right, as not only is that a controversial word but I'm not entirely sure of the "rights" a ticket might give you anyway, but certainly it would give the impression of a right to travel with bike on a train. So to make sure there was room for the bike, you'd either need enormous bike carriages ^ impractical, costly, often unused space ^ or be allowed to put your bike anywhere ^ impractical, inconvenient to others, potentially dangerous ^ or buying a cycle ticket would give you an automatic reservation on a specific train ^ requiring advance booking at least before departure of train from origin and problems of enforcement again. Also, would tickets be required on all trains? It would be strange otherwise. So I don't think there actually would be too many objections to the principle but I'm not sure of the practicalities.