# Cycle facilities at train stations



## mumbo jumbo (27 Nov 2008)

A couple of years ago I participated in the CTC survey of cycle provision at railway stations. I was mildly chuffed when 5 rentable bike lockers suddenly appeared by the ticket office at my local station (Yardley Wood). Rent is £10 per year - bargain!

I had to take the train to work today. Only one of the 5 boxes had a bike in it. 3 bikes were locked to a railing. This was, in fact, the first time I've seen a bike in any of the lockers! I didn't have time to go back in the ticket office to find out more hard stats about usage but it got me thinking. If this kind of pattern is played out consistently across the network, are we using up our goodwill with the network operators who may think they've gone to a lot of time and expense for not a lot in the way of usage?

Is this an isolated case or have others seen the same?

mj


----------



## spandex (27 Nov 2008)

I do not think that there is any at York train station. But there is loads of bike racks most of witch are full of old bikes that have been there for years!


----------



## Morrisette (28 Nov 2008)

Cambridge station has thousands of bikes! No lockers though - and the few 'secure' for-hire stands are not used - people won't pay to park a bike, is my theory, when you can do it free.


----------



## ChrisKH (28 Nov 2008)

My local station, one of the busiest non-terminal stations on the Fenchurch Street line paid a substantial amount of money putting in a separate bike park with what can best be described as metal "bannisters" (the sort of thing you would see a horse tethered to in a western film at the front of a saloon). Unfortunately it doesn't seem they ever consulted as the park is hidden behind the car park and has no obvious security (e.g. cameras). Being out of eye contact and a real pleasure for thieves to steal from it is never used. Instead cyclists park out of the front of the station and lock their bikes up against railings. I reckon 25-30 bikes park there a day. There are more places to lock the bike further from the station, again put in at great cost I suspect, but because of the proximity and lack of cameras this is where theft is more prevalent. 

Poor planning and no real security. Is it any wonder people don't want to cycle?


----------



## Morrisette (28 Nov 2008)

They are on about (have been for years) doing a revamp of the area at the front of Cam station, this will involve a lot more cycle parking, which on the face of it sounds good, but in the plans I have seen it will either be the bottom floor of a multi-storey car park, or else a stand-alone 2-floor structure. There are already a couple of cycle parks on the basement level of multi-storeys around Cambridge, and they are only usable in daylight hours, after dark they are dank, creepy, full of dim corners and blind bends, in other words a theif/mugger/rapists paradise. I REALLY hope the credit crunch scuppers these plans - even though the provision now is not great, at least I as a lone female can use it at night.


----------



## yorkshiregoth (28 Nov 2008)

Not on a station but very close to Chiswick Park station, behind Sainsbury's there are about 20 or so blue cycle lockers. I have no idea who maintains them but I have never seen them used.


----------



## Danny (28 Nov 2008)

spandex said:


> I do not think that there is any at York train station. But there is loads of bike racks most of witch are full of old bikes that have been there for years!


Actually, the old abandoned bikes were recently cleared out after protests from regular users, and donated to a local organisation that refurbishes old cycles.So now there are spaces for something like 150 bikes, and most of them are full by 8:30.

Oddly, some of the abandoned bikes were pretty good and I often wonder what happened to the owners.


----------



## domd1979 (28 Nov 2008)

Agree that signage would be useful... But, it doesn't stop anyone just going in the ticket office and asking what the score is.




> I think one of the problems is that they're not signed properly. These ones have no instructions at all about how to get a key etc.


----------



## spandex (28 Nov 2008)

Dannyg said:


> Actually, the old abandoned bikes were recently cleared out after protests from regular users, and donated to a local organisation that refurbishes old cycles.So now there are spaces for something like 150 bikes, and most of them are full by 8:30.
> 
> Oddly, some of the abandoned bikes were pretty good and I often wonder what happened to the owners.




Good point I had forgot that Bike Rescue had got them. Your right haw can you forget that you have a bike?

or maybe It is just a dumping ground for unwanted bikes!


----------



## summerdays (29 Nov 2008)

spandex said:


> Your right haw can you forget that you have a bike?



A friend of mine went out partying one night and took his bike to get there... he drank lots and couldn't remember where he left the bike (he assumed/hoped he locked it up). He never found it again despite looking in various places.


----------



## ufkacbln (29 Nov 2008)

That is because the system was a total conand avoided what cyclists really wanted....

A bike locker in most cases the last thing!

VEry few people work at the station - we want to cyce to our work place!

Cycle commuters want bikes on the train not parked at the station. The solution (I wa told) was to cycle to station A - leave bike and use the train. Then have another bike or use a bus at the other end!

Scrap the parking investment and invest in cycle carriage the compaanies should have provided in the first place


----------



## Tony (29 Nov 2008)

Cunobelin said:


> That is because the system was a total conand avoided what cyclists really wanted....
> 
> A bike locker in most cases the last thing!
> 
> ...


Beat me to it.....


----------



## ufkacbln (29 Nov 2008)

Tony said:


> Beat me to it.....



Your turn next?


----------



## spandex (29 Nov 2008)

summerdays said:


> A friend of mine went out partying one night and took his bike to get there... he drank lots and couldn't remember where he left the bike (he assumed/hoped he locked it up). He never found it again despite looking in various places.




If that was me I would of walked down every street to find it and maybe got some friends to help.


----------



## Tony (29 Nov 2008)

Cunobelin said:


> Your turn next?


Well, I'll just add the bike ban on many London and other trains just at the time one would want to be using them.


----------



## jonesy (29 Nov 2008)

Cunobelin said:


> ...
> 
> Scrap the parking investment and invest in cycle carriage the compaanies should have provided in the first place



I'm afraid that when the TOCs are struggling to get sufficient rolling stock to provide capacity for the number of passengers, cycle storage is always going to be a low priority. I'd certainly argue for flexible space on trains so that under-utilised off-peak and rural services can carry more bikes, but we have to be realistic about what we can expect on busy services.

The cost of parking at stations is tiny in comparison with the cost of rolling stock so the two are not in competition at all. The savings from scrapping the limited investment in station cycle parking would make no difference to the availability of on-board space, but would make a lot of difference to the large numbers of station users who would otherwise benefit from it.


----------



## domd1979 (29 Nov 2008)

Cunobelin said:


> Cycle commuters want bikes on the train not parked at the station.



I'm not convinced that's the case. 



> The solution (I wa told) was to cycle to station A - leave bike and use the train. Then have another bike or use a bus at the other end!



Or use a Brompton.



> Scrap the parking investment and invest in cycle carriage the compaanies should have provided in the first place



The privatised railway provides what the Department for Transport tells it to. Relatively modest investment gets quite nice cycle parking at stations. The investment to get serious cycle space on trains is in the tens of millions; scrapping all investment in station cycle parking probably wouldn't even buy a single carriage. As things stand, I'd spend any extra money on increasing passenger carrying capacity in the first instance, since it will produce a lot more shift from the car than increasing cycle carrying capacity. If a load of bike spaces were provided on commuter trains, I'd be surprised if they got used, since cycle carriage in itself doesn't make cycling more attractive. I'd find taking a bike on a train day in day out a right pain in the backside. 

Most commuters would probably not have any need for cycling at the destination end of their journey. Even in countries with high cycling levels you don't see zillions of people putting their bike on the train. In Holland I don't recall seeing anyone putting their bike on the train, but the numbers of bikes at stations was immense.


----------



## dellzeqq (29 Nov 2008)

Dave Holladay of the CTC is certainly pushing the two bike thing, although it might be kiss n' ride at the 'home' end of the line and bike at the 'city' end of the line. The racks at Waterloo and Marylebone are chokka with crap bikes that do, at max, four miles each way. We've a long way to go before we get to Amsterdam levels of provision, though, and the capacity is limited by stations being turned into tawdry shopping malls.

Of course this only helps people who do a regular commute. Where we fall down is in the provision of bike spaces for off-peak irregular trips. Where we will always fail is in the provision of space for 'real' (as opposed to folding) bikes on commuting trains. Given that trains through Clapham Junction are standing room only, and the track is pretty much at capacity, I can't see it happening soon.


----------



## ufkacbln (29 Nov 2008)

domd1979 said:


> I'm not convinced that's the case.
> 
> 
> 
> Or use a Brompton.



I occasionally commute and tour by rail..... I have a touring machine which I have personally tuned and set up and is worth over £2000, both my commuting machines are also in this league - why should I want to compromise my cycling by investing and using a far inferior machine?

The Brompton answer is again a panacea and helps avoid the real problems of poor planning and provision by the ATOCs.


----------



## domd1979 (29 Nov 2008)

Bromptons are a far more practical solution for bike / rail commuting journeys if you need to take a bike to use the other end, and are perfectly acceptable machine to cycle on. They're also a far more efficient use of space on the train (and a Brompton will go in the luggage rack on a bus if needs be). I'm not convinced there's a massive demand for accommodating a large number of full size bikes on commuter trains, nor am I convinced its a good use of space with current overcrowding levels and the need to shift journeys from roads.



Cunobelin said:


> I occasionally commute and tour by rail..... I have a touring machine which I have personally tuned and set up and is worth over £2000, both my commuting machines are also in this league - why should I want to compromise my cycling by investing and using a far inferior machine?
> 
> The Brompton answer is again a panacea and helps avoid the real problems of poor planning and provision by the ATOCs.


----------



## jonesy (29 Nov 2008)

domd1979 said:


> Bromptons are a far more practical solution for bike / rail commuting journeys if you need to take a bike to use the other end, and are perfectly acceptable machine to cycle on. They're also a far more efficient use of space on the train (and a Brompton will go in the luggage rack on a bus if needs be). I'm not convinced there's a massive demand for accommodating a large number of full size bikes on commuter trains, nor am I convinced its a good use of space with current overcrowding levels and the need to shift journeys from roads.



As per earlier email on this, I agree fully. Priority has to go to passenger space and that costs £millions. Especially if platforms have to be lengthened.


----------



## ufkacbln (29 Nov 2008)

I have commuted and toured by bike fr some 30 years.

I can remember when tere used to be a dozen or more bikes on each train.

At weekends we used to have a group of ten or twelve of us on the rtain out to a Counry station and either a circular tour or linear between stations.

Now It isn't even possible for a family of four to do this!

Am I now supposed to buy four Bromptons in order to get a day out?

Even worse is the failure to even cater for passengers... What we need to do is start to look at the services we need, and then enforce the provision. As long as we allow the ATOCs to dictate and provide the cattletruck services. 

When you consider that the latest seat dimensions are less than the hip width of the average person, thus guaranteeing that over half the population will be unable to fit in the seats tht you realise just how out of touch they are!


----------



## domd1979 (29 Nov 2008)

Cunobelin said:


> I have commuted and toured by bike fr some 30 years.
> 
> I can remember when tere used to be a dozen or more bikes on each train.
> 
> ...



You were talking about commuting, now jumped to touring. How much space would be needed on a commuter train to accommodate 12 bikes. Half a carriage? £100k per bike just to build it, something like £80k/year+ in leasing/operating costs attributable to that space. Is that a good use of the money and available space, when trains are overcrowded already? The railways are good at shifting journeys from other modes, so the trade off is either keep 12 cyclists (if you're lucky) happy, or provide space for another 50-odd passengers to not make their journey by car. In the first instance the priority has to be to provide for passenger demand before anything else. Space is limited to carry people's luggage on a lot of trains, let alone more bikes. Seeing as rolling stock has a 30 year+ life span and is unlikely to undergo any serious re-configuration, not a lot is going to change.

There is probably a case for better provision on longer distance trains where realistically there needs to be more luggage space, and where there might be opportunity to sensibly provide more space. But that's a different matter to heavily loaded commuter services. However, seeing as Cross Country have just started to reduce cycle space on Voyagers, there's probably not much chance of that either.




> Am I now supposed to buy four Bromptons in order to get a day out?



Well the 2 grand you've expended on 1 bike would buy 4 Bromptons.



> Even worse is the failure to even cater for passengers... What we need to do is start to look at the services we need, and then enforce the provision. As long as we allow the ATOCs to dictate and provide the cattletruck services.



It is the Department for Transport that specifies pretty much everything. TOCs have very little scope to do anything outside what is specified. ATOC has nothing to do with it.



> When you consider that the latest seat dimensions are less than the hip width of the average person, thus guaranteeing that over half the population will be unable to fit in the seats tht you realise just how out of touch they are!



That's more a problem of the fact that half the population eat too much cake and junk food.


----------



## dellzeqq (30 Nov 2008)

Bromptons have their place, but I'm not sure they're proper bikes. And mine cost £850! 

My experience is a little more hopeful. We've never failed to get somebody back from a Friday Night Ride to the Coast on a Saturday morning - and our numbers have topped 60 on two occasions. What is galling is the reduction to two or three spaces on some GW trains. That's deliberate. The CTC gets leaks from within railway companies and there are certain railway execs who really have it in for us.


----------



## ufkacbln (30 Nov 2008)

I have not "jumped"

I stopped driving and used trains and a bike for many years. My experience was (as from the first) commuting, touring and days out with kids. 

It is now the ridiculous fact that the first two are no longer a practical option and it is less hassle and cheaper to fly with my bike than catch a train!

As for the "carriage costs" why are buses and other transport systems restricted in number by safety?

Imagine if we allowed busses to "pack 'em in and design space that was inadequate?

Bus fare would be much cheaper if 52 seated and 12 standing was changed to 100 or more people - why not allow them the same compromises that rail has been allowed?


----------



## jonesy (30 Nov 2008)

dellzeqq said:


> ... What is galling is the reduction to two or three spaces on some GW trains. That's deliberate. The CTC gets leaks from within railway companies and there are certain railway execs who really have it in for us.



Which trains are those? They still allow the usual number on HST services, with the space being available at peak times because it can't be used for passengers, though there can be problems with boarding times.


----------



## jonesy (30 Nov 2008)

Cunobelin said:


> I have not "jumped"
> 
> I stopped driving and used trains and a bike for many years. My experience was (as from the first) commuting, touring and days out with kids.
> 
> ...



On the latter point, clearly a road vehicle is more likely to crash so it isn't surprising there are more limits on crowding.

The fundamental problem with bikes on trains remains: there is a shortage of passenger space on most commuter trains and rail vehicles are very very expensive, so passenger space is always going to get priority. And should.

PS- I'd agree that the internal design of many trains, especially the accursed Voyager, makes very poor use of the available space. But even if they'd done a proper job, the priority should have been for passenger and luggage space. There is of course the obligatory crumple zone at the ends of high speed trains like Voyagers and Adelantes, which can provide an opportunity for cycle storage, though I think this is to be used for the catering trolley in the modified Voyagers... Dom1979?


----------



## ufkacbln (30 Nov 2008)

The voyagers and their like are another problem with poor planning......

Lots of smaller trains take up far more capacity on the network than single larger units.

It would be possible to buy carriages cheaper than these powered units, allow adequate space and improve network capacity!

The cost would also be minimal - In 2004 SouthWest Trains alone had 300 units "nn storage" because they were unable to run as the power supply was incapable of meeting the demands of the units. No-one though to check!!!

The SRA footed out another 7.2 million in storage costs on top of the wasted purchase price!





There is aso the reliability issue - in some cases this new rolling stock breaks down every 2,400 miles (First Great Western) on average compared with 24,000 miles (Connex slam doors) for the old rolling stock!


As for the costs of spaces - they are actually low!

Incuding running costs, leasing costs, interest and maintenace the actual "cost" of each seat to the company is (aacording to Transport Watch UK) £600!

So anything above that is a profit!


----------



## dellzeqq (30 Nov 2008)

jonesy said:


> Which trains are those? They still allow the usual number on HST services, with the space being available at peak times because it can't be used for passengers, though there can be problems with boarding times.



these are what used to be Westcountry trains. 

Some Scotrail trains are limited to two or three - particularly those north of Inverness, which is a pain for returning LEJoGers.

And tandems are banned on a number of lines, including what is now called the National Express East Coast - GNER, London Midland and Thameslink (although I've seen tandems on Thameslink on a Saturday morning)

http://www.atob.org.uk/Bike_Rail.html#Great Western

As I say, we've always been OK on the FNRttC, but if the first ride to Brighton in March co-incides with a crack-down, we're going to have to think long and hard about the summer rides.


----------



## jonesy (30 Nov 2008)

dellzeqq said:


> these are what used to be Westcountry trains.
> 
> ..



Ah, that'll be the horrid little cupboard you get on those 158s... also used by Arriva trains Wales. Usually occupied with the boarding ramp and luggage. Even if you book you won't necessarily get on.


----------



## dellzeqq (30 Nov 2008)

there was a boarding ramp in the cubbyhole when went on one, and it looked a bit iffy. I stood with the bike to Penzance.


----------



## domd1979 (30 Nov 2008)

Cunobelin said:


> As for the "carriage costs" why are buses and other transport systems restricted in number by safety?



Because there's more chance of a road vehicle being involved in an accident, or needing to swerve/brake sharply. Rail vehicles are much more controlled.



> Imagine if we allowed busses to "pack 'em in and design space that was inadequate?
> 
> Bus fare would be much cheaper if 52 seated and 12 standing was changed to 100 or more people - why not allow them the same compromises that rail has been allowed?



Articulated buses are operated precisely because they can shift more people on one vehicle than a double decker (as well as loading more quickly) - an artic bus will carry in the region of 120 people versus 90ish for a double deck.


----------



## domd1979 (30 Nov 2008)

jonesy said:


> There is of course the obligatory crumple zone at the ends of high speed trains like Voyagers and Adelantes, which can provide an opportunity for cycle storage, though I think this is to be used for the catering trolley in the modified Voyagers... Dom1979?



Yep, as I understand that's what will be happening. The first refurbished Voyager is due in service imminently.


----------



## jonesy (30 Nov 2008)

domd1979 said:


> Yep, as I understand that's what will be happening. The first refurbished Voyager is due in service imminently.



So what is happening to the space where the shop used to be?


----------



## domd1979 (30 Nov 2008)

Cunobelin said:


> The voyagers and their like are another problem with poor planning......



Voyagers are just nasty trains full stop, but sadly we're now lumbered with them for the next gawd knows how many years.



> Lots of smaller trains take up far more capacity on the network than single larger units.



Train length is constrained by platform length though. Network capacity is affected by a lot of things including the mix of trains using the route, and signalling capability.



> It would be possible to buy carriages cheaper than these powered units, allow adequate space and improve network capacity!



Adding un-powered trailer cars into existing units is generally not an option because it reduces acceleration capability that timetables have now been written around.



> The cost would also be minimal - In 2004 SouthWest Trains alone had 300 units "nn storage" because they were unable to run as the power supply was incapable of meeting the demands of the units. No-one though to check!!!
> 
> The SRA footed out another 7.2 million in storage costs on top of the wasted purchase price!



The purchase price wasn't wasted since the trains are in service.



> There is aso the reliability issue - in some cases this new rolling stock breaks down every 2,400 miles (First Great Western) on average compared with 24,000 miles (Connex slam doors) for the old rolling stock!



Its all very well quoting miles per casualty, but a lot of modern stock is now exceeding 24,000 mpc. It isn't just a function of the rolling stock either - other operators use the same stock as FGW without any major issues.




> As for the costs of spaces - they are actually low!
> 
> Incuding running costs, leasing costs, interest and maintenace the actual "cost" of each seat to the company is (aacording to Transport Watch UK) £600!
> 
> So anything above that is a profit!



Sounds very low to me - I'd be surprised if that even covered just the leasing cost. On top of whatever the rolling stock costs are there's running stations as well. Also factor in that if you give over a third of a carriage (say) to bicycle carriage, that's a third of a carriage not generating passenger revenue, which any operator would also take into account.


----------



## domd1979 (30 Nov 2008)

jonesy said:


> So what is happening to the space where the shop used to be?



It becomes the luggage storage and bicycle area...!


----------



## jonesy (30 Nov 2008)

domd1979 said:


> It becomes the luggage storage and bicycle area...!



Hmmm. So how do they get more seats out of the new arrangement? I thought that was the whole point of the exercise...


----------



## domd1979 (30 Nov 2008)

Looking at Cross Country's gen - http://crosscountrytrains.co.uk/Abo...luggage_space_for_CrossCountry_customers.aspx 

Four car Voyagers only get 14 extra seats which isn't many... Probably get a few by where the shop was, shop becomes luggage / cycle area, couple of existing luggage racks become seats. Also be interesting whether the decent leg room seats survive the refurb as well.




jonesy said:


> Hmmm. So how do they get more seats out of the new arrangement? I thought that was the whole point of the exercise...


----------



## jonesy (30 Nov 2008)

domd1979 said:


> Looking at Cross Country's gen - http://crosscountrytrains.co.uk/Abo...luggage_space_for_CrossCountry_customers.aspx
> 
> Four car Voyagers only get 14 extra seats which isn't many... Probably get a few by where the shop was, shop becomes luggage / cycle area, couple of existing luggage racks become seats. Also be interesting whether the decent leg room seats survive the refurb as well.



It is amusing how they try to spin things as being what the customer really wants... apparently we'd prefer a trolley to getting a proper cup of coffee from a buffet! Will be interesting to see how well that works when they try to get a trolley down the length of a packed XC train! And how happy will people be to leave their luggage out of sight in a separate luggage space? My suspicion is that the hole where the shop used to be will end up being mostly wasted space where for standing passengers can huddle when the train is crowded.


----------



## domd1979 (30 Nov 2008)

The big limitation in ripping the "shops" out of Voyagers is that windows (apparently) cannot be retrofitted because of cutting into the body work, so the shop space can't really be used for seating.


----------



## Tony (1 Dec 2008)

jonesy said:


> Ah, that'll be the horrid little cupboard you get on those 158s... also used by Arriva trains Wales. Usually occupied with the boarding ramp and luggage. Even if you book you won't necessarily get on.


If that is the type of train from Brum to Shrooosbry, that is indeed one horrible little space.


----------



## Cab (16 Dec 2008)

Morrisette said:


> Cambridge station has thousands of bikes! No lockers though - and the few 'secure' for-hire stands are not used - people won't pay to park a bike, is my theory, when you can do it free.



Last I looked most, if not all of the pay-for locks were being used.

Nothing like sufficient bike locking space at Cambridge station. Lots, but not enough.


----------



## dan1981stu (29 Dec 2008)

I've recently started to commute to work on my bike. I found that the facilities for cyclists at my local train station were not very good (newmills, highpeak) to say the least. As a result I've been forced to take my bike with me on the train!

I got some nasty looks from commuters when I wheeled my bulky dirty mountain bike onto the train. It was not until I reached Piccadilly train station in Manchester that I realised I needed something smaller. After much research I purchased a folding bike that I found here http://www.totalbike.co.uk/folding-bicycles. 

The bike is great! It folds up in less than 20 seconds and only cost £160. 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
http://www.totalbike.co.uk/folding-bicycles/


----------

