Cycle facilities at train stations

[jonesy]

...

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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!

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]

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]

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]

... 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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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.