Bikes and unexpected disruption - what *should* happen?

[Bletchleyite]

With the other thread talking about unexpected RRBs and bicycles, how do we think it should be handled?

If coaches are used a bike can often be put underneath, but obviously the vehicle is often a bus where carrying a bike safely/legally isn't possible, and a suitable taxi may not be available.

To me the obvious answer is that the railway should provide a free-of-charge Anytime Day Return ticket to collect the bike if it has to be locked up at the origin or part way? Because this is an extra journey, it's not like it would incur any actual cost to do so bar about 5p's worth of staff time and orange card. Ideally provision should be made to carry it, but if it can't be this seems a reasonable solution to me.

 

[3rd rail land]

The railway/TOC should make a meaningful effort to source road transport that can accommodate a bicycle assuming they know in enough time that a passenger with a bicycle will require use of the replacement road transport. If no suitable transport is available then make arrangements for the bicycle to be securely stored and collected at the passenger's convenience and at no cost to the passenger.

 

[Malaxa]

To me the obvious answer is that the railway should provide a free-of-charge Anytime Day Return ticket to collect the bike if it has to be locked up at the origin or part way? Because this is an extra journey, it's not like it would incur any actual cost to do so bar about 5p's worth of staff time and orange card. Ideally provision should be made to carry it, but if it can't be this seems a reasonable solution to me.

Of course we assume a secure lock is carried even though the journey might be between two "safe" places, eg home to friend/family. [I have even had a locked bicycle stolen from behind the barriers at a London terminus!]

 

[Bletchleyite]

Of course we assume a secure lock is carried even though the journey might be between two "safe" places, eg home to friend/family. [I have even had a locked bicycle stolen from behind the barriers at a London terminus!]

Taking a cycle journey beyond the point of being able to walk home carrying it without a secure lock is seriously imprudent. There are many, many reasons you may need to lock up your bike and come back for it later or tomorrow, be that a puncture you can't repair, a mechanical failure or even ending up in an ambulance (all of these have happened to me while cycling). Or you simply want to pop into a shop or the toilets at a station (not many stations have cubicles you could take a bike into).

Obviously some places are more secure than others (I don't fancy my chances leaving a bike at Euston overnight, but I have left one at Bletchley due to being too inebriated to ride it) but by and large if you're going to take a bike away from home you need to be able to secure it.

I think for the purposes of this thread we have to assume a bit of common sense on the part of the cyclist. Practically, there will always be situations where it is simply impossible to provide any kind of carriage for one, unless you carry a soft bicycle bag so you can turn it into luggage or it's a Brompton (the latter of course being permitted on RRBs anyway).

 

[SynthD]

What happens if the bus can’t take a passenger in a wheelchair? Does the passenger have the right to have a cab ordered for them and/or to arrange their own transport and claim it back? Extend this right to anything that is legitimate luggage, like bikes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What happens if the bus can’t take a passenger in a wheelchair? Does the passenger have the right to have a cab ordered for them and/or to arrange their own transport and claim it back? Extend this right to anything that is legitimate luggage, like bikes.

A wheelchair user has a legal right to reasonable adjustments so they can be carried, a cyclist doesn't. This means that getting a taxi that will take them (for example) is a lot easier.

There is a grey area there, though, which is where someone with a disability uses a type of cycle as their mobility aid.

I don't think it's realistic to guarantee cycle carriage on an unplanned rail replacement. It's often hard enough to get anything at all. On large planned schemes, having a van hired to move cycles or allowing normally non-permitted alternative routes would seem reasonable, but that's not really the premise of this thread (and many cyclists would just choose to change their journey or cycle the RRB section anyway).

Realistically, I think pushing for this would result in cycle carriage having to cease entirely, but I don't think it unreasonable at all that if the cycle needs to be locked up part way due to an unplanned RRB the railway should provide a free ticket for its later collection, particularly as doing that effectively costs the railway nothing but the administrative cost of issuing a ticket to do so.

 

[bramling]

Taking a cycle journey beyond the point of being able to walk home carrying it without a secure lock is seriously imprudent. There are many, many reasons you may need to lock up your bike and come back for it later or tomorrow, be that a puncture you can't repair, a mechanical failure or even ending up in an ambulance (all of these have happened to me while cycling). Or you simply want to pop into a shop or the toilets at a station (not many stations have cubicles you could take a bike into).

Obviously some places are more secure than others (I don't fancy my chances leaving a bike at Euston overnight, but I have left one at Bletchley due to being too inebriated to ride it) but by and large if you're going to take a bike away from home you need to be able to secure it.

I think for the purposes of this thread we have to assume a bit of common sense on the part of the cyclist. Practically, there will always be situations where it is simply impossible to provide any kind of carriage for one, unless you carry a soft bicycle bag so you can turn it into luggage or it's a Brompton (the latter of course being permitted on RRBs anyway).

I’ve never carried a lock. The rule of thumb is simply that the bike never gets locked up. Partly to remove the security problem at source, but also because a decent lock adds unwanted weight.

So *if* we want rail to form a useful partnership with bikes then it needs to be guaranteed that alternative transport will be able to carry the bike. Otherwise it’s simply the case that the two modes can’t be combined, which in practice for most people is likely to mean either the journey doesn’t happen at all, or else the car is used.

The compromise solution is of course to use folding bikes, but that isn’t always practicable.

This country is a sieve of contradictions. On the one hand supposedly it is government policy to try and attract people out of their cars, but this is an example of where we then put obstacles in the way.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I’ve never carried a lock. The rule of thumb is simply that the bike never gets locked up. Partly to remove the security problem at source, but also because a decent lock adds unwanted weight.

So *if* we want rail to form a useful partnership with bikes then it needs to be guaranteed that alternative transport will be able to carry the bike. Otherwise it’s simply the case that the two modes can’t be combined, which in practice for most people is likely to mean either the journey doesn’t happen at all, or else the car is used.

I simply don't think that's true. Most cyclists do carry a lock - even if I didn't intend on locking it up I might have an irreparable (in the field) mechanical failure or simply want to pop into a shop. With most bikes, the weight of a lock fixed to the frame isn't significant.

Not carrying a lock on your bike unless you are within range of walking home with it is a seriously bad idea.

 

[mike57]

I cycle, and have taken my bike by train on occasions, but the very issue of disruption has meant that I have never attempted a longer journey by rail with my bike. To be honest the current system is the worst of all worlds. A mix of compulsorary reservations (no help at all if you have an open ticket and cant predict a return time) and pot luck depending upon train operator, or may time of day restrictions.

Cycling fits well with rail travel to cover the last few miles to a destination, but unless you can travel knowing that you will be able to complete your journey its a risk. If you have to leave your bike at a station because its a RRB at short notice is it secure? How do you get back to collect it?, how do you get to your final destination? just too many problems.

So I think there needs to be a national policy on the carriage of cycles.

I would support a reasonable charge to take my bike with me, maybe £2 for a short jorney, up to say £10 for a long distance one, in return for this charge I would expect arrangements to be made carry my cycle to be made if an RRB is required at short notice.

I have stored my non folding bike in the hold of a large coach, and in fact there are room for several. When I worked for the company which run a large complex in W Cumbria they had a daily coach service from offices in Warrington to site to cut down on individual car journeys, and use of bike was encouraged to get around site. I think the most I saw stored stowed was 5, so it can be done.

There also needs to be adequate provision on the train, but the current 'lets pare everything back to the minimum' means that would need extra accomodation, and then when the already overcrowded train means people are stood in the cycle area they dont want to move to let a cyclist board and stow his bike.

All this brings me to the point where I think bikes other than folding bikes should not be carried. Not the right answer in the grand scheme of things, but I just dont see the required changes being made to make travelling with your bike feasible for a lot of journeys. So bite the bullet and say no bikes. To be honest I think there are larger problems on the railway which need money to sort, and I dont see bike provision as a priority.

 

[JLH4AC]

More buses should have external bus racks fitted, it would have on the rear of the bus like the Nottingham hopper bus as DfT regulations do not allow bike racks on the front. Having rear doors and conductors on buses would help decrease the extra dwell time caused by the cyclists making use of these racks.

 

[Trainbike46]

I’ve never carried a lock. The rule of thumb is simply that the bike never gets locked up. Partly to remove the security problem at source, but also because a decent lock adds unwanted weight.

I simply don't think that's true. Most cyclists do carry a lock - even if I didn't intend on locking it up I might have an irreparable (in the field) mechanical failure or simply want to pop into a shop. With most bikes, the weight of a lock fixed to the frame isn't significant.

Not carrying a lock on your bike unless you are within range of walking home with it is a seriously bad idea.

I agree with @Bletchleyite here - you are the only person I've seen or heard of who didn't have a lock with their bike at all times - and I know and have met a lot of cyclists.

In practice, the solution currently is either lock the bike up and collect it later, or cycle to a station that still has a train service nearby and travel from there

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jul 2024 ==

More buses should have external bus racks fitted, it would have on the rear of the bus like the Nottingham hopper bus as DfT regulations do not allow bike racks on the front. Having rear doors and conductors on buses would help decrease the extra dwell time caused by the cyclists making use of these racks.

in the real world, double staffing buses is never going to happen, and tbh I don't think it should. buses are usually fairly short distance, so you'd just cycle it, and on coaches a solution already exists, put the bike in the hold.


Overall I think bletchleyite's idea seems fair, take the bike on replacement transport or an alternative route if possible, cycle a distance to an alternative station if possible, if that's not possible, leave the bike at the station and collect it later (ideally with a free return ticket for that purpose)

I do share the fear that pushing for too much will lead to the railway just refusing bikes completely

 

[JLH4AC]

in the real world, double staffing buses is never going to happen, and tbh I don't think it should. buses are usually fairly short distance, so you'd just cycle it, and on coaches a solution already exists, put the bike in the hold.


Overall I think bletchleyite's idea seems fair, take the bike on replacement transport or an alternative route if possible, cycle a distance to an alternative station if possible, if that's not possible, leave the bike at the station and collect it later (ideally with a free return ticket for that purpose)

I do share the fear that pushing for too much will lead to the railway just refusing bikes completely

External bus racks can still be used with just a driver, the bus will just have to dwell a bit longer when cyclists want to board with their bikes as the driver has to get off the bus after all the other passengers have broad to assist the cyclist and they have both to walk the whole length of the buses to get back on as rear entrance doors on driver only buses increases fare evasion. There are reasons beyond improving dwell times and fare enforcement for bringing back conductors having free roaming uniformed staff can be an effective deterrent to anti-social behaviour, and can improve the level of customer service provided to passengers. I do agree that it is unlikely that conductors will make a comeback on any notable scale (It will likely stay the case that we only see a second crewmember after a particularly notable cime/s was committed on buses or after a major uptick into fare evasion.).

For buses in cities and major towns that is possibly true (But given how many cyclist groups push for bikes to be allowed on the trams and city buses I am not so sure.), but many buses serve routes that are too long for most cyclists and are not currently served by rail.

No operator is going to be willing to give out Anytime Day Return tickets thus forgoing the chance of making a profit on selling that seat just so people can come and collect property they left behind unless they are legally required to do so and I doubt that would be popular law with MPs, government or DfT.

 

[Falcon1200]

I agree with @Bletchleyite here - you are the only person I've seen or heard of who didn't have a lock with their bike at all times - and I know and have met a lot of cyclists.

There are now two of us, because I don't carry a bike lock with me, or even own one! The cycling I do nowadays does not require my bike to be locked up anywhere.

 

[Haywain]

There are now two of us, because I don't carry a bike lock with me, or even own one! The cycling I do nowadays does not require my bike to be locked up anywhere.

Three!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jul 2024 ==

In practice, the solution currently is either lock the bike up and collect it later, or cycle to a station that still has a train service nearby and travel from there

If the railway is unable to transport me and my bike in such circumstances it would be reasonable to expect the railway to provide secure storage for the bike and a means of retrieving it when appropriate.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No operator is going to be willing to give out Anytime Day Return tickets thus forgoing the chance of making a profit on selling that seat just so people can come and collect property they left behind unless they are legally required to do so and I doubt that would be popular law with MPs, government or DfT.

Making a profit where the railway failed is grossly immoral - one would think that it would be seen as good customer service to do so!

 

[bramling]

I simply don't think that's true. Most cyclists do carry a lock - even if I didn't intend on locking it up I might have an irreparable (in the field) mechanical failure or simply want to pop into a shop. With most bikes, the weight of a lock fixed to the frame isn't significant.

Not carrying a lock on your bike unless you are within range of walking home with it is a seriously bad idea.

Not really, if I run into problems then I just call a relative out with the estate car.

Which returns us to the point about rail, if there is the expectation that people can *rely* on rail, then there needs to be a guarantee that bikes will be carried on any replacement transport (unless advertised in advance). If the industry can’t do this, then expect people to use other modes instead, and from a governmental point of view don’t penalise them for that.

Of course, we know full well that it isn’t possible to rely on rail nowadays, bike or no bike.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not really, if I run into problems then I just call a relative out with the estate car.

Which I guess you can do if the train won't take your bike, so you've chosen your own preferred "insurance".

Which returns us to the point about rail, if there is the expectation that people can *rely* on rail, then there needs to be a guarantee that bikes will be carried on any replacement transport (unless advertised in advance). If the industry can’t do this, then expect people to use other modes instead, and from a governmental point of view don’t penalise them for that.

Or provide a workaround as I suggested. I still wouldn't go anywhere with my bike without a lock - what if I get the trots? Doesn't fit in a cubicle. It's seriously unwise to take a bike somewhere without a lock. There are too many "what ifs" even if trains aren't involved at all.

Of course, we know full well that it isn’t possible to rely on rail nowadays, bike or no bike.

There is that.

 

[bramling]

I agree with @Bletchleyite here - you are the only person I've seen or heard of who didn't have a lock with their bike at all times - and I know and have met a lot of cyclists.

In practice, the solution currently is either lock the bike up and collect it later, or cycle to a station that still has a train service nearby and travel from there

Surely it’s a bit of an assumption that there will be a station with a train service “nearby”? That may well be the case in an urban area, but if you’re stuck in a rural area then the nearest alternative station may be many, many miles away, so completely unviable.

Notwithstanding the presence of a lock or not, even if I did have one there’s no way I would lock a bike up at some random station in that way. Too much chance of the bike being stolen or vandalised. Again, this might be okay for a hack bike that you don’t mind coming back and finding wrecked or missing, but absolutely not for anything half decent.

As I say, *if* we seriously want people to ditch using their cars in favour of so-called active travel, then people need to be confident that using the rail with a bike will work. If that’s not going to be the case then there needs to be some honesty about that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Notwithstanding the presence of a lock or not, even if I did have one there’s no way I would lock a bike up at some random station in that way. Too much chance of the bike being stolen or vandalised. Again, this might be okay for a hack bike that you don’t mind coming back and finding wrecked or missing, but absolutely not for anything half decent.

While an insurance claim is a faff, is yours not insured? Mine is, and it is covered when locked at an official cycle rack at any station using a lock of at least Sold Secure Gold (which aren't exactly pricey these days). Interestingly this seems to even be the case if the official cycle rack is a bit rubbish, e.g. the double deck ones which look like you could unbolt your preferred bike with decent tools or very easily angle-grinder the stand.

 

[bramling]

Which I guess you can do if the train won't take your bike, so you've chosen your own preferred "insurance".

This is one thing for locally, but if I’ve traveled further afield then it’s more of an issue. It’s one thing calling someone out for a genuine emergency, less so because something’s gone wrong with a rail service and the industry essentially can’t be bothered to have suitable alternative arrangements in place. Indeed, one could guarantee that the first conversation upon being picked up would be “next time just take the car in the first place and forget the stupid train”. Which is, of course, what most of the population do anyway.

 

[LowLevel]

Three!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jul 2024 ==


If the railway is unable to transport me and my bike in such circumstances it would be reasonable to expect the railway to provide secure storage for the bike and a means of retrieving it when appropriate.

All well and good if you're in a location where storage can be provided (most places that can handle lost property have somewhere a bike can be held), not so good if you're not though - if you can't transport the bike to destination it seems unlikely you'd be able to transport the bike to storage either.

The railway, bar the attempts by TfW and ScotRail with their active travel 153s, has little interest in providing for or encouraging bike transport on board trains, hence the investment in providing cycle hubs etc to leave them at stations.

Banning the usual 2 bikes permitted per train is unlikely to cause them any commercial difficulty (yes it can often be more, and they do get on and off during journeys, but still, the point stands - percentage wise the yield is of no real consequence) and I suspect any attempt to oblige them to provide expensive storage solutions or transport could see them banned from on board trains.

Personally I've always thought a charge should be made for carrying them on board with an incumbent obligation on the operator to provide space to carry them correctly and manage them, as you see elsewhere.

 

[Haywain]

if you can't transport the bike to destination it seems unlikely you'd be able to transport the bike to storage either

The issue here is about what to do if the railway won’t transport the bike to the destination - I cannot accept that there would be circumstances where they can’t transport it, as there are many types of road vehicle that can carry a bike in one way or another.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The issue here is about what to do if the railway won’t transport the bike to the destination - I cannot accept that there would be circumstances where they can’t transport it, as there are many types of road vehicle that can carry a bike in one way or another.

Have you tried getting a taxi (any taxi, let alone one that could take a bike, particularly if you don't carry the tools to break it down) at Grange over Sands of an evening?

I tried. I walked. (A bicycle would have been handy!)

There are cases where getting a suitable vehicle would be extremely difficult.

 

[bramling]

All well and good if you're in a location where storage can be provided (most places that can handle lost property have somewhere a bike can be held), not so good if you're not though - if you can't transport the bike to destination it seems unlikely you'd be able to transport the bike to storage either.

The railway, bar the attempts by TfW and ScotRail with their active travel 153s, has little interest in providing for or encouraging bike transport on board trains, hence the investment in providing cycle hubs etc to leave them at stations.

Banning the usual 2 bikes permitted per train is unlikely to cause them any commercial difficulty (yes it can often be more, and they do get on and off during journeys, but still, the point stands - percentage wise the yield is of no real consequence) and I suspect any attempt to oblige them to provide expensive storage solutions or transport could see them banned from on board trains.

Personally I've always thought a charge should be made for carrying them on board with an incumbent obligation on the operator to provide space to carry them correctly and manage them, as you see elsewhere.

On the latter point, I tend to agree, especially outside of urban / suburban areas. Either make the proper provision that people can genuinely rely upon, or else don’t bother.

To be fair, many people workaround all this by using folding bikes, however these aren’t always viable for various reasons.

 

[Haywain]

There are cases where getting a suitable vehicle would be extremely difficult.

Why? What is happening to passengers without bikes, and perhaps those with mobility difficulties?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why? What is happening to passengers without bikes, and perhaps those with mobility difficulties?

Most rural taxis are just cars. Unless you can take it apart* **, a bicycle often won't fit in one, whereas a seated passenger always will. And buses (rather than coaches) all take a wheelchair but generally don't permit bicycles. And some taxi drivers won't agree to take bicycles because of them potentially being oily or causing damage when being loaded, and there's no legal requirement for them to do so.

* Do these people who don't carry locks also not carry basic tools to be able to do this? I bet they don't
** Often you need to do more than just pop the quick release front wheel off to fit it in, e.g. drop the seat or turn the bars, or often even remove the rear wheel too. And because of wheel thefts quick release has fallen out of favour anyway.

 

[LowLevel]

The issue here is about what to do if the railway won’t transport the bike to the destination - I cannot accept that there would be circumstances where they can’t transport it, as there are many types of road vehicle that can carry a bike in one way or another.

I can't say I've ever known the control team phoning the local van drivers of the Derbyshire Dales to see if anyone is free to pick up a push bike.

I have known them to ask for taxi drivers who are willing to carry them in the back of larger vehicles, potentially with wheels removed, but that is about it and I wouldn't expect more of them.

Sometimes ingenuity helps - I once had a party of 8 ladies turn up for my class 158 last service of the night travelling over 100 miles having spent a weekend cycling around Norfolk.

You can't fit 8 full sized bikes on a single class 158 without blocking access between the carriages or filling up the wheelchair spaces inside the saloon and getting muck everywhere - the company answer was 2 had the bookable cycle reservations for the train, the rest were first come first served, tough luck, you're welcome to travel but the bikes aren't.

In the end they agreed to take the wheels off, I'd got plenty of seats free, so I nicked a load of bin bags off the train cleaners, wrapped the bikes up with their wheels removed and stored them in the saloon next to empty seats.

 

[JLH4AC]

Making a profit where the railway failed is grossly immoral - one would think that it would be seen as good customer service to do so!

I agree that it would be very distasteful but I am being realistic companies are only willing to lose so much potential income in the name of appeasing customers and DtF wants to keep costs to railway low even at the cost of customer satisfaction. That is why rail replacement transport should include provision for bikes. The only other semi-realistic fix that would cost the customer nothing is at staffed stations the bike being kept in the office in till it can be put on the next suitable train to the intended destination and if needed the cyclist being given a free platform ticket to be able to meet the train, as that has next to minimal extra costs/lost income but it is problematic as it can be a liability for the railways and if the average performance of the ToC's Passenger Assist teams is anything go by it will possible that the bike will end up in the deport.

 

[Trainbike46]

surprising number of people here who don't seem to carry bike locks!

For clarity, I wasn't suggesting that cycling to a nearby station was a universal solution - clearly it is not, there may well not be a nearby station with a train service if disruption has happened. It was intended to be part of a range of solutions, including transporting the bike in a coach, taxi, storing it at the station and collecting it later, etc.

And then, the passenger with a bike and the railway staff present can figure out the best solution in that situation, depending on what actually happened, what the disruption is, etc.

Greater Anglia also significantly increased bike spaces with their new fleet, going from 2 to 6 spaces per train on the regional fleet

 

[hkstudent]

surprising number of people here who don't seem to carry bike locks!

For clarity, I wasn't suggesting that cycling to a nearby station was a universal solution - clearly it is not, there may well not be a nearby station with a train service if disruption has happened. It was intended to be part of a range of solutions, including transporting the bike in a coach, taxi, storing it at the station and collecting it later, etc.

And then, the passenger with a bike and the railway staff present can figure out the best solution in that situation, depending on what actually happened, what the disruption is, etc.

Greater Anglia also significantly increased bike spaces with their new fleet, going from 2 to 6 spaces per train on the regional fleet

Cos, in this country context, only heavy duty lock (gold+ grade U lock) can slightly deter theft. Any weak rubber locks can be cut instantly. U lock is quite heavy to bring so it's just better not to bring it.

This means many cyclists would just keep the bike in hands reach and only park when it is a secured indoor/ familiar locations.

Bikes often be the last mile connection to the destination which not necessarily needing to being locks, as locks would have been put there in advance.