For the Far North line could a single car from a 158/9 be turned into a 90mph detachable Highland Explorer active travel (cycles etc) car..

The exile said:

The most obvious difference is that you rarely have to insert a bicycle onto a roof rack between two others belonging to strangers while the car is in motion. Apart from that…

Click to expand...

Even if the train has departed the station by the time you're putting the bike in a rack, the person, bike and rack are not in motion relative to each other so your car analogy is slightly ridiculous. It's more like can you put your bike on a rack in your garage next to other bikes. Unlike a car rack there is also generally much less lifting of the bike as you rotate it on the rear wheel then there is only a small amount of lifting required to hook the front wheel onto the rack, where a car rack requires you to effectively overhead press a bike onto a car roof which is increasingly over 1.5m high.

Hanger racks are useful as they increase the number of bikes which can be transported allow the space underneath (if empty) or the side (if partially full) to be used for luggage, skis, kayaks etc depending on the season and demand. A decent sized luggage (including bikes) area is something which should be in spec for units operating on the Highland, Aberdeen-Inverness, West Highland, far North and Kyle lines, but a flexible one, probably about the size of the first class compartment which was originally on a 2 car 158.

Bishops said:

I didnt mention any thing about the cupboards and as a cyclist myself ive got no real problem with standing my cycle upwards if it means more bikes can fit on rather than what we currently have on northern where any more than 2 bikes and they dont have anything to secure the bikes too ( if anything is there in the first place)

Click to expand...

Well cupboards are what IEPs have and other people do have problems with vertical storage...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Monday at 10:23 ==

Class83 said:

.....Hanger racks are useful as they increase the number of bikes which can be transported ....

Click to expand...

Hanger racks are not useful to people who cant use them* or find them difficult. *Smaller /less strong persons (probably not equally divided between genders) , those with back injuries, older persons, amberatory disabled persons etc.

IEP racks seem to be 1.5 cycles wide: the current CTC(CyclingUK) Cycle magazine has a letters page complaint by the 2nd cyclist user of said cupboard who gave up and parked it longituditally...
Fortunately no other bike was present when I had to use one, also fortunately with a lightly loaded bike, but it was still pretty awkward to use...


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Monday at 10:29 ==

GlitterUnicorn said:

.....
Introducing cycle fares would be hugely unpopular and a terrible idea all round.

Click to expand...

Not having cycle fares means terrible cycle carriage provision, so I think the opposite.

Having terrible cycle provision is also unpopular with cyclists so of the two options I prefer cycle fares with good provision.

The general thrust of this thread and forum seems to be that cycle carriage must cover its costs....

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Monday at 11:14 ==

IF the FNL trains tend to having half?ish a carriage of seats unused, then surely, as suggested upthread, having a area converted from seats to longitudinal cycle storage would be affordable? It could presumablybe done so that the yard could swap it back and forth quickly if more seats were needed for a period. Cyclists in that case would simply be extra revenue ...?

The trouble with removing rows of seats from a 2 car 158 - that might be fine as far as seating capacity goes at the Northern end of the FNL and further West on the Kyle Line, but these units are not captive to the far north routes.

So these reduced seating 158 would also form 2 car train from Inverness to Aberdeen - when several such services are regularly rammed. The idea of fitting a number of 158s with a third coach, so you can increase luggage space, increase bike space and increase rather than reduce seats in the process has some merit from the passenger experience. A 3 car 158 should be able to offer more luggage space, more bike spaces and still have more seats than the 170s (which are about as welcome as a bucket of cold sick on this line in winter).

No coach on the A96 is going to get even close to competing with a train on the Inverness Aberdeen line, yet Ember is showing solid loadings on these services around the clock - a route CityLink didn't bother with. A guaranteed seat and a significantly cheaper journey!

HighlandStorm said:

The trouble with removing rows of seats from a 2 car 158 - that might be fine as far as seating capacity goes at the Northern end of the FNL and further West on the Kyle Line, but these units are not captive to the far north routes....

Click to expand...

I did suggest that perhaps refitting cycle racks/removing seats and vice versa could (hopefully) be made fairly quick for the train operator.

AHBD said:

Not having cycle fares means terrible cycle carriage provision, so I think the opposite.

Having terrible cycle provision is also unpopular with cyclists so of the two options I prefer cycle fares with good provision.

Click to expand...

I have zero confidence in this sort of hypothecation of fares in the UK so the most likely outcome would be option 3, cycle fares with poor cycle provision.

al78 said:

I have zero confidence in this sort of hypothecation of fares in the UK so the most likely outcome would be option 3, cycle fares with poor cycle provision.

Click to expand...

The reason cycle and seat reservations aren't charged for is that that creates a contract to provide for them, so TOCs can't just go "it's a replacement bus, tough" at short notice, for instance.

al78 said:

I have zero confidence in this sort of hypothecation of fares in the UK so the most likely outcome would be option 3, cycle fares with poor cycle provision.

Click to expand...

Worse, the likely approach would be to hike the cycle fare to reduce demand to below the provision, instead of meeting latent demand that is suppressed by lack of capacity. Hardly joined up thinking for promoting active travel!

The Uk government could simply cap the cycle fare (eg no more than half fare up to a maximum value).

AHBD said:

Hanger racks are not useful to people who cant use them* or find them difficult. *Smaller /less strong persons (probably not equally divided between genders) , those with back injuries, older persons, amberatory disabled persons etc.

Click to expand...

While the train must be accessible to all passengers and ramps and accessible seating are rightly provided as part of that, public transport also has to operate on some basis of practicality, as space is at a premium and the efficient use of it for conveying passengers and their luggage is therefore a valid consideration.

Encouraging more passengers amongst those cycling long distances in the highlands or wanting to take their bike to access off road trails would tend to involve those in reasonable health such that they can roll their bike on it's back wheel, the same applies to those with skis and other outdoor equipment. It's like saying we shouldn't have overhead or even mid level (at the end of carriage) luggage racks as not everyone can use them, we do as they increase capacity and passengers can use as appropriate. It's much easier to put a bike on a hanger rack than lift a suitcase onto a 1m high rack. If the train is particularly busy then there are likely to be some other passengers able to help who could assist, it's Scotland not London, if they are the only person onboard then they bike probably doesn't need hung up if there is a reasonable sized luggage/sports equipment area.

AHBD said:

Well cupboards are what IEPs have and other people do have problems with vertical storage...

Click to expand...

We are not talking about IEPs though are we?

Bishops said:

We are not talking about IEPs though are we?

Click to expand...

Class 83 was suggesting more widespread use (of vertical storage) and arguing against my objections.


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Wednesday at 17:11 ==

Class83 said:

While the train must be accessible to all passengers and ramps and accessible seating are rightly provided as part of that, public transport also has to operate on some basis of practicality, as space is at a premium and the efficient use of it for conveying passengers and their luggage is therefore a valid consideration.

.. those cycling long distances in the highlands ..... would tend to involve those in reasonable health such that they can roll their bike on it's back wheel...

Click to expand...

You are the first cyclist* I have heard defending vertical hangers and to such an extent. In the following linked thread, even 'fit' cyclists find them awkward. Being a fit cyclist doesn t guarantee the upper body strength to easily manipulate an upright bike into an awkward vertical place on a hanger. I managed it but its very awkward, and that was with no other bike present on boarding. *I presume you actually cycle and have used the .... things...

Ctc forum iep cycle carriage

The poster with most interest in Disability legislation viewed them as illegal by design. Other cyclists didnt like them...

Class83 said:

..... It's much easier to put a bike on a hanger rack than lift a suitcase onto a 1m high rack.

Click to expand...

Putting similarly heavy things (eg my bike is 15kg with no luggage fitted) on overhead racks seems asking for trouble in accidents**, so seems irrelevant argument to me but a vertical bike is definitely more awkward than putting lighter luggage (much lighter than a bike) on overhead tack (and I strapped it to the rack for safety) . **Peterborough.

Yes, I am a cyclist, however I'm also pragmatic about how we accommodate them along with other large items of luggage on a train. I particularly dislike the 'pile 3 bikes beside each other' racks on many trains as they're not secure, and if the person whose bike is against the wall wants to get off first it involves a lot of shuffling. The hangars in a cupboard common on UK intercity trains isn't a particularly helpful option either, however the problem is more with the cupboard rather than the hanger. I've used the Voyager ones but not the IET ones.

However hangers like these in, Europe or America, are actually quite useable so having a line of these down one side of the carriage, about the length of the old 1st Class sections in 158s, probably space for 6-8 bikes would be much more usable. With a large 2 level luggage rack on the other side of the carriage.

15kg is at the heavier end of bikes, around 10kg probably more common, road bikes are lighter, MTB/Touring heavier, but the trick to getting them in position for putting on a hanger rack is to put your foot under the back wheel so it can't roll back then essentially rotate the bike around the rear axle raising the front wheel and handlebars, it's a pivoting motion rather than a lifting one, which I do regularly in my garage when moving bikes on and off racks. Standard size suitcases are often around 20kg (airline weight limit is 23kg), so lifting a suitcase into something like this rack on LNER is to me more lifting effort than hanging a bike up.