Bikes, bags and other annoyances.

[03_179]

Slightly carrying on from anopther post about bikes on NXEC.

Over the past few years I have noticed an increase in bikes being allowed on peak trains on FCC and Southerm. Strangely enough not one member of staff, (barrier or TTIs) do anything about it. Surely there should be some sort of fine like penalty fare for those on the trains with bikes knowning full well that they should not be on the services. Or just say no at the barrier.

This leads me on to the next point. Suitcases! If you travel on FCC services on the Brighton - Bedford line you will know what I mean about these. John Doe gets on at Gatwick with the 2 or 3 cases, wife and kids. All have other bags like rucksacks, and their dutyfree plastic carrier bags. Now instead of making use of the overhead racks, or spaces between seats Joe et al all dump the cases in the doorways. Hence doors open at the likes of Redhill or East Croydon and low and behold you can't get on!

I once pointed out that iff there was an emergency then dear Joe had blocked people exits and they could die. This particular Joe shrugged and was about to walk away when I pointed out that his family were in the area and that they were blocked into! Suddenly a lightbulb appeared over his head and he moved the cases.

Apart from Joe and family we have the young late teenage girls. On the train at Gatwick from Spain/Turkey/Greece. Little clothing. Lay on the seats sleeping. Added to this are the suitcase or large sports bag, the dutyfree bag, the obligitory CD/Cassette player and other stuff.

Strangley enough the suitcases are so heavy these girls can hardly carry them. Sio if you can't carry it ... don't pack it.

But lets put it this way ... When I travel with wife and kids. I ALWAYS make sure the cases and other stuff is well put out of the way. After all ... if you leave it by the door could someone not steal it ?

Rant over .....

 

[dan_atki]

Over the past few years I have noticed an increase in bikes being allowed on peak trains on FCC and Southerm.

Funny you should say that because only the other day I thought exactly the same thing when bikes were brought on peak services. Even then, despite being against the rules they don't even use the correct part of the train for the bike and instead use it to block the doors!

Suitcases! If you travel on FCC services on the Brighton - Bedford line you will know what I mean about these.

Oh I know what you mean all too well - 319s are not designed for planeloads of tourists to use with umpteen bags which they can barely carry. Take a journey from Haywards Heath/Three Bridges to East Croydon and you will see why.

After all ... if you leave it by the door could someone not steal it ?

Yep, and at the opposite end of the FCC TL route it is quite likely it would be stolen if it was unattended.

That leads onto another point in itself - with 'an increased threat to security', people leaving bags unattended like that really isn't the wisest option...

In fact I have just thought of something - when FCC operate the 377s are they too going to be DOO or will they have a guard? A guard would be a very welcome improvement to the service IMO - stop bags and bikes obstructing doorways and being left unattended (although I think the 377 is better for luggage than the 319).

 

[westcoaster]

we will be staying doo even on the 377's, with the luggage thing what do you expect, after all we do serve two airports ,yes the trains are full with punters and yes there are luggage racks and spaces but ppl just dont have the attitude/brain power or tact to do anything about it, my bug bearer is the way everyone wants to get on at the same door slowing everything down, happens all day everyday.

 

[bluenoxid]

Surely common sense would result in low density seating being put in for those trains

 

[dan_atki]

we will be staying doo even on the 377's

Thanks for that! I did think guards were out of the question anyway. I assume the CCTV camera mounted on the sides of the units along with the DOO monitors and dispatch staff at key locations explains the decision.

Surely common sense would result in low density seating being put in for those trains

The problem is that the trains are dual purpose (my opinion anyway). North of London they are commuter trains, south of London they are tourist services. The former requires high density seating, the latter low density. I will agree that there is not enough luggage space on board a 319 (after all it can be difficult to fit a suitcase behind a seat - though at least First have actually provided proper luggage racks by removing a seat), but replacing seating with more luggage space will be at the expense of annoying the commuters. Obviously, commuters are the people to keep happy as they plough money into the company. Though, that's not to say that the franchise doesn't have commitments it has to keep (such as providing for other types of passenger).

I've said it elsewhere, and I'll say it again: in the peak, the fast services are crammed (normally from/to Harpenden/St Albans), yet the slow services are nowhere near as busy. Something needs to be done about this! Even if it is just announcements to advise passengers about loads on services.

On Wednesday I was at St Pancras from about 1715. The 1718 ex Moorgate was formed of 8 carriages and relatively empty at the front until it arrived at STP. On the other hand the 1732 ex Moorgate was formed of 4 carriages and, put bluntly, was cattle class (even on arrival at STP). Now, I know better than to whinge about such matters because I'm used to them (and understand the difficulties FCC have) but I think it shows common sense is not being deployed on matters such as train formation let alone the trains themselves.

 

[OwlMan]

from the Conditions of Carriage:

46. Accompanied luggage, articles and animals
You may take small items of luggage, small articles and some animals with you in passenger accommodation without charge subject to the terms, conditions and restrictions set out in Appendix B. You must not place luggage or other articles on seats required for passengers. Animals are not allowed on seats in any circumstances.

APPENDIX B ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS FOR LUGGAGE, ARTICLES,
ANIMALS AND CYCLES
Conveyance of Luggage and Articles in Passenger Accommodation
1. Passenger accommodation in these Conditions means the parts of trains with seats or sleeper berths including luggage stowage areas above, beneath and behind seats and adjacent to doorways.
2. Condition 46 allows you to take small items of Luggage and Articles into the
passenger accommodation of a train. Small items are considered to be those
with dimensions not exceeding 90 x 70 x 30 cm with a weight not exceeding
50kg. Each passenger (aged 5 years or more) may take three small items into a train free of charge, however, the dimensions of only two of these items may exceed 55 x 40 x 20 cm.
3. A fee not exceeding half the adult fare for your journey is charged for:
● each additional item in excess of a passenger’s free allowance; and
● any item with dimensions exceeding 90 x 70 x 30 cm.
4. A Train Company may refuse to accept Luggage or Articles in passenger
accommodation if any of the following apply:
● the restrictions listed in Condition 49 apply;
● the item would obstruct doorways, gangways or corridors;
● the dimensions of the item exceed 100 x 100 x 100 cm; or
● in the opinion of the Train Company’s staff, the item is only suitable to be
conveyed in a luggage van.

Has anyone ever seen excess luggage being charged for?

Peter

 

[adamp]

Us bikers are an annoyance to the public I admit myself to be, especially when the public themselves decide to sit in bike compartments and refuse to move (on a 158 tother day). Therefore causing a safety hazard by having no option to put our bikes right infront of doors !

-Adam

 

[Mojo]

Us bikers are an annoyance to the public I admit myself to be, especially when the public themselves decide to sit in bike compartments and refuse to move (on a 158 tother day). Therefore causing a safety hazard by having no option to put our bikes right infront of doors

That happenned with myself and another lady the other day on a FGW 158, the train was really busy and I took a seat in one of the two in the bike areas, someone sitting next to me. When asked by someone with a bike to move, the lady said that we were not going to and that why should a human have to give up a seat for a bike!

I (silently) agreed with her. If you want to use your bike either get a folding one, stay off busy trains or (as I do) leave it locked up at the station!

 

[03_179]

Unfortunatly the metal construction and design of the frames make 98% of bike riders subject to ley lines and the effect of this is colour blindness.

This will probably explain the fact the most cyclists ride straight through red traffic lights as though they were green.

Thankfully the effect wears off when driving trains and cars or we might see a higher number of incidents. More SPADs with the excuse .. well it was Green I was sure

 

[charley_17/7]

Usually just a lurker/infrequent poster on here, but this topic, and some of its responses made me want to post.

It is not the bikes, bags and 'other' annoyances, it is society becoming more and more selfish, less "we" and more "me".

Bicycles form part of the transport chain, it makes the journey to/from the station more attractive, reducing the passenger perceived journey time "wasted", thus making rail travel more attractive than other choices (the car!).

If comprehensive facilities for cycle hire or secure parking existed at every (or most) stations less people would take their bike with them on the train, as happens in the Netherlands or Japan.

Your ticket does not guarantee you to a seat, especially those tip-up ones in dedicated wheelchair/cycle spaces. If you are thinking you are in the right to sit there, you are the one contributing to the potential late running of the train or blocking access to the doors in an emergency.

As for those with large/heavy items of luggage, I apply the same logic, around here on FTPE 185s we get them strewn across seats and blocking entrance/exit areas. Shout at the top of my voice that the Police will be attending to the said items at the next location, soon gets them moved! Luggage racks exist, it just a case of me important/can't be bothered attitude.

Think of not what you can do for yourself, but what YOU can do for your fellow passengers.

Of course, it would help if new stock had proper old style luggage vans, rather than tiny, cramped spaces we endure on "modern" units.

 

[SouthernCrescent]

I agree with Charley 17/7 here. It is not so much the bikes and luggage as the selfish and lazy attitude of society which just wants whatever is easiest for itself. It also comes down to the design of rolling stock. I have not so far come across much in the way of selfish passengers not using luggage racks but I often join trains where the racks are full. In fact much more often than using vestibules they are trying to get scary large suitcases onto the overhead luggage racks!

Changing people's attitudes is not likely to happen but train designers should be putting luggage racks right by the doors in sufficient numbers or providing guards vans. Also lots of cycle parking at stations so the bikes don't have to come on board so often.

 

[class 313]

Oh I know what you mean all too well - 319s are not designed for planeloads of tourists to use with umpteen bags which they can barely carry. Take a journey from Haywards Heath/Three Bridges to East Croydon and you will see why.



Yep, and at the opposite end of the FCC TL route it is quite likely it would be stolen if it was unattended.

Excuse me, what makes the north end of the route worse?

And with the refurbs 319s are getting extra luggage space.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I've said it elsewhere, and I'll say it again: in the peak, the fast services are crammed (normally from/to Harpenden/St Albans), yet the slow services are nowhere near as busy. Something needs to be done about this! Even if it is just announcements to advise passengers about loads on services.

That's not strictly true.

Both can and often are as packed as each other.

 

[dan_atki]

Excuse me, what makes the north end of the route worse?

And with the refurbs 319s are getting extra luggage space.

Leagrave is beknown for crime. It is situated in a rough (if not the roughest) area of Luton and is not a very safe station whatsoever. Many robberies (as well as other crimes) occur to stationary trains at Leagrave. That's not to say that there are not other problematic areas of the route but IMO Leagrave is (one of) the worst.

As I said above refurb 319s are getting luggage racks in place of the single seats. Still they're not exactly massive and kids tend to use them as monkey bars as I experienced a couple of weeks ago.

That's not strictly true.

Both can and often are as packed as each other.

Stand at St Pancras for half an hour between say 1630 and 1700 - you'll see. Compare the sardine load of the fasts, to the quite full loads of the occasional semi fasts (West Hampstead Thameslink, Elstree & Borehamwood, Radlett, St Albans, ...), and then to the 'plenty of room'* loads on the all stations services.

* I say plenty of room. Sometimes it is standing room only but there are nowhere near as many people crammed in on a slow compared to a fast.

I have stood in unbearable conditions at extreme close quarters (just like the Northen line in the peaks really) every time leaving St Pancras due to needing to travel to stations north of Luton (ok then you say take a slow service and change at SAC/LUT but that's not the point I'm making here), and all the time a lot of seats become available at St Albans (where ALL NB FCC services from STP call at) and many more at Harpenden (where all bar 2 tph NB FCC services from STP call at).

Once I was on a train at 1630 there when there was severe disruption to the Wimbledon loop. It was 40 down so changed so it was fast to Luton (where it was terminating) much to the annoyance of a crowded STP platform. There were 4 carriages and in each carriage there was about 5 people. I think that says a lot myself.

 

[class 313]

Leagrave is beknown for crime. It is situated in a rough (if not the roughest) area of Luton and is not a very safe station whatsoever. Many robberies (as well as other crimes) occur to stationary trains at Leagrave. That's not to say that there are not other problematic areas of the route but IMO Leagrave is (one of) the worst.

As I said above refurb 319s are getting luggage racks in place of the single seats. Still they're not exactly massive and kids tend to use them as monkey bars as I experienced a couple of weeks ago.



Stand at St Pancras for half an hour between say 1630 and 1700 - you'll see. Compare the sardine load of the fasts, to the quite full loads of the occasional semi fasts (West Hampstead Thameslink, Elstree & Borehamwood, Radlett, St Albans, ...), and then to the 'plenty of room'* loads on the all stations services.

* I say plenty of room. Sometimes it is standing room only but there are nowhere near as many people crammed in on a slow compared to a fast.

I have stood in unbearable conditions at extreme close quarters (just like the Northen line in the peaks really) every time leaving St Pancras due to needing to travel to stations north of Luton (ok then you say take a slow service and change at SAC/LUT but that's not the point I'm making here), and all the time a lot of seats become available at St Albans (where ALL NB FCC services from STP call at) and many more at Harpenden (where all bar 2 tph NB FCC services from STP call at).

Once I was on a train at 1630 there when there was severe disruption to the Wimbledon loop. It was 40 down so changed so it was fast to Luton (where it was terminating) much to the annoyance of a crowded STP platform. There were 4 carriages and in each carriage there was about 5 people. I think that says a lot myself.

But the times I've been at St Albans and both the Fliers and the Metros come in just as packed, maybe the Metros get less busy as they go.

But you're forgetting that Thameslink serves various stations in South London which is prone to more stabbings and shootings than Leagrave.

 

[dan_atki]

But the times I've been at St Albans and both the Fliers and the Metros come in just as packed, maybe the Metros get less busy as they go.

But you're forgetting that Thameslink serves various stations in South London which is prone to more stabbings and shootings than Leagrave.

Packed maybe from stations between STP and SAC.

'Stabbings and shootings' have been known to happen at and around Leagrave too - take Leagrave Park for example, 10 minute walk from the station if that and the case appeared on Crimewatch. Although, this isn't really the place to discuss such matters.

Anyways, I was referring to the Brighton Mainline route (over the loop) and luggage around Gatwick in particular. Groups are known to be operating between BDM and LUT on evening services who literally do grab things as the doors are released and leg it off the train and station (at Leagrave this is bad on platform 1 as there is a direct exit through a car park there).

 

[FusionRail]

Unfortunatly the metal construction and design of the frames make 98% of bike riders subject to ley lines and the effect of this is colour blindness.

This will probably explain the fact the most cyclists ride straight through red traffic lights as though they were green.

Thankfully the effect wears off when driving trains and cars or we might see a higher number of incidents. More SPADs with the excuse .. well it was Green I was sure

Thats because as a bicycle isn't a taxed insured road vehicle essentially traffic laws do not apply to them, apart from the major ones - but thats mainly common sense. What need sto be sorted out on the other hand is motorists signaling when they should do, no pulling out infront of bicycles, giving way etc.

Us bikers are an annoyance to the public I admit myself to be, especially when the public themselves decide to sit in bike compartments and refuse to move (on a 158 tother day). Therefore causing a safety hazard by having no option to put our bikes right infront of doors !

-Adam

Too true, a bicycle has just as much right to be in the *bicycle compartment* as passengers have to be on their seats. Im sure if a bike was sitting on your reserved seat you'd ask it to move.

That happenned with myself and another lady the other day on a FGW 158, the train was really busy and I took a seat in one of the two in the bike areas, someone sitting next to me. When asked by someone with a bike to move, the lady said that we were not going to and that why should a human have to give up a seat for a bike!

I (silently) agreed with her. If you want to use your bike either get a folding one, stay off busy trains or (as I do) leave it locked up at the station!

Maybe some of us a) don't want to look like a f***ing idiot on a tiddly little easily nickable/breakable bike. b) some of use may need it at the other end of the journey. If its a bike compartment, thats what its for. Im sure if a bike was sitting on your reserved seat you'd ask it to move.

If somebody refused to move from my bikes reserved space, I would certainly be complaining to the TM/TOC.

 

[yorkie]

I have stood in unbearable conditions at extreme close quarters (just like the Northen line in the peaks really) every time leaving St Pancras due to needing to travel to stations north of Luton (ok then you say take a slow service and change at SAC/LUT but that's not the point I'm making here), and all the time a lot of seats become available at St Albans (where ALL NB FCC services from STP call at) and many more at Harpenden (where all bar 2 tph NB FCC services from STP call at).

Poor timetabling.

St Albans is normally the first stop on the fasts, so clearly it should be omitted at peak time. It happens on most other routes.

For an example of this, look at the Great Northern route where the semi-fasts at peak time do NOT call at Potters Bar or Hatfield.

That forces the local passengers for towns that are near London to use the lighter loaded stopping services (although at peak time the stoppers from King's Cross are a bit semi fast themselves so it's not too bad! There are all stoppers from Moorgate).

 

[FusionRail]

Poor timetabling.

St Albans is normally the first stop on the fasts, so clearly it should be omitted at peak time. It happens on most other routes.

For an example of this, look at the Great Northern route where the semi-fasts at peak time do NOT call at Potters Bar or Hatfield.

That forces the local passengers for towns that are near London to use the lighter loaded stopping services (although at peak time the stoppers from King's Cross are a bit semi fast themselves so it's not too bad! There are all stoppers from Moorgate).

St Albans isn't even worth stopping at.

 

[will1337]

Nor is Stevenage.

 

[Royston Vasey]

For an example of this, look at the Great Northern route where the semi-fasts at peak time do NOT call at Potters Bar or Hatfield.

None of the semi fasts stop at Potters Bar or Hatfield all day IIRC, they're non-stop Finsbury Park to Stevenage. However a small number of peak services omit Stevenage and run fast to either Letchworth or St Neots.

Some of the stoppers between London and Cambridge/Peterborough omit one or more of Welwyn North to Potters Bar at peak times however, maybe this is what you meant Yorkie?

 

[class 313]

St Albans isn't even worth stopping at.

What a stupid point to make.

I think you find St Albans is one of the busiest stations north of the river.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Poor timetabling.

St Albans is normally the first stop on the fasts, so clearly it should be omitted at peak time. It happens on most other routes.

For an example of this, look at the Great Northern route where the semi-fasts at peak time do NOT call at Potters Bar or Hatfield.

No sorry I don't agree with you. If anything Harpenden then Luton. Then after that call at Bedford only.

So should look like:-

St Pancras -> St Albans -> Luton Airport Parkway -> Bedford.

Omitting St Albans would make other trains a lot more packed. So sharing out the load as what is done now is a much better choice. Besides if you're coming from St Pancras and going north, just get an EMT stopper?

 

[yorkie]

None of the semi fasts stop at Potters Bar or Hatfield all day IIRC, they're non-stop Finsbury Park to Stevenage. However a small number of peak services omit Stevenage and run fast to either Letchworth or St Neots.

Some of the stoppers between London and Cambridge/Peterborough omit one or more of Welwyn North to Potters Bar at peak times however, maybe this is what you meant Yorkie?

Well, fasts and semi-fasts are all relative!

The trains that call at Finsbury Park > Potters Bar > Hatfield > Welwyn would be considered fast by the people of those stations, but be considered 'stoppers' at Stevenage.

BTW the ones that are fast to Letchworth are Cambridge cruisers with additional stops.

 

[dan_atki]

What a stupid point to make.

No sorry I don't agree with you. If anything Harpenden then Luton. Then after that call at Bedford only.

So should look like:-

St Pancras -> St Albans -> Luton Airport Parkway -> Bedford.

Talking of 'stupid points'...!

That proposed calling pattern is ABSURD! Exactly how often do you travel north of St Albans with FCC in peak hours? I'm guessing not very often...

If you want express services then LTN should certainly not be included in the calling pattern - look at how many people alight there off a NB FCC service in peak hours and explain to me how the number justifies including a stop there.

Why do you honestly think the 'express' Moorgate services miss out LTN and then also are fast Luton to Flitwick? Because Luton Airport Parkway, Leagrave, and Harlington do not have the traffic levels to justify the stop.

St Albans is THE busiest station on the TL network admittedly and that is why all services stop there I guess, but having the evening peak load forcing itself onto only half of the services that call there (fast only) is what creates problems. I advise you take a journey from STP to LUT at 1700 using a BTN-BDM service (all stations SAC-BDM) and you *will* see the 'phenomena' that I am talking about above.

Whilst I see yorkie's perspective of missing SAC out of the fast calling patterns - it won't work because then there will be severe overcrowding on other services. More commuters travel from St Albans to London than any other station north of SAC (at a crude estimate from experience). One unworkable (due to shortage of stock) 'solution' would be to extend the SAC terminators to LUT and LUT terminators to BDM (although I'm not sure how BDM would cope with an extra 2tph there).

Only real short term 'solution' I can see is to try to get the St Albans and Harpenden commuters (again, take the above journey at 1700 and you'll see what I mean here) to spread themselves between services rather than using just the fasts. Although, that's not within FCC's power to do that and the attitude of some commuters will become evident if they are being forced onto a certain service: 'oh why do I have to take a slower service?'. At the end of the day, spreading out commuters though will make the journey slightly more bearable for everyone.

 

[paul1609]

Talking of 'stupid points'...!



St Albans is THE busiest station on the TL network admittedly and that is why all services stop there I guess, but having the evening peak load forcing itself onto only half of the services that call there (fast only) is what creates problems. I advise you take a journey from STP to LUT at 1700 using a BTN-BDM service (all stations SAC-BDM) and you *will* see the 'phenomena' that I am talking about above.

Err no its not. It may well be the busiest station operated by FCC on the Thameslink route.
However none of the 10 busiest stations on the TL network is north of ST Pancras.

 

[dan_atki]

Err no its not. It may well be the busiest station operated by FCC on the Thameslink route.

That's what I meant without explicitly stating it. Just to clarify, yes the busiest FCC operated TL station.

 

[Edvid]

If you want express services then LTN should certainly not be included in the calling pattern - look at how many people alight there off a NB FCC service in peak hours and explain to me how the number justifies including a stop there.

Why do you honestly think the 'express' Moorgate services miss out LTN and then also are fast Luton to Flitwick? Because Luton Airport Parkway, Leagrave, and Harlington do not have the traffic levels to justify the stop.

Indeed. I should add that the peak fasts (as above - either in the morning or evening, to/from London as appropriate) call at either FLT or LEA, but there are two that call at LTN and HLN (one each). That said, LTN handles more passengers than either FLT or LEA overall - IMX off-peak passenger flows as a proportion of the aggregate are bigger at LTN than at most other TL North stations.