False rumour: 'FGW to ban cycles from all trains?'

[Drsatan]

I have heard an unconfirmed rumour that from January 1, 2015, FGW will ban bicycles from ALL of their services.

Can anyone confirm whether this rumour has any substance or not?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I have heard an unconfirmed rumour that from January 1, 2015, FGW will ban bicycles from ALL of their services.

Can anyone confirm whether this rumour has any substance or not?

I would rather doubt it. What I hope they do, though, is to ban them from peak Turbo services in both directions rather than just out of London, as it is rather annoying to have someone try to force a bicycle onto an already full and standing train, and the Turbos carry substantial loads from Slough to London as well as out of London in the evening peak.

Edit: FGW have refuted this:
http://road.cc/content/news/132364-...-claims-bikes-will-be-banned-trains-next-year

Neil

 

[yorkie]

I have heard an unconfirmed rumour..

From where? not a reliable source, surely?

 

[Drsatan]

From where? not a reliable source, surely?

From my parents, who were told by the (misinformed) booking clerk at my local (FGW) station, who I'm assuming heard it from someone else.

 

[jopsuk]

if they were, they'd have to not be taking bicycle bookings (on long distance services).

It appears I can easily make a bicycle booking in January.

 

[Greenback]

It's amazing how easy it is to start a rumour on the railway that some people will believe, no matter how outrageous.

 

[jopsuk]

it's interesting given the road.cc article that it's a rumour that has some traction among staff.

 

[Bletchleyite]

it's interesting given the road.cc article that it's a rumour that has some traction among staff.

I'd think it more likely that there is indeed a bicycle policy change coming, such as increased peak restrictions (which I do believe would be justified, at least on the Thames Valley), which has been misinterpreted.

Neil

 

[Busaholic]

I'd think it more likely that there is indeed a bicycle policy change coming, such as increased peak restrictions (which I do believe would be justified, at least on the Thames Valley), which has been misinterpreted.

Neil

Anyone know what Crossrail's position on bikes is going to be, or is it still to be decided?

 

[Mike395]

Anyone know what Crossrail's position on bikes is going to be, or is it still to be decided?

It'll still be to be decided at this stage. That being said, I would imagine they'll consider adopting LO's policy to avoid confusion, at least in the central section.

 

[Greenback]

I'd think it more likely that there is indeed a bicycle policy change coming, such as increased peak restrictions (which I do believe would be justified, at least on the Thames Valley), which has been misinterpreted.

Neil

I should think that is more likely than an across the board ban on cycles.

 

[brianthegiant]

Anyone who wants to lobby TOCs for better cycle provision ( on and off trains) could contact their local cycle campaign, there's a (not exhaustive) list here: www.cyclenation.org.uk/groups
Cycle campaigns are often involved in lobbying TOCs, for example by sending reps to stakeholder meetings.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It'll still be to be decided at this stage. That being said, I would imagine they'll consider adopting LO's policy to avoid confusion, at least in the central section.

To be honest, even though it would create an oddity of an underground Overground[1], I think Crossrail should be branded Overground and adopt the same policies, rules and liveries throughout.

[1] Hamburg has an overground U-Bahn and underground S-Bahn at the river front.

Neil

 

[313103]

Maybe only a rumour for starting in 2015, but when the wires go up and the HSTs are replaced by Electric trains, no proper bicycle space will be provided as the trains are designed without a Guards compartment so no space for provision for bikes either.

 

[swt_passenger]

Maybe only a rumour for starting in 2015, but when the wires go up and the HSTs are replaced by Electric trains, no proper bicycle space will be provided as the trains are designed without a Guards compartment so no space for provision for bikes either.

Ah, so all those bike spaces in the lobbies up and down the whole train (as shown in the DfT's IEP drawings) must be imaginary?

 

[The Ham]

Ah, so all those bike spaces in the lobbies up and down the whole train (as shown in the DfT's * IEP drawings) must be imaginary?

*Draft

 

[Bletchleyite]

*Draft

Indeed. But that's like saying the absence of a van area is also a draft.

I would be absolutely amazed if this were to occur.

Neil

 

[The Ham]

Indeed. But that's like saying the absence of a van area is also a draft.

I would be absolutely amazed if this were to occur.

Neil

I wasn't suggesting that there would be no cycle spaces, rather that the final layout may change (a bit*) from what is shown.

* e.g. more luggage racks at the expense of cycle racks or more toilets at the expense of cycle racks or more cycle racks at the expense of catering cupboards.

 

[RailAleFan]

Do many (if any) cycle-rail-cycle commuters have 2 bikes, one living at either end of the train leg (so one staying overnight at their closest to work station), and never actually take a bike on the train!? Just occurred to me as an option...!

Lots of cycle stores look pretty safe to me these days with CCTV and even card key / PIN locks.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Do many (if any) cycle-rail-cycle commuters have 2 bikes, one living at either end of the train leg (so one staying overnight at their closest to work station), and never actually take a bike on the train!? Just occurred to me as an option...!

Yes, massive numbers. There are huge double decker racks at Euston containing such bikes. Others (e.g. me) use Boris bikes at the London end.

Lots of cycle stores look pretty safe to me these days with CCTV and even card key / PIN locks.

Would love to see (and would pay a small fee for) a Dutch style "bewaakte Fietsenstalling", i.e. a manned cycle storage facility.

Neil

 

[jopsuk]

the "two bikes" solution is certainly something that's done- and the "Cycle To Work" tax break scheme (employer gives you a loan of up to £1000* to spend on a bicycle and equipment, you pay the loan back from salary before tax is calculated) specifically allows you to buy two bikes (and locks etc) for this express purpose. It does however rather rely on good, secure, plentiful, bike parking being available at both stations.

This is how it is done in the Netherlands, where sheer volume leads them to ban bikes at peak times across the network. Utrecht Central is working towards having 30,000 bike parking spaces- contrast with the most ambitious bike parking scheme in this country, which will be in Cambridge, which will have under 3000 spaces. Cambridge is about 1/6-1/4 the size of Utrecht, not 1/10th!

*the limit is actually to do with banking regulations- larger loans could be given but the employer would subject to full regulation.

 

[Class 170101]

It'll still be to be decided at this stage. That being said, I would imagine they'll consider adopting LO's policy to avoid confusion, at least in the central section.

Not sure what LO's policy is on the Central Section you refer to above but I can't see bikes being allowed from Stratford / Abbey Wood to Acton Mainline on safety grounds, otherwise they would have been allowed on other tube lines by niow.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It differs hugely from the deep Tube - remember bicycles are allowed (but rarely actually carried[1]) on the subsurface lines off peak. They are also allowed on Merseyrail at all times, and access arrangements will likely be similar.

Edit: [1] This would be because it is invariably faster to cycle than use the subsurface lines, so it's probably only used as a means of rescue in case of unrepairable mechanical failure. Not dissimilar to the way cycles are permitted on many buses in Germany but you almost never see anyone taking advantage of this.

Neil

 

[fgwrich]

I wasn't suggesting that there would be no cycle spaces, rather that the final layout may change (a bit*) from what is shown.

* e.g. more luggage racks at the expense of cycle racks or more toilets at the expense of cycle racks or more cycle racks at the expense of catering cupboards.

Indeed. But that's like saying the absence of a van area is also a draft.

I would be absolutely amazed if this were to occur.

Neil

The already produced mock up's, whilst having reduced cycle storage area than say as TGS or the better laid out SWT 444 Cycle areas, does have 'cupboard' for 2 bikes per end of each coach similar to the Voyagers and previously as seen on Regional Railways 158s. What is disappointing though is that the DfT have admitted themselves that this may be used as an additional luggage rack and will come with a folding down shelf inside... pointing a nod to how inadequate the 158 / 395 style small luggage racks in each coach then compared to the as provided by the present Mk3. A lot of luggage does get carried in those Mk3s, especially in the holiday seasons!

What I find odd about that article though is the mentioning of it happening or being heard at Brockenhurst, which is not on the FGW network... I will possibly agree about the extra restrictions though, as long as it doesn't effect Bas - Reading which can just about handle peak hour traffic and bikes - more so on the 150s than 166s granted.

 

[fairysdad]

Why does the article (both in the road.cc website and Independent) come to the conclusion - and therefore the rumours - that because of an incident at Brockenhurst, it is First Great Western that are bringing in a ban on bicycles?

 

[stut]

Do many (if any) cycle-rail-cycle commuters have 2 bikes, one living at either end of the train leg (so one staying overnight at their closest to work station), and never actually take a bike on the train!? Just occurred to me as an option...!

Lots of cycle stores look pretty safe to me these days with CCTV and even card key / PIN locks.

It does vary - and also depends on whether you work at the same location every day! I currently have bikes in multiple locations, as I tend to go for the "looks like a bit of a clunker" security method, buying up old minimal-maintenance (i.e. Dutch) second hand bikes to leave at stations. However, when I was visiting multiple customer sites, the ability to take a bike out there (against the flow, generally) was very much appreciated.

However, if you have any distance over, say, 5 miles at either end, you're going to want a better bike than that - and not one I'd leave at most stations in the UK.

I do also regularly work in Copenhagen. The received wisdom there is that the station is the one place that you *never* leave your bike, as there's a (slightly exaggerated but existent) culture that if you're drunk and headed home, you just nick the nearest bike from the station and go back that way.

However... The S-Tog system is designed to carry bikes right through the rush hour, with some lines even having designated bike-only carriages. And, given people cycle all year round, taxis are pretty much guaranteed to have a bike rack on board, in case it's just torrential/snowy enough for you not to want to ride home. The only restriction on the S-Tog is that you're not allowed to use the busy and space-limited Norreport station during peak hours - which isn't hard to get round.

 

[swt_passenger]

Why does the article (both in the road.cc website and Independent) come to the conclusion - and therefore the rumours - that because of an incident at Brockenhurst, it is First Great Western that are bringing in a ban on bicycles?

You need to read it again, it's easy to come away with this misunderstanding.

It refers to the immediate difficulties at Brockenhurst but then refers to another separate incident being 'discussed by onlookers' while at Brockenhurst, but where the people involved were referring to an incident somewhere else earlier in the week (presumably on FGW) that wasn't actually named.