Obliged to use cycle storage?

[ComUtoR]

There is, though, one guard who I find quite unpleasant and clearly has a chip on their shoulder about cyclists.

Why does he have a chip on his shoulder if he is following the rules and ensuring the bike is in the correct compartment ?

 

[bitmadmax]

Why does he have a chip on his shoulder if he is following the rules and ensuring the bike is in the correct compartment ?

Sorry, I was being unfair. This guard has a chip on their shoulder "in general", you can tell by the way they don't engage and speaks to passengers, sloppy appearance and station duties they don't enjoy their job :roll:

Anyway, back to the original topic rather than the usual cyclist bashing.

 

[ComUtoR]

Anyway, back to the original topic rather than the usual cyclist bashing.

Who is bashing cyclists ?

The rules are quite clear and have been highlighted already. I'm a cyclist myself and I don't think I have ever used the correct area to keep my bike. I also never ever make any issue about non fold-able cycles being used in the peak. However; if the rules clearly say you must carry your bike in the designated area you shouldn't take umbrage when asked to move it.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Here is the point from a TPE guard....


If you stick your bike where the flick you like and an accident occurs, who will get the blame? ME!

If i ask you you to stow the bike in the appropriate area and you refuse, and an accident occurs who gets the blame? ME!

If you have followed correct advice and proceedure and an accident occurs, who gets the blame? NO ONE! But compo will come from the company and i keep my job. Happy days!

I will do whatever i can to accomodate you, and i will shuffle things around to fit. but we are required to do it in the appropriate and safe manner provided. If you are standing in a doorway you are providing an obstruction to a way in or out of the train. If someone opens that door and the bike falls on them they will be injured. If the train is full and standing to the point you cannot get into the bay or otherwise board the train safely, you aint going! Standing in a full doorway with your bike isnt safe either. In an emergency stop scenario the cycle will crush people' legs and feet.

Now some guards will at their discresion, and after considering potential load factors etc may use the universal bay, im one of them. but you will have to secure the bike and stay with it. We arent required to tho and it isnt official. You have to bear in mind while there is one of you with your bike, we have 150 other people on that train to consider. We have to ensure the train is safe and everyone is suitably accomodated.

Where i get ****ed off is when its perfectly obvious cyclists cannot be accomodated for whatever reason yet they rant and have a go at me for it, even after i have attempted to get them on board. I dont like having to leave anyone behind, but sometimes it cant be helped. Dont blame me, i have a train full of people to run safely.

Common sense really....

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Could all units have the bike storage area surrounded by a cage, lockable by the guard?
Looking at a floorplan of a 185, why wasn't the bike area located next to the drivers cab in the coach that it's in?

 

[grumblingalong]

Could all units have the bike storage area surrounded by a cage, lockable by the guard?
Looking at a floorplan of a 185, why wasn't the bike area located next to the drivers cab in the coach that it's in?

What to add another job to do in the 30 second or less booked local stop? A good idea but not practicable on most services, intercities with long stops yes, most no.

As for the drivers cab, probably to ensure the driver can escape/guard can access said cab without the door being blocked

 

[Pigeon]

Where i get ****ed off is when its perfectly obvious cyclists cannot be accomodated for whatever reason yet they rant and have a go at me for it, even after i have attempted to get them on board. I dont like having to leave anyone behind, but sometimes it cant be helped. Dont blame me, i have a train full of people to run safely.

Common sense really....

No, no it isn't. It is arrant nonsense, but the problem is that far too many railway staff - and also rather a lot of people on this forum - consider The Regulations to be divinely revealed truth, inherently perfect and beyond all possibility of question, to be defended regardless of circumstance with the fervour of a religious fanatic defending their faith. Whereas the general public, if they are aware of The Regulations at all, see them for what they are: merely another specimen of fallible human invention, and a particularly flawed and imperfect specimen at that. When these two incompatible viewpoints come up against each other, conflict is inevitable.

"Safety" has nothing to do with it:

If you are standing in a doorway you are providing an obstruction to a way in or out of the train.

The flippin' DOOR is providing an obstruction to the way in or out of the train. As long as the door is closed the presence of a bicycle makes no difference. If the door is open then it is a trivial matter to get the bicycle out of the way, by putting it through the hole.

If someone opens that door and the bike falls on them they will be injured.

Not "will". Might, and it's pretty unlikely. I've dropped my own bicycle on myself many a time without sustaining injury. They might well say "ow", or "bugger", but the chance of any complaint of injury worthy of any response beyond "grow up and stop being such a baby" is negligibly small. Especially since if, as postulated, you're standing there in the doorway with the bicycle, you'll have grabbed it long before the door opens enough to allow it to fall.

Standing in a full doorway with your bike isnt safe either. In an emergency stop scenario the cycle will crush people' legs and feet.

This is simply not true. To increase the apparent weight of a bicycle to the point where it could crush legs and feet would require the train to achieve a deceleration of several g. Formula 1 cars may be able to do this, but trains don't. Trains decelerate at no more than a fraction of a g, and so the bicycle will do no more than press gently. You can readily prove this by lying down and getting someone to pile bicycles on your legs; they will have to pile on a LOT of bicycles before "crushing" even begins to come into it.

This isn't "safety". It's footling. And it's the all-too-common fallacy of trying to defend an indefensible argument by abusing words like "safety" to imply that anyone who disagrees is an advocate of death and destruction and can therefore be ignored.

Your first three lines demonstrate what it is really all about:

If you stick your bike where the flick you like and an accident occurs, who will get the blame? ME!
If i ask you you to stow the bike in the appropriate area and you refuse, and an accident occurs who gets the blame? ME!
If you have followed correct advice and proceedure and an accident occurs, who gets the blame? NO ONE! But compo will come from the company and i keep my job. Happy days!

It's about our stupid legal system which insists that everything is a matter of blame and a possible source of compensation. It's about the companies who despite having the money to hire far more competent lawyers than those who might attack them nevertheless can't be bothered to even try to fight, and instead just roll over and accept it, thereby reinforcing precedents and making it ever more difficult for the mess to get sorted out. It's about rules which provide a technical excuse that will be accepted by the legal system regardless of how silly an excuse it is, being used as gaffer tape to bodge an inadequate prophylactic instead of solving the problem at root by trying to reform the system that causes it.

That cycle storage spaces are so often manifestly unfit for purpose reinforces this. The bicycle may well be far more of a nuisance to other people when it is in the designated area than if it is not, but The Regulations override common sense.

I remember particularly one instance - and I wish I could remember what stock it was; some DMU - where the guard made me put my bike in what must be the most useless "cycle storage space" going. It was a titchy narrow cupboard which was only about two-thirds of the width of the handlebars, so it wasn't actually possible to get the bike more than half into it. The front half of the bike stuck out so as to thoroughly block the adjacent doorway, and because the cupboard was so narrow and the space in front of it so cramped it took a considerable amount of juggling to get the bike in and out at all, so had the doorway been required in an emergency it would have been a pretty slow business moving the bike out of the way. It was in fact about the worst possible place on the whole train to put a bicycle, and the most likely to cause problems, but The Regulations demanded it, so that's what it had to be.

I am very sure that it would make for far less confrontation and anger if only railway staff dealing with cyclists would drop their religious fanaticism and worship of The Regulations, and instead treat them as what they are: footling nonsense imposed because The Company hasn't got the bollocks to challenge the blame-and-compensation paradigm and would rather just do nothing because it's easier for them regardless of how much of a pain it is for the customers. It is far less aggravating having to deal with a load of old horse if the person laying it on you agrees that it is a load of old horse than if they try and defend it with transparently idiotic excuses.

No doubt this post will be shouted down by those same religious fanatics whose inability to appreciate the weakness of their position exacerbates confrontational situations involving bicycles on trains, unaware that by so doing they are merely reinforcing my point...

(Note: This is NOT intended as any kind of personal attack or specific criticism of gimmea50anyday; it's just a response to a post which happened to exemplify the points I wished to argue against.)

 

[jon0844]

Wow. Anyone hit by a bike falling on them should just grow up and stop being a baby?

Care to tell us when you're getting on a train so we can avoid it (the upside being a bit more room for you and your cute and cuddly bike)?

 

[EM2]

I am very sure that it would make for far less confrontation and anger if only railway staff dealing with cyclists would drop their religious fanaticism and worship of The Regulations

It isn't regulations, it is law. The Railway Byelaws make specific provision for the carriage of bicycles.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Its also about common sense. How on earth can you suggest the the train doors are an obstruction? Are you suggesting we leave the doors wide open while we pootle along the east coast main line at 100mph while a 225 set flies past at 125mph thereby sucking people out of their doorways and to their deaths? I dont think so. This is the UK, not india. This is NOT about health and safety pandering, it is common sense over your personal inconvenience. You might not be aware of the consequences, but i am, and i have had to deal with it. I am very accomodating to cyclists, despite what my reputation with my colleagues may suggest otherwise (in jest i might add) If you arent prepared to abide by the conditions of carriage and make use of the appropriate and dedicated spaces provided on the train for exactly the purpose you wish to use it for as 98% of the cycle wielding public do without complaint or issue (in fact they are very grateful for my intervention which gets them into that exact space when other travelling public are in their way), can i suggest you dont travel with your bike?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Wow. Anyone hit by a bike falling on them should just grow up and stop being a baby?

Care to tell us when you're getting on a train so we can avoid it (the upside being a bit more room for you and your cute and cuddly bike)?

Can i second that?

 

[LowLevel]

Bikes don't make us much in the way of additional money and I dare say the business of those who would like to see them barred is worth many times that of our lycra clad warriors. If I'm evacuating a train into the usual sub optimum lineside environment then I don't want to be messing about worrying where exactly I'm going to throw a bicycle to stop it getting in the way of someone trying to escape.

Either accept the rules related to the free carriage of your property or do everyone a favour and find some other way of getting about with it. The level of abuse you get if you dare to try and enforce 'the Regulations' tends to exceed that of the most belligerent drunks.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Lowlevel i totally agree with you!

To be fair there are some genuinely friendly and understanding cyclists out there who will freely cooperate, and understand if they cannot board. As i have said before I hate to leave anyone behind if i can avoid it and will happily shuffle around things, even if it means a delay or two in the process. I find unbrage in those that "have the right, or " but i have a reservation, you have to take me" or even the old "why, whats wrong with it here" which usually is followed by the inevitable slanderous "jobsworth" comments!

 

[BurtonM]

I emailed TPE to see what they'd say.

Cycle reservations are free of charge and as such cannot be guaranteed. Fare paying passengers will always take priority in terms of using the seated area.

I read this as something like 'we don't have a cycle storage area'. I've replied to TPE for them to clarify or concur.

I remember particularly one instance - and I wish I could remember what stock it was; some DMU - where the guard made me put my bike in what must be the most useless "cycle storage space" going. It was a titchy narrow cupboard which was only about two-thirds of the width of the handlebars, so it wasn't actually possible to get the bike more than half into it. The front half of the bike stuck out so as to thoroughly block the adjacent doorway, and because the cupboard was so narrow and the space in front of it so cramped it took a considerable amount of juggling to get the bike in and out at all, so had the doorway been required in an emergency it would have been a pretty slow business moving the bike out of the way. It was in fact about the worst possible place on the whole train to put a bicycle, and the most likely to cause problems, but The Regulations demanded it, so that's what it had to be.

Northern 150/1? Useless for bikes as the storage area isn't as long as a typical bike so it's always blocking the aisle whatever you do.

 

[BestWestern]

I emailed TPE to see what they'd say.



I read this as something like 'we don't have a cycle storage area'. I've replied to TPE for them to clarify or concur.





Northern 150/1? Useless for bikes as the storage area isn't as long as a typical bike so it's always blocking the aisle whatever you do.

Sounds like the old boxed in storage area on a 158?

 

[yorkie]

What if I buy it a ticket ?

It's not possible to buy a bike a ticket. I'm not sure what the arrangements are for bringing a packaged bike as oversized luggage are. But really the OP just needs to use the correct part of the train (which is easily identifiable in this case by the lack of yellow strip on the coupler).

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Or by the picture of a bike on the door!

Northern have recently introduced colour coded symbols in strips above the appropriate door to indicate where the dedicated areas are. This is a great idea, especially with having such a mixed bag fleet the bays are invariably in different places on different units.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

In comparison this is typically to be found on EMT and similarly on TPE trains the symbols atwaist height arent very easy to see

 

[yorkie]

I emailed TPE to see what they'd say.

I read this as something like 'we don't have a cycle storage area'. I've replied to TPE for them to clarify or concur.

I don't know what you asked them, but there is a cycle storage area where the signs do make it clear cycles have priority. Cycles shouldn't be stored in any other area.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Here!

 

[bitmadmax]

I don't know what you asked them, but there is a cycle storage area where the signs do make it clear cycles have priority. Cycles shouldn't be stored in any other area.

Yes.. there is a sign which states something like: "these tip-up seats are available when not needed for cycle storage"

Sort of contradicts what TPE said about fare paying sitting passengers taking priority..

 

[ComUtoR]

Sort of contradicts what TPE said about fare paying sitting passengers taking priority..

So whom should have priority ? A multipurpose cycle are seems a sensible solution. We have similar on our units. Bikes can be kept securely with the built in strap and passengers can use the seats if required.

Doesn't that keep everyone happy ?

I really like the fold up seats and I would like to see all seats of a similar design.

 

[jon0844]

Surely you just get rid of the tip up seats there? No massive loss, and people could stand there if they wanted.

I also wish they'd have done this on the S-Stock as there are the sections with tip up seats for buggies (separate to the area for wheelchairs) and arguably also useful for luggage, but people often sit there and won't move.

 

[BurtonM]

I don't know what you asked them, but there is a cycle storage area where the signs do make it clear cycles have priority. Cycles shouldn't be stored in any other area.

I commented on the presence of the folding seats in the storage area and the inconvenience of having to ask people to move and their potential reluctance - TPE's response, on the face of things, contradicts the sign on the train by saying passengers have priority. I've asked them to clarify. I'm well aware of the storage area and I make a point of using it now as much as I despise it and its frequent misappropriation.

I made the suggestion of removing the folding seats - apparently "limitations" of the trains don't allow this??? A Tube styled cushion thing at typical waist height (those things you lean on) would be an ideal solution - plenty of bike/passenger space as needed.

 

[PermitToTravel]

On any train that's not so overloaded that taking a bicycle aboard would be antisocial, it's not an incredible hardship to leave a bicycle in a doorway and move it to the opposite door at stops that require this. I frequently travel with bicycles or objects bulkier than them, and when finding the appropriate areas of the train blocked do this - no need for any of the above drama.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Here!

What does the blue notice on the left say?

 

[BurtonM]

Priority seat sign, that's for the seat.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

^ what he said!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Or by the picture of a bike on the door!

Northern have recently introduced colour coded symbols in strips above the appropriate door to indicate where the dedicated areas are. This is a great idea, especially with having such a mixed bag fleet the bays are invariably in different places on different units.

I like this. Very often it isn't obvious.

Big is also good:

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So whom should have priority ? A multipurpose cycle are seems a sensible solution. We have similar on our units. Bikes can be kept securely with the built in strap and passengers can use the seats if required.

I prefer the design of combined luggage rack/cycle accommodation as First North Western used to install. Tip-up seats are usually sources of arguments when placed in an area like that. The one exception to me would be on trains where normally cycles are prohibited at certain times - when cycles are permitted the seats could be locked such that they cannot be used, but when they are prohibited it just becomes another seating area.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I made the suggestion of removing the folding seats - apparently "limitations" of the trains don't allow this???

I suspect the relevant limitation is that the trains are too short, and if they removed them they would fail their PIXC requirements.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Northern have no indication on their trains about who takes priority in a cycle storage area. This could be even more interesting on a train where disabled space and cycle space is a common area (do some Northern units have this?)

A very large number of trains have this arrangement, including all LM 350s (in any meaningful sense, I suspect one side is labelled for bikes and one side for wheelchairs). Common sense says the wheelchair should take priority.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Could all units have the bike storage area surrounded by a cage, lockable by the guard?
Looking at a floorplan of a 185, why wasn't the bike area located next to the drivers cab in the coach that it's in?

The layout of the TPE 185 is laughably bad, so I don't quite know where to start

As there are no through gangways, they should have started with First Class being at one end, a la Class 321, then worked from there. The disabled bog and wheelchair/cycle spaces could have been at the inner end of that coach, same as LM's 350s.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Wow. Anyone hit by a bike falling on them should just grow up and stop being a baby?

My hybrid bike weighs about 10kg, which is about the same weight as a toddler. Anyone who gets "crushed" by it is being a big jessie.

Getting people to move out of those tip-up seats on the 185s- even on quiet trains- is a nightmare. The little sign can say whatever it wants, people don't accept it if they're sitting down. Although at least they bothered to put a bicycle space on the 185s, that was something London Midland decided not to bother with on the 350s.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Getting people to move out of those tip-up seats on the 185s- even on quiet trains- is a nightmare. The little sign can say whatever it wants, people don't accept it if they're sitting down.

This is why, as I said above, I don't think there should be tip-up seats in a space intended for another purpose. If the train is so busy that cycles cannot be carried, standing space is more useful. If it isn't, there will be other seats available. It's very rare for a train to have precisely the number of passengers on it to fill every single seat with none standing.

Although at least they bothered to put a bicycle space on the 185s, that was something London Midland decided not to bother with on the 350s.

First of all, LM didn't specify the 350/1s, the DfT did in conjunction with Central and Silverlink, though the layout is roughly just a 2+2 version of the SWT 450, as they came from an order originally intended to be for more 450s for SWT, I think for the Windsor/Reading lines 10-car project. That for example is why there is the guard "cupboard" that has never been used on the WCML (on the 350/2 layout it is a further bay of seats instead). A dedicated cycle space could I suppose have been added to the /2s and /3s, but then that would have led to inconsistency.

Secondly, there is provision for cycles, in the form of a fairly standard (as found on most Bombardier EMUs and DMUs as well) multipurpose area by the disabled bog, which can accommodate either two wheelchairs or one wheelchair and two cycles (3 at a push if they're small), with wheelchairs obviously taking priority, though to see two on board is almost completely unknown. This from my experience is quite adequate, though it does suffer from the tip-up seat problem at times.