TOCs being anti bike?

[Drsatan]

That of course only applies on journeys scheduled to arrive at Fenchurch St between 07:15 and 09:45 Mon-Fri - and trains scheduled to depart from Fenchurch St between 16:30 and 18:42 Mon-Fri.

Even when a TOC has a bike policy in place, it's not always enforced.

For example, I was on the 1820 London Waterloo to Exeter St Davids service a couple of years ago, which was full and standing upon departure. A man got on with a bike at Clapham Junction, which isn't allowed at that time. The dispatcher told him to get off, but the man claimed he didn't understand (either he was foreign and didn't understand what was going on or pretended not to), and so the dispatcher, wary that if the train's departure was delayed subsequent departures would also be delayed, the train was dispatched with the man and his bike on board.

Although the dispatcher did the right thing by not delaying any trains, the incident shows that some gateline assistants aren't aware (or choose to ignore) restrictions on the transport of bikes.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....Just the lack of willingness by TOCs to go the extra mile when events are on.

Why do the TOCs have to go the extra mile? Why can't the event organisers or the participants arrange something?

 

[455driver]

Although the dispatcher did the right thing by not delaying any trains, the incident shows that some gateline assistants aren't aware (or choose to ignore) restrictions on the transport of bikes.

Or he travelled there on another train (people do actually change trains at CLJ you know) but its easier just to blame the gateline staff isnt it! :roll:

 

[TheEdge]

I think this boils down to not just TOCs appearing anti-bike but passengers expecting a train to carry whatever they happen to rock up with.

I will try to accommodate as many bikes as possible. I know how many bikes will officially fit on my trains but I also know how many bikes can fit above that before it becomes dangerous. The problem comes when the person who leaves their pannier bags on their bike so it is twice as wide. Some people also don't seem to be able to accept that trains do fill up and we cannot always take all the bikes.

And to be fair to cyclists it isn't just bikes. Its the mothers with their pram that they either can't or wont fold. Or the recent flurry of retro cot style prams that take up an enormous amount of space. And the people who drag around a hard suitcase most airlines would turn away and block doors and aisles with them because they are too big/heavy to fit in the luggage racks.

People don't expect to get on a plane, leave their bike at the back, their kid in a buggy in the aisle and their luggage on the seat next to them. So why on a train?

 

[Qwerty133]

Even when a TOC has a bike policy in place, it's not always enforced.

For example, I was on the 1820 London Waterloo to Exeter St Davids service a couple of years ago, which was full and standing upon departure. A man got on with a bike at Clapham Junction, which isn't allowed at that time. The dispatcher told him to get off, but the man claimed he didn't understand (either he was foreign and didn't understand what was going on or pretended not to), and so the dispatcher, wary that if the train's departure was delayed subsequent departures would also be delayed, the train was dispatched with the man and his bike on board.

Although the dispatcher did the right thing by not delaying any trains, the incident shows that some gateline assistants aren't aware (or choose to ignore) restrictions on the transport of bikes.

The main TOC at my local large station has a policy of two bikes per train which MUST be per booked, however it is unusual for their to be less than 5 on some trains and out of about 15 platform staff, there is 1 that pays any attention to bikes and where they are placed. On a number of occasions I have been on trains where it is impossible to get to the next coach due to their being bikes in the way.

 

[Captain Chaos]

I don't mind carrying bikes but I do draw the line when you get people who try and cram 5 or so into one vestibule meaning they cannot be moved out of the way in any direction resulting in nobody being able to pass or access the toilet. Yet when you tell them the train isn't moving until they have broken up into groups further down they look at you as though your dirt and 'it's all your fault' etc.

 

[1e10]

Its the mothers with their pram that they either can't or wont fold. Or the recent flurry of retro cot style prams that take up an enormous amount of space.

Was on a 150 at the weekend and was sitting in the first coach. I'm not familiar with the train but there no toilet at the front or it was locked out of use (not sure) and a mother had blocked the entire isle with her pram which couldn't be moved as the train was packed. As a result no one in the first half of the first coach was able to move down the train to the next available toilet.

 

[N Levers]

It is, and should be, the organisers responsibility to transport large numbers of bike riders and not the TOC. If they have to go by rail there are charter companies who might oblidge.

Can you charter a class 325?

 

[Harpers Tate]

...rolling stock are not designed with bike users in mind...

Correct, and therein lies the problem. In days of old each train had a space in it in which any of: prams; large luggage; bicycles; standees; mail; parcels; etc could be accommodated according to need. Most current rolling stock has woefully inadequate luggage space for conventional carry-ons, never mind bicycle room. And this, in my opinion, is a shortcoming.

As far as I'm concerned, bikes take a very low priority as far as moving people about is concerned. To be quite frank, I consider them to be a royal pain in the backside on busy services

The popularity of Railways is increasing. Acknowledging the particular constraints that exist in the London Commuter belt, where trains are already as big as they can be, and run as close together as the infrastructure permits, I have to say that - at least in the vast majority of the rest of the network - there is slack in the system that would allow longer trains and better luggage provision, including bicycles. And, of course, in most of these non-London places, there isn't the same level of comprehensive and efficient urban transit system. That, coupled with the journey at the "home" end of any trip is, arguably, best made, not by car, but by bike. Therein lies the route to reduced congestion. On my morning commute back in the early 80's there would be around 10-20 people with their bikes on my train - and on the ones before and after - using them both to and from the stations at each end. Not any more. That, in my opinion, is a shortcoming. We (meaning society, and the Railway - as determined by both commercial judgement and by politicians) should be seeking to maximise bike-train-bike commutes and other journeys. In at least one city in that great bastion of pure captialism - the USA - whilst they don't have a local train system, every bus - yes, bus - has space for two or three cycles on it.

As far as I am concerned, bikes are a kind of oversized luggage, that their owners expect to be conveyed free of charge. Rather than being considerate, their owners often display a breathtaking disregard for the comfort, safety and convenience of their fellow passengers.

Again, I blame inadequacy of the rolling stock, which in turn is brought about by a total lack of will, of emphasis on accomodating cycles - and even long distance luggage of other kinds - properly.

I agree, I was on the Derby to Crewe line and 2 bikes got on a stoke with people standing. It was a joke on a single car 153.

The train was inadequate for purpose, then. It's not the users' fault.

Trains are a mode of transport, as are bikes. Carrying one mode of transport on another is probably non-sensical in the eyes of the business!
Personally I have no issues with people carrying their bikes on a train from one place to another, but those that squeeze them on during rush hour is quite inconsiderate. Either get up a bit earlier, wait for the peak time to end - or buy a fold up.

As above; this should be seen as an unmet need for cross-modal integration to help reduce car use.

 

[cjp]

I think this boils down to not just TOCs appearing anti-bike but passengers expecting a train to carry whatever they happen to rock up with.

I will try to accommodate as many bikes as possible. I know how many bikes will officially fit on my trains but I also know how many bikes can fit above that before it becomes dangerous. The problem comes when the person who leaves their pannier bags on their bike so it is twice as wide. Some people also don't seem to be able to accept that trains do fill up and we cannot always take all the bikes.

And to be fair to cyclists it isn't just bikes. Its the mothers with their pram that they either can't or wont fold. Or the recent flurry of retro cot style prams that take up an enormous amount of space. And the people who drag around a hard suitcase most airlines would turn away and block doors and aisles with them because they are too big/heavy to fit in the luggage racks.

People don't expect to get on a plane, leave their bike at the back, their kid in a buggy in the aisle and their luggage on the seat next to them. So why on a train?

Very sensible.

I have non folding bike and I am allowed on my TOC services but if there is no room I wait. Usually there is room and I wedge myself and bike in to a corner on the non-platform side.

I have had two complaints voiced to me in five years. I have also had other passengers relieved that they are not nose to nose (in one direction) with another passenger using the limited created airspace for their bulky rucksacks and huge "handbags" that would otherwise be on the floor or in peoples faces.

I do not remember the exact text but in each vestibule of teh carriages is polite notice teh guist of which is Please be ready/prepared to move your cycle to a more suitable place if asked to do so by the on-board staff

Hey - civilisation may yet catch on if people can stop being so selfish and egocentric

 

[Ferret]

Harpers Tate, where do you draw the line though? I recall hearing the most ridiculous tale from Lincolnshire where a group of 10+ wheelchairs turned up expecting to be accommodated on one particular service. No train would be able to accommodate that! Of course, that did not stop the local press running the usual anti-railway story without stopping to think about the practicalities! Similarly - how many bikes should each service cater for in your opinion? 5? 10? 20? It's all well and good saying that the trains aren't fit for purpose, but what *is* their primary purpose? Taking people from A-B, or conveying bicycles?

 

[TheEdge]

Harpers Tate, where do you draw the line though? I recall hearing the most ridiculous tale from Lincolnshire where a group of 10+ wheelchairs turned up expecting to be accommodated on one particular service. No train would be able to accommodate that! Of course, that did not stop the local press running the usual anti-railway story without stopping to think about the practicalities! Similarly - how many bikes should each service cater for in your opinion? 5? 10? 20? It's all well and good saying that the trains aren't fit for purpose, but what *is* their primary purpose? Taking people from A-B, or conveying bicycles?

Exactly. Do the railways need to bring the 10T standard van back and have it attached to every service just in case 15 bikes turn up? Or do we need to have the wheelchair coach with capacity for 30 chairs, just in case, along with the bike coach and the pram coach? And of course every train should be 12 coaches in case its busy.

The railways cannot be expected to be able to accommodate every type of traveller with every requirement all of the time. 90% of the time the railways can carry all the bikes, prams, wheelchairs and luggage that turn up but sometimes there are extremes and they simply cannot be met.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....Most current rolling stock has woefully inadequate luggage space for conventional carry-ons, never mind bicycle room. And this, in my opinion, is a shortcoming....

TOCs are restricted, by Government, on how much rolling stock they can have, they constantly have passengers telling them they do not have enough seats, they do not have enough luggage room and they do not have enough cycle space.

Given that the railways can't please everyone (because of Government), what should they do? Reduce luggage and cycle space to fit more seats? Reduce seats and cycle space to fit more luggage space? Or reduce seats and luggage space to fit more cycle space?

Given that cycles and luggage do not earn money (generally speaking) what do you think is more likely to happen?

....The popularity of Railways is increasing. Acknowledging the particular constraints that exist in the London Commuter belt, where trains are already as big as they can be, and run as close together as the infrastructure permits, I have to say that - at least in the vast majority of the rest of the network - there is slack in the system that would allow longer trains and better luggage provision, including bicycles. And, of course, in most of these non-London places, there isn't the same level of comprehensive and efficient urban transit system. That, coupled with the journey at the "home" end of any trip is, arguably, best made, not by car, but by bike. Therein lies the route to reduced congestion. On my morning commute back in the early 80's there would be around 10-20 people with their bikes on my train - and on the ones before and after - using them both to and from the stations at each end. Not any more. That, in my opinion, is a shortcoming. We (meaning society, and the Railway - as determined by both commercial judgement and by politicians) should be seeking to maximise bike-train-bike commutes and other journeys....

Infrastructure outside of London *might* allow longer trains, or more trains in some places, but in all likelihood, those places are the ones with space remaining on the train at peak time (and even if they are not, see the top of this post).

However, even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that there is space to put on extra coaches and extra trains, who is going to pay for them? And how can extra space for bicycles be justified over space for people? It's the age old argument. If a train company runs a packed train with space for bicycles that is not being used, then it is seen by all as 'wasted space'.

You might then argue that TOCs should look at how much space is actually needed for bikes, but then you hit another problem, how do they measure this? On a morning peak time train? A mid-afternoon train? A train during a special bicycle event? Do they collect data from all and draw an average? (which will likely be too much for peak-time and not enough for special events). Perhaps they should have the equivalent of an MLV sitting in the sidings waiting for the day it is needed, added to the train at a point it is needed (because rail staff are psychic and know when and where it will be needed) and paid for by the people who need it (the cyclists - it might be cheaper to buy a car with a cycle rack!).

Society is very much in the 'me, me, me' generation, few people actually think about anything other than what suits them best. This means we don't get what we need, we only get what someone else wants.

....In at least one city in that great bastion of pure captialism - the USA - whilst they don't have a local train system, every bus - yes, bus - has space for two or three cycles on it....

Many trains allow bicycles on at any time of the day (typically not around London). The problem areas for cyclists are those trains which are filled with fare paying passengers who do not want to stand in areas designed for bicycles when they could have seats.

....Again, I blame inadequacy of the rolling stock, which in turn is brought about by a total lack of will, of emphasis on accomodating cycles - and even long distance luggage of other kinds - properly....

See the top of this post.

....The train was inadequate for purpose, then. It's not the users' fault....

What is the purpose of a passenger train? (clue: think about the type of train)

What would happen if a two coach train, with half a coach for bicycles and large luggage, turned up and there were two coaches worth of people with only hand luggage travelling on it? (clue: not many people like their luggage out of their sight and many people like to have a seat on the train)

 

[Andrewlong]

Non folding cycles are not allowed on peak trains between Reading and Waterloo yet passengers will board and get off trains with impunity up to about Staines. The guard may mention that these type of bikes are not allowed - but he/she is busy managing the frequent station stops to wander down the train.

The only saving grace is the passengers themselves and their attitude should a cyclist attempt to bring their full size bike on the train from Feltham onwards when trains are increasingly full and standing.

Cyclists can get their bikes onto trains as there are few barriers in operation until you get to about Staines.

I for one am relaxed about bikes on trains providing they don't get in the way of other passengers.

 

[cjmillsnun]

If people need to take bikes on trains then they should be owning fold-up bikes.

Don't get me started on people who leave fold up bikes in the doorways of 444s and 450s

 

[Harpers Tate]

Harpers Tate, where do you draw the line though?....5? 10? 20? It's all well and good saying that the trains aren't fit for purpose, but what *is* their primary purpose? Taking people from A-B, or conveying bicycles?

Any large business run well employs people to plan such things. Supermarkets need to know exactly how many pieces of fresh fish to order in daily; they optimise a balance between probable demand and minimal waste. There is an acknowledgement that from time to time there will be waste, and equally in instances of unusual demand, disappointed customers.

If they get it wrong and have too little fish, then what happens is that people get disappointed too often and stop shopping there for fish and the shop's sales fall to a level commnsurate with their supply. And they then mistakenly think they got it right all along. This is the difference between actual demand and latent demand; something that's not well understood.

This really is no different. The primary purpose of a train ought to be to convey passengers and their luggage. A train will often form only part of a given end-to-end journey; for a greater social "good", making provision for the "firrst and last mile" to be done with a bike ought to be part of the thinking.

Exactly. Do the railways need to bring the 10T standard van back and have it attached to every service just in case 15 bikes turn up? Or do we need to have the wheelchair coach with capacity for 30 chairs, just in case, along with the bike coach and the pram coach? And of course every train should be 12 coaches in case its busy.

All trains 12 coaches is an over the top reaction, of course. However, again going back to the period when I used to commute bike-train-bike, there was at least one brake van within every train, and there was room. For passengers, their luggage, their bikes. And there were a lot of us. If I still had the same journey to make, I could not safely do so in the same manner because I could not be assured of taking my bike with me. So I (and all the others) no longer do so when our jobs depend on it. We go by other means. Which is (usually) a bad thing. And it's that which exactly explains why typically few people bring bikes nowadays; because they can no longer rely (with, let's say, a 90% probability) they will get on. They therefore must be getting to/from the station by other means. If it's the partner dropping them off in the car - sorry but by no measure is that a good thing. And actual demand for cycle space has fallen solely because of the reduced supply. The unseen latent demand is still there of course.

TOCs are restricted, by Government........how can extra space for bicycles be justified over space for people?

I said

We (meaning society, and the Railway - as determined by both commercial judgement and by politicians) should be seeking to maximise bike-train-bike commutes and other journeys.

which both acknowledges the situation isn't of the TOCs making and answers the justification question. Except to add - I don't see it as being the one over the other. I see it as being the one in addition to the other; at cost - yes; justified by it improving health and reducing road congestion.

Given that cycles and luggage do not earn money...

You really think so? How many people would travel on - oh, I dunno - Virgin West Coast if they bought new trains with absolutely NO luggage space? Of course luggage makes money. It makes money by being a part of an overall offering to customers. If one were to apply similar logic, it's the seats that take up most of the room; they add weight make no money; why not make everyone stand? It's what Ryanair were considering doing. Smaller trains, more economic to run. So, if luggage space is part of an offering, by the same token, allowing someone who chooses to, to begin and end their end-to-end trip by bike (without having to plan ahead or take pot-luck on a refusal) as I used to do, is potentially adding to the value and hence the business.

What is the purpose of a passenger train? (clue: think about the type of train). What would happen if a two coach train, with half a coach for bicycles and large luggage, turned up and there were two coaches worth of people with only hand luggage travelling on it? (clue: not many people like their luggage out of their sight and many people like to have a seat on the train)

"What would happen if.......{insert rare extreme circumstance of your choosing}..." isn't usually a good reason to do anything nor a compelling argument. Good judgement will cover the majority of cases; it's all a matter of striking balance and it's my view that the current balance is not right. The base purpose of a passenger train is to convey passengers and their luggage. One might go further and say, it is to provide people with a part of an end-to-end journey. It is the remainder of that journey that, with the right will, they may contribute to, to a somewhat greater degree.

 

[starrymarkb]

Its the mothers with their pram that they either can't or wont fold.

I've seen a day care centre turn up at Digby & Sowton with 6 double buggies. And an already busy 153 turned up, they were turned away. (Mind you I doubt they'd have fitted on any of the usual stock on the line - solo 153s are usually kept off Devon Metro services)

 

[Flamingo]

Again, I blame inadequacy of the rolling stock, which in turn is brought about by a total lack of will, of emphasis on accomodating cycles - and even long distance luggage of other kinds - properly.

I work Intercity HST's, designed 40 years ago (the good old days, according to you).
There is a space approx 1/4 of a carriage which holds six bikes. At a push, we can accommodate further bikes and large pieces of luggage in the power car if the passengers actually come and ask us to do so at the station (this almost never happens).

There are luggage racks at both end of every carriage, space under every seat for quite a large bag, and overhead luggage racks for smaller items.

If passengers are travelling with a reasonable amount of luggage there should not be a problem. If they are moving house, they should be using Pickfords or a courier van. I don't see why other passengers should have to stand or clamber over luggage just because some people want to travel with their entire wardrobe and personal possessions.

 

[table38]

I don't see why other passengers should have to stand or clamber over luggage just because some people want to travel with their entire wardrobe and personal possessions.

Maybe they take the announcements that tell them to "take all of your personal belongings with you" too literally

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....justified by it improving health and reducing road congestion....

But nothing to actually justify it in a business sense? How many people have to stand to justify some others taking bikes (or luggage) on the train? (even if they get new carriages).

....You really think so? How many people would travel on - oh, I dunno - Virgin West Coast if they bought new trains with absolutely NO luggage space?....

Have you not been on any trains recently? Okay they have some luggage space, but clearly the priority is people sitting because people who stand every time won't want to travel again, regardless of how much luggage and how many bicycles they have with them.

....Of course luggage makes money. It makes money by being a part of an overall offering to customers. If one were to apply similar logic, it's the seats that take up most of the room; they add weight make no money; why not make everyone stand? It's what Ryanair were considering doing. Smaller trains, more economic to run. So, if luggage space is part of an offering, by the same token, allowing someone who chooses to, to begin and end their end-to-end trip by bike (without having to plan ahead or take pot-luck on a refusal) as I used to do, is potentially adding to the value and hence the business....

As far as I know, and I'm no expert, if you put in a small luggage rack (holding say eight items of medium size luggage), you lose two seats, if you put in space for two bicycles, you lose three/four seats. People don't like standing on trains, especially for long journeys. So working with a train full (to the brim) of people, how many bicycle spaces and luggage racks would you add to encourage 'green' travel and 'potentially add value'?

Bear in mind that for every person who has a bike or luggage, there are others who do not want to stand (and some of those will own cars or be willing to use other forms of polluting transport).

Do the luggage and the bicycles bring in money now?

...."What would happen if.......{insert rare extreme circumstance of your choosing}..." isn't usually a good reason to do anything nor a compelling argument....

You think "we should have more space for luggage and bicycles so that more people will use our already over-crowded trains" is?.

Realistically, bicycles and luggage come a distant second to people.

 

[CC 72100]

I don't see why other passengers should have to stand or clamber over luggage just because some people want to travel with their entire wardrobe and personal possessions.

Were you working my trains yesterday?

Got on one HST to find 3 people in the vestibule in full 'this is where we're staying, so let's get ourselves settled in and make it difficult for anyone to board' mode at Newton Abbot, only to find two airline seats next to eachother and various odd seats on their own free in the same carriage. Also had the same on an XC HST on Monday.

Some also had used to power car to store their luggage, alighting at Plymouth, although I appreciate that this can only really be done where there is extended dwell times at stations, but on the whole this seems to be a sensible solution for luggage when people are travelling with lots of it. Have also seen guards open the redundant trolley store in coach A for luggage use, which again is a sensible use of space but shows much luggage people really do have!

Ironically enough the train back North was a couple of minutes late, due to 'delays in the loading of bicycles at Liskeard'.

And then we had the chaos of the getting 'stuck' on the Paignton branch.... all good fun!

 

[Harpers Tate]

You seem to want to offer only two choices - space or seats. I don't see this as either...or... I see it as "and". Space and seats. We used to have space and seats. We don't any more.

Again: unless you happen to live at a train station, and are travelling to a train station, then the rail element can only ever be part of the end to end trip. A bicycle is arguably THE optimum way to cover the "first mile" and the "last mile".

I only see "and" as only being wholly unrealistic
a) in parts of the South East (in particular; there may be isolated other places) where the whole thing is already right up to capacity and
b) elsewhere ONLY because there isn't the will to do it.

And as for

I don't see why other passengers should have to stand or clamber over luggage just because some people want to travel with their entire wardrobe and personal possessions.

Blaming passengers. Sorry, but - wrong again. It's because the Railway (irrespective of cause - be it the TOCs or politicians or anyone else) makes inadequate provision for the demands of its customers.

 

[Hellfire]

VT carries bikes in the rear of carriage A on a Pendo although I don't know how many can be fitted in. There are often cyclists using the early Euston trains for short hops between say Lancaster and Preston or Preston to Wigan

While they don't normally interfere with passengers it is not uncommon for a member of station staff to fail to come and unlock the door to the crew area to let them off. Cue cyclists wheeling bikes the length of the carriage while passengers are clambering aboard.

 

[brianthegiant]

I think the root of the problem is that with the demise of guard vans we've seen a big reduction in the amount of bike space, especially on intercity trains, e.g. 2 bikes per 5/7 carriages on a 222.

By contrast most German/Dutch/etc trains have a generous amount of space for bikes, often 1/4 of a carriage allocated for bikes.

Saying that bikes don't earn revenue is over simplistic. If I wasn't able to carry bikes on trains, I would probably buy a car, then having once paid all the annual costs taking the train would be unattractive for individual journeys, so I would be taking the train a lot less, even though many of those journeys involved taking a bike on the train.

I hear what people are saying about rolling stock constraints. Cycling is becoming more common, and cyclists have always been able to take bikes on most trains, subject to reservation. A key way to ease the lack of bike space problem is to provide better bike parking at stations. People are understandably not going to be keen to leave their bike in a dark corner of a car park, going rusty in the rain.

 

[455driver]

You seem to want to offer only two choices - space or seats. I don't see this as either...or... I see it as "and". Space and seats. We used to have space and seats. We don't any more.

So how long are your trains going to be then, at Waterloo during the peaks most trains arew 10 or 12 coaches long and full of seats, how many more coaches do you want to add so you can add all your luggage, cycle and buggy space?
Who pays to rebuild nearly every station in the Country to accomodate your longer trains?

The reason "we" look at it as an either/ or situation is because that is exactly what it is, we have fixed infrastructure on which the trains have to run and that is as long as the trains can be.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think the root of the problem is that with the demise of guard vans we've seen a big reduction in the amount of bike space, especially on intercity trains, e.g. 2 bikes per 5/7 carriages on a 222.

We have also seen a lot more space wasted on crumple zones etc and the government is obsessed with providing X number of seats between stations, the only way to fit all those seats is to take everything else out and fit as many seats as possible, you cannot have it both ways it simply is not possible.

 

[NSEFAN]

So how long are your trains going to be then, at Waterloo during the peaks most trains arew 10 or 12 coaches long and full of seats, how many more coaches do you want to add so you can add all your luggage, cycle and buggy space?
Who pays to rebuild nearly every station in the Country to accomodate your longer trains?

The reason "we" look at it as an either/ or situation is because that is exactly what it is, we have fixed infrastructure on which the trains have to run and that is as long as the trains can be.

Could we not have an imaginative solution to this problem? For example, part of a train could have fold-up longitudinal seating. During the peak times this allows as many people on as possible, and during off-peak it's somewhere for passengers with luggage and bikes to store their belongings.

The 455s and high capacity 450s already have such an area, although I believe the seats are currently fixed and can't fold up?

 

[Harpers Tate]

...at Waterloo during the peaks

I believe I have already noted that the London commuter area is exceptional because of both the precise issue to which you refer and the comprehensive and efficient urban transportation system available at its termini; the latter meaning that it is indeed more appropriate to leave the bike at the station at the other end.

Who pays to rebuild nearly every station in the Country to accomodate your longer trains?

Nobody, because "nearly every" station does not need any rebuilding to accomodate trains that are longer than those typically in use. "Nearly every" station was built at a time when trains were longer - and had room for luggage and cycles as well as seated passengers.

The reason "we" look at it as an either/ or situation is because that is exactly what it is, we have fixed infrastructure on which the trains have to run and that is as long as the trains can be.
We have also seen a lot more space wasted on crumple zones etc and the government is obsessed with providing X number of seats between stations, the only way to fit all those seats is to take everything else out and fit as many seats as possible, you cannot have it both ways it simply is not possible.

I think that, perhaps coming from the (arguably unique) perspective of the London area, you do see a network which is running at or close to capacity - in terms of train length and frequency. That is simply not true pretty much everywhere else. It certainly is not either/or; as I say, we used to have longer trains with room; we used to be able reliably to bring our bikes to the station, take the train, and then cycle off again at the other end. Nothing much has happened to the infrastructure; only the trains are smaller.

 

[starrymarkb]

We have also seen a lot more space wasted on crumple zones etc and the government is obsessed with providing X number of seats between stations, the only way to fit all those seats is to take everything else out and fit as many seats as possible, you cannot have it both ways it simply is not possible.

Indeed, ISTR that FGW are required to keep the LM/LO 150s in high density configuration because the government didn't want them downseated to 2+2 like the Native sets (which IIRC loses 8 seats per vehicle) so that xx extra seats could be provided...

 

[455driver]

I believe I have already noted that the London commuter area is exceptional because of both the precise issue to which you refer and the comprehensive and efficient urban transportation system available at its termini;

I recently had the "pleasure" of using the Devon metro services during the peak times and it was just as crush loaded as any Suburban train I have been on, with the problem that there wasnt another train 3 minutes behind meaning that people really were forcing their way on the train causing delays at most stations.

The area is desperate for more trains now just like most other areas really.

 

[ert47]

Who pays to rebuild nearly every station in the Country to accomodate your longer trains?

Nobody, because "nearly every" station does not need any rebuilding to accomodate trains that are longer than those typically in use. "Nearly every" station was built at a time when trains were longer - and had room for luggage and cycles as well as seated passengers.

False.

Southern and Southwest Trains have actually had to extend several platforms to accommodate longer trains. Pretty sure stations like East Croydon and London Bridge have had their platforms extended...